[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 98 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Under the previous
order, the question occurs on agreeing to the motion to instruct the
Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer],
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Inouye], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] are necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from New York [Mr.
D'Amato], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from Idaho
[Mr. Kempthorne], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], and the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mathews
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Stevens
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--13
Breaux
Craig
Faircloth
Gramm
Helms
Lott
Mack
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Smith
Wallop
NOT VOTING--13
Bennett
Boxer
Chafee
D'Amato
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kennedy
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Specter
Thurmond
So the motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 4602, the
Interior appropriations bill. The pending question is a committee
amendment on page 48 line 16.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this would be a good time for a Senator to
call up an amendment. There will be a rollcall vote at 3:30 p.m. on an
amendment. But there are several amendments on the list by Senators,
and it is not inconceivable that if Senators would come over and call
up their amendments, some of the amendments might be accepted. It is
easily also very conceivable that a number of the amendments that are
on the list may indeed not be called up.
So it is likewise easy to imagine that we might be able to finish
this bill today by going into the evening. Tomorrow there are going to
be some interruptions during the day, brought about by the visit of Mr.
Rabin and King Hussein and a joint session of the House and the
luncheon. It is, therefore, necessary that we make as much progress as
we possibly can this afternoon. It is my understanding that the leader
has no desire to go out early or to provide a window. So as far as I am
concerned, with my colleague, Mr. Nickles, we could plow right on
through and make as much progress today as we possibly can.
May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Helms] if he plans to call up an amendment momentarily?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from West Virginia
that I do. I have an amendment to the committee amendment on page 81.
Would the Senator like me to call it up?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would indicate to the Senator from
North Carolina that there are three committee amendments on page 81.
Will the Senator please specify which particular amendment?
Mr. HELMS. I was busily adjusting my hearing aid. Would the Chair
repeat that?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2396 to the Excepted Committee Amendment on page 81 line
7
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of National Endowment for the Arts funds
to provide financial assistance for projects or works involving the
mutilation of living or dead human beings, or the drawing or letting of
blood)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 2396.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment, add the following:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available under this Act to the National
Endowment for the Arts may be used by the Endowment, or by
any other recipient of such funds, to support, reward, or
award financial assistance to any activity or work involving:
(a) human mutilation or invasive bodily procedures on human
beings dead or alive; or
(b) the drawing or letting of blood.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Helms amendment to
the committee amendment on page 81, line 7.
Mr. HELMS. Page 81, line 7 is correct, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I have tried, without success, to establish in my own
mind when, if ever, the liberal news media of America have engaged in
more distortions of the truth than in the public discussion of the
National Endowment for the Arts. The media have, in fact, been obsessed
for at least 5 years, to my knowledge. They have been obsessed with
trying to prove that black is white and white is black, and that
disgusting, insulting, revolting garbage produced by obviously sick
minds is somehow art, and that this art is worthy of being subsidized
and rewarded by and with grants of Federal funds--the taxpayers' money,
mind you--distributed by the National Endowment for the Arts.
This has been going on, as I say, Mr. President, for at least 5
years, and longer, I am confident, than that.
The Washington Post and similarly oriented newspapers around the
country all get their big guns to pulverize anybody who suggests that
filth should not be subsidized and rewarded with the taxpayers' money.
These newspapers have mocked and ridiculed Senators and Congressmen who
have tried to restore some degree of reason to the NEA process. Salvos
of accusations have proclaimed that these Members of Congress--and
particularly Jesse Helms--are engaged in nefarious censorship. But how
self-righteous they are when they write about censorship. They accuse
us of censorship at even the slightest suggestion that the Federal
funds authorized and appropriated to and for the National Endowment for
the Arts should not be spent on such things as photographs of a naked
homosexual with a bull whip protruding from his rear end, or a naked
woman on a stage, her body covered with chocolate, or photos of
mutilated human corpses, or blood soaked towels dispatched on a pulley
over the heads of an unsuspecting audience terrorized by such a
surprising development.
This is art, say the media. The Washington Post insists that it is
art, and so do newspapers all across the country, many in my own State
of North Carolina. They publish sophomoric editorials and stamp their
little feet. But, the public disagrees with the editors. The public
disagrees with the National Endowment for the Arts.
Now I tried a little experiment back during the Mapplethorpe era. The
editors at Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Raleigh spoke with one voice
in condemnation of Jesse Helms because he did not understand art.
So I sent a little telegram to each of the editors at Charlotte,
Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Raleigh. I said, ``I'll tell you what.
Let me send to you by Federal Express--I'm not going to send them
through the mail because you would complain about that--but let me send
you some of Mapplethorpe's photographs and you put a little notice in
your paper that people sincerely and genuinely interested are invited
to come by your paper and take a look at the pictures--paid for by the
taxpayer--of the homosexual with the bullwhip protruding from his rear
end, for example.''
The Greensboro Daily News editor said, ``We're not an art gallery.
We're a newspaper.'' What a pious--well, I shall not finish the
sentence.
But this is the way the news media have operated. And they are not
going to tell the truth about this debate today, either.
Much of the public has no specific idea of what is afoot, but I can
tell you this: Thousands upon thousands of Americans, indeed, millions
of them, I believe, have gotten enough of the message--despite the
coverup by the news media and by some of the self-proclaimed experts in
the art community.
The self-proclaimed art experts pretend that even if the art is gross
and even if it is vulgar and offensive, it is art, and it ought to be
financed and subsidized by the American taxpayer.
Every time I hear that, I think of Abraham Lincoln, who was asked one
time: ``Mr. Lincoln, if you count a cow's tail as a leg, how many legs
does a cow have?''
And Mr. Lincoln replied: ``The cow has four legs, because calling a
cow's tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg.''
And calling this art--which I am going to display an example or two
of in just a minute--calling it art does not make it art.
So the news media's intellectual dishonesty in calling this perverse,
filthy and revolting garbage, calling it art does not make it art. It
is still filth; it is still perverse--and it is still unworthy of being
subsidized with the American taxpayers' money.
And if you do not believe the American people agree with that, ask
them a specific question.
Nobody in the Senate, nobody in the House of Representatives, has
ever once suggested censorship of the National Endowment for the Arts.
If homosexual or otherwise perverse mentalities want to produce such
garbage, they are free to spend their own money and their own time
doing it--then let them try to sell it in whatever marketplace they
choose.
Now another ploy by the defenders of such filth is to contend--now
just listen to them, they probably will in this debate, they probably
will contend that, ``Well, after all, only a few such grants have been
made.'' And think of the thousands upon thousands of other grants. They
prate on and on about thousands of grants being made for symphony
orchestras, choral groups, public school art forms of all kind.
I remember one Senator in this Chamber a couple of years back, he
rolled his eyes to the heavens and said, ``not many controversial NEA
grants have been made''--so what is the big deal?''
Not many? Well, then, Mr. President, how many are too many? And I
guess that is the fundamental question.
Mr. President, in a friendly exchange with that delightful lady, Jane
Alexander, I posed that very question. As I have stated many times to
Mrs. Alexander, who, of course, is the Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Arts, I have never heard one complaint, let alone
made one myself, about any grant to a symphony orchestra or a choral
group or a program to teach young people how to play instruments or
sing songs and that sort of thing.
As a matter of fact, I was pretty active in a group, an opera group,
before I came to the Senate.
Now, there have been complaints for years and years about filth and
perversion being rewarded time and time again with sizable grants of
the American taxpayers' money. And, yes, I have voiced some of those
criticisms and complaints and I shall continue to do so as long as
there is breath in me.
I asked NEA Chairman Jane Alexander if just one cockroach in a pot of
soup would be enough, too many, or not enough. The dear lady sort of
avoided that question. She responded that, as a matter of fact, she and
her husband had, on one occasion, found a cockroach in their soup
served in a restaurant, and that the manager of the restaurant had
quickly not charged them for their meals, to make amends for the
cockroach in their soup.
Now that is all very interesting, and one can assume that one
cockroach in one soup is one cockroach too many. I feel the same way
about the National Endowment for the Arts.
But how about those human cockroaches who have repeatedly bullied
their way into the pocketbooks of American taxpayers who pay the taxes
to provide the money for the National Endowment for the Arts to hand
out? We are going to get specific here in just a moment.
You are darn right; if a poll could be taken, I suspect that the vast
majority of America's taxpayers would be totally opposed to subsidizing
that figurative human cockroach masquerading as an artist.
So, Mr. President, what can be done to remedy the situation, in light
of the fact that Congress has been manipulated, year after year, into
refusing to prohibit subsidies for obscenity defined in any broad
sense? Maybe the amendment which I now have sent to the desk will
enable the Senate to address at least one specific obscenity that the
taxpayers have been forced to subsidize to the tune of $20,000.
Now let me, Mr. President, read the text of the pending amendment
once more. This amendment, when it is voted upon, will establish
precisely how each Senator feels about using tax funds to subsidize and
reward an artist who used NEA funds to mutilate the cadavers of human
beings.
The amendment at the desk provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds made available under this Act to the National Endowment
for the Arts may be used by the Endowment, or by any other
recipient of such funds, to support, reward, or award
financial assistance to any activity or work involving:
(a) human mutilation or invasive bodily procedures on human
beings, dead or alive; or
(b) the drawing or letting of blood.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?
Mr. HELMS. I would rather finish my statement, if the Senator will
permit me to do so.
Now, as I said, Mr. President, when I first proposed some years ago
that some standard of decency be required of the National Endowment for
the Arts, the Senate was supplied some examples of the art that the
American taxpayers were being forced to subsidize at that time. There
was the bullwhip, which I mentioned earlier. There was the crucifix
that another artist had submerged in a jar of his own urine and
photographed and submitted to the NEA. And he got paid for it. There
were other sickening, blasphemous and obscene so-called art.
These were supported and defended by newspaper editors. They have
said, ``Well, this is just one out of many. You should not be worried
about just a few examples.''
Well, why should the taxpayer not be worried? Why is there even one
example?
Last year, there was the artistry of an NEA beneficiary named Joel-
Peter Witken, who the NEA art experts knew at the time had a 20-year
track record of mutilating, dissecting, and dismembering human corpses
and then photographing them.
For one photograph he submitted while seeking tax funds Congress had
appropriated for the NEA, Joel-Peter Witken had severed the head from a
corpse, skinned it, and scooped out the brain and transformed that
mutilated head into a flower vase.
And those watching on C-SPAN can view the flowers in that artistic
flower pot.
He then photographed it and he submitted, as I say, the photograph to
the NEA. His cash reward from the NEA for that was $20,000, taxpayers'
money.
In another example of his unique artistry, Joel-Peter Witken twisted
a human head off of a corpse in a way to assure that a jumble of veins
and muscles protruded from the neck.
Maybe the C-SPAN cameras can focus on what developed after that. Mr.
Witken then sawed the head of that cadaver in half, beginning at the
top of the forehead, down, through the nose to the lip and the chin,
and then he placed the two halves together in a fashion that made it
appear that the cadaver was kissing himself. This is one-half of the
guy's head, this is the other half. That is what you call beautiful
art, and I am sure it was worth $20,000 to somebody, but I do not think
you will find many American taxpayers who will agree that their money
ought to be used to pay or reward the guy who did that.
By the way, Mr. Witken titled his award winning photograph ``The
Kiss.''
Speaking of depravity, this past March brought reports of yet another
NEA-subsidized performance by one of these artists, a man named Ron
Athey. It is spelled A-t-h-e-y, but he insists that it be pronounced
like ``A-thee'', Ron ``A-thee,'' and I will try to remember to call him
Ron ``A-thee,'' as I refer.
That is his picture, a very handsome man, if you like that kind of
man. But let us talk about it. He appeared as a part of the Minneapolis
Walker Art Center's Celebration of the Fifth Annual Minneapolis
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Film Festival. I do not need to
identify it further, it was a homosexual film event which the NEA
supports annually with your money.
Here is how Mr. Athey's performance went. He informed his audience
that he has the AIDS virus. Then he begins his bloody performance, but
he tells them nothing about the HIV status of the other performers whom
he later slashes and slices on the stage. He keeps that a secret.
Mr. Athey himself described the NEA-supported performance in the Los
Angeles Weekly--a homosexual newspaper. He described the three
different sets of three parallel lines arranged in a stair-step fashion
that he sliced onto, and into, another man's back, and then he carved a
triangle, which he called, appropriately, ``The Symbol of Queerness.''
Just so the Record will be complete about the artistic talents of Mr.
Athey, I think I should quote his own description of his performance,
which was subsidized, do not forget, by whom? The National Endowment
for the Arts.
Mr. Athey said of his own performance:
Bleeding is always heavy at first, but it slows down. Paper
towels are pressed against the wound, making an imprint, then
they are alternately passed to two assistants, who clip
prints to the line and send them out over the audience. The
prints are not touching any heads. They only come close to a
couple of people, mostly over the aisles or completely stage
right.
Then he continues to describe his act:
This act has been performed for at least 2,000 people:
Three nights at Highways, one night at Los Angeles Theater
Center, three club nights.
When the lines are full, the factory workers and three
trained tech dykes strike the lines keeping them taut so they
don't droop or brush anyone, although this happened once the
first night at Highways.
Highways is a so-called performance arts venue in Santa Monica, CA.
But that is Mr. Athey's own description of his great moment of artistry
in a performance subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts.
According to the Walker Art Center, at least two members of the
audience in Minneapolis fainted. I do not doubt that. Another member of
the audience was quoted as saying:
The bloody towels were most upsetting to the audience. It
appeared that the towels were going to drip or fall apart
because they appeared to be paper towels. People knocked over
the chairs to get out from under the clothesline.
I know what some of the supporters of the NEA are going to say, ``Oh,
that report is false.'' To say that that report is false is false
itself, and I will demonstrate that when the defenders of the NEA try
to downplay the significance of this so-called artistry in Minneapolis.
There has been a concerted, unfair, and unfounded effort by the NEA
and its obsessive defenders in the news media to discredit descriptions
of the performance by a reporter in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. But
Mr. Athey is remarkably boastful about his performance. He said:
The individual chemical reactions people have toward
demonstrations of pain, blood and mutilation are involuntary.
One or two people usually faint.
Mr. Athey also acknowledges that one or two people usually leave each
performance.
Of the Walker Art Center, the organization that used part of its NEA
grant to support the Athey performance, he says:
They knew exactly what I did and wanted to present me.
But back to Mr. Athey's performance. After sending those bloody
towels over the audience, he then proceeded to stick acupuncture
needles and other sharp objects through the skin, the scalp, the
cheeks, and other body areas on himself and his cohorts on stage.
The Washington Blade, another homosexual newspaper, described the
performance this way:
Two assistants allow Athey to pierce their cheeks with
slender barbs; he in turn stands immobile while they weave
spinal tap needles through the skin of his shaved head and
then wind them with wire to create a ``crown of thorns.''
Mr. President, during her confirmation hearings, Jane Alexander
pledged that under her watch the National Endowment for the Arts would
be guided by what she described as ``a commitment to funding only the
best art America has to offer.''
And knowing Jane Alexander, I do not doubt her sincerity in this
commitment. She frequently has stated good music and good theater and
good painting elevate us all and, of course, nobody disagrees with
that. And I told her so.
But something is seriously amiss, Mr. President. In a larger sense,
the pending amendment reaches beyond the work of Mr. Athey and his
admirers at the National Endowment for the Arts and around the
editorial offices and the country.
The broader issue, if any, is the sober realization that for the past
two decades, an unmistakable decadence has saturated American society.
A furious assault on the traditional sensibilities of the American
people has taken its toll. So many have become afraid to stand up and
declare the difference between right and wrong, what is ugly and what
is destructive and what is noble and what is degrading. No wonder--no
wonder--Mr. President, there has been a cultural breakdown.
Is it not time for millions of Americans, the people more than one
President has referred to as the great silent majority, to go on the
offensive to regain control of their social and cultural institutions?
Taking this small step to put those at the National Endowment for the
Arts who have abused and ridiculed our most deeply held beliefs in
their place, I think, is a good beginning.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan
said the same thing essentially. They said: If not us, then who? If not
now, then when?
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on
or in relation to the amendment by Mr. Helms immediately following the
vote which will occur at 3:30 p.m. on an amendment, the vote which was
ordered earlier today.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I thought that vote was
going to occur at 3? Was it 3:30?
Mr. BYRD. The other vote was to occur at 3:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators and I thank the distinguished Senator
for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had not intended to become involved in a
debate on this particular amendment because I had heard that it would
be accepted and that it was a relatively harmless amendment that would
do no significant damage to the National Endowment for the Arts. And
therefore it seemed that Members might just accept it. I was prepared,
frankly, to depart the Chamber. I have a conference committee meeting
on the House side involving interstate banking and a number of other
issues.
But I guess I made the mistake that we should not engage in too often
around here. I read the amendment.
I want to read the amendment aloud because I want Members to pay
close attention to exactly what this amendment says and recognize the
implications, if this amendment were to be adopted, as innocuous as it
may seem to some.
Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds made available under this Act to the National Endowment
for the Arts may be used by the Endowment, or by any other
recipient of such funds, to support, reward, or award
financial assistance to any activity or work involving:
(a) human mutiliation or invasive bodily procedures on
human beings dead or alive; or
(b) the drawing or letting of blood.
That is the amendment.
``Any activity or work involving human mutilation or invasive bodily
procedures.''
Mr. President, it does not take much imagination for anyone, even
looking around this building to see where this would apply. I have just
been casually going through a book here called ``Art Of The United
States Capitol.'' There are countless examples in this book of art in
this very building which involve human mutilation or invasive bodily
procedures--people being shot, people being knifed, the Battle of
Lexington, the Battle of Concord, Daniel Boone, and the Indians. The
standard incorporated in this amendment, would preclude that art from
being supported by the National Endowment for the Arts.
Even the most casual observer of art will certainly recall some of
the great paintings in religious art over the centuries. The
crucifixion of Christ, done in even the simplest of ways, is the
mutilation of a human being in an invasive procedure. A representation
of the nailing of Jesus Christ to a cross would be prohibited under
this amendment as I read it, from receiving funds from the National
Endowment for the Arts. And this list would go on: The stoning of Mary
Magdalen, Saint Sebastian, the decapitation of John the Baptist. I
presume people here could add to the list of examples of great works of
art that would be prohibited from receiving support under the language
of this amendment.
All of us know, I think, what the Senator from North Carolina is
driving at here. I think he goes beyond what most Members are
interested in doing. What he wants to accomplish is the elimination of
any funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. But for those who
are interested in sending a reasoned message to the Endowment about the
kinds of activities we would like to see supported and not supported,
to adopt this amendment would be a mistake. It goes far beyond sending
a signal about those particular examples that are highly offensive to
people--and the Senator from North Carolina has identified several--and
far beyond, I think, what anyone of us here ought to be adopting as
part of the law. ``Any activity?'' It is not just performance art in
question here, it is painting, it is music. There is religious music,
about the horrors of martyrdom in the history of various religions,
that would be potentially an excluded activity.
So I urge my colleagues that, in an effort to deal with this issue,
we work to be reasonable in our desire to deal with one set of
problems, and not go way overboard. And, in my view, this particular
amendment goes way overboard.
Let me cite some examples here in our own building of what we are
talking about. Here is the Battle of Lexington. We have soldiers
shooting, people lying on the ground being shot and killed. Below it is
the Boston Massacre, which hangs in this building.
As I read this amendment, ``any work,'' ``any activity,'' ``human
mutilation''--certainly the killing of people in those great, heroic
conflicts that gave birth to this Nation, I presume, would qualify
under a strict reading of this amendment.
The great frieze which hanging in the Rotunda of this building
depicts further examples of what people might call rather invasive art.
The battle of Lexington again is here. The death of Tecumseh, at the
battle of Thames in 1813 is rather graphic, I suppose. According to a
strict reading of this amendment, one could argue that Brumidi would be
prohibited from painting that frieze today with the support of the NEA.
This is how ridiculous it can get. I point out to my colleagues there
are times, when budgeting, that we consider egregious examples of
improper behavior or conduct. But to take a broadax to a problem is not
the way we ought to deal with these issues.
So, there may be those who assume this is a rather innocuous proposal
who would like to do something about sending a signal to the National
Endowment about the kinds of art that is being funded. But this is not
it.
I strongly urge Senators to read this amendment carefully and
understand its implications. It is anything but innocuous. It is a very
serious effort to restrict support for legitimate and worthwhile art
endeavors, whether they be in music, in painting, performance art or
whatever else. This goes far beyond what anyone would ever intend.
I have here a book on the history of art. I may leave this here for
people to go through. You will find numerous examples of art I think a
lot of us appreciate and that we would like to see more of, that we
encourage and support--but art that certainly would not meet the
standard invoked by the Senator from North Carolina with this proposed
amendment.
So we will, perhaps, not have much of a debate on this. Maybe this is
the only Senator who cares about this. But in our effort to deal with
one problem it seems to me we are going to be creating a far greater
one and doing damage to an institution, in my view, that deserves
better support than it is getting with this proposal.
I understand there are some Members here who just would like to get
rid of the Endowment altogether. I disagree with them, but at least I
understand that. That is an argument. It is the point of view of those
who believe there is no rationale whatsoever to have Federal funding to
support the arts. It is a legitimate point of view. I disagree with it,
but this is not ostensibly what we are talking about here. This
amendment, however, is one way to achieve that goal, it seems to me,
without facing the issue directly.
So I strongly urge the rejection of this amendment, and at an
appropriate time I will either offer to table this amendment or urge my
colleagues to reject it. This goes far too far. To me it is a
dangerous--dangerous language that does not help in our efforts to deal
with legitimate concerns some have raised about art that has received
funding from the Endowment. That is a debate we may have a little
later. But this language and this amendment, it seems to me, ought to
be soundly rejected.
So, Mr. President, I will be a part of this debate. I strongly urge
Members read the amendment and then think, if you would, about the
examples of art in this building and elsewhere that would have been
precluded from receiving any support from the National Endowment. Then
decide whether or not that is a standard we would like applied to those
who are trying legitimately to enrich our culture through their
artistic endeavors, excluding many who are in no way interested in the
kind of art that the Senator from North Carolina has talked about.
Regardless of how one feels about the National Endowment, particular
artists or particular performance art, this amendment ought to be
soundly rejected.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut who
expressed very articulately the thoughts that we share. As one who
minored in art many years ago in college, I think back through all the
paintings I studied. Many, many of those involved Jesus on the cross,
Saint Sabastian, the Rape of the Sabines, various mythological or
actual events that occurred. Many of these would have been prohibited
under this amendment.
I think we all want to achieve very much the same objective. The
question is merely how to get there. The way to achieve our objective
of not having revolting paintings is by making sure the people who make
the grants are well chosen and have good judgment. In this regard I
think Mrs. Alexander has done very well in her choice of panels and we
ought to give her a real chance to succeed.
On a broader scale, I would like to point out that the arts
activities are an economic bounty for our Nation, worth many billions
of dollars every year. The arts fostered by the National Endowment
encourage national and international tourism, attract and maintain
business in our communities, stimulate real estate development, and
contribute to the tax base.
Studies have shown that for every dollar the endowment invests in the
arts, it has created literally a tenfold return in jobs, services and
contracts. San Antonio, TX, Greenville, MS, Oklahoma City, and
Birmingham are among the cities whose impact studies have shown the
enormous economic contribution of the arts.
In fiscal years 1992 and 1993, Arts Endowment grants of about $120
million each year drew matching grants of $1.1 to $1.4 billion, and an
estimated 1.3 million full-time jobs.
Mr. President, the tiny proportion of the Federal budget set aside
for supporting arts and culture in our society is one of the foremost
examples of Federal investment in the U.S. economy. European nations
understand this fact. I think if we adopt this amendment we must
realize that we encourage other nations to do the same; we will then
redo, overhaul the Sistine Chapel? No. Nor should portraits of Jesus on
the cross be prohibited.
I hope that we will not vote that way.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first let me ask the Senator from Rhode
Island if he had concluded.
Mr. PELL. I had concluded.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator had concluded.
Mr. President, I was listening with great interest to the remarks of
my colleague from Connecticut. I have not even had a chance to look at
this amendment very carefully, but, Mr. President, I come to the floor
as a Senator from Minnesota to talk a little bit about the Walker Art
Center, to try to provide some information to my colleagues because I
think it is extremely important for me to defend a very, very important
institution.
First, Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent that a
letter that I received from Kathy Halbreich, who is the director of the
Walker Art Center; Tom Crosby, Jr., chairman of the board of directors
of the Walker Art Center; and Lawrence Perlman, president of the board
of directors of the Walker Art Center, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Walker Art Center,
Minneapolis, MN, June 21, 1994.
Hon. Paul Wellstone,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: The Walker Art Center is one of the
nation's most esteemed museums of modern and contemporary
art. Its programs in the visual, performing, and media arts
are uniquely international, multidisciplinary, and diverse.
Since 1879, the Walker has supported innovative artists
ranging from painter Pablo Picasso to choreographer Merce
Cunningham to film director Clint Eastwood. Several Walker-
organized exhibitions are now touring worldwide.
Most recently, a retrospective of works by artist Bruce
Nauman, who was called by Art in America ``the best--the
essential--American artist of the last quarter-century,'' was
co-organized by the Walker and the Hirshhorn Museum and
Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
It will be seen in Madrid, Minneapolis, Los Angeles,
Washington, D.C., New York City, and Zurich.
This year, the Walker and the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden
expect to serve nearly 700,000 people through exhibitions,
films, performances, and educational programs. Each year the
Walker brings more than 3,000 artists and scholars from
across the globe to work and perform in Minnesota. Over
40,000 school children visited the Walker last year, and the
Walker's new programs for teens are seen as a national model.
Tomorrow the U.S. House of Representatives begins floor
debate on FY 1995 appropriations for the National Endowment
for the Arts. Minnesota's Walker Art Center has become a
focus in this discussion.
As reported in this morning's Washington Times, the Walker
Art Center has come under scrutiny because of a single
performance in early March 1994. Unfortunately, much of the
media attention related to this performance has been
inaccurate and highly sensationalized.
Because of the high level of misinformation, we wanted to
make you aware of this situation which affects one of the
nation's most respected museums. The facts are these:
1. On March 5, an audience of no more than 100 people
viewed a performance by the Ron Athey theater troupe. The
performance, which also has been seen in other communities
such as Los Angeles and Chicago, dealt with the difficult
issues surrounding AIDS. Such a performance is consistent
with the Walker Art Center's mission to examine the issues
that shape, inspire, and challenge us as individuals,
cultures, and communities. This was a one-time performance,
one of more than 400 events the Walker will present this
year. This season, the Walker will present more than 150
performance events ranging from the classical to the
experimental.
2. This performance drew on centuries-old traditions from
around the world and included a ceremony related to the
African tradition of scrafication which involved the drawing
of a small amount of blood.
3. Because of the nature of this performance, the Walker
took all appropriate precautions as developed by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and provided to the Walker by the
Minnesota AIDS Project. The Minnesota Department of Health
has publicly concurred that appropriate precautions were
taken. We confirmed this position again today in
conversations with the Department of Health.
4. Some media reports suggest that ``many'' members of the
audience ``fled.'' This is not accurate. While approximately
10 of the 100 audience members left during the performance,
we have personally heard from numerous members of the
audience who said that they found the performance
``affirming,'' ``moving,'' and ``enlightening.'' In fact, to
our knowledge this entire situation was generated by a single
complaint.
5. Approximately $150 of a $104,500 National Endowment for
the Arts grant to the Walker Art Center for its seasonal
programming was used to fund this performance.
The Walker Art Center is one of the most prestigious
institutions in the country and has earned an international
reputation. The NEA has played a crucial role in helping the
Walker Art Center provide these services to Minnesota.
Indeed, after New York and California, Minnesota arts and
cultural organizations, both large and small, receive the
largest amount of NEA funding. It is extremely disturbing
that the NEA, which has made such enormous contributions to
the educational and cultural vitality of our state, would be
placed in jeopardy by a single event.
We urge you to support the Walker Art Center and the NEA.
We encourage you to call us with your questions, comments or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Kathy Halbreich,
Director, Walker Art Center.
Lawrence Perlman,
President, Walker Art Center Board of Directors.
Thomas M. Crosby, Jr.,
Chairman, Walker Art Center Board of Directors.
Mr. WELLSTONE. In this letter--and I will just simply summarize it--
there are a couple of relevant sections about what did and what did not
happen at the Walker Art Center. This pertains in part to the
amendment, but I intend to talk for a while about what happened in
Minnesota and about this art center, which is a real treasure not just
for people in Minnesota, but for people around the world.
I quote from this letter:
Facts: On March 5, an audience of no more than 100 people
viewed a performance by the Ron Athey Theater Troupe. The
performance, which also has been seen in other communities
such as Los Angeles and Chicago, dealt with difficult issues
surrounding AIDS. Such a performance is consistent with the
Walker Art Center's mission to examine the issues that shape,
inspire and challenge us as individual cultures and
communities. This was a one-time performance, one of more
than 400 events the Walker will present this year. This
season the Walker will present more than 150 performance
events ranging from the classical to the experimental.
Just a couple of other facts:
This performance drew on centuries-old traditions from
around the world and included a ceremony related to the
African tradition of scarification which involved the drawing
of a small amount of blood. Because of the nature of this
performance, the Walker took all appropriate precautions as
developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control
and provided to the Walker by the Minnesota AIDS project. The
Minnesota Department of Health has publicly concurred that
appropriate precautions were taken. We confirmed this again
today in conversations with the Department of Health.
Just another fact:
Approximately $150 of the $104,500 National Endowment for
the Arts grant to the Walker Center for its seasonal program
were used to fund this performance.
Out of a total grant, Mr. President, of $104,500, $150 was used.
Some facts about the Walker, because I fear my colleague sometimes
may decontexturalize--focusing on one example--from what the Walker Art
Center is all about, and for that matter what the arts and humanities
is all about.
The Walker is a uniquely multidisciplinary, diverse, and
international museum with programs in visual programming and
media arts that reach nearly 700,000 visitors each year.
Several Walker-organized exhibitions currently are touring
worldwide. In addition, during an 18-month period Walker
exhibitions will be seen in New York at the Whitney Museum of
American Art, the Zumwalt-Guggenheim Museum, and the Museum
of Modern Art. Each year over 3,000 artists, scholars and
critics from around the world visit the Walker to share their
experience and work with a wide variety of audiences, young
and old.
These facts do not come out: last year approximately 40,000
school children toured the Walker. Each summer the Walker
sponsors a summer institute for elementary and secondary
schoolteachers, helping them prepare for an Interdisciplinary
approach to incorporate the arts in their curriculum.
And the Walker, Mr. President, has reached out in all sorts of
wonderful ways to young people and communities of color in my State of
Minnesota.
These are the facts about the Walker Art Center, but as Frank Rich
said in his New York Times editorial of June 26, 1994, ``Why let the
facts stand in the way of a cause?''
I do not know what the cause is, but if the cause is to essentially
go after the National Endowment for the Arts, to go after the arts
community and the enormous enriching contributions that that community
makes to our communities in Minnesota and South Dakota, urban and
rural, white and African-American and Native American and Southeast
Asian and Hispanic, I think we would be making a terrible mistake.
Mr. President, as many have said, a child who picks up a paintbrush,
a pen, or clarinet--and these will be words dear to my colleague from
Connecticut who cares so much about children--will be less likely to
pick up a gun or a needle. A child who picks up a paintbrush, a pen or
clarinet will be less likely to pick up a gun or a needle.
Before there was a National Endowment for the Arts, President Kennedy
in a speech at Amherst College in 1963 said the following:
I look forward to an America which will reward achievement
in the arts as we reward achievement in business or
statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily
raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will
steadily enlarge cultural opportunity for all of our
citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands
respect throughout the world not only for its strength but
for its civilization as well.
Mr. President, I have to tell you that whether it be this particular
amendment or whether it be efforts to cut into this budget--cuts I
really believe will end up with too broad a stroke of the brush, really
being counterproductive and denying so many of our citizens what is so
enriching about the arts--I have to be clear about what did happen and
what did not happen in my State of Minnesota.
Most important of all, I am not here to debate the work of Mr. Athey.
I am not even interested in the debate about the merits of his work.
What I am interested in, Mr. President, is making sure that my
colleagues understand the Walker Art Center, that my colleagues
understand the enormous importance of the arts in my State of Minnesota
and in this country. I am interested in making sure that my colleagues
understand that in anger about one particular production--which many of
us may not like or some of us may say is controversial but is part of
what has to be done by way of generating discussion and thought--that
is not the point. The point is this: let us not pass amendments which
are way off the mark and let us not react in such a way that we
undercut the very importance of the arts community.
I would also say that as I see what Jane Alexander is now doing--
instituting reforms to increase accountability at the Endowment--I
think it would be a huge mistake for us to rush forward in the Chamber
of the Senate and pass amendments that are counterproductive, pass
amendments that go against the very grain of what arts and community in
our country are about.
Mr. President, let me be crystal clear. I do not want to let any
Senator--whether I agree or disagree with that Senator on some of the
specifics about this particular production--I do not want to let any
Senator decontexturalize--and that is the right word--what the Walker
Art Center does in my State of Minnesota, in our country and our world.
I want Senators to understand the whole range of contributions of this
institution. I want my colleagues to understand the full importance of
what people at the Center have done and continue to do, and I want my
colleagues to understand the full importance of the arts to the
community.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, let me commend my colleague from
Minnesota for his fine statement.
Just again going through some of the art here in the Capitol that in
my view would be precluded from ever receiving any funding from the
National Endowment for the Arts if the Helms amendment were to be
adopted--the wonderful painting painted by one of the great Western
artists in this country, Seth Eastman, called Death Whoop. Mr.
President, I do not have charts, tables or graphs, but here is a
picture of a native American with a bow and arrow in one hand, a knife
in the other, and a scalp of a Western pioneer who faced that horrible
death.
If I read the Helms amendment correctly, which says ``any
activity''--painting--``where human mutilation or invasive bodily
procedures on human beings dead or alive; or the drawing or letting of
blood''--certainly scalping--it is clear by this standard, Mr.
President, if this amendment were applicable and Seth Eastman had
sought some funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, that
painting would not hang as it does today in the Longworth House Office
Building. Nor would the magnificent bronze doors on the entrance to the
House, one of the great treasures of the Capitol.
These doors, designed by Thomas Crawford, are composed of bronze
panels. Two of those panels--the massacre at Wyoming, PA, a rather
brutal portrayal of what happened in Wyoming, PA, on July 3, 1778; and
the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775--are included as panels of
the Crawford bronze doors. Again, bodily mutilation and invasive
procedures, the drawing or letting of blood.
I think I understand what our colleague from North Carolina is
driving at with his amendment when he talks about some of the more
egregious examples. But in an effort to deal with those, the language
encompasses more and you can very quickly become ensnared by your own
words.
I think every Member has received a copy of ``Art in the United
States Capitol.'' I invite you to take a look at it before you come
over here to vote. You will find examples, as I have, here on numerous
pages where the language of the Helms amendment would apply, as I read
it.
So I again urge my colleagues to read this amendment and consider the
clear implications of what this amendment would provoke. As I said,
again it removes all funds to any activity or work involving human
mutilation or invasive bodily procedures on human beings, dead or
alive, with the drawing or letting of blood. Clearly, there are some
examples where people would think that standard would apply. I am sure
most Members, as I said a while ago, can think of wonderful examples of
some of the great art of the world that would have been denied support
or funding if that language had been applicable at the time those
masterpieces were created.
Others may find this to be harmless. I do not at all. I think this
amendment is anything but harmless.
I hope at some point people will start having a sense of proportion
when it comes to the National Endowment for the Arts. It is like any
other agency. When it does something wrong, it ought to be criticized.
And people can think of ways in which to express that criticism. But
this goes way overboard in my view. This goes far too far in trying to
deal with the problem. This kind of language would do irreparable
damage to the Endowment.
So despite what my colleagues may feel about later amendments that
may come from other Members of this body, this amendment ought not to
be adopted, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, several times during his discussion the
Senator from Connecticut has speculated about what I am driving at.
There is no question about what I am driving at. The question is, when
did he drive over the cliff in his assessment of what this amendment
does? He says ``Read the amendment.'' Let us do that. I take the
Senator from Connecticut at his word. Let us read it because he
apparently has not read it.
It says,
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds made available under this act to the National Endowment
for the Arts may be used by the Endowment, or by any other
recipient of such funds, to support, reward or award
financial assistance to any activity or work involving--
And this is what he did on stage.
human mutilation or invasive bodily procedures on human
beings, dead or alive; or the drawing or letting of blood.
The Senator from Connecticut is going far afield. He brought the
crucifixion of Christ into it. Let me tell you something. If this
amendment would have stopped the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, I would
say let us vote for it twice. It is the same argument that you hear
every time anybody suggests doing something to bring reason to the
distribution of funds by the National Endowment for the Arts.
I have said many times on this floor, today and previously, that Jane
Alexander is a fine lady. I think her intentions are good. But she has
been overwhelmed. She has been overwhelmed.
Then the Senator from Minnesota was talking about how much he knows
about the performance that went on in Minneapolis. However, the
Minnesota Department of Health said,
We were contacted after the fact. Had we been called in
prior to the performance to evaluate the methods and
procedure, we would not have been in a position to endorse
the performance. The bottom line is that you did have towels
with blood on them, and applying public health guidelines,
you would not use items like that as props in a theatrical
performance. If for some reason a towel fell, or something
went wrong, it could be troublesome.
You bet it would be.
Mr. President, we have this kind of reaction every time an amendment
comes up suggesting some reason be applied to the distribution of NEA
funds. They say, ``Oh, well, there are just a few of them.''
How many cockroaches are too many, as I said, in a bowl of soup? The
thing about getting rid of the cockroaches is to not put up with the
cockroaches in the first place.
Instead of holding the NEA accountable, the newspapers around the
country have been attacking the lady--Mary Abbe--who wrote the original
story about Ron Athay's performance. She protested to the Chairman of
the National Endowment for the Arts, Ms. Alexander. I think it is
worthwhile for her side of the story to be put in the Record. I am not
going to read it all, but I am going to read part of it.
Mary Abbe, who is an art critic and art news reporter for the Star
Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, wrote the following in a letter to NEA
Chairman Alexander:
In a letter of 15 June 1994 to the members of Congress, you
take issue with my reportage in particular and the Star
Tribune's coverage of that event in general. I object to your
characterization of my work and the paper's coverage.
In fact, you have misread the article. It does not say
that ``blood was dripping from towels,'' as you claim. See
enclosed copy of article.
Nor was the article ``erroneously reported'' or a ``false
report'' as you assert. Walker Art officials have privately
expressed dismay about the way in which Mr. Athey's
performance was described in the article and deplored the
response of individuals who objected to the performance. But
they do not deny that Mr. Athey cut an abstract design into
the flesh of another man, blotted the man's blood on paper
towels, attached the towels to a revolving clothesline and
suspended the blood-stained towels over the audience.
Nor do they dispute the fact that Mr. Athey, who is HIV-
positive, pierced his arm with hypodermic needles and drew
blood when he and his assistants pierced his scalp with
acupuncture needles.''
Further down, she continues,
In the end, Walker Art Center must defend its decision to
stage a performance involving human blood-letting and
mutilation--or `ritual scarification' and ``erotic torture,''
as the institution describes it. The NEA must defend its
decision to endorse that program.
Mr. President, the point is that if we do not do something to
indicate to the NEA that we are not going to put up with this sort of
thing, it is going to go on and on and on. You will have the kind of
inane Senate debate that you had this afternoon about the crucifixion
of Jesus, Custer's Last Stand, and so forth.
I want to go through that catalog that the Senator from Connecticut
referred to earlier and have him show me which one got a grant from the
National Endowment for the Arts. Not one of them, I'll bet. He raises
all sorts of specters, and you will hear more of them. I see another
good Senator from the Republican side, who always takes the position
that we must not interpose the judgment of the U.S. Senate into the
expenditures of the National Endowment for the Arts. Well, if we are
not supposed to do that, what are we supposed to do?
That is the point of this amendment. Senators can vote for it or
against it. I am amazed that time after time, this sort of thing
happens, with all of the frivolous arguments that are made against an
amendment designed--and designed correctly, I might add and insist--to
do something about a situation that needs attention.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Star Tribune,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, June 21, 1994.
Chairman Jane Alexander,
Office of the Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts, The
Nancy Hanks Center, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Alexander: In an article published 24 March
1994 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I reported public
complaints about a performance by Los Angeles artist Ron
Athey that was staged by Walker Art Center in Minneapolis.
That event and subsequent reports about it have generated
considerable debate here in the Twin Cities, including
letters to the editor of this newspaper expressing both
appreciation for and revulsion at Mr. Athey's activities and
the Walker's presentation of them.
In a letter of 15 June 1994 to members of Congress, you
take issue with my reportage in particular and the Star
Tribune's coverage of that event in general. I object to your
characterization of my work and the paper's coverage. In
fact, you have misread the article. It does not say that
``blood was dripping from towels,'' as you claim. See
enclosed copy of the article.
Nor was the article ``erroneously reported'' or a ``false
report'' as you assert. Walker Art Center officials have
privately expressed dismay about the way in which Mr. Athey's
performance was described in the article and deplored the
response of individuals who objected to the performance. But
they do not deny that Mr. Athey cut an abstract design into
the flesh or another man, blotted the man's blood on paper
towels, attached the towels to a revolving clothesline and
suspended the blood-stained towels over the audience.
Nor do they dispute the fact that Mr. Athey, who is HIV-
positive, pierced his arm with hypodermic needles and
drew blood when he and assistants pierced his scalp with
acupuncture needles. ``The head thing actually did bleed,
the arm did not,'' said John Killacky, the Walker's
curator of performing arts who booked Mr. Athey and staged
the event.
Like you and Walker director Kathy Halbreich, I did not
attend this event. In the course of reporting on it, however,
I have conducted extensive interviews with five individuals
who witnessed Mr. Athey's performance.
They all agree that these things occurred. They differ only
in what they thought of the activities and how they and
others responded to them.
I am disturbed that you now, in the U.S. Congress, charge
the Star Tribune with ``erroneous reportage'' and
disseminating ``false reports.'' If there are errors in our
accounts, please notify Mr. Lou Gelfand, the Star Tribune's
ombudsman who will investigate the charges.
I am also disturbed that you imply that the only letters
received by this newspaper were those objecting to alleged
``inaccurate coverage'' and ``trivialization.'' The paper
received and published a wide variety of responses to the
event, some expressing the views you indicate, and others
critical of the event and its presentation by the Walker.
As you note in another context, ``These people are
taxpayers too.''
On 3 June 1994 you met for about an hour with members of
the Star Tribune's editorial board and others here in
Minneapolis. I was at that meeting. At no point in the
discussion was Mr. Athey's performance even mentioned. If you
were concerned about erroneous reportage and false reports,
surely that would have been an appropriate time to discuss
them.
In your letter to Congress you note that you have devoted
the first year of your chairmanship to ``turning around the
reputation of the NEA by engaging people all over the country
in a dialogue about all of the very good projects'' the
agency supports. Then you say it was in that context that you
gave them ``the facts regarding the performance at the Walker
Art Center.''
You did not give them the facts.
In my capacity as the Star Tribune's art critic and art
news reporter for the past decade, I have previously written
commentaries in support of the National Endowment for the
Arts. I expect to have occasion to do so again in future
because, like you, I recognize that the NEA has made--
and doubtless will continue to make--important
contributions to the cultural and artistic life of the
United States.
The organization's good work, however, does not exempt it
from criticism when its grant money is used in support of
events that some find objectionable. Nor does what you call
Walker Art Center's ``overwhelming support'' exempt its
activities from public discussion.
In a society founded, as ours is, on free speech and open
public debate, the activities of your agency, Walker Art
Center and this newspaper are all open to discussion. That
discussion is not furthered by pointing fingers at the press
and lodging false charges of inaccuracy.
In the end, Walker Art Center must defend its decision to
stage a performance involving human blood-letting and
mutilation--or ``ritual scarification'' and ``erotic
torture'' as the institution describes it. The NEA must
defend its decision to endorse that program.
Your attempts to blame the press for criticisms of your
agency merely trivialize the issues and obscure the facts.
Cordially,
Mary Abbe,
Art Critic/Art News Reporter.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will take a minute.
Might I ask the Senators if we could agree to, say, 10 minutes
remaining on this amendment, and go to another amendment? The vote on
this amendment will not occur until after the vote on the amendment
which was previously ordered, and that will occur at 3:30. Then there
will be a vote on or in relation to this amendment.
Could we close debate on this one so we can get on with another
amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that I probably
only need 2 minutes to respond. I am not even here so much to debate
the amendment. I want to talk about what happened in Minnesota.
I will be pleased to have just 2 minutes.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not intend to say anything further.
The amendment speaks for itself.
____________________