Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 21, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5998-H6026] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The committee resumed its sitting. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect those amendments getting heard today? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is my understanding. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, it is not my request. It was my understanding that the request was, would I agree to it? If the gentleman wants to continue at another stage of the bill, it is all right with me, but to place this in my pocket is the wrong approach. I would just as soon hear it or just as soon postpone it. Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer amendments. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule. Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill? Mr. REGULA. Yes. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go right back to the start of the bill after we finish this? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,250,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. Point of Order Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs beginning on page 88, line 10, and all that follows through page 89, line 6, include unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2 of House Rule XXI. The language I have just specified is an appropriation of $98 million for the necessary expenses for the National Endowment of the Arts. Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts expired in fiscal year 1993. Clause 2 of House Rule XXI states ``No appropriation shall be reported in a general appropriations bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Since the National Endowment of the Arts is clearly not authorized in law and the bill includes an appropriation of funds in this agency, I make a point of order that the language is in obvious violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The CHAIRMAN. Does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious legislative approach? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that the gentleman confine his remarks to the point of order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded, and the Chair is prepared to rule. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over NEA, I would like to speak on the point of order with respect to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and want to make a few comments to put NEA funding in context. Last year the Interior appropriations bill that came to the House floor provided continued funding for NEA for fiscal year 1998. {time} 1415 The point of order was made that constituted funding for a nonauthorized program. The point of order prevailed and the bill left the House with zero funding for the NEA, and then the master of all arts came into play, Houdini. When we found this bill again, we discovered that there was an appropriation, even though it was not authorized. This year we find ourselves in much the same position. The appropriations bill has been reported to the House with $98 million for the NEA, yet the NEA has not been authorized since 1993. For the past few years it has been continuing on a year-by-year basis only by virtue of the appropriations process. A point of order has been made that the $98 million should be struck on the grounds it constitutes funding of a nonauthorized program. Some of my colleagues may ask, well, what has the authorizing committee been doing? Let me explain. Back in 1995 the committee reported an NEA authorization bill. It would have permitted the NEA to exist for 3 more years, phasing it out over that same 3-year period, giving plenty of time for the private sector, local States and municipalities to take over the program. In fact, the NEA would have ceased to exist as of October 1 of this year had that bill become law. However, there was no floor action taken on it. Point of Order Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the question of the current legislation and I think his attention should be directed to that fact. I think if he wants to state the history of the appropriations, the point of order should be disposed of and the gentleman permitted to strike the last word or participate in the debate. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the Chair would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to confine his remarks to the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. [[Page H5999]] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is entertaining debate on the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was merely pointing out that there is a lot of history in relationship to what we are discussing today in relation to the point of order, so that someone does not fault the committee because we have not taken action, because we have taken action. So I would suggest that it is definitely out of order to move ahead with legislation that has not been authorized by the authorizing committee, and I would hope that we would sustain the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) makes a single point of order that the two paragraphs appropriating funds for the National Endowment for the Arts violate clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing for an unauthorized appropriation. As stated by the Chair on July 11, 1997, the authorization for the National Endowment of the Arts lapsed in 1993. The National Endowment of the Arts has not been reauthorized since the ruling of the Chair last year. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the two paragraphs are stricken from the bill. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 88, after line 9, insert the following: National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,240,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided. That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am proud to offer my amendment to restore $98 million in level funding for the NEA. I would have been equally proud to have risen to oppose a motion to strike NEA funding as adopted in the committee bill, and I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his successful committee amendment, yet another sign of the breadth of support there is for the NEA. I also salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his long and consistent leadership in support of the arts and for his deep dedication to responsible stewardship of our Nation's resources. In this House we often refer to each other as the gentleman from a certain State or the gentlewoman from a certain State. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a gentleman; not only a gentleman, but a wise gentleman and a leader, and I thank the gentleman for his fine service over so many years. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. The reforms adopted last year directly addressed the causes of past problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will make clear in a few minutes. Perhaps these reforms address the concerns. I asked those 150 Republicans who supported the Republican amendment last year, which supported a Federal role for the arts to support my amendment this year. I have been a lifelong supporter of the arts, because truly man does not live by bread alone. The arts are a medium through which we publicly discuss profound and great matters of life and death, love and duty, freedom and bondage, man's relationship to God and nature. NEA dollars help new plays to be written, new symphonies to be conceived, performing arts groups to develop and thrive, and the performing arts to reach our most rural communities and our most isolated neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment to the Interior Appropriations. As my colleagues know, this amendment would restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, an organization which has wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars on art which has often been objectionable to Americans. By ending funding to the NEA, we are not ending Federal funding for the arts. Contrary to popular belief, the National Endowment for the Arts is not the sole recipient of Federal funding for the arts. There are an estimated 200 arts and humanities programs or activities funded by and administered through various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, but are not getting one dime of NEA funding. These programs are programs such as the Commission of Fine Arts, the Holocaust Memorial Council, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, and many others. The Federal Government also provides support for the arts through tax expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contribution to the arts, humanities, culture, on income, gift and estate taxes. Zeroing out funding for the NEA will not end Federal funding for the arts. It simply ends a program which has misused taxpayer dollars with some of the sickening attempts to subsidize blasphemous, offensive and pornographic depictions. In addition, I might point out that the NEA administrative overhead and bureaucrats earn about twice as much as the artists they seek to subsidize, and much of their subsidy goes to just a few large cities in our country. I do not know if this is what is called fleecing of America, but it is objectionable, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and Mr. Durbin from the Senate. We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on this, to broaden it all across America. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants for education for underserved populations and community music, and I mentioned earlier [[Page H6000]] Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 6 months with students in Jessup. In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in the Finley case as being constitutional. So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous changes that have been made in the NEA. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I do not think so. Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet their particular tests. Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of this country. The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and against government censorship. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute if I may do that, and reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve time; the time is controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought she just yielded me 5 minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say to the gentleman I do have a lot of requests for time. I thought the gentleman wanted 5 minutes to speak. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I just wanted to yield myself 1 minute of the 5 minutes because I had requests for time from other people, and that is why I asked whether I may do that as a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. From the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman had been yielded 5 minutes. To yield the gentleman control of that time, so that he may control the dispensation of time, would require a unanimous-consent srequest. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, she has yielded me 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Will I be able to yield time to other people? The CHAIRMAN. Not absent a unanimous consent request. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask unanimous consent in order to yield that time to others? The CHAIRMAN. To be able to control the 5 minutes and its distribution (as by reserving time or being seated), that is correct. Mr. YATES. I do not understand that. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I certainly would be happy to have him yield time on his side; I also have them on my list. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 5 minutes now. I thank the gentlewoman very much for that opportunity, and I thank the chair for what I believe was a misapprehension of my rights under the rules. {time} 1430 The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who preceded me, the minority whip, in connection the speech he made is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The government does not actually control the giving of the grants. That is in the hands of panels, of civilians who are expert in the field. They are the ones who make the original selections. It is true that there has to be a censorship because there just is not enough money made available under the appropriations for the National Endowment of the Arts to provide grants for as many applications as they receive. They, therefore, have to be selective. The second statement of the gentleman was that the Federal Government should not be in this business. Well, the general welfare is the government's business. I remember statements like the gentleman's being made before 1957 in connection with Federal aid for education. The Republicans were opposed to Federal aid for education and they prevented that program from being enacted by the Congress. Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik and General Eisenhower, who was President at the time, President Eisenhower, sent a request to the Congress for Federal aid for education in mathematics and in science. The Congress quickly passed that. But no mention was made for education in the civilian sense. That took a later date. Now, we do not have the Federal Government making grants for the purpose of studying the languages, history, philosophy, ethics, religion, legislature or the arts, as such, other than through the NEA. We do have the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation does an excellent job for mathematics and for the sciences. But insofar as the political sciences are concerned, the National Science Foundation does not engage in that. In other words, the National Science Foundation does not contribute to the disciplines that will educate our children in the ways of peace. Only the arts and humanities represent the Federal Government in making those kinds of grants and in teaching in that respect. Does the committee believe that education in science and math is enough? I do not think so. I think that the endowments have done a remarkably fine job over the years and I am constrained to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore the funding for the arts. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point of order. Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what we will have to do. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [[Page H6001]] (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a little repetitious. We have been through this so many times. But I want to take advantage of an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished colleague who was first elected to Congress when I graduated from high school. That is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The gentleman is a dear friend. He has been a devoted and committed Member of this body. We sometimes have our disagreements on all kinds of issues, but I respect him profoundly and I wish him all the best. Let me add that I am totally opposed to this amendment. At the Constitutional Convention, the whole question came up of funding the arts and it was overwhelmingly rejected on the grounds that that is not an appropriate function of the national government. In 1965 we got into ``guns and butter.'' We got into funding everything. The national government swelled enormously, penetrating virtually every aspect of our lives. This is not a time to revive it; this is a time for downsizing, getting the national government out of our lives and getting folks back home more involved in participating in funding such things as the arts and humanities. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs that our Nation has been built upon. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of our districts, and by supporting them I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition, the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on our communities, providing jobs, often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the arts, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his support of this endeavor. I am pleased to rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs our great country is built on. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of my district, and by supporting them, I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition to the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on the community, providing jobs and often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. The NEA brings the arts to our young people. Each year, the arts endowment opens the door to the arts to millions of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. An education through the arts improves overall student learning, and instills self-esteem and discipline. The arts also help prepare America's future work force by helping students develop reasoning and problem-solving skills, and enhancing communication ability--all important career skills for the 21st century. The NEA has worked diligently for the past 8 years to create a more accountable and efficient system. In 1994 the NEA constricted the grantmaking process by eliminating subgrants to third party artists and organizations. The following year, the NEA eliminated seasonal operating support grants, and in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations bills, Congress banned nearly all grants to individual artists. Furthermore, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the decency standard passed by Congress in 1990 is a victory for both the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Congress. This decision is a significant step to protecting the caliber of art funded by the NEA. The arts foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are essential to our humanity. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by restoring full funding for the arts by supporting the Johnson amendment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and others on this subject. Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and it was defeated overwhelmingly. From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois repudiating all of that history? Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues know which President said he was against funding for the arts? President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should support symphony orchestras or opera companies.'' NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our mores. One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation: After 20 years, he said, of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I cannot recall a single writer who really needs government assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to encourage them in their bad work. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding for the arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it most unfortunate that we are still here listening to continuing political attacks on the NEA. I strongly support, and I think it goes without saying, the contributions the NEA has made to cultural standards in this country. But I want to say now, as one who served as the Republican leader on the subcommittee that wrote the reforms in the early 1990s to deal with those questions of standards of decency and to protect against the controversial sexual and religious themes and, indeed, blasphemous themes, I want to say that as the Republican leader who wrote the reforms we put in protections and reforms in that legislation so that we would not be violating the [[Page H6002]] community standards of decency. In fact, just last month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to have those standards of decency. Now, with respect to this question of whether or not abuses are continuing in the so-called Corpus Christi project, I can tell my colleagues categorically that no NEA funding was used under that, and let us not use this as a stalking horse or as a diversion. Let us support the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise to urge this House to vote to support the NEA and vote for this amendment. I find it most unfortunate, and can not explain the irrational political attacks on the NEA. These attacks are bred of ignorance or willful, crass, and disingenuous political abuse. Since its formation over thirty years ago, 2nd National Endowment of the Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the private side of that partnership. For urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. Nevertheless, there were abuses in recent years that became public in the early 1990's. There were blasphemous and irreverent productions that clearly violated community standards. ``corpus christi'' Now, all of us have been hearing from constituents about a play ``Corpus Christi,'' which many people mistakenly believe was supported by the NEA. I want you to know that NEA funding did not support this play! Should this event prove to show that the reforms we instituted have to be strengthened, then I can assure all our members that I will lead that effort and close any loopholes in current law. In 1990, I served as Republican leader of the subcommittee that re- wrote NEA regulations to establish new decency standards and outlawed NEA support for projects with controversial sexual and religious themes, and those which violated community standards of decency. In the past month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these standards, saying the federal government CAN consider general standards of decency and the ``values of the American public'' in deciding which projects should receive cash grants. The N.E.A. has provided the critical support which allowed production of such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The N.E.A. has brought us the television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American Playhouse.'' All told * * * over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the Endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, Macarthur Awards, and National Book Club Awards. Let's continue to support this worthwhile organization. Vote for this amendment. Support the Arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring back a chart that we looked at just a few minutes ago and have kind of a little different perspective on what we were doing. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) just mentioned some of the reforms. When we go down this chart of NEA reforms, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois, the Cliff Stearns and the Phil Crane of the world who have been fighting this fight for dozens of years, and other people in this conference, trying to highlight the abuses of this program, I think here are some dividends that have been paid. There is a $400,000 grant in Kansas in March of 1997, a review of that art project. It was called ``Santa's Workshop'' and it had Santa Claus masturbating. So this fairly recent phenomenon here of 1997, of where we do not quite have it right. But the people who have the courage to come up here and say that this is not a proper thing to spend taxpayer money on, and have highlighted the abuse and the way the NEA is run, should be proud that we have made progress. The subcommittee chairman should be proud of what he has been able to do, because that $400,000 grant to produce art showing Santa masturbating is more money than the entire arts agencies in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all the U.S. territories received combined. Whether we consider that program art or not, whether we consider it the proper role of the Federal Government, this has been a poorly run Federal agency where 25 cents of every dollar goes into administration and most congressional districts receive little, if any, support from it. It is an elitist organization, out of touch with the American people in terms of business management, out of touch with the American public in terms of what art is. We are making small progress, and that is something to be thankful for. But we can set our watches by this debate, because it will happen again next year, and one year we will take this pot of money and give it to the communities to let them come up with programs better than we can do here. That day is coming. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on obscene and offensive art. Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the agency and that we should level-fund it. {time} 1445 In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial play. I think we should support, level fund this endowment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, when we are on a tight budget, we have to make choices. We cannot buy expensive tickets to the theater or even go to the movies if we can barely afford to buy our food and pay our rent. At a time when we are talking about a debt in this Nation of $5.5 trillion, when we are talking about balancing the budget, it is difficult to explain to the American people why we need to spend $98 million for such a program as we are talking about here today. We all support the arts, but it does not seem fair to make the hardworking people of this country pay for exhibits that are only art by name, because in many cases they are pornographic, they are profane, and would be viewed with disgust by the majority of the people who see it. When we are trying to balance the budget, as I mentioned, when we are trying to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government, can anyone honestly place arts on the same level as, say, providing for our national defense and improving our Nation's infrastructure, improving or saving Medicare and Social Security? The National Endowment for the Arts has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted as good stewards of the people's money. This is a travesty and a slap in the face of those people who call themselves Christians and who believe in the Christian faith and the religious values that have made this Nation great. I think we must show the American people that we are serious about changing the way Washington spends their money, and I think we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johnson amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H6003]] Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and everyone in between. The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the economic benefits it means to every city in the United States. When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return. But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child exposed to the arts is a better student. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to express in other ways. Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position of supporting art they may find objectionable. A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of creativity. The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today. We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved and their importance was understood. They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-esteem. The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives of millions of Americans. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country; today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there are 300. Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each year; today over 55 million attend annually. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music Foundation. This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to U.S. taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all Americans--which is what this debate is all about. Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one- hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area--even with a fully-funded NEA. In a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that year after year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance companies and their audiences across the country. But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is an outrage--and it must be defeated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, as the proponent of the amendment, has the right to close. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort to broaden [[Page H6004]] the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable. We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in making sure that will happen. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would encourage my colleagues to read the report that we issued last year: A Creative and Generous America, The Healthy State of the Arts in America. Because the arts in America are healthy. What is failing is the continued failure of the National Endowment for the Arts. It is not a broad-based program. The NEA has failed in its primary mission to make that happen. More than one-third of NEA funds go to six cities, and one-third of all congressional districts fail to get any direct funding. That means one-third of America does not even see the NEA. In short, the NEA makes up a minuscule portion of arts support in America. There is no credible evidence that the NEA has had anything to do with the recent growth and explosion in the arts. It is a failed small agency. And before my colleagues say how well it works, just a year ago 63 percent of NEA grantees could not reconcile their project costs, 79 percent had inadequate documentation of personnel costs, and 53 percent had failed to engage independent auditors. This agency needs to be overhauled if not eliminated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson), to restore funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of limited funding are hollow and without merit. Government support for the arts is not a program for the elite. Eliminating the endowment will do nothing to reduce the deficit. The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient funding to make up this loss in the credibility. Some of the many reasons most Americans believe in government support for the arts is it stimulates economic growth, it invests in our communities, they are basic to a thorough education. We know that student achievement and test scores in academic subjects improve when the arts are used to assist learning in math, social studies, creative writing and communication skills. We know SATs and ACTs are elevated by students who have had the arts training. I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support the Johnson amendment. It's a two-hundred seat theater created out of a portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices low so that many young families can attend the performances. The associates who run the Company work hard for modest salaries in the true spirit of keeping their company non-profit. I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support such a worthwhile project. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is the right thing to do. Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural story of our past can be made available to future generations. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson). Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who find ourselves supporting a gradual change, this is a difficult vote and a difficult amendment. I am rising today in opposition to this amendment for a variety of reasons but, in particular, I would have supported the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) several years ago to gradually privatize the National Endowment for the Arts, and I believe as a politician who also loves the arts, that politics and art rarely mix. And if there is one thing that this debate has shown us today, it is that. I think that the National Endowment of the Arts should move towards being a private national endowment over time. Unfortunately, having talked to the National Endowment of the Arts this morning, I found that while they were given authorization to begin development programs to raise independent funds a year ago, in that year they have only raised $50,000. That is not a real effort, in my view, towards moving toward a truly independent national endowment, and my vote today should be seen by supporters of the arts and seen by the National Endowment of the Arts as a clear encouragement to them to move towards privatization. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time, and I certainly support her amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself one of the most conservative Members of this body, and my record as one of the fiscal conservatives is a matter of record. But let me tell my colleagues, regarding the arguments I have heard today, this is a question about whether or not we give any money to the arts. It is that basic; that simple. This government has always supported the arts. From Washington, from Thomas Jefferson, from Abraham Lincoln, we have always, as a Nation and its founding leaders and through every administration, supported the arts. Now, I admit that some mistakes have been made, and I have highlighted those mistakes. But it is not our responsibility or duty here to abolish Federal Government participation in the arts. With those mistakes that have been made, it is our responsibility to correct those mistakes. If we need tax credits, if we need to change the project basis, let us do that. But this is about funding our museums, this is about funding our symphonies. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a child who has attended or heard a symphony or visited a museum who would not benefit from this effort to fund the arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listened to the debate, one thought kept crossing my mind, and that is how easy it is to be a philanthropist with other people's money. It is really easy to give away other people's money, $9.5 million. The impression some Members would give us, and the movie stars, is that the arts and arts programs in this country are hanging by a thread, and if we do not fund the NEA all of the arts are going to go away. Well, the truth is that is not true. The fact is there are several people that are contributing to the arts community in our country today. One is the Federal Government. Now, not just the $98.5 million that we are trying to stop being funded to the NEA. There are over 200 programs funded by taxpayers that go to the arts: Holocaust Museum, Commission of Fine Arts, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, National Endowment for Children's Educational TV, NEH, National Gallery of Arts, the Smithsonian. How much money is the Federal Government spending of our tax dollars on the arts? Well, in 1997, it was $696 million, in 1998 it was $710 million, and in 1999 it will be $815 million that is going to go to fund the arts. So we are great philanthropists with other people's money. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish by urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Johnson amendment. {time} 1500 Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 remaining seconds. [[Page H6005]] I urge support of my amendment in the strongest terms possible. This body votes R tax credits to support the creativity necessary to an entrepreneurial society. We support NIH funding to create the knowledge base for medical innovations. We must support NEA dollars to support the infrastructure for a strong, vital, national, creative culture community of the arts. We must do no less if we are to have the quality-inspired leadership that this Nation needs in our democracy. If my colleagues have never been in a HOT school, a higher order of thinking school, go. It will demonstrate why NEA dollars count now and in the future. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague Nancy Johnson's amendment to restore $98 million in funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. For a small and carefully safeguarded investment of taxpayer money, NEA funds activities that enrich all aspects of our society. We will hear a good deal today about the economic benefits NEA offers to our local communities--and that's right. Last year, we invested $98 million in the NEA. This investment supported 1.3 million full-time jobs in local communities, generated an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, and returned almost three and one half billion dollars to the federal treasury in income taxes. Clearly, any investment which provides a return of nearly 35 times your initial investment is worth continuing. Since FY96, the NEA has directly contributed over $3 million in awards to the Connecticut economy, and 19 individual awards were recommended last year. But more important is the immeasurable contribution that NEA makes to our nation's art and music, creativity and talent. When we invest in NEA, we add to the store of artistic expression in the world. We add to the human spirit. And that is the most important investment of all. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and fund this important program. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and supports 1.7 million jobs. Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year. Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see how important arts education is to developing our future workforce. Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 21, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5998-H6026] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The committee resumed its sitting. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect those amendments getting heard today? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is my understanding. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, it is not my request. It was my understanding that the request was, would I agree to it? If the gentleman wants to continue at another stage of the bill, it is all right with me, but to place this in my pocket is the wrong approach. I would just as soon hear it or just as soon postpone it. Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer amendments. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule. Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill? Mr. REGULA. Yes. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go right back to the start of the bill after we finish this? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,250,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. Point of Order Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs beginning on page 88, line 10, and all that follows through page 89, line 6, include unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2 of House Rule XXI. The language I have just specified is an appropriation of $98 million for the necessary expenses for the National Endowment of the Arts. Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts expired in fiscal year 1993. Clause 2 of House Rule XXI states ``No appropriation shall be reported in a general appropriations bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Since the National Endowment of the Arts is clearly not authorized in law and the bill includes an appropriation of funds in this agency, I make a point of order that the language is in obvious violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The CHAIRMAN. Does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious legislative approach? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that the gentleman confine his remarks to the point of order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded, and the Chair is prepared to rule. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over NEA, I would like to speak on the point of order with respect to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and want to make a few comments to put NEA funding in context. Last year the Interior appropriations bill that came to the House floor provided continued funding for NEA for fiscal year 1998. {time} 1415 The point of order was made that constituted funding for a nonauthorized program. The point of order prevailed and the bill left the House with zero funding for the NEA, and then the master of all arts came into play, Houdini. When we found this bill again, we discovered that there was an appropriation, even though it was not authorized. This year we find ourselves in much the same position. The appropriations bill has been reported to the House with $98 million for the NEA, yet the NEA has not been authorized since 1993. For the past few years it has been continuing on a year-by-year basis only by virtue of the appropriations process. A point of order has been made that the $98 million should be struck on the grounds it constitutes funding of a nonauthorized program. Some of my colleagues may ask, well, what has the authorizing committee been doing? Let me explain. Back in 1995 the committee reported an NEA authorization bill. It would have permitted the NEA to exist for 3 more years, phasing it out over that same 3-year period, giving plenty of time for the private sector, local States and municipalities to take over the program. In fact, the NEA would have ceased to exist as of October 1 of this year had that bill become law. However, there was no floor action taken on it. Point of Order Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the question of the current legislation and I think his attention should be directed to that fact. I think if he wants to state the history of the appropriations, the point of order should be disposed of and the gentleman permitted to strike the last word or participate in the debate. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the Chair would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to confine his remarks to the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. [[Page H5999]] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is entertaining debate on the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was merely pointing out that there is a lot of history in relationship to what we are discussing today in relation to the point of order, so that someone does not fault the committee because we have not taken action, because we have taken action. So I would suggest that it is definitely out of order to move ahead with legislation that has not been authorized by the authorizing committee, and I would hope that we would sustain the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) makes a single point of order that the two paragraphs appropriating funds for the National Endowment for the Arts violate clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing for an unauthorized appropriation. As stated by the Chair on July 11, 1997, the authorization for the National Endowment of the Arts lapsed in 1993. The National Endowment of the Arts has not been reauthorized since the ruling of the Chair last year. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the two paragraphs are stricken from the bill. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 88, after line 9, insert the following: National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,240,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided. That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am proud to offer my amendment to restore $98 million in level funding for the NEA. I would have been equally proud to have risen to oppose a motion to strike NEA funding as adopted in the committee bill, and I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his successful committee amendment, yet another sign of the breadth of support there is for the NEA. I also salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his long and consistent leadership in support of the arts and for his deep dedication to responsible stewardship of our Nation's resources. In this House we often refer to each other as the gentleman from a certain State or the gentlewoman from a certain State. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a gentleman; not only a gentleman, but a wise gentleman and a leader, and I thank the gentleman for his fine service over so many years. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. The reforms adopted last year directly addressed the causes of past problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will make clear in a few minutes. Perhaps these reforms address the concerns. I asked those 150 Republicans who supported the Republican amendment last year, which supported a Federal role for the arts to support my amendment this year. I have been a lifelong supporter of the arts, because truly man does not live by bread alone. The arts are a medium through which we publicly discuss profound and great matters of life and death, love and duty, freedom and bondage, man's relationship to God and nature. NEA dollars help new plays to be written, new symphonies to be conceived, performing arts groups to develop and thrive, and the performing arts to reach our most rural communities and our most isolated neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment to the Interior Appropriations. As my colleagues know, this amendment would restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, an organization which has wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars on art which has often been objectionable to Americans. By ending funding to the NEA, we are not ending Federal funding for the arts. Contrary to popular belief, the National Endowment for the Arts is not the sole recipient of Federal funding for the arts. There are an estimated 200 arts and humanities programs or activities funded by and administered through various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, but are not getting one dime of NEA funding. These programs are programs such as the Commission of Fine Arts, the Holocaust Memorial Council, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, and many others. The Federal Government also provides support for the arts through tax expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contribution to the arts, humanities, culture, on income, gift and estate taxes. Zeroing out funding for the NEA will not end Federal funding for the arts. It simply ends a program which has misused taxpayer dollars with some of the sickening attempts to subsidize blasphemous, offensive and pornographic depictions. In addition, I might point out that the NEA administrative overhead and bureaucrats earn about twice as much as the artists they seek to subsidize, and much of their subsidy goes to just a few large cities in our country. I do not know if this is what is called fleecing of America, but it is objectionable, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and Mr. Durbin from the Senate. We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on this, to broaden it all across America. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants for education for underserved populations and community music, and I mentioned earlier [[Page H6000]] Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 6 months with students in Jessup. In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in the Finley case as being constitutional. So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous changes that have been made in the NEA. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I do not think so. Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet their particular tests. Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of this country. The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and against government censorship. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute if I may do that, and reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve time; the time is controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought she just yielded me 5 minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say to the gentleman I do have a lot of requests for time. I thought the gentleman wanted 5 minutes to speak. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I just wanted to yield myself 1 minute of the 5 minutes because I had requests for time from other people, and that is why I asked whether I may do that as a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. From the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman had been yielded 5 minutes. To yield the gentleman control of that time, so that he may control the dispensation of time, would require a unanimous-consent srequest. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, she has yielded me 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Will I be able to yield time to other people? The CHAIRMAN. Not absent a unanimous consent request. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask unanimous consent in order to yield that time to others? The CHAIRMAN. To be able to control the 5 minutes and its distribution (as by reserving time or being seated), that is correct. Mr. YATES. I do not understand that. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I certainly would be happy to have him yield time on his side; I also have them on my list. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 5 minutes now. I thank the gentlewoman very much for that opportunity, and I thank the chair for what I believe was a misapprehension of my rights under the rules. {time} 1430 The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who preceded me, the minority whip, in connection the speech he made is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The government does not actually control the giving of the grants. That is in the hands of panels, of civilians who are expert in the field. They are the ones who make the original selections. It is true that there has to be a censorship because there just is not enough money made available under the appropriations for the National Endowment of the Arts to provide grants for as many applications as they receive. They, therefore, have to be selective. The second statement of the gentleman was that the Federal Government should not be in this business. Well, the general welfare is the government's business. I remember statements like the gentleman's being made before 1957 in connection with Federal aid for education. The Republicans were opposed to Federal aid for education and they prevented that program from being enacted by the Congress. Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik and General Eisenhower, who was President at the time, President Eisenhower, sent a request to the Congress for Federal aid for education in mathematics and in science. The Congress quickly passed that. But no mention was made for education in the civilian sense. That took a later date. Now, we do not have the Federal Government making grants for the purpose of studying the languages, history, philosophy, ethics, religion, legislature or the arts, as such, other than through the NEA. We do have the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation does an excellent job for mathematics and for the sciences. But insofar as the political sciences are concerned, the National Science Foundation does not engage in that. In other words, the National Science Foundation does not contribute to the disciplines that will educate our children in the ways of peace. Only the arts and humanities represent the Federal Government in making those kinds of grants and in teaching in that respect. Does the committee believe that education in science and math is enough? I do not think so. I think that the endowments have done a remarkably fine job over the years and I am constrained to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore the funding for the arts. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point of order. Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what we will have to do. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [[Page H6001]] (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a little repetitious. We have been through this so many times. But I want to take advantage of an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished colleague who was first elected to Congress when I graduated from high school. That is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The gentleman is a dear friend. He has been a devoted and committed Member of this body. We sometimes have our disagreements on all kinds of issues, but I respect him profoundly and I wish him all the best. Let me add that I am totally opposed to this amendment. At the Constitutional Convention, the whole question came up of funding the arts and it was overwhelmingly rejected on the grounds that that is not an appropriate function of the national government. In 1965 we got into ``guns and butter.'' We got into funding everything. The national government swelled enormously, penetrating virtually every aspect of our lives. This is not a time to revive it; this is a time for downsizing, getting the national government out of our lives and getting folks back home more involved in participating in funding such things as the arts and humanities. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs that our Nation has been built upon. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of our districts, and by supporting them I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition, the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on our communities, providing jobs, often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the arts, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his support of this endeavor. I am pleased to rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs our great country is built on. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of my district, and by supporting them, I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition to the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on the community, providing jobs and often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. The NEA brings the arts to our young people. Each year, the arts endowment opens the door to the arts to millions of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. An education through the arts improves overall student learning, and instills self-esteem and discipline. The arts also help prepare America's future work force by helping students develop reasoning and problem-solving skills, and enhancing communication ability--all important career skills for the 21st century. The NEA has worked diligently for the past 8 years to create a more accountable and efficient system. In 1994 the NEA constricted the grantmaking process by eliminating subgrants to third party artists and organizations. The following year, the NEA eliminated seasonal operating support grants, and in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations bills, Congress banned nearly all grants to individual artists. Furthermore, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the decency standard passed by Congress in 1990 is a victory for both the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Congress. This decision is a significant step to protecting the caliber of art funded by the NEA. The arts foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are essential to our humanity. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by restoring full funding for the arts by supporting the Johnson amendment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and others on this subject. Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and it was defeated overwhelmingly. From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois repudiating all of that history? Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues know which President said he was against funding for the arts? President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should support symphony orchestras or opera companies.'' NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our mores. One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation: After 20 years, he said, of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I cannot recall a single writer who really needs government assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to encourage them in their bad work. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding for the arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it most unfortunate that we are still here listening to continuing political attacks on the NEA. I strongly support, and I think it goes without saying, the contributions the NEA has made to cultural standards in this country. But I want to say now, as one who served as the Republican leader on the subcommittee that wrote the reforms in the early 1990s to deal with those questions of standards of decency and to protect against the controversial sexual and religious themes and, indeed, blasphemous themes, I want to say that as the Republican leader who wrote the reforms we put in protections and reforms in that legislation so that we would not be violating the [[Page H6002]] community standards of decency. In fact, just last month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to have those standards of decency. Now, with respect to this question of whether or not abuses are continuing in the so-called Corpus Christi project, I can tell my colleagues categorically that no NEA funding was used under that, and let us not use this as a stalking horse or as a diversion. Let us support the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise to urge this House to vote to support the NEA and vote for this amendment. I find it most unfortunate, and can not explain the irrational political attacks on the NEA. These attacks are bred of ignorance or willful, crass, and disingenuous political abuse. Since its formation over thirty years ago, 2nd National Endowment of the Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the private side of that partnership. For urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. Nevertheless, there were abuses in recent years that became public in the early 1990's. There were blasphemous and irreverent productions that clearly violated community standards. ``corpus christi'' Now, all of us have been hearing from constituents about a play ``Corpus Christi,'' which many people mistakenly believe was supported by the NEA. I want you to know that NEA funding did not support this play! Should this event prove to show that the reforms we instituted have to be strengthened, then I can assure all our members that I will lead that effort and close any loopholes in current law. In 1990, I served as Republican leader of the subcommittee that re- wrote NEA regulations to establish new decency standards and outlawed NEA support for projects with controversial sexual and religious themes, and those which violated community standards of decency. In the past month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these standards, saying the federal government CAN consider general standards of decency and the ``values of the American public'' in deciding which projects should receive cash grants. The N.E.A. has provided the critical support which allowed production of such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The N.E.A. has brought us the television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American Playhouse.'' All told * * * over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the Endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, Macarthur Awards, and National Book Club Awards. Let's continue to support this worthwhile organization. Vote for this amendment. Support the Arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring back a chart that we looked at just a few minutes ago and have kind of a little different perspective on what we were doing. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) just mentioned some of the reforms. When we go down this chart of NEA reforms, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois, the Cliff Stearns and the Phil Crane of the world who have been fighting this fight for dozens of years, and other people in this conference, trying to highlight the abuses of this program, I think here are some dividends that have been paid. There is a $400,000 grant in Kansas in March of 1997, a review of that art project. It was called ``Santa's Workshop'' and it had Santa Claus masturbating. So this fairly recent phenomenon here of 1997, of where we do not quite have it right. But the people who have the courage to come up here and say that this is not a proper thing to spend taxpayer money on, and have highlighted the abuse and the way the NEA is run, should be proud that we have made progress. The subcommittee chairman should be proud of what he has been able to do, because that $400,000 grant to produce art showing Santa masturbating is more money than the entire arts agencies in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all the U.S. territories received combined. Whether we consider that program art or not, whether we consider it the proper role of the Federal Government, this has been a poorly run Federal agency where 25 cents of every dollar goes into administration and most congressional districts receive little, if any, support from it. It is an elitist organization, out of touch with the American people in terms of business management, out of touch with the American public in terms of what art is. We are making small progress, and that is something to be thankful for. But we can set our watches by this debate, because it will happen again next year, and one year we will take this pot of money and give it to the communities to let them come up with programs better than we can do here. That day is coming. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on obscene and offensive art. Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the agency and that we should level-fund it. {time} 1445 In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial play. I think we should support, level fund this endowment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, when we are on a tight budget, we have to make choices. We cannot buy expensive tickets to the theater or even go to the movies if we can barely afford to buy our food and pay our rent. At a time when we are talking about a debt in this Nation of $5.5 trillion, when we are talking about balancing the budget, it is difficult to explain to the American people why we need to spend $98 million for such a program as we are talking about here today. We all support the arts, but it does not seem fair to make the hardworking people of this country pay for exhibits that are only art by name, because in many cases they are pornographic, they are profane, and would be viewed with disgust by the majority of the people who see it. When we are trying to balance the budget, as I mentioned, when we are trying to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government, can anyone honestly place arts on the same level as, say, providing for our national defense and improving our Nation's infrastructure, improving or saving Medicare and Social Security? The National Endowment for the Arts has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted as good stewards of the people's money. This is a travesty and a slap in the face of those people who call themselves Christians and who believe in the Christian faith and the religious values that have made this Nation great. I think we must show the American people that we are serious about changing the way Washington spends their money, and I think we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johnson amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H6003]] Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and everyone in between. The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the economic benefits it means to every city in the United States. When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return. But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child exposed to the arts is a better student. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to express in other ways. Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position of supporting art they may find objectionable. A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of creativity. The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today. We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved and their importance was understood. They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-esteem. The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives of millions of Americans. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country; today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there are 300. Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each year; today over 55 million attend annually. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music Foundation. This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to U.S. taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all Americans--which is what this debate is all about. Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one- hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area--even with a fully-funded NEA. In a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that year after year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance companies and their audiences across the country. But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is an outrage--and it must be defeated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, as the proponent of the amendment, has the right to close. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort to broaden [[Page H6004]] the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable. We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in making sure that will happen. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would encourage my colleagues to read the report that we issued last year: A Creative and Generous America, The Healthy State of the Arts in America. Because the arts in America are healthy. What is failing is the continued failure of the National Endowment for the Arts. It is not a broad-based program. The NEA has failed in its primary mission to make that happen. More than one-third of NEA funds go to six cities, and one-third of all congressional districts fail to get any direct funding. That means one-third of America does not even see the NEA. In short, the NEA makes up a minuscule portion of arts support in America. There is no credible evidence that the NEA has had anything to do with the recent growth and explosion in the arts. It is a failed small agency. And before my colleagues say how well it works, just a year ago 63 percent of NEA grantees could not reconcile their project costs, 79 percent had inadequate documentation of personnel costs, and 53 percent had failed to engage independent auditors. This agency needs to be overhauled if not eliminated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson), to restore funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of limited funding are hollow and without merit. Government support for the arts is not a program for the elite. Eliminating the endowment will do nothing to reduce the deficit. The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient funding to make up this loss in the credibility. Some of the many reasons most Americans believe in government support for the arts is it stimulates economic growth, it invests in our communities, they are basic to a thorough education. We know that student achievement and test scores in academic subjects improve when the arts are used to assist learning in math, social studies, creative writing and communication skills. We know SATs and ACTs are elevated by students who have had the arts training. I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support the Johnson amendment. It's a two-hundred seat theater created out of a portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices low so that many young families can attend the performances. The associates who run the Company work hard for modest salaries in the true spirit of keeping their company non-profit. I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support such a worthwhile project. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is the right thing to do. Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural story of our past can be made available to future generations. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson). Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who find ourselves supporting a gradual change, this is a difficult vote and a difficult amendment. I am rising today in opposition to this amendment for a variety of reasons but, in particular, I would have supported the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) several years ago to gradually privatize the National Endowment for the Arts, and I believe as a politician who also loves the arts, that politics and art rarely mix. And if there is one thing that this debate has shown us today, it is that. I think that the National Endowment of the Arts should move towards being a private national endowment over time. Unfortunately, having talked to the National Endowment of the Arts this morning, I found that while they were given authorization to begin development programs to raise independent funds a year ago, in that year they have only raised $50,000. That is not a real effort, in my view, towards moving toward a truly independent national endowment, and my vote today should be seen by supporters of the arts and seen by the National Endowment of the Arts as a clear encouragement to them to move towards privatization. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time, and I certainly support her amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself one of the most conservative Members of this body, and my record as one of the fiscal conservatives is a matter of record. But let me tell my colleagues, regarding the arguments I have heard today, this is a question about whether or not we give any money to the arts. It is that basic; that simple. This government has always supported the arts. From Washington, from Thomas Jefferson, from Abraham Lincoln, we have always, as a Nation and its founding leaders and through every administration, supported the arts. Now, I admit that some mistakes have been made, and I have highlighted those mistakes. But it is not our responsibility or duty here to abolish Federal Government participation in the arts. With those mistakes that have been made, it is our responsibility to correct those mistakes. If we need tax credits, if we need to change the project basis, let us do that. But this is about funding our museums, this is about funding our symphonies. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a child who has attended or heard a symphony or visited a museum who would not benefit from this effort to fund the arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listened to the debate, one thought kept crossing my mind, and that is how easy it is to be a philanthropist with other people's money. It is really easy to give away other people's money, $9.5 million. The impression some Members would give us, and the movie stars, is that the arts and arts programs in this country are hanging by a thread, and if we do not fund the NEA all of the arts are going to go away. Well, the truth is that is not true. The fact is there are several people that are contributing to the arts community in our country today. One is the Federal Government. Now, not just the $98.5 million that we are trying to stop being funded to the NEA. There are over 200 programs funded by taxpayers that go to the arts: Holocaust Museum, Commission of Fine Arts, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, National Endowment for Children's Educational TV, NEH, National Gallery of Arts, the Smithsonian. How much money is the Federal Government spending of our tax dollars on the arts? Well, in 1997, it was $696 million, in 1998 it was $710 million, and in 1999 it will be $815 million that is going to go to fund the arts. So we are great philanthropists with other people's money. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish by urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Johnson amendment. {time} 1500 Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 remaining seconds. [[Page H6005]] I urge support of my amendment in the strongest terms possible. This body votes R tax credits to support the creativity necessary to an entrepreneurial society. We support NIH funding to create the knowledge base for medical innovations. We must support NEA dollars to support the infrastructure for a strong, vital, national, creative culture community of the arts. We must do no less if we are to have the quality-inspired leadership that this Nation needs in our democracy. If my colleagues have never been in a HOT school, a higher order of thinking school, go. It will demonstrate why NEA dollars count now and in the future. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague Nancy Johnson's amendment to restore $98 million in funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. For a small and carefully safeguarded investment of taxpayer money, NEA funds activities that enrich all aspects of our society. We will hear a good deal today about the economic benefits NEA offers to our local communities--and that's right. Last year, we invested $98 million in the NEA. This investment supported 1.3 million full-time jobs in local communities, generated an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, and returned almost three and one half billion dollars to the federal treasury in income taxes. Clearly, any investment which provides a return of nearly 35 times your initial investment is worth continuing. Since FY96, the NEA has directly contributed over $3 million in awards to the Connecticut economy, and 19 individual awards were recommended last year. But more important is the immeasurable contribution that NEA makes to our nation's art and music, creativity and talent. When we invest in NEA, we add to the store of artistic expression in the world. We add to the human spirit. And that is the most important investment of all. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and fund this important program. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and supports 1.7 million jobs. Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year. Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see how important arts education is to developing our future workforce. Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 21, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5998-H6026] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The committee resumed its sitting. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect those amendments getting heard today? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is my understanding. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, it is not my request. It was my understanding that the request was, would I agree to it? If the gentleman wants to continue at another stage of the bill, it is all right with me, but to place this in my pocket is the wrong approach. I would just as soon hear it or just as soon postpone it. Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer amendments. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule. Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill? Mr. REGULA. Yes. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go right back to the start of the bill after we finish this? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,250,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. Point of Order Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs beginning on page 88, line 10, and all that follows through page 89, line 6, include unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2 of House Rule XXI. The language I have just specified is an appropriation of $98 million for the necessary expenses for the National Endowment of the Arts. Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts expired in fiscal year 1993. Clause 2 of House Rule XXI states ``No appropriation shall be reported in a general appropriations bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Since the National Endowment of the Arts is clearly not authorized in law and the bill includes an appropriation of funds in this agency, I make a point of order that the language is in obvious violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The CHAIRMAN. Does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious legislative approach? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that the gentleman confine his remarks to the point of order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded, and the Chair is prepared to rule. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over NEA, I would like to speak on the point of order with respect to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and want to make a few comments to put NEA funding in context. Last year the Interior appropriations bill that came to the House floor provided continued funding for NEA for fiscal year 1998. {time} 1415 The point of order was made that constituted funding for a nonauthorized program. The point of order prevailed and the bill left the House with zero funding for the NEA, and then the master of all arts came into play, Houdini. When we found this bill again, we discovered that there was an appropriation, even though it was not authorized. This year we find ourselves in much the same position. The appropriations bill has been reported to the House with $98 million for the NEA, yet the NEA has not been authorized since 1993. For the past few years it has been continuing on a year-by-year basis only by virtue of the appropriations process. A point of order has been made that the $98 million should be struck on the grounds it constitutes funding of a nonauthorized program. Some of my colleagues may ask, well, what has the authorizing committee been doing? Let me explain. Back in 1995 the committee reported an NEA authorization bill. It would have permitted the NEA to exist for 3 more years, phasing it out over that same 3-year period, giving plenty of time for the private sector, local States and municipalities to take over the program. In fact, the NEA would have ceased to exist as of October 1 of this year had that bill become law. However, there was no floor action taken on it. Point of Order Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the question of the current legislation and I think his attention should be directed to that fact. I think if he wants to state the history of the appropriations, the point of order should be disposed of and the gentleman permitted to strike the last word or participate in the debate. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the Chair would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to confine his remarks to the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. [[Page H5999]] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is entertaining debate on the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was merely pointing out that there is a lot of history in relationship to what we are discussing today in relation to the point of order, so that someone does not fault the committee because we have not taken action, because we have taken action. So I would suggest that it is definitely out of order to move ahead with legislation that has not been authorized by the authorizing committee, and I would hope that we would sustain the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) makes a single point of order that the two paragraphs appropriating funds for the National Endowment for the Arts violate clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing for an unauthorized appropriation. As stated by the Chair on July 11, 1997, the authorization for the National Endowment of the Arts lapsed in 1993. The National Endowment of the Arts has not been reauthorized since the ruling of the Chair last year. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the two paragraphs are stricken from the bill. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 88, after line 9, insert the following: National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,240,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided. That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am proud to offer my amendment to restore $98 million in level funding for the NEA. I would have been equally proud to have risen to oppose a motion to strike NEA funding as adopted in the committee bill, and I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his successful committee amendment, yet another sign of the breadth of support there is for the NEA. I also salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his long and consistent leadership in support of the arts and for his deep dedication to responsible stewardship of our Nation's resources. In this House we often refer to each other as the gentleman from a certain State or the gentlewoman from a certain State. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a gentleman; not only a gentleman, but a wise gentleman and a leader, and I thank the gentleman for his fine service over so many years. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. The reforms adopted last year directly addressed the causes of past problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will make clear in a few minutes. Perhaps these reforms address the concerns. I asked those 150 Republicans who supported the Republican amendment last year, which supported a Federal role for the arts to support my amendment this year. I have been a lifelong supporter of the arts, because truly man does not live by bread alone. The arts are a medium through which we publicly discuss profound and great matters of life and death, love and duty, freedom and bondage, man's relationship to God and nature. NEA dollars help new plays to be written, new symphonies to be conceived, performing arts groups to develop and thrive, and the performing arts to reach our most rural communities and our most isolated neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment to the Interior Appropriations. As my colleagues know, this amendment would restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, an organization which has wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars on art which has often been objectionable to Americans. By ending funding to the NEA, we are not ending Federal funding for the arts. Contrary to popular belief, the National Endowment for the Arts is not the sole recipient of Federal funding for the arts. There are an estimated 200 arts and humanities programs or activities funded by and administered through various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, but are not getting one dime of NEA funding. These programs are programs such as the Commission of Fine Arts, the Holocaust Memorial Council, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, and many others. The Federal Government also provides support for the arts through tax expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contribution to the arts, humanities, culture, on income, gift and estate taxes. Zeroing out funding for the NEA will not end Federal funding for the arts. It simply ends a program which has misused taxpayer dollars with some of the sickening attempts to subsidize blasphemous, offensive and pornographic depictions. In addition, I might point out that the NEA administrative overhead and bureaucrats earn about twice as much as the artists they seek to subsidize, and much of their subsidy goes to just a few large cities in our country. I do not know if this is what is called fleecing of America, but it is objectionable, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and Mr. Durbin from the Senate. We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on this, to broaden it all across America. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants for education for underserved populations and community music, and I mentioned earlier [[Page H6000]] Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 6 months with students in Jessup. In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in the Finley case as being constitutional. So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous changes that have been made in the NEA. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I do not think so. Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet their particular tests. Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of this country. The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and against government censorship. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute if I may do that, and reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve time; the time is controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought she just yielded me 5 minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say to the gentleman I do have a lot of requests for time. I thought the gentleman wanted 5 minutes to speak. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I just wanted to yield myself 1 minute of the 5 minutes because I had requests for time from other people, and that is why I asked whether I may do that as a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. From the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman had been yielded 5 minutes. To yield the gentleman control of that time, so that he may control the dispensation of time, would require a unanimous-consent srequest. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, she has yielded me 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Will I be able to yield time to other people? The CHAIRMAN. Not absent a unanimous consent request. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask unanimous consent in order to yield that time to others? The CHAIRMAN. To be able to control the 5 minutes and its distribution (as by reserving time or being seated), that is correct. Mr. YATES. I do not understand that. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I certainly would be happy to have him yield time on his side; I also have them on my list. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 5 minutes now. I thank the gentlewoman very much for that opportunity, and I thank the chair for what I believe was a misapprehension of my rights under the rules. {time} 1430 The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who preceded me, the minority whip, in connection the speech he made is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The government does not actually control the giving of the grants. That is in the hands of panels, of civilians who are expert in the field. They are the ones who make the original selections. It is true that there has to be a censorship because there just is not enough money made available under the appropriations for the National Endowment of the Arts to provide grants for as many applications as they receive. They, therefore, have to be selective. The second statement of the gentleman was that the Federal Government should not be in this business. Well, the general welfare is the government's business. I remember statements like the gentleman's being made before 1957 in connection with Federal aid for education. The Republicans were opposed to Federal aid for education and they prevented that program from being enacted by the Congress. Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik and General Eisenhower, who was President at the time, President Eisenhower, sent a request to the Congress for Federal aid for education in mathematics and in science. The Congress quickly passed that. But no mention was made for education in the civilian sense. That took a later date. Now, we do not have the Federal Government making grants for the purpose of studying the languages, history, philosophy, ethics, religion, legislature or the arts, as such, other than through the NEA. We do have the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation does an excellent job for mathematics and for the sciences. But insofar as the political sciences are concerned, the National Science Foundation does not engage in that. In other words, the National Science Foundation does not contribute to the disciplines that will educate our children in the ways of peace. Only the arts and humanities represent the Federal Government in making those kinds of grants and in teaching in that respect. Does the committee believe that education in science and math is enough? I do not think so. I think that the endowments have done a remarkably fine job over the years and I am constrained to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore the funding for the arts. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point of order. Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what we will have to do. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [[Page H6001]] (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a little repetitious. We have been through this so many times. But I want to take advantage of an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished colleague who was first elected to Congress when I graduated from high school. That is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The gentleman is a dear friend. He has been a devoted and committed Member of this body. We sometimes have our disagreements on all kinds of issues, but I respect him profoundly and I wish him all the best. Let me add that I am totally opposed to this amendment. At the Constitutional Convention, the whole question came up of funding the arts and it was overwhelmingly rejected on the grounds that that is not an appropriate function of the national government. In 1965 we got into ``guns and butter.'' We got into funding everything. The national government swelled enormously, penetrating virtually every aspect of our lives. This is not a time to revive it; this is a time for downsizing, getting the national government out of our lives and getting folks back home more involved in participating in funding such things as the arts and humanities. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs that our Nation has been built upon. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of our districts, and by supporting them I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition, the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on our communities, providing jobs, often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the arts, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his support of this endeavor. I am pleased to rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs our great country is built on. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of my district, and by supporting them, I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition to the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on the community, providing jobs and often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. The NEA brings the arts to our young people. Each year, the arts endowment opens the door to the arts to millions of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. An education through the arts improves overall student learning, and instills self-esteem and discipline. The arts also help prepare America's future work force by helping students develop reasoning and problem-solving skills, and enhancing communication ability--all important career skills for the 21st century. The NEA has worked diligently for the past 8 years to create a more accountable and efficient system. In 1994 the NEA constricted the grantmaking process by eliminating subgrants to third party artists and organizations. The following year, the NEA eliminated seasonal operating support grants, and in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations bills, Congress banned nearly all grants to individual artists. Furthermore, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the decency standard passed by Congress in 1990 is a victory for both the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Congress. This decision is a significant step to protecting the caliber of art funded by the NEA. The arts foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are essential to our humanity. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by restoring full funding for the arts by supporting the Johnson amendment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and others on this subject. Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and it was defeated overwhelmingly. From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois repudiating all of that history? Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues know which President said he was against funding for the arts? President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should support symphony orchestras or opera companies.'' NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our mores. One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation: After 20 years, he said, of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I cannot recall a single writer who really needs government assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to encourage them in their bad work. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding for the arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it most unfortunate that we are still here listening to continuing political attacks on the NEA. I strongly support, and I think it goes without saying, the contributions the NEA has made to cultural standards in this country. But I want to say now, as one who served as the Republican leader on the subcommittee that wrote the reforms in the early 1990s to deal with those questions of standards of decency and to protect against the controversial sexual and religious themes and, indeed, blasphemous themes, I want to say that as the Republican leader who wrote the reforms we put in protections and reforms in that legislation so that we would not be violating the [[Page H6002]] community standards of decency. In fact, just last month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to have those standards of decency. Now, with respect to this question of whether or not abuses are continuing in the so-called Corpus Christi project, I can tell my colleagues categorically that no NEA funding was used under that, and let us not use this as a stalking horse or as a diversion. Let us support the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise to urge this House to vote to support the NEA and vote for this amendment. I find it most unfortunate, and can not explain the irrational political attacks on the NEA. These attacks are bred of ignorance or willful, crass, and disingenuous political abuse. Since its formation over thirty years ago, 2nd National Endowment of the Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the private side of that partnership. For urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. Nevertheless, there were abuses in recent years that became public in the early 1990's. There were blasphemous and irreverent productions that clearly violated community standards. ``corpus christi'' Now, all of us have been hearing from constituents about a play ``Corpus Christi,'' which many people mistakenly believe was supported by the NEA. I want you to know that NEA funding did not support this play! Should this event prove to show that the reforms we instituted have to be strengthened, then I can assure all our members that I will lead that effort and close any loopholes in current law. In 1990, I served as Republican leader of the subcommittee that re- wrote NEA regulations to establish new decency standards and outlawed NEA support for projects with controversial sexual and religious themes, and those which violated community standards of decency. In the past month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these standards, saying the federal government CAN consider general standards of decency and the ``values of the American public'' in deciding which projects should receive cash grants. The N.E.A. has provided the critical support which allowed production of such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The N.E.A. has brought us the television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American Playhouse.'' All told * * * over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the Endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, Macarthur Awards, and National Book Club Awards. Let's continue to support this worthwhile organization. Vote for this amendment. Support the Arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring back a chart that we looked at just a few minutes ago and have kind of a little different perspective on what we were doing. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) just mentioned some of the reforms. When we go down this chart of NEA reforms, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois, the Cliff Stearns and the Phil Crane of the world who have been fighting this fight for dozens of years, and other people in this conference, trying to highlight the abuses of this program, I think here are some dividends that have been paid. There is a $400,000 grant in Kansas in March of 1997, a review of that art project. It was called ``Santa's Workshop'' and it had Santa Claus masturbating. So this fairly recent phenomenon here of 1997, of where we do not quite have it right. But the people who have the courage to come up here and say that this is not a proper thing to spend taxpayer money on, and have highlighted the abuse and the way the NEA is run, should be proud that we have made progress. The subcommittee chairman should be proud of what he has been able to do, because that $400,000 grant to produce art showing Santa masturbating is more money than the entire arts agencies in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all the U.S. territories received combined. Whether we consider that program art or not, whether we consider it the proper role of the Federal Government, this has been a poorly run Federal agency where 25 cents of every dollar goes into administration and most congressional districts receive little, if any, support from it. It is an elitist organization, out of touch with the American people in terms of business management, out of touch with the American public in terms of what art is. We are making small progress, and that is something to be thankful for. But we can set our watches by this debate, because it will happen again next year, and one year we will take this pot of money and give it to the communities to let them come up with programs better than we can do here. That day is coming. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on obscene and offensive art. Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the agency and that we should level-fund it. {time} 1445 In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial play. I think we should support, level fund this endowment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, when we are on a tight budget, we have to make choices. We cannot buy expensive tickets to the theater or even go to the movies if we can barely afford to buy our food and pay our rent. At a time when we are talking about a debt in this Nation of $5.5 trillion, when we are talking about balancing the budget, it is difficult to explain to the American people why we need to spend $98 million for such a program as we are talking about here today. We all support the arts, but it does not seem fair to make the hardworking people of this country pay for exhibits that are only art by name, because in many cases they are pornographic, they are profane, and would be viewed with disgust by the majority of the people who see it. When we are trying to balance the budget, as I mentioned, when we are trying to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government, can anyone honestly place arts on the same level as, say, providing for our national defense and improving our Nation's infrastructure, improving or saving Medicare and Social Security? The National Endowment for the Arts has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted as good stewards of the people's money. This is a travesty and a slap in the face of those people who call themselves Christians and who believe in the Christian faith and the religious values that have made this Nation great. I think we must show the American people that we are serious about changing the way Washington spends their money, and I think we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johnson amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H6003]] Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and everyone in between. The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the economic benefits it means to every city in the United States. When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return. But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child exposed to the arts is a better student. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to express in other ways. Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position of supporting art they may find objectionable. A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of creativity. The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today. We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved and their importance was understood. They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-esteem. The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives of millions of Americans. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country; today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there are 300. Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each year; today over 55 million attend annually. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music Foundation. This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to U.S. taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all Americans--which is what this debate is all about. Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one- hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area--even with a fully-funded NEA. In a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that year after year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance companies and their audiences across the country. But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is an outrage--and it must be defeated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, as the proponent of the amendment, has the right to close. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort to broaden [[Page H6004]] the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable. We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in making sure that will happen. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would encourage my colleagues to read the report that we issued last year: A Creative and Generous America, The Healthy State of the Arts in America. Because the arts in America are healthy. What is failing is the continued failure of the National Endowment for the Arts. It is not a broad-based program. The NEA has failed in its primary mission to make that happen. More than one-third of NEA funds go to six cities, and one-third of all congressional districts fail to get any direct funding. That means one-third of America does not even see the NEA. In short, the NEA makes up a minuscule portion of arts support in America. There is no credible evidence that the NEA has had anything to do with the recent growth and explosion in the arts. It is a failed small agency. And before my colleagues say how well it works, just a year ago 63 percent of NEA grantees could not reconcile their project costs, 79 percent had inadequate documentation of personnel costs, and 53 percent had failed to engage independent auditors. This agency needs to be overhauled if not eliminated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson), to restore funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of limited funding are hollow and without merit. Government support for the arts is not a program for the elite. Eliminating the endowment will do nothing to reduce the deficit. The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient funding to make up this loss in the credibility. Some of the many reasons most Americans believe in government support for the arts is it stimulates economic growth, it invests in our communities, they are basic to a thorough education. We know that student achievement and test scores in academic subjects improve when the arts are used to assist learning in math, social studies, creative writing and communication skills. We know SATs and ACTs are elevated by students who have had the arts training. I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support the Johnson amendment. It's a two-hundred seat theater created out of a portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices low so that many young families can attend the performances. The associates who run the Company work hard for modest salaries in the true spirit of keeping their company non-profit. I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support such a worthwhile project. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is the right thing to do. Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural story of our past can be made available to future generations. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson). Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who find ourselves supporting a gradual change, this is a difficult vote and a difficult amendment. I am rising today in opposition to this amendment for a variety of reasons but, in particular, I would have supported the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) several years ago to gradually privatize the National Endowment for the Arts, and I believe as a politician who also loves the arts, that politics and art rarely mix. And if there is one thing that this debate has shown us today, it is that. I think that the National Endowment of the Arts should move towards being a private national endowment over time. Unfortunately, having talked to the National Endowment of the Arts this morning, I found that while they were given authorization to begin development programs to raise independent funds a year ago, in that year they have only raised $50,000. That is not a real effort, in my view, towards moving toward a truly independent national endowment, and my vote today should be seen by supporters of the arts and seen by the National Endowment of the Arts as a clear encouragement to them to move towards privatization. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time, and I certainly support her amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself one of the most conservative Members of this body, and my record as one of the fiscal conservatives is a matter of record. But let me tell my colleagues, regarding the arguments I have heard today, this is a question about whether or not we give any money to the arts. It is that basic; that simple. This government has always supported the arts. From Washington, from Thomas Jefferson, from Abraham Lincoln, we have always, as a Nation and its founding leaders and through every administration, supported the arts. Now, I admit that some mistakes have been made, and I have highlighted those mistakes. But it is not our responsibility or duty here to abolish Federal Government participation in the arts. With those mistakes that have been made, it is our responsibility to correct those mistakes. If we need tax credits, if we need to change the project basis, let us do that. But this is about funding our museums, this is about funding our symphonies. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a child who has attended or heard a symphony or visited a museum who would not benefit from this effort to fund the arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listened to the debate, one thought kept crossing my mind, and that is how easy it is to be a philanthropist with other people's money. It is really easy to give away other people's money, $9.5 million. The impression some Members would give us, and the movie stars, is that the arts and arts programs in this country are hanging by a thread, and if we do not fund the NEA all of the arts are going to go away. Well, the truth is that is not true. The fact is there are several people that are contributing to the arts community in our country today. One is the Federal Government. Now, not just the $98.5 million that we are trying to stop being funded to the NEA. There are over 200 programs funded by taxpayers that go to the arts: Holocaust Museum, Commission of Fine Arts, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, National Endowment for Children's Educational TV, NEH, National Gallery of Arts, the Smithsonian. How much money is the Federal Government spending of our tax dollars on the arts? Well, in 1997, it was $696 million, in 1998 it was $710 million, and in 1999 it will be $815 million that is going to go to fund the arts. So we are great philanthropists with other people's money. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish by urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Johnson amendment. {time} 1500 Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 remaining seconds. [[Page H6005]] I urge support of my amendment in the strongest terms possible. This body votes R tax credits to support the creativity necessary to an entrepreneurial society. We support NIH funding to create the knowledge base for medical innovations. We must support NEA dollars to support the infrastructure for a strong, vital, national, creative culture community of the arts. We must do no less if we are to have the quality-inspired leadership that this Nation needs in our democracy. If my colleagues have never been in a HOT school, a higher order of thinking school, go. It will demonstrate why NEA dollars count now and in the future. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague Nancy Johnson's amendment to restore $98 million in funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. For a small and carefully safeguarded investment of taxpayer money, NEA funds activities that enrich all aspects of our society. We will hear a good deal today about the economic benefits NEA offers to our local communities--and that's right. Last year, we invested $98 million in the NEA. This investment supported 1.3 million full-time jobs in local communities, generated an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, and returned almost three and one half billion dollars to the federal treasury in income taxes. Clearly, any investment which provides a return of nearly 35 times your initial investment is worth continuing. Since FY96, the NEA has directly contributed over $3 million in awards to the Connecticut economy, and 19 individual awards were recommended last year. But more important is the immeasurable contribution that NEA makes to our nation's art and music, creativity and talent. When we invest in NEA, we add to the store of artistic expression in the world. We add to the human spirit. And that is the most important investment of all. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and fund this important program. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and supports 1.7 million jobs. Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year. Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see how important arts education is to developing our future workforce. Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 21, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5998-H6026] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The committee resumed its sitting. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect those amendments getting heard today? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is my understanding. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, it is not my request. It was my understanding that the request was, would I agree to it? If the gentleman wants to continue at another stage of the bill, it is all right with me, but to place this in my pocket is the wrong approach. I would just as soon hear it or just as soon postpone it. Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer amendments. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule. Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill? Mr. REGULA. Yes. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go right back to the start of the bill after we finish this? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,250,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. Point of Order Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs beginning on page 88, line 10, and all that follows through page 89, line 6, include unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2 of House Rule XXI. The language I have just specified is an appropriation of $98 million for the necessary expenses for the National Endowment of the Arts. Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts expired in fiscal year 1993. Clause 2 of House Rule XXI states ``No appropriation shall be reported in a general appropriations bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Since the National Endowment of the Arts is clearly not authorized in law and the bill includes an appropriation of funds in this agency, I make a point of order that the language is in obvious violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The CHAIRMAN. Does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious legislative approach? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that the gentleman confine his remarks to the point of order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded, and the Chair is prepared to rule. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over NEA, I would like to speak on the point of order with respect to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and want to make a few comments to put NEA funding in context. Last year the Interior appropriations bill that came to the House floor provided continued funding for NEA for fiscal year 1998. {time} 1415 The point of order was made that constituted funding for a nonauthorized program. The point of order prevailed and the bill left the House with zero funding for the NEA, and then the master of all arts came into play, Houdini. When we found this bill again, we discovered that there was an appropriation, even though it was not authorized. This year we find ourselves in much the same position. The appropriations bill has been reported to the House with $98 million for the NEA, yet the NEA has not been authorized since 1993. For the past few years it has been continuing on a year-by-year basis only by virtue of the appropriations process. A point of order has been made that the $98 million should be struck on the grounds it constitutes funding of a nonauthorized program. Some of my colleagues may ask, well, what has the authorizing committee been doing? Let me explain. Back in 1995 the committee reported an NEA authorization bill. It would have permitted the NEA to exist for 3 more years, phasing it out over that same 3-year period, giving plenty of time for the private sector, local States and municipalities to take over the program. In fact, the NEA would have ceased to exist as of October 1 of this year had that bill become law. However, there was no floor action taken on it. Point of Order Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the question of the current legislation and I think his attention should be directed to that fact. I think if he wants to state the history of the appropriations, the point of order should be disposed of and the gentleman permitted to strike the last word or participate in the debate. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the Chair would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to confine his remarks to the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. [[Page H5999]] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is entertaining debate on the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was merely pointing out that there is a lot of history in relationship to what we are discussing today in relation to the point of order, so that someone does not fault the committee because we have not taken action, because we have taken action. So I would suggest that it is definitely out of order to move ahead with legislation that has not been authorized by the authorizing committee, and I would hope that we would sustain the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) makes a single point of order that the two paragraphs appropriating funds for the National Endowment for the Arts violate clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing for an unauthorized appropriation. As stated by the Chair on July 11, 1997, the authorization for the National Endowment of the Arts lapsed in 1993. The National Endowment of the Arts has not been reauthorized since the ruling of the Chair last year. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the two paragraphs are stricken from the bill. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 88, after line 9, insert the following: National Endowment for the Arts grants and administration For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $81,240,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended. matching grants To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided. That this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am proud to offer my amendment to restore $98 million in level funding for the NEA. I would have been equally proud to have risen to oppose a motion to strike NEA funding as adopted in the committee bill, and I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his successful committee amendment, yet another sign of the breadth of support there is for the NEA. I also salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his long and consistent leadership in support of the arts and for his deep dedication to responsible stewardship of our Nation's resources. In this House we often refer to each other as the gentleman from a certain State or the gentlewoman from a certain State. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a gentleman; not only a gentleman, but a wise gentleman and a leader, and I thank the gentleman for his fine service over so many years. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. The reforms adopted last year directly addressed the causes of past problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will make clear in a few minutes. Perhaps these reforms address the concerns. I asked those 150 Republicans who supported the Republican amendment last year, which supported a Federal role for the arts to support my amendment this year. I have been a lifelong supporter of the arts, because truly man does not live by bread alone. The arts are a medium through which we publicly discuss profound and great matters of life and death, love and duty, freedom and bondage, man's relationship to God and nature. NEA dollars help new plays to be written, new symphonies to be conceived, performing arts groups to develop and thrive, and the performing arts to reach our most rural communities and our most isolated neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment to the Interior Appropriations. As my colleagues know, this amendment would restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, an organization which has wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars on art which has often been objectionable to Americans. By ending funding to the NEA, we are not ending Federal funding for the arts. Contrary to popular belief, the National Endowment for the Arts is not the sole recipient of Federal funding for the arts. There are an estimated 200 arts and humanities programs or activities funded by and administered through various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, but are not getting one dime of NEA funding. These programs are programs such as the Commission of Fine Arts, the Holocaust Memorial Council, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, and many others. The Federal Government also provides support for the arts through tax expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contribution to the arts, humanities, culture, on income, gift and estate taxes. Zeroing out funding for the NEA will not end Federal funding for the arts. It simply ends a program which has misused taxpayer dollars with some of the sickening attempts to subsidize blasphemous, offensive and pornographic depictions. In addition, I might point out that the NEA administrative overhead and bureaucrats earn about twice as much as the artists they seek to subsidize, and much of their subsidy goes to just a few large cities in our country. I do not know if this is what is called fleecing of America, but it is objectionable, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and Mr. Durbin from the Senate. We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on this, to broaden it all across America. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants for education for underserved populations and community music, and I mentioned earlier [[Page H6000]] Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 6 months with students in Jessup. In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in the Finley case as being constitutional. So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous changes that have been made in the NEA. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I do not think so. Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet their particular tests. Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of this country. The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and against government censorship. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute if I may do that, and reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve time; the time is controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought she just yielded me 5 minutes. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say to the gentleman I do have a lot of requests for time. I thought the gentleman wanted 5 minutes to speak. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I just wanted to yield myself 1 minute of the 5 minutes because I had requests for time from other people, and that is why I asked whether I may do that as a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. From the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman had been yielded 5 minutes. To yield the gentleman control of that time, so that he may control the dispensation of time, would require a unanimous-consent srequest. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, she has yielded me 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Will I be able to yield time to other people? The CHAIRMAN. Not absent a unanimous consent request. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask unanimous consent in order to yield that time to others? The CHAIRMAN. To be able to control the 5 minutes and its distribution (as by reserving time or being seated), that is correct. Mr. YATES. I do not understand that. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I certainly would be happy to have him yield time on his side; I also have them on my list. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 5 minutes now. I thank the gentlewoman very much for that opportunity, and I thank the chair for what I believe was a misapprehension of my rights under the rules. {time} 1430 The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who preceded me, the minority whip, in connection the speech he made is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The government does not actually control the giving of the grants. That is in the hands of panels, of civilians who are expert in the field. They are the ones who make the original selections. It is true that there has to be a censorship because there just is not enough money made available under the appropriations for the National Endowment of the Arts to provide grants for as many applications as they receive. They, therefore, have to be selective. The second statement of the gentleman was that the Federal Government should not be in this business. Well, the general welfare is the government's business. I remember statements like the gentleman's being made before 1957 in connection with Federal aid for education. The Republicans were opposed to Federal aid for education and they prevented that program from being enacted by the Congress. Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik and General Eisenhower, who was President at the time, President Eisenhower, sent a request to the Congress for Federal aid for education in mathematics and in science. The Congress quickly passed that. But no mention was made for education in the civilian sense. That took a later date. Now, we do not have the Federal Government making grants for the purpose of studying the languages, history, philosophy, ethics, religion, legislature or the arts, as such, other than through the NEA. We do have the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation does an excellent job for mathematics and for the sciences. But insofar as the political sciences are concerned, the National Science Foundation does not engage in that. In other words, the National Science Foundation does not contribute to the disciplines that will educate our children in the ways of peace. Only the arts and humanities represent the Federal Government in making those kinds of grants and in teaching in that respect. Does the committee believe that education in science and math is enough? I do not think so. I think that the endowments have done a remarkably fine job over the years and I am constrained to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore the funding for the arts. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point of order. Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what we will have to do. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [[Page H6001]] (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a little repetitious. We have been through this so many times. But I want to take advantage of an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished colleague who was first elected to Congress when I graduated from high school. That is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The gentleman is a dear friend. He has been a devoted and committed Member of this body. We sometimes have our disagreements on all kinds of issues, but I respect him profoundly and I wish him all the best. Let me add that I am totally opposed to this amendment. At the Constitutional Convention, the whole question came up of funding the arts and it was overwhelmingly rejected on the grounds that that is not an appropriate function of the national government. In 1965 we got into ``guns and butter.'' We got into funding everything. The national government swelled enormously, penetrating virtually every aspect of our lives. This is not a time to revive it; this is a time for downsizing, getting the national government out of our lives and getting folks back home more involved in participating in funding such things as the arts and humanities. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs that our Nation has been built upon. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of our districts, and by supporting them I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition, the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on our communities, providing jobs, often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the Johnson amendment restoring full funding to the arts, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his support of this endeavor. I am pleased to rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $98 million. I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of expression, one of the fundamental beliefs our great country is built on. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents of my district, and by supporting them, I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated. In addition to the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations make a direct economic impact on the community, providing jobs and often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops. The NEA brings the arts to our young people. Each year, the arts endowment opens the door to the arts to millions of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. An education through the arts improves overall student learning, and instills self-esteem and discipline. The arts also help prepare America's future work force by helping students develop reasoning and problem-solving skills, and enhancing communication ability--all important career skills for the 21st century. The NEA has worked diligently for the past 8 years to create a more accountable and efficient system. In 1994 the NEA constricted the grantmaking process by eliminating subgrants to third party artists and organizations. The following year, the NEA eliminated seasonal operating support grants, and in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations bills, Congress banned nearly all grants to individual artists. Furthermore, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the decency standard passed by Congress in 1990 is a victory for both the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Congress. This decision is a significant step to protecting the caliber of art funded by the NEA. The arts foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are essential to our humanity. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by restoring full funding for the arts by supporting the Johnson amendment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and others on this subject. Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and it was defeated overwhelmingly. From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois repudiating all of that history? Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues know which President said he was against funding for the arts? President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should support symphony orchestras or opera companies.'' NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our mores. One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation: After 20 years, he said, of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I cannot recall a single writer who really needs government assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to encourage them in their bad work. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding for the arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it most unfortunate that we are still here listening to continuing political attacks on the NEA. I strongly support, and I think it goes without saying, the contributions the NEA has made to cultural standards in this country. But I want to say now, as one who served as the Republican leader on the subcommittee that wrote the reforms in the early 1990s to deal with those questions of standards of decency and to protect against the controversial sexual and religious themes and, indeed, blasphemous themes, I want to say that as the Republican leader who wrote the reforms we put in protections and reforms in that legislation so that we would not be violating the [[Page H6002]] community standards of decency. In fact, just last month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to have those standards of decency. Now, with respect to this question of whether or not abuses are continuing in the so-called Corpus Christi project, I can tell my colleagues categorically that no NEA funding was used under that, and let us not use this as a stalking horse or as a diversion. Let us support the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise to urge this House to vote to support the NEA and vote for this amendment. I find it most unfortunate, and can not explain the irrational political attacks on the NEA. These attacks are bred of ignorance or willful, crass, and disingenuous political abuse. Since its formation over thirty years ago, 2nd National Endowment of the Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the private side of that partnership. For urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. Nevertheless, there were abuses in recent years that became public in the early 1990's. There were blasphemous and irreverent productions that clearly violated community standards. ``corpus christi'' Now, all of us have been hearing from constituents about a play ``Corpus Christi,'' which many people mistakenly believe was supported by the NEA. I want you to know that NEA funding did not support this play! Should this event prove to show that the reforms we instituted have to be strengthened, then I can assure all our members that I will lead that effort and close any loopholes in current law. In 1990, I served as Republican leader of the subcommittee that re- wrote NEA regulations to establish new decency standards and outlawed NEA support for projects with controversial sexual and religious themes, and those which violated community standards of decency. In the past month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these standards, saying the federal government CAN consider general standards of decency and the ``values of the American public'' in deciding which projects should receive cash grants. The N.E.A. has provided the critical support which allowed production of such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The N.E.A. has brought us the television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American Playhouse.'' All told * * * over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the Endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, Macarthur Awards, and National Book Club Awards. Let's continue to support this worthwhile organization. Vote for this amendment. Support the Arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring back a chart that we looked at just a few minutes ago and have kind of a little different perspective on what we were doing. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) just mentioned some of the reforms. When we go down this chart of NEA reforms, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois, the Cliff Stearns and the Phil Crane of the world who have been fighting this fight for dozens of years, and other people in this conference, trying to highlight the abuses of this program, I think here are some dividends that have been paid. There is a $400,000 grant in Kansas in March of 1997, a review of that art project. It was called ``Santa's Workshop'' and it had Santa Claus masturbating. So this fairly recent phenomenon here of 1997, of where we do not quite have it right. But the people who have the courage to come up here and say that this is not a proper thing to spend taxpayer money on, and have highlighted the abuse and the way the NEA is run, should be proud that we have made progress. The subcommittee chairman should be proud of what he has been able to do, because that $400,000 grant to produce art showing Santa masturbating is more money than the entire arts agencies in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all the U.S. territories received combined. Whether we consider that program art or not, whether we consider it the proper role of the Federal Government, this has been a poorly run Federal agency where 25 cents of every dollar goes into administration and most congressional districts receive little, if any, support from it. It is an elitist organization, out of touch with the American people in terms of business management, out of touch with the American public in terms of what art is. We are making small progress, and that is something to be thankful for. But we can set our watches by this debate, because it will happen again next year, and one year we will take this pot of money and give it to the communities to let them come up with programs better than we can do here. That day is coming. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on obscene and offensive art. Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the agency and that we should level-fund it. {time} 1445 In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial play. I think we should support, level fund this endowment. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, when we are on a tight budget, we have to make choices. We cannot buy expensive tickets to the theater or even go to the movies if we can barely afford to buy our food and pay our rent. At a time when we are talking about a debt in this Nation of $5.5 trillion, when we are talking about balancing the budget, it is difficult to explain to the American people why we need to spend $98 million for such a program as we are talking about here today. We all support the arts, but it does not seem fair to make the hardworking people of this country pay for exhibits that are only art by name, because in many cases they are pornographic, they are profane, and would be viewed with disgust by the majority of the people who see it. When we are trying to balance the budget, as I mentioned, when we are trying to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government, can anyone honestly place arts on the same level as, say, providing for our national defense and improving our Nation's infrastructure, improving or saving Medicare and Social Security? The National Endowment for the Arts has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted as good stewards of the people's money. This is a travesty and a slap in the face of those people who call themselves Christians and who believe in the Christian faith and the religious values that have made this Nation great. I think we must show the American people that we are serious about changing the way Washington spends their money, and I think we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johnson amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H6003]] Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and everyone in between. The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the economic benefits it means to every city in the United States. When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return. But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child exposed to the arts is a better student. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to express in other ways. Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position of supporting art they may find objectionable. A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of creativity. The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today. We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved and their importance was understood. They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-esteem. The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives of millions of Americans. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country; today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there are 300. Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each year; today over 55 million attend annually. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music Foundation. This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to U.S. taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all Americans--which is what this debate is all about. Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one- hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area--even with a fully-funded NEA. In a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that year after year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance companies and their audiences across the country. But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is an outrage--and it must be defeated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, as the proponent of the amendment, has the right to close. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort to broaden [[Page H6004]] the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable. We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in making sure that will happen. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would encourage my colleagues to read the report that we issued last year: A Creative and Generous America, The Healthy State of the Arts in America. Because the arts in America are healthy. What is failing is the continued failure of the National Endowment for the Arts. It is not a broad-based program. The NEA has failed in its primary mission to make that happen. More than one-third of NEA funds go to six cities, and one-third of all congressional districts fail to get any direct funding. That means one-third of America does not even see the NEA. In short, the NEA makes up a minuscule portion of arts support in America. There is no credible evidence that the NEA has had anything to do with the recent growth and explosion in the arts. It is a failed small agency. And before my colleagues say how well it works, just a year ago 63 percent of NEA grantees could not reconcile their project costs, 79 percent had inadequate documentation of personnel costs, and 53 percent had failed to engage independent auditors. This agency needs to be overhauled if not eliminated. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson), to restore funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of limited funding are hollow and without merit. Government support for the arts is not a program for the elite. Eliminating the endowment will do nothing to reduce the deficit. The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient funding to make up this loss in the credibility. Some of the many reasons most Americans believe in government support for the arts is it stimulates economic growth, it invests in our communities, they are basic to a thorough education. We know that student achievement and test scores in academic subjects improve when the arts are used to assist learning in math, social studies, creative writing and communication skills. We know SATs and ACTs are elevated by students who have had the arts training. I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support the Johnson amendment. It's a two-hundred seat theater created out of a portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices low so that many young families can attend the performances. The associates who run the Company work hard for modest salaries in the true spirit of keeping their company non-profit. I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support such a worthwhile project. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is the right thing to do. Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural story of our past can be made available to future generations. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson). Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who find ourselves supporting a gradual change, this is a difficult vote and a difficult amendment. I am rising today in opposition to this amendment for a variety of reasons but, in particular, I would have supported the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) several years ago to gradually privatize the National Endowment for the Arts, and I believe as a politician who also loves the arts, that politics and art rarely mix. And if there is one thing that this debate has shown us today, it is that. I think that the National Endowment of the Arts should move towards being a private national endowment over time. Unfortunately, having talked to the National Endowment of the Arts this morning, I found that while they were given authorization to begin development programs to raise independent funds a year ago, in that year they have only raised $50,000. That is not a real effort, in my view, towards moving toward a truly independent national endowment, and my vote today should be seen by supporters of the arts and seen by the National Endowment of the Arts as a clear encouragement to them to move towards privatization. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time, and I certainly support her amendment. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself one of the most conservative Members of this body, and my record as one of the fiscal conservatives is a matter of record. But let me tell my colleagues, regarding the arguments I have heard today, this is a question about whether or not we give any money to the arts. It is that basic; that simple. This government has always supported the arts. From Washington, from Thomas Jefferson, from Abraham Lincoln, we have always, as a Nation and its founding leaders and through every administration, supported the arts. Now, I admit that some mistakes have been made, and I have highlighted those mistakes. But it is not our responsibility or duty here to abolish Federal Government participation in the arts. With those mistakes that have been made, it is our responsibility to correct those mistakes. If we need tax credits, if we need to change the project basis, let us do that. But this is about funding our museums, this is about funding our symphonies. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a child who has attended or heard a symphony or visited a museum who would not benefit from this effort to fund the arts. Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listened to the debate, one thought kept crossing my mind, and that is how easy it is to be a philanthropist with other people's money. It is really easy to give away other people's money, $9.5 million. The impression some Members would give us, and the movie stars, is that the arts and arts programs in this country are hanging by a thread, and if we do not fund the NEA all of the arts are going to go away. Well, the truth is that is not true. The fact is there are several people that are contributing to the arts community in our country today. One is the Federal Government. Now, not just the $98.5 million that we are trying to stop being funded to the NEA. There are over 200 programs funded by taxpayers that go to the arts: Holocaust Museum, Commission of Fine Arts, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, National Endowment for Children's Educational TV, NEH, National Gallery of Arts, the Smithsonian. How much money is the Federal Government spending of our tax dollars on the arts? Well, in 1997, it was $696 million, in 1998 it was $710 million, and in 1999 it will be $815 million that is going to go to fund the arts. So we are great philanthropists with other people's money. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish by urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Johnson amendment. {time} 1500 Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 remaining seconds. [[Page H6005]] I urge support of my amendment in the strongest terms possible. This body votes R tax credits to support the creativity necessary to an entrepreneurial society. We support NIH funding to create the knowledge base for medical innovations. We must support NEA dollars to support the infrastructure for a strong, vital, national, creative culture community of the arts. We must do no less if we are to have the quality-inspired leadership that this Nation needs in our democracy. If my colleagues have never been in a HOT school, a higher order of thinking school, go. It will demonstrate why NEA dollars count now and in the future. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague Nancy Johnson's amendment to restore $98 million in funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. For a small and carefully safeguarded investment of taxpayer money, NEA funds activities that enrich all aspects of our society. We will hear a good deal today about the economic benefits NEA offers to our local communities--and that's right. Last year, we invested $98 million in the NEA. This investment supported 1.3 million full-time jobs in local communities, generated an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, and returned almost three and one half billion dollars to the federal treasury in income taxes. Clearly, any investment which provides a return of nearly 35 times your initial investment is worth continuing. Since FY96, the NEA has directly contributed over $3 million in awards to the Connecticut economy, and 19 individual awards were recommended last year. But more important is the immeasurable contribution that NEA makes to our nation's art and music, creativity and talent. When we invest in NEA, we add to the store of artistic expression in the world. We add to the human spirit. And that is the most important investment of all. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and fund this important program. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and supports 1.7 million jobs. Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year. Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see how important arts education is to developing our future workforce. Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli