[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]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further debate 
on this amendment not exceed 5 minutes and that when the Senator from 
Minnesota completes his statement, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Jeffords] be recognized to call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. President, just for the record, I actually will have the article 
that the Senator from North Carolina referred to in the Star Tribune, 
and I will need to look at it to get the full context. But my 
understanding of that article, one more time, is that this was an 
interview with somebody from the Department of Public Health who 
speculated that had they known in advance of this performance, they 
might have advised the Walker not to go forward, or this particular 
person might not have.
  Again, one more time, for the Record, I refer to the letter I have 
already included in the Record. The Walker Art Center took all 
appropriate precautions as developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease 
Control and provided to the Walker Center and the Minnesota AIDS 
project. And what I have here in my document is that the Minnesota 
Department of Health--I do not think this individual in the story was 
speaking for the whole Department of Health--concurred that appropriate 
precautions were taken.
  Mr. President, one more time, I am not even arguing the merit of this 
particular performance. I wanted to make it crystal clear that this 
performance is a part of a much larger program that the Walker offers, 
and I wanted to talk about the importance of the Walker Art Center and 
the importance of the arts to the community, and I wanted to talk about 
the unique importance of the arts to young people. I wanted to make 
sure that in responding to a performance that many may not like, many 
may find repulsive--and each and every Senator can have their own 
view--that we do not slash budgets and go overboard and undercut the 
importance of the arts.
  I want to be clear about what the Record shows in regard to what 
happened in Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that the Star Tribune 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 25, 1994]

           Walker Survives Dispute, Remains on NEA Grant List

                             (By Mary Abbe)

       The National Endowment for the Arts today announced $31.5 
     million in grants to organizations nationwide--with $80,000 
     going to Walker Art Center out of Minnesota's take of nearly 
     $1.5 million.
       The federal agency made clear in its announcement that the 
     grants were intended, in part, to remind the public--and 
     especially Congress--that the vast majority of its activities 
     are not controversial. Agency Chairwoman Jane Alexander said 
     that grants for arts education, public television, community 
     museums, theaters and ``underserved'' rural and urban areas 
     represented the NEA's real work. They are the kind of grants 
     that ``don't make headlines and are all-too-often overlooked 
     in the debate over federal funding of the arts,'' she said in 
     a statement.
       Minnesota organizations received $1,476,300 in awards, 
     including $475,000 in two grants to Twin Cities Public 
     Television, $250,000 to the Guthrie Theater Foundation and 
     $122,900 to Arts Midwest, a regional agency. The Minnesota 
     State Arts Board received $80,200 and the Walker Art Center's 
     film and video department got two grants totaling $80,000.
       The NEA has been struggling since March to quell a national 
     furor that erupted after the Walker used $150 of NEA money 
     for a body-piercing and bondage event in which Los Angeles 
     performer Ron Athey made 12 incisions into the scarred back 
     of a colleague and suspended blood-stained paper towels over 
     the audience on clotheslines.
       The event became fodder for radio talk shows and the 
     subject of newspaper editorials and articles across the 
     country. A Boston Globe columnist said it was an 
     ``abomination'' and called for the NEA to be shut down. The 
     Los Angeles Times, however, dismissed it as a ``minor 
     scandal'' that should not imperil the NEA's existence. Last 
     week, Newsweek described Alexander as ``clearly shaken by the 
     agency's fragility in the face of the Athey tempest.''
       Alexander and the Walker have defended the performance, but 
     Congress hasn't been mollified. In June, the House voted a 2 
     percent cut in the NEA's proposed $170.2 million budget. This 
     week, the Senate is expected to vote on a proposed 5 percent 
     cut targeted at specific programs that previously have caused 
     trouble for the agency.
       The Walker incident took a twist last week when the 
     Minnesota Health Department said it would not have sanctioned 
     the Athey performance if it had been notified that the public 
     would be exposed to blood-stained towels. When the Star 
     Tribune first reported the event in March, health officials 
     said it did not appear that audience members were endangered. 
     The Health Department's assessment was cited by NEA defenders 
     during the June debate in the House. Alexander also has 
     written to Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who chairs the 
     appropriations committee that proposed the 5 percent budget 
     cut, insisting that the Walker had followed proper health and 
     safety precautions.
       In the Twin Cities Reader last week, however, Buddy 
     Ferguson, public information officer for the Health 
     Department, said, ``had we been called in prior to the 
     performance and evaluated the methods and procedures [for 
     handling blood], 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,'' Ferguson told the Reader. ``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.''
       The NEA apparently hopes that today's grant announcements 
     will distract Congress' attention from such details.
       Other Minnesota organizations and individuals getting NEA 
     money include: Minnesota Public Radio ($30,000), Jerome 
     Foundation ($45,000), the Minnesota Orchestral Association 
     ($46,000), Theatre de la Jeune Lune ($47,500), Children's 
     Theater Company and School ($45,000), Mixed Blood Theatre 
     Company ($50,000), filmmaker Garret C. Williams ($35,000) and 
     the Loft ($36,500).
       Grants ranging between $5,000 and $20,000 also went to: 
     Minnesota Composers Forum, Penumbra Theatre Company, Illusion 
     Theater and School, Jungle Theater, Playwrights' Center, 
     Cricket Theatre Corp., Heart of the Beast Theatre, Adaptions 
     (theater), Red Eye Collaboration, American Public Radio, 
     Intermedia Arts of Minnesota, the St. Francis Music Center in 
     Little Falls and Angela L. Bies of Morris.

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to modify the chairman's request, I ask 
unanimous consent to speak on this amendment for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment. I echo some of the concerns he has about some of the 
misinterpretations of the reading of the amendment. I have read it two 
or three times, and I think it is pretty plain.
  I think the Senator from North Carolina is basically saying he wants 
to stop the type of art that he has exhibited on the floor, that has 
been referred to, and that has been very offensive. We are not talking 
about historic art or battlefields; we are talking about people 
mutilating their bodies and calling that art. I might include in the 
Record a copy of the letter that was written by the reporter from the 
Minneapolis newspaper, the Star Tribune, a letter dated June 21, 1994. 
It is written to Chairman Jane Alexander and also copied to Senator 
Byrd and myself. I will read three of the last paragraphs.

       The organization's good works--

  Talking about the NEA--

     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, the 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 bloodletting 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.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Star Tribune,

                              Minneapolis-St. Paul, 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 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 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 indicated, and others 
     critical of the event and its presentation by the Walker.
       As you note in another context, ``These people are tax 
     payers 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 the 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in defense of the National 
Endowment for the Arts and its chairperson, Jane Alexander.
  Though I feel that some discretion must be used in the grant awards 
process, I do not support the funding cuts for the NEA as reported out 
of the Committee on Appropriations. The performance to which many have 
objected, by performance artist Ron Athey at the Walker Art Center in 
Minneapolis, MN, was not directly funded by the NEA. Only $150 of NEA 
money awarded to the center before Ms. Alexander was confirmed as NEA 
chair was used for the performance in question.
  Further, the NEA, under the leadership of Chairperson Alexander, is 
in the process of reforming its procedures so that institutions and 
individuals receiving grants are held accountable for the appropriate 
use of NEA funds. It is just not responsible governance to cut the 
NEA's funding at a time when it is already acting to respond to the 
concerns of those who question the artistic merits of some grant 
recipients.
  Federal investment in the arts through the auspices of the NEA is 
invaluable to our Nation. A national institution such as the NEA is 
critical to encourage artistic development. I have always believed that 
every penny spent on the arts enriches our lives immeasurably.
  Mr. President, I have every confidence in Chairperson Alexander's 
ability to lead the NEA in fostering and promoting artistic and 
cultural excellence. Let us not undercut her efforts. Let us instead 
allow her the latitude she needs in order to carry out her mission.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, art, its performance and 
appreciation, can change a life. It certainly can make your day. There 
is nothing like going to the museum or a concert. All of your worries 
melt right away. The music immediately calms you down. Walking through 
a room filled with beautiful paintings soothes your soul. And a theater 
performance takes you to another world.
  Art is the emancipator of the spirit. It is the way that we propagate 
our culture from generation to generation. It reflects the development 
of our civilization, while anchoring us in the beauty and wisdom of the 
past. It is as essential to our well being as a people as it is to our 
personal enjoyment. It educates; it expands our horizons; it enhances 
us as individuals and as a community.
  Here in Washington, we can walk right over to the Smithsonian and the 
Kennedy Center, and have access to world class exhibitions, the best 
American art in the country, and musicians from all over the world. 
Many other major metropolitan areas also attract the best names and 
exhibitions, giving their residents access to the world's artistic 
treasures.
  But not everybody lives in a big city, Mr. President. And because of 
the National Endowment for the Arts, Americans do not have to live in 
big cities to have access to art, because the NEA brings art and 
artists to small communities. It brings performances to places not on 
the international circuit. And these performances and exhibitions touch 
people who would otherwise often have no access.
  The NEA brings art to children through countless program in schools 
across Illinois, at a time when school budgets are cutting art programs 
to save money. It brings art to disadvantaged communities--to people 
who live in Chicago, one of the centers of art in the United States, 
but who have never set foot in the great art institutions on Michigan 
Avenue.
  I want to take a few minutes to tell you about how the NEA 
contributes to countless communities in Illinois.
  The NEA grants money to the Quad City Arts, for example, for their 
visiting artist series. The Quad Cities is made up of four cities that 
straddle the Mississippi River in northern Illinois--two in Iowa and 
two in Illinois. The total population is about 400,000 people. It's a 
3-hour drive from Chicago.
  The visiting artist series brings nationally known artists to perform 
in the schools, hospitals, factories, malls, prisons, and mental health 
centers of the Quad Cities. They perform free public concerts, which 
draw 500 to 700 people each. One mother told the Quad City Arts how the 
visiting artist series had affected her son. A musician had performed 
in his school class using computers. Her son never knew that computers 
could make music. It was a turning point for him, and his grades have 
improved and his interest in school has increased.

  Kids who saw artists perform at school ask their parents to take them 
to the free public concerts. Their parents are then also exposed to the 
performances. Most of these people don't often have the chance to drive 
the 3 hours to Chicago to go to a museum or a concert. But because of 
the NEA, they don't have to. Quad City Arts brings it to them.
  Quad City Arts funded a mural project at a shelter for children who 
have been pulled out of their families due to abuse or other problems. 
There was a big common room at the shelter that was never used because 
the young people did not feel comfortable there. Quad City Arts came in 
with paints and brushes and the youngsters and staff started painting a 
mural in the common room. They made the room their own--at a time in 
their lives when they had just lost their home, their family, and their 
self-confidence. Now the kids are painting every room in the shelter, 
and when they've painted every room, they'll paint over the existing 
murals and start again. These youngsters are proud again. They have 
found a voice to express their hurt and frustration. And they feel at 
home.
  Why is the NEA money so important? The Quad City Arts uses it to 
raise private money through matching grants. The NEA lends credibility 
to art institutions when they ask private foundations and corporations 
for funding. The NEA dollars multiply money for the arts exponentially.
  I also want to talk about the Krannert Center in Urbana, in east-
central Illinois. The Krannert Center is affiliated with the College of 
Fine and Applied Arts at the University of Illinois. Urbana is 2\1/2\ 
hours south of Chicago, 2 hours west of the Indianapolis, and 3 hours 
northeast of St. Louis. Communities around Urbana average 3,300 people. 
Every one in the region is underserved by virtue of the size of the 
communities and their location within the State. The Krannert Center 
provides access.
  The NEA helps fund the Sunday salon series, which presents emerging 
artists and ensembles, who are national and international competition 
winners. The audience is given the opportunity to meet the artists, 
discuss the building of their careers, their experiences as musicians, 
and their performance. The series brings together the humanness of the 
artists, and the realness of the patrons on a very immediate level.
  The Krannert's youth series is its most successful outreach program. 
Over 20,000 students--grades pre-K through 12--attend daytime 
performances of theater, modern dance, ethnic music and dance, 
puppetry, mask/mime, and classical music. The center also provides 
curriculum materials allowing teachers to integrate the performance 
into their lessons.
  The popularity of this program led the center to establish the 
Krannert Caravan. It takes artists into area schools for 1 to 5 weeks, 
allowing even the smallest schools with the smallest resources the 
opportunity to experience the performing arts. The Krannert Caravan 
serves an additional 6,500 students in schools within 45 miles of 
Champaign-Urbana.
  And finally, I'd like to talk about a program of the Old Town School 
of Folk Music in Chicago. With NEA's help, they sponsored the Festival 
of Lain Music at Orchestra Hall. The program brought people of all 
races and communities together to appreciate each others cultures. For 
the vast majority in attendance, it was the first time they had ever 
been in Orchestra Hall.
  Mr. President, I mention this program because it is an example of art 
bringing people together and breaking down barriers. Chicagoans who 
might never wander into a Latino neighborhood were introduced to Latino 
culture and mingle with city residents they might not otherwise 
approach.
  Mr. President, the rich will always have access to art. They can get 
on a plane to Rome and see Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. The not-so-
rich in big cities will also always have access to art. Private 
donations and ticket sales maintain fine art museums, orchestras, and 
theaters in major metropolitan areas all over the country. But the NEA 
reaches further. It gives small rural communities access; it gives 
children access; it gives disadvantaged communities access. It 
introduces immigrants to the arts of all of the cultures that make up 
this country, and makes them feel at home at a cultural event of their 
native land. Art brings people together across cultures, races, and 
politics. It fosters communication and understanding between 
communities. In short, the NEA is an example of a Government agency 
making an important difference in the lives of people. I support it, 
its leadership, and all of its good work.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In the past several 
weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about that funding, 
and the uses of that funding. Once again, this debate has focused on 
the very small percentage of funded projects that are objectionable to 
many of us here in Congress. However, in this debate, I believe that it 
is equally important to discuss the vast majority of projects funded by 
the NEA that are an overwhelming success. I therefore would like to 
spend a few minutes discussing a few of the many successful NEA efforts 
in my home State of New Mexico in the last few years.
  One of the most successful efforts receiving funding in New Mexico is 
the Center for Contemporary Arts [CCA] in Santa Fe. Important 
activities funded by the NEA through CCA include the operation of the 
teen project in Santa Fe, the only arts facility initiated by an art 
museum and totally devoted to teens in the country. The teen project 
provides a safe environment for teens from all backgrounds to explore 
any or all forms of art. CCA also runs a variety of other programs, 
including the Deep West Program. This program, which receives both Lila 
Wallace-Readers Digest fund and NEA presenting and commissioning 
support, allows an average of five companies a year to establish 
residency projects in various Deep West sites, which include rural 
communities as well as Indian pueblos. The NEA funding has been 
instrumental in that it has enabled CCA to leverage private money for 
this project at a 6-to-1 ratio.
  In addition to these activities, CCA also sponsors a variety visual 
arts exhibitions and lectures. For example, CCA sponsored Richard 
Long's ``New Mexico and Colorado, 1993'' exhibit, which included art 
highlighting his walking tour along the Rio Grande, as well as a 
lecture by Leo Castelli on the art of Roy Lichtenstein. Many of the 
projects sponsored by CCA bring to the community prominent Hispanic 
American, South American, and native American artists. These projects 
are especially important in a community like Santa Fe, where people of 
diverse cultural backgrounds strive to live harmoniously in one 
community. In 1993, CCA received $80,000 in NEA visual arts and 
presenting and commissioning funding, which supported the full spectrum 
of CCA's activities.
  Another organization receiving NEA funding for 1993 was the Western 
States Arts Federation, or WESTAF. WESTAF serves a total of 13 States 
in the West, including New Mexico. In New Mexico, NEA presenting and 
commissioning funding helped bring a variety of tours to our schools, 
many of which have had to scale back their own arts education 
activities. For instance, WESTAF teamed with the New Mexico Very 
Special Arts Program to fund a Dance on Tour Program in New Mexico. In 
places like Roswell, NM, elementary students were given a chance to 
explore dance as a forum of communication and art. Without programs 
like this, many students would have very limited access to art. Mr. 
President, it exactly this sort of programming that is jeopardized by 
the targeted cuts to NEA funding proposed in the committee-reported 
bill. WESTAF, for example, received $190,000 in presenting and 
commissioning grants to support programs like this one throughout the 
West in fiscal year 1993.

  Mr. President, I chose to talk about these projects today not only 
because they represent a variety of excellent projects and individuals 
funded by the NEA. I also chose to discuss them because each of these 
grants would have been jeopardized by the targeted cuts proposed in the 
committee-reported Interior appropriations bill before us or by efforts 
to end individual grants.
  In New Mexico, the targeted cuts would have been devastating. In all 
likelihood, some of the projects I just mentioned would not have been 
funded. It is impossible to tell. At best, however, if we assume that 
each of these projects's funding had been cut at the same level as the 
NEA program funding them, funding in New Mexico would have dropped by 
$159,325 dollars. In a State where our total NEA State formula funding 
was only $472,000, these cuts would have been disastrous.
  I should mention, Mr. President, that although our NEA State formula 
grant is rather small, the New Mexico Arts Division works wonders with 
it. Grants from the National Endowment to the Arts Division have helped 
provide significant support for arts organizations, culturally diverse 
arts projects, and folk arts programs. The arts division has also 
funded local arts councils, rural and culturally underserved areas, 
folk arts apprenticeships, and training for presenters of dance 
companies in rural communities throughout New Mexico.
  As I have said in the past, New Mexico is a State known for its arts. 
Without the NEA, however, art would not be accessible to many New 
Mexicans. Many would therefore not have access to the ideas 
communicated by art, to the education and community building 
facilitated by art, or to the simple pleasures derived from attending a 
dance performance, hearing a chamber orchestra, or viewing an art 
exhibit. In many ways, the true value of a society is judged by the 
diversity and quality of its art. I urge that we not turn our backs on 
our responsibility to ensure that art continues to flourish in our 
Nation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2397

  (Purpose: To restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Pell, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Metzenbaum, and Mr. Dodd, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2397.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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:
       On page 81, line 7, strike ``133,903,000'' and insert 
     ``140,950,000''.
       On page 81, line 16, strike ``27,693,000'' and insert 
     ``29,150,000''.
       On page 81, line 18, strike ``12,113,000'' and insert 
     ``12,750,000''.
       On page 89, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 312. Each amount appropriated under this Act is 
     reduced by the uniform percentage necessary to offset the 
     total appropriations under this Act by $8,505,000.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am going to raise the issue with this 
amendment of exactly what is in the bill, No. 1, of which I have deep 
concern. However, I also am hopeful that the House version will 
eventually prevail. Second, it is related to the whole concept of 
problems that we are dealing with in those situations, as referred to 
by the Senator from North Carolina, that we have had and have with the 
Endowment over the years.
  First of all, my amendment would, instead of the cuts of 40 percent 
to specific very important parts of the bill, it would restore funding 
to the NEA, and specifically to those programs which the bill cuts--
those probably that are most important to the States--having to do with 
challenge grants and grants for theaters, for example. Cutting these 
programs grieves me deeply. In fact, programs in the NEA are the best 
programs we have for our schools and elsewhere.
  I also want to relate it to the amendment by the Senator from North 
Carolina, because I think the misunderstanding of what has happened at 
the Endowment, and how you can come up with such situations as referred 
to by the Senator from North Carolina, make it important that we 
understand what we are dealing with. We have had these concerns over 
and over again, year after year.
  I want to first put in perspective what we are talking about in terms 
of the years of the Endowment, many, many years now, 30 years or so. 
There have only been 10 instances out of 100,000 such grants where any 
question has been raised about the kind of problems that have been 
referred to by the Senator from North Carolina. That is less than about 
one-one-hundredth of 1 percent.
  Take into consideration the tremendous good that has occurred because 
of the NEA and realize that it has such an excellent record. In fact, 
it is a record which is getting better all the time. That is No. 1.
  Now, second, I want to go into this again--I am sure this has been 
done prior to my speaking today--about the particular instance with 
which we are involved here.
  One way we always get the headlines is for someone to do something 
which raises the attention of the public by things which may be very 
disturbing and in some cases, disgusting to the general public. We then 
find there is this incredible imagination by some who attempt to 
attribute it to the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Let me refer you to last year when the Senator from North Carolina 
was raising questions about art. When all was said and done, the 
particular photographs in that case to which he was referring, were not 
produced with an Endowment grant. Rather, the artist who created those 
photographs was a previous recipient of an NEA grant, and probably 
would be again.
  So the stretch by the Senator from North Carolina was to say that 
those who were reviewing new grant applications should have known that 
the artist took those photographs and, therefore, should be denied a 
grant because he did something, not with NEA money, but he did 
something which some would consider offensive. Therefore, they should 
not give him another grant because he might somehow again do something 
considered offensive.
  If one takes that particular approach to things, one can imagine that 
any time anybody did anything out of the ordinary in their life, they 
would not be allowed to get an Endowment grant.
  (At the request of Mr. Mitchell, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed at this point in the Record:)
 Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I strongly support this 
amendment to restore the funds for the National Endowment for the Arts 
which were cut by the Appropriations Committee.
  The bill as reported by the committee would cut the endowment by 5 
percent. This would reduce the NEA's budget to $161.6 million--a lower 
funding level than the agency received a decade ago in 1984.
  Moreover, the cuts are focused on four endowment programs, apparently 
on the grounds that these programs have been the sources of so-called 
controversial grants.
  One of these is the endowment's Theater Program--which would be cut 
by a whopping 42 percent. In other words, nearly half of all theater 
grants will have to be eliminated next year.
  In my own State, grants to the Ensemble Theater of Cincinnati, the 
Great Lakes Theater Festival, the Cincinnati Playhouse, the Mad River 
Theater Works, the Cleveland Playhouse, and other fine theaters 
throughout Ohio would all be jeopardized if these cuts go through.
  Theaters in virtually every State will lose out, including community 
theaters in rural areas and in inner cities.
  The bill would also drastically cut the Endowment's Visual Arts 
Program by almost 42 percent. How are we going to have a National 
Endowment for the Arts without a theater or a visual arts program?
  The visual arts program provides vital support to museums and 
cultural institutions, artists, community art projects, and education 
programs across the Nation.
  In my own State the program has recently provided funds for a number 
of fine institutions, as well as for a very interesting program 
featuring Ohio designer craftsmen.
  The presenting and commissioning program would also be slated for a 
huge cut of over 40 percent. In Ohio, this will mean less support for 
some wonderful tours and festivals. Endowment presenting and 
commissioning funds have recently funded, for example, performances by 
the National Theater of the Deaf, as well as an Ohio tour by the Ballet 
Hispanico.
  Mr. President, the Senate unanimously confirmed Jane Alexander 9 
months ago. Since that time she has held town meetings in more than 30 
States. She is talking to the people. She is finding out what kind of 
art people want. She is committed to bringing only the best art to the 
most people.
  Yet here she is 9 months later, facing attacks on her agency and a 
budget cut of $8.5 million. And all this is apparently in respoonse to 
a performance that cost $150--and was not even approved on her watch.
  Jane Alexander did not approve that grant to the Walker Art Center, 
Mr. President. It was approved by the former administration.
  I have read Ms. Alexander's response to concerns raised about the 
Walker performance. I believe she is trying to be honest and 
responsive.
  What is clear is that she is making every effort to make the 
Endowment accoutable to the taxpayers. She has taken steps to tighten 
up reporting requirements by grant recipients. She has prohibited 
grantees from changing projects without advance approval from the 
Endowment.
  She is doing a good job. She has been there only 9 months. I believe 
she deserves a chance to move her program forward.
  Mr. President, unfortunately what's happening to Ms. Alexander is 
what seems to happen every year around appropriations time. Opponents 
of Federal funding for the arts find some controversial grant which 
they can use to beat up on the Endowment and further their own 
political ends. It's a cheap, cynical hit.
  It's just not right that one controversial grant should be allowed to 
overshadow the enormous contributions which the endowment makes to the 
cultural life of our Nation--bringing theater, dance, symphonies, 
public television shows and great works of art to millions of Americans 
in their own communities.
  And let there be no misunderstanding. This budget cut will be 
devastating. It is going to hit every State in the country. Theaters, 
symphonies, dance companies, education programs, concert halls and 
museums in every State are going to be hurt.
  Mr. President, an excellent article by Harry Belafonte which recently 
appeared in the Washington Post points out exactly what will be lost if 
we impose these severe cuts on the Endowment. I ask unanimous consent 
that the article entitled ``Don't Cut the Arts Fund'' appear in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  From his perspective as a renowned American artist, Mr. Belafonte 
talks movingly about how Government help opened a whole new world for 
him and many others and the ways in which the arts can help bridge the 
differences among poeple and provide positive outlets for our young 
people. He says, ``for 29 years the national Endowment for the Arts has 
helped young generations of American citizens find and nurture their 
creative muses. Can we as a Nation turn the clock back?''
  I believe the answer to his question must be a resounding ``No.'' I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 15, 1994]

Don't Cut the Arts Fund--Government help opened a new world for me--and 
                              many others.

                          (By Harry Belafonte)

       Many of our distinguished elected representatives are 
     perilously close to being hijacked by a point of view that 
     most Americans don't share: the termination of federal 
     support for the arts. The coming Senate vote on 
     appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts can 
     already be viewed as a clear victory for those who have never 
     wanted the federal government involved in supporting art and 
     culture. They have succeeded in reducing the issue of NEA 
     appropriations to a debate on single issue: Should the 
     federal government support only ``decent'' art?
       The Senate Appropriations Committee, headed by Robert C. 
     Byrd, has allowed the enemies of the NEA to trot out their 
     most recent example of art that strains or offends mainstream 
     sensibilities and to use the minuscule financial role the NEA 
     played in its presentation as a litmus test for support of 
     the entire agency. The committee voted to cut the arts 
     endowment's budget by $8.5 million, a 5 percent reduction, 
     because some members objected to a performance that occurred 
     at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, which the NEA 
     indirectly supported with $150.
       That performer and his performance are not the issue here. 
     The issue is that responsible and level-headed elected 
     officials have swallowed the hook baited by Sen. Jesse Helms, 
     which seeks to create controversy from the work of a few 
     contemporary artists while ignoring the enormous public 
     benefits the agency creates and stimulates. Lost in the 
     scramble for this righteous political high ground is the fact 
     that cultural organizations--both large and small, and in 
     every region of the country--have benefited from the support 
     provided by the arts endowment.
       It is a recognized fact that groups affiliated with Sen. 
     Helms, which oppose federal support of the arts, conduct 
     active research on any and all NEA-supported projects that 
     might be elevated to the status of the ``controversy of the 
     month.'' They often distort the content or context of the 
     performance or art work and use each ``incident'' effectively 
     in direct-mail fund-raising efforts for their organizations. 
     This well-organized campaign has succeeded in drawing the 
     media's attention to the periodic controversies. The net 
     result is that the positive NEA work has been eclipsed by the 
     controversies.
       As one who has performed across the land, I can tell you 
     that our country and our youth need more of what the arts 
     have to offer. When performers like Anna Deavere Smith 
     created great theater works out of the racial acrimony she 
     found in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Los Angeles, the 
     endowment was there lending financial support. Smith's 
     performances have helped communities that are racially 
     polarized bridge some of their differences.
       This is one of the great attributes of the arts--the 
     ability to transcend boundaries and reduce differences. Few 
     people in this country knew anything about the Caribbean 
     until they started singing ``The Banana Boat Song.'' As an 
     artist, I put America in touch with its neighbor, and I put 
     people in the Caribbean in touch with America, and in doing 
     this helped to stimulate an exchange that was beneficial to 
     both.
       When I see thousands of young people participating in NEA-
     supported dance, theater and arts workshops around the 
     country, I know that they are being given tools that help 
     them resist the violence and drug scourge that permeates many 
     of their communities. My principal frustration is in 
     recognizing that as a society, we are not reaching enough of 
     our youth with these positive programs.
       In the 1950s, after being exposed to the work of the 
     American Negro Theater in Harlem, I decided to pursue a life 
     in the theater. Because I was a veteran, I had rights to the 
     GI Bill. It meant that the federal government would pay for 
     this luxury of going to a school of drama to do this thing 
     that had opened my heart and opened my mind.
       I went to the New School of Social Research, and in that 
     class I looked upon the faces of a number of young men and 
     women, most of whom were being supported by the government 
     because they were returning veterans. In my class were Marlon 
     Brando and Rod Steiger, Walter Matthau, Bea Arthur and Tony 
     Curtis. And the head of the school took this (then) boy who 
     was struggling with an ability to read, trying to overcome 
     dyslexia, having an enormous appetite to know more, and 
     exposed him to Jean Paul Sartre, to Shakespeare and to 
     Tennessee Williams, Steinbeck and Langston Hughes.
       By the end of my course of study, I had come to know that 
     there was nothing more inspiring than art, nothing more 
     moving than words, nothing more powerful than an individual 
     who is in the service of all of that. For 29 years the 
     National Endowment for the Arts has helped younger 
     generations of American citizens find and nurture their 
     creative muses. Can we as a nation turn the clock back?

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we are considering funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], a modest agency by budgetary 
standards, but large in terms of its effect on the lives of Americans. 
The NEA was created in 1965, as a result of the efforts and vision of 
my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell. Since that time, the NEA 
has provided in the neighborhood of 100,000 grants to artists, 
theaters, dance companies, and State and local arts agencies. The 
contributions of the arts have reached into every corner of this 
Nation, from the most destitute inner city, to the most remote rural 
area.
  Despite the wonderful work of the NEA, every year the Agency comes 
under attack from certain segments of our society, who focus on one or 
two objectionable grants. The NEA brings art and culture to parts of 
our Nation that, without Federal support, would otherwise do without. 
In my mind, this is one of the most important missions of the NEA. The 
arts are not a frill, they are a fundamental part of our society.
  The controversy that surrounds these few grants always spills onto 
the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives and masks what 
the NEA is really about. This is an unfortunate situation because only 
10 of the 100,000 grants given by the NEA have been controversial, 
according to the agency. That is one one-hundredth of 1 percent, Mr. 
President.
  However, because of these controversies, the bill before us cuts the 
NEA's budget by 5 percent, or $8.5 million, reducing total 
appropriations for the program to $161.6 million. But these cuts are 
not across the board. They target four selected programs of the NEA: 
Theater, presenting and commissioning, visual arts, and challenge 
grants. The theater, presenting and commissioning, and visual arts 
would be cut by a whopping 40 percent each. Reductions of that 
magnitude will essentially decimate those programs. That is the effect 
of a 5-percent cut of the total appropriations level targeting only 
four programs.
  Mr. President, I think these cuts are far too drastic. The NEA has 
suffered major funding cuts over the last few years, cuts which have 
severely hampered the Agency's effectiveness to bring the arts to all 
Americans. As many of my colleagues know, I have long fought against 
cuts to the NEA because I strongly believe its activities have enriched 
America.
  Today I am proposing an amendment, along with Senators Pell, 
Durenberger, Metzenbaum, and Akaka to restore NEA funding to the 
President's budget request and last year's level. This means restoring 
the cut proposed in the chairman's mark, or about six one-hundredths of 
1 percent of the total spending in this bill. To offset the 
restoration, every program in the bill will face an equal cut of 
approximately six one-hundredths of 1 percent, including the NEA.
  The committee recommendation for the Interior appropriations bill 
before us is just over $13 billion. The share of that proposed for the 
NEA is $161.6 million or 1.2 percent. That is lower than the 
President's budget request and fiscal year 1994 appropriations. In 
nominal numbers, this figure is less than Congress appropriated for the 
NEA in fiscal year 1984. Taking inflation into account, it is even 
lower. Since 1992 alone, the NEA's funding has decreased by over $5 
million.
  I offer this amendment today as a staunch, steadfast supporter of the 
National Endowment for the Arts. The arts means so much to so many in 
this country. They are important to Americans in the same way as 
national parks are important to Americans. To direct a 5-percent cut to 
the NEA fails to recognize this.
  In my mind, this is one area where I think the cuts go too far. What 
bothers me more than the overall 5-percent cut is the targeting or 
earmarking of the cuts to certain programs.
  Where would the cuts hit if the current language were enacted? The 
Presenting and Commissioning Program, formerly called Inter-Arts, faces 
a 40.5-percent cut. The program helps institutions that serve multiple 
artistic disciplines: presenting organizations, artists' communities, 
and presenter service organizations. It focuses on presenting the 
performing arts and commissioning new work.
  The Theater Program encourages the advancement of theater arts. It 
supports performances, assists professional theater programs in single 
projects and entire seasons, as well as individual artists. In the 
chairman's mark, theater faces a 42-percent cut.
  Visual arts funds the creation of new work by artists and supports 
presenting these works in wide varieties of media including sculpture, 
painting, and crafts. It faces a 41.7-percent cut.
  The Challenge Program supports, and stimulates private support, of 
the best quality programs aimed at advancing artistic excellence in the 
arts. It helps secure long term financial stabilization of arts 
organizations. Grants are essentially venture capital, underwriting 
significant projects. Challenge grants, which must be matched 3 to 1, 
face a 5-percent cut.
  Presenting and commissioning has been a fundamental part of the 
support of the arts in my State. The Flynn Theater in Burlington would 
be the hardest hit. For fiscal year 1995, the Flynn will receive a 
$250,000 challenge grant out of presenting and commissioning. A 40-
percent cut would devastate much of what the Flynn brings to Vermonters 
including extensive residencies and performances by nationally renown 
dance companies, a family theatre series, a nationally recognized 
student matinee series, and the annual Discover Jazz Festival. It uses 
the funds to do community outreach and participation and programs for 
at-risk youth. The Flynn forms model arts partnerships with schools, 
including schools in rural and low-income city areas like the Barnes 
and Wheeler schools in the old north end of Burlington. The money the 
Flynn Theater receives from the NEA has made a significant difference 
in the Burlington area; in its schools, and in its vibrant downtown--
socially, culturally, and economically.
  Indeed, the effects of presenting and commissioning are felt all over 
Vermont. Many other arts organizations in Vermont rely on small grants 
of $5,000 to $10,000. For example, Catamount Film and Arts in the 
Northeast Kingdom uses NEA money to bring the arts to those who have 
never been exposed to a live theater or dance performance. The Mawry 
Dance Co. of New Zealand, the Japan Festival, and a vibrant series of 
family programming have been enjoyed by the people of this most rural 
area of my State because of support from the NEA.
  The Onion River Arts Council in Montpelier uses presenting money to 
bring the Ying Quartet into local schools, and the National Theater of 
the Deaf and various concert series to central vermont.
  The Vermont Folklife Center is using a $250,000 challenge grant to 
preserve and present the traditional arts of Vermont through 
exhibitions, radio programs, and film tours. Among the projects is one 
of special interest to me. A radio show titled, ``Life in Vermont: The 
General Store'' aired on National Public Radio's series, ``Horizons.'' 
This program featured Pierce's General Store, just up the road from my 
home in Shrewsbury. The store, a true Vermont landmark which closed 
earlier this year, was arguably one of the oldest country stores in my 
State. It was truly characteristic of life in Vermont.
  These directed cuts will hurt my State. But that is not the only 
reason I am offering this amendment. These cuts will hurt the arts in 
the country as a whole. It will reduce the money that local arts 
agencies will have to bring nationally known performances to their 
communities. It will hamper their ability to leverage private support 
for the arts. It will hurt our Nation's schools, of which the arts 
should be an integral part. The dollars provided by these programs are, 
like all other NEA money, critical seed money which leverages 
substantial private support.
  In that respect, the arts mean business. According to the 
National Association of Local Arts Agencies, nonprofit arts activities, 
stimulated by the NEA, have a $36.8 billion impact on our national 
economy, generating $3.4 billion in Federal tax revenues. It seems to 
me that those revenues more than pay for the $170 million we provide 
for the NEA.

  Mr. President, when contemplating the proposed cuts, I wonder who 
would really bear the brunt of them. It would undoubtedly be smaller 
arts organizations that bring the arts to less visible places, 
including rural schools. This troubles me, for the arts should be a 
part of everyone's lives, not just those in larger cities and suburban 
areas.
  I am also troubled by a possible reasoning for the cuts. It seems 
that the cuts are directed to NEA programs which have recently given 
out grants which have stirred controversy, one of which involved the 
Walker Art Center in Minneapolis which hosted a performance by an HIV-
positive artist.
  Granted many of us believe that the work was distasteful. However, I 
find it totally unbelievable that we are proposing to gut an entire 
program--indeed more than one--because of this performance which has 
grabbed headlines around the country. Should we be punishing artists, 
arts organizations, and millions of schoolchildren and art-loving 
Americans because of a performance a few did not like, or considered 
offensive? What kind of standard will we be setting if we slice a huge 
chunk out of a well-performing program because of one grant?
  Mr. President, the NEA has responsibility to fulfill its statutory 
obligations and base funding decisions on artistic excellence and 
artistic merit. It is doing that. But what needs to be made known here 
is that the decision to host the performance at the Walker was a local 
one. It was a decision made by the Walker Arts Center, and not by the 
Arts Endowment. Above all, I strongly believe--let me reiterate--
strongly believe--that it is not for us, as elected officials, to 
determine what is obsence or not obscene. That is to be decided in a 
court of law of the United States. Congress went through this whole 
censorship-obscenity debate a few years ago and I think we struck a 
reasonable compromise then. Why must we revisit this same issue year in 
and year out? To satisfy a small political constituency?
  Mr. President, I think the NEA is adequately responding to criticisms 
it has received in recent times. In her first year on the job, Jane 
Alexander has instituted many changes in process and procedure with 
regard to grants. According to the Agency, grantee reporting 
requirements have been changed. New procedures exist for consideration 
of project changes. The advisory panel process is being reviewed. 
Changes are being made in the leadership of the various programs. The 
Agency's program structure and operation are under review. In other 
words, Mr. President, Jane Alexander is making grantees more 
accountable for their work and more often. This, in turn, is making the 
Agency more accountable to the American people. I do not think many 
envy the difficult job she has, but I think she is doing a fantastic 
job as chairman, working to promote the Agency, and bring the best art 
to the most people.
  We should allow her to do her job. We should resist attempts to 
change the operating structure of the Agency. We should not be 
suggesting content restrictions, limiting grants to individuals, or 
drastically altering program funding allocations. Many of these efforts 
are being promoted by a small, politically active segment of our 
population.
  Despite what its critics say, the NEA has been an important force in 
the cultural life of America. The American people support it, and 
Congress has repeatedly echoed that support.
  That is why it bothers me to see the Agency come under attack. The 
critics select an NEA grant they find objectionable, or a performance 
supported with NEA moneys decided on the local level, or even some work 
performed by an artist who may have previously been a grant recipient. 
In fact, they often choose things that were not even funded by the NEA. 
The critics barrage the press and Capitol Hill with information whose 
truth is questionable. The grant or performance becomes the center of 
their annual fundraising campaign to undermine the NEA and the work it 
does. Then every kind of argument is made about obscenity, family 
values, Federal subsidies to the wealthy, or handouts to artists. Mr. 
President, this is the farthest from the truth.
  I do admit that there are things funded by the NEA which I do not 
like. But it is not my job, nor that of any Member of the Senate, to 
approve of everything the NEA funds, nor to oversee every decision made 
at the local level. The NEA has funding guidelines and procedures, 
which Jane Alexander is sticking to and improving. We are not here to 
be the Agency's big brother, art critic, judge, or supreme panel. 
Regretfully, that seems to be what the annual appropriations process is 
becoming.
  This year is no different. The NEA is facing targeted cuts in 
programs which have funded objectionable art in past years. It is a 
shame that the U.S. Senate is prepared to pass judgement on an entire 
NEA program because of maybe one or two grants out of that program. Are 
we so blind as to not see what the NEA is really about?
  Mr. President, I realize that many of my colleagues may have concerns 
about my amendment for one reason or another. Nevertheless, I am 
offering it because I believe in the work of the NEA, that it is 
valuable, meritorious, and worthy of Federal support. If only the arts 
touched more Americans, maybe our country would be a better place with 
less crime, fewer drugs, and more self-esteem. As founder and vice-
chair of the congressional arts caucus, I see the effects the arts have 
on children around the country with our annual art competition. Those 
children strengthen my believe in the arts, and the work of the NEA. I 
urge my colleagues to reject further cuts to the NEA, and support my 
amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National 
Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. Founded in 1965, NEA has greatly 
contributed to the cultivation and restoration of our Nation's cultural 
treasures. For nearly three decades, NEA has successfully created 
greater access to the arts for millions of Americans, enriched the 
lives of our young people, stimulated private contributions to the 
arts, and preserved our treasured cultural traditions. This tiny agency 
has had a profound impact on the quality of cultural and arts 
activities in America.
  The Endowment has awarded over 100,000 grants--grants that have led 
to a virtual cultural renaissance in America. Thanks to NEA support, 
the arts have grown beyond the major metropolitan hubs into rural towns 
and communities throughout our Nation. As a result, not only can such 
arts groups as the Hawaii Opera Theater and the Honolulu Academy of 
Arts thrive in small States like Hawaii, but arts organizations are 
also provided with resources to tour less populated areas.
  Since the Endowment's creation, the number of symphony orchestras has 
doubled, the number of opera and dance companies has grown 
exponentially, and where there were only five State arts agencies 29 
years ago, today every State has one. The Endowment has brought the 
arts closer to our citizens, making the best of our culture available 
to more and more Americans. The Federal-State government funding 
partnership has supported arts events that were attended by over 335 
million people over the past 5 years.
  Endowment grants also help bring the arts into the lives of our young 
people. The NEA supports after-school arts programming for at-risk 
youth, providing them with creative outlets for self-expression. It 
assists professional groups, such as the Honolulu Theater for Youth, 
and funds model K to 12 curricula with the goal of integrating the arts 
in schools in every State in America. Working through State arts 
agencies, the Endowment helps provide arts education to close to 20 
million students each year.
  Because of its matching requirements--that each Federal dollar to an 
organization be matched with at least one non-Federal dollar--grants 
from the National Endowment for the Arts have had an impact far beyond 
their face value. This modest support from the Federal Government helps 
symphonies, museums, and theaters leverage private support many times 
more than the required match. In 1992, for example, Endowment grants 
totaling $123 million helped leverage private funding for arts 
activities worth some $1.37 billion. How many other Federal agencies 
can give us that kind of return on the Federal dollar?
  Mr. President, the arts help define us as a nation, and NEA has been 
absolutely vital in helping to preserve our diverse cultural 
traditions. In Hawaii, the NEA supports the Waianae Coast Culture and 
Arts Society, whose workshops in traditional crafts, dance, and music 
perpetuate many of the ethnic cultures and art forms of our 
multicultural community. Over the years, the Endowment has also awarded 
several of its prestigious National Heritage Fellowships to Hawaii 
artists--hula masters, lei makers, and singers among them--those who 
preserve and pass on our unique cultural legacy.
  Mr. President, of all of our Nation's greatest natural resources, 
none is more impressive and bountiful than the creativity and 
imagination of our people. The National Endowment for the Arts has 
helped to tap this creativity. It has made our Nation a leader in the 
realm of ideas and of the spirit. It is an agency that has made America 
a richer and better place for people. It deserves our support.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. At this point, Mr. President, I will yield to the 
Senator from Connecticut for the purposes of making his statement. I 
know he has another engagement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Vermont. I am 
due in a conference on the Banking Committee. So I apologize for 
interrupting his comments.
  Mr. President, let me begin by stating the obvious to my colleagues. 
That is, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
the Senator from West Virginia, does not only understand the arts, but 
I believe he may be appropriately called one of the only artists in 
this body. As someone who has contributed significantly to the history 
of this institution in his volumes on the history of the Senate, with 
his ability to recite voluminous poems, a great student of history and, 
I would say, an accomplished fiddler, I would really categorize him as 
a performing artist. In fact, his works have been recorded.
  So, there is an important note to be made here that the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee has a longstanding personal involvement in 
the arts, not just as a member of the audience so to speak, but as one 
who has performed and participated and who has a deep appreciation for 
the values that art provides this Nation.
  I have often felt that the art of a generation is like the signature 
of a generation. Historians, when they look at times past, very 
frequently look to the art of a particular time as a way of trying to 
determine the personality of a generation. Very often the music, the 
painting, or the poetry of the period will tell you more about a people 
than a series of events.
  So art is about more than just providing a contemporaneous sense of 
satisfaction and enjoyment to its audience but it also provides a 
valuable historical lesson for future generations--who we were as a 
people, what we believed in, what we felt, how we expressed our 
emotions, and what we enjoyed.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is someone who is 
certainly, in my view, considered probably the finest historian, 
certainly in this century, to ever serve in this body. I am proud to be 
a Member of the U.S. Senate at a time when Robert Byrd of West Virginia 
is also a Member. And I know he shares my recognition of the importance 
of the arts.
  So my remarks about the NEA today merely reflect a general concern 
about the importance of art while simultaneously trying to put it into 
a context of what it means not just in a cultural sense but an economic 
sense as well.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, 
and I hope that at some later point some accommodation may be reached 
in all of this. But I want to share some thoughts on the importance of 
the National Endowment and the programs it sponsors in our country. 
Perhaps if we were all more aware of the tremendous depth and breath of 
the National Endowment, we might arrive at different conclusions about 
the Endowment's activities.
  The Interior appropriations bill before us today would target three 
specific NEA programs for substantial reductions: The theater, visual 
arts, and presenting and commissioning programs. Each of these three 
programs would experience a de facto cut of something in the 
neighborhood of 40 percent. I would argue, Mr. President, that such a 
level of cuts would be devastating. It would decimate the NEA budget in 
these vital areas.
  I ask my colleagues to look at these programs, and examine their 
complete record, and not just a few well-publicized--and rightfully 
so--controversies, before supporting cuts of this magnitude.
  Let us look, if we could, at the record for a moment. The NEA 
theater, visual arts, and presenting and commissioning programs support 
cultural institutions across this great country, such as theaters, 
museums, dance companies, jazz ensembles and chamber music groups. With 
the support of the NEA, grantees run local children's arts education 
programs, neighborhood arts centers, at-risk youth programs and 
cultural festivals.
  A few specific examples, if I can.
  The Children's Theatre Company in Minneapolis, which tours to 
audiences of schoolchildren throughout the Midwest; the Arkansas 
Repertory Theatre, which tours the rural South; New York's Shakespeare 
Festival, which include Shakespeare in the Park, free Shakespeare for 
thousands of people in that city; Seattle's International Children's 
Festival; Sun City, Arizona's Chamber Music Society, which performs for 
the elderly and in schools; the Homer Council on the Arts in Homer, AK, 
which serves a community of 3,000 people; Detroit's Focus's Billboard 
Program, which has developed antidrug messages near schools.
  In my home State of Connecticut, NEA grants from these programs 
support many high-quality artistic institutions, such as the Longwharf 
Theater, the Goodspeed Opera House, the National Theater for the Deaf, 
the Hartford Stage, the Eugene O'Neill Memorial Theater, and Real Art 
Ways.
  In fact, Mr. President, we are deeply proud that in my small State of 
Connecticut there are more theaters than in any other State in the 
United States and that accomplishment is due in no small part to the 
support of the NEA.
  Let me assure my colleagues that these Connecticut institutions are 
not hotbeds of controversy. Their work is profoundly impressive and 
popularly acclaimed.
  For 30 years the Eugene O'Neill Theater has presented only the 
highest quality theater to audiences. I might point out that, just this 
past weekend, the Eugene O'Neill Theater celebrated 30 years of effort 
in Waterford, CT. We were pleased to have with us on Saturday Jane 
Alexander present for those ceremonies.
  The National Theater for the Deaf, which I know many of my colleagues 
are familiar with, has delighted audiences, young and old, with its 
marvelous work in English and American sign language. They performed in 
every State in the United States and dozens and dozens of foreign 
countries all across the globe. Some of my colleagues enjoyed, by the 
way, a performance of the National Theater in the U.S. Senate only a 
few weeks ago. Some 17 Members came to watch the National Theater for 
the Deaf perform ``The Giving Tree'' while the group was here in 
Washington.
  In addition to its professional performances, the Longwharf Theatre 
of New Haven has done special presentations for students from across my 
State and the country.
  Real Art Ways, which received a $20,000 visual arts grant from the 
NEA, works with the Connecticut Redevelopment Authority on a cultural 
festival in a gang-scarred, inner-city Puerto Rican neighborhood in 
Hartford.
  The Artists Collective of Hartford received $5,000 from the 
presenting and commissioning program to support events such as a ``Jazz 
in the Foyer'' series and a performance of the Jubilation Dance Co.
  These are not controversial activities--and yet, more than any other 
examples you have heard about in this debate, they are representative 
of the work of these NEA programs.
  If the proposed cuts remain, Mr. President, my concern is that these 
institutions and others like them could lose nearly half their Federal 
funding, all because of a controversy involving a single performance, 
and $150 in Federal dollars, in one theater in the Midwest.
  I do not believe that is balance, Mr. President. I believe it is 
disproportionate to the incident that has created so much controversy.
  I would point out, Mr. President, that, in addition to the funding of 
the artists and so forth, there are many people who are not directly 
involved in art who also benefit--the people in food services, the 
groundskeepers, the people that work around these theaters who are not 
artists and performers. It is estimated the NEA's budget of 
approximately $170 million generates billions in economic activity each 
year. So, in addition to the resources that go to these groups and 
audiences they reach, there are people's jobs involved, as well.
  The record as a whole is what we have to consider here. That is what 
we have done when other Federal dollars have gone astray.
  Certainly, Tailhook was an example of a misuse of funds in many ways, 
and yet we did not cut the defense budget because of that particular 
incident.
  Have we cut the Energy Department because they have unearthed 
evidence of nuclear testing on American citizens in decades past? It is 
terrible, it never should have happened, but we were not 
disproportional, in my view, in dealing with the Energy budget.
  Will we cut the Post Office budget, because of delays in mail 
delivery in the Washington area?
  Will we cut further in the Defense budget because the military stores 
carry Playboy magazine, for instance? Again, something presumably many 
of my colleagues may not support, but nonetheless we have a sense of 
proportion about it.
  This appropriations bill adopts a higher punitive approach we have 
not taken in the past and which we must carefully consider and, I 
believe, reconsider, today.
  I think Jane Alexander is doing a spectacular job as the head of the 
NEA. I know she has made a significant effort to meet with many Members 
of this body and the other body as well, trying to come up with ideas 
and ways in which we avoid the kind controversy that is the subject of 
this debate. I believe she should be given the chance to do that. She 
has been on the job a little less than a year, trying to straighten out 
some problems areas and working with us and others across the country 
to reinvigorate the arts.
  While today's is an important debate, I remain very interested in the 
larger questions of how we could best support arts in this country.
  We know that arts contribute, as I said, to the overall economy of 
our country. Yet, funding for this most vibrant sector continues to 
decline, as my colleagues know. I believe we cannot allow this trend to 
continue.
  I also know that Federal dollars are limited--we all understand 
that--and that a substantial new commitment to the arts in our current 
system is unlikely.
  I, therefore, believe, Mr. President, we should identify some new 
resources to reinvigorate the arts and humanities all across this 
country. And while I will not go into any great length in this debate 
this afternoon, I intend shortly to introduce legislation to renew our 
commitment to the arts through a new revenue source.
  My legislation would call for copyright protection to be extended, 
with the rights to the extension period to be auctioned off by the 
Federal Government. The revenue from the auction would flow into a 
trust fund for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  In this way, the arts of today would serve as a foundation for the 
arts of tomorrow, and depend less upon an appropriation process; 
although I certainly want us to continue that for the obvious reasons, 
including a debate such as we are having here today. However, my 
proposal is for a different day.
  Today's debate is a question of whether or not, in our desire to deal 
with legitimate concerns that have been raised by those who are 
offended by specific arts programs or a particular production, we will 
disproportionately penalize a very fine and worthwhile program that 
reaches literally millions and millions of people every year in our 
country. I believe, instead, we should examine the overwhelming record 
of the NEA and of these programs and applaud this work.
  I hope, as we look at this budget and consider the concerns we have, 
that we would not do a disservice to the literally millions of people 
who depend upon the NEA for these programs and for the enjoyment that 
comes to millions more and, as I said at the opening of these remarks, 
impair our ability to leave a clear signature of our generation and our 
time.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, I support the amendment of my 
colleague from Vermont. I am hopeful that some accommodation would be 
reached here so that it will not be necessary to go as far as the 
language in the present bill would take us.
  With that, I commend the Senator from Vermont, as well, for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from Vermont. I compliment him, 
and others who are supportive of it, on the content of this amendment.
  I compliment the sensitivity of our colleague from West Virginia for 
the way in which this issue is going to have to be dealt with, given 
the environment in which we are operating.
  But I also intend to oppose any other amendments that may be offered, 
including the one from our colleague from North Carolina to further cut 
NEA appropriations, change funding formulas, or to have politicians, 
either elected or unelected, regulate the content of NEA-funded art.
  Mr. President, I enter this debate as one who has been, for a long 
time before I came to this body, a strong supporter of private and 
public funding for the arts, of the National Endowment for the Arts, 
and of the arts community in my own home State of Minnesota.
  Because of that long association, I am especially troubled that a 
single arts performance at one of my State's most highly respected arts 
institutions seems to have sparked this latest round of controversy.
  But, for the sake of candor, let me say, Mr. President, also that I 
have enough experience on this issue and on this floor to know that 
this amendment and others like it that have less to do with the Walker 
Arts Center--or any single performance--than with fundamental 
differences over whether and how the Federal Government should be 
funding the arts.
  In fact, I walked in the back door of the Chamber about a half hour 
ago and sat down in someone else's seat to hear my colleague from North 
Carolina sort of prejudge what I was going to say in my statement 
because of my past positions with regard to the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  At the time that happened, I did not even know he had offered an 
amendment. So, Mr. President, we have been here before, and if it were 
not the Walker, it would be something else.
  I suspect that if this particular performance had not occurred or had 
not been widely reported, there would be some other NEA-sponsored 
performance or work of art that would be the subject that we would be 
using to generate these amendments in this debate.
  Mr. President, I have read the press accounts of the controversial 
arts performance that was held earlier this year in Minneapolis. I 
talked to a lot of people on both sides of the controversy at the NEA, 
at the Walker, and among my constituents who both defend what took 
place and who may not have been there but who were deeply offended by 
what they heard about it and what took place.
  I make that qualification, Mr. President, because this particular 
performance has received great attention, not so much by the event 
itself--which was attended by only 100 people--but by highly 
inflammatory reporting of the event in Minnesota's largest daily 
newspaper some 3 weeks after the performance.
  My friend and colleague from Oklahoma has already put in the Record a 
typical defensive statement by a reporter. And I have seen hundreds of 
these. If I ever complained about anything in the Star and Tribune, 
which I have done on more than one occasion, it is my receiving three-
page letters just like this condemning me for my remarks.
  So I am not surprised that Chairman Jane Alexander got this kind of a 
letter from this reporter.
  Let me acknowledge that I do not enter this debate to defend or to 
criticize the artistic value of any single performance, artist, or work 
of art. I am just not qualified to do that. That is one of the reasons 
I am supporting the amendment by my colleague from Vermont. I do not 
think it is part of my job. And therein lies the fundamental 
disagreement. Therein lies the underlying issue at the heart of this 
debate.
  I support the NEA and public funding of the arts because of what it 
does to broaden access to the arts for millions of Americans.
  And, I support the NEA because it helps recognize and reward quality, 
and helps to record and transmit to future generations the diverse 
culture of an increasingly diverse American society.
  There is also no question, Mr. President, that I support the NEA 
because it is extremely important to Minnesota.
  Its artists, arts performances and institutions have historically 
placed Minnesota among the top three State recipients of NEA grants.
  So have the consumers in Minnesota, educators at all levels, 
employees and everyone by whom ``community'' is defined.
  Minnesota has an outstanding State arts board that receives and 
distributes NEA grants. Minnesota has built a relationship between 
State public policy makers, public funding, and appropriate arts 
performers and performances and art works.
  Minnesota is well known for some of the Nation's finest arts 
organizations--the Guthrie Theater, the Minnesota Orchestra, the St. 
Paul Chamber Orchestra, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and the 
Walker Art Center.
  And, Minnesota is also home to hundreds of smaller theater groups, 
arts organizations and individual artists in communities all over our 
State.
  In the past several years, for example, the Minnesota State Arts 
Board received an NEA grant for a folk arts apprenticeship program that 
has supported masters and apprentices in communities like Clearbrook, 
Atwater, and Redwood Falls. You probably have not heard of any of them.
  The State Arts Board also received an arts in education grant to 
support artistic residency activities in 87 different communities all 
over the State.
  And, again, with NEA funding, nationally known arts groups from 
Minnesota and other States have been able to perform in dozens of 
Minnesota communities from Biwabik and Aurora in the far north to 
Worthington and Blue Earth near the lowa border in the far south.
  So, I am troubled that once again the NEA as an institution is being 
questioned in a debate that is becoming increasingly polarized. Every 
year, it seems that several of us have to get up here to defend the 25-
plus years of good work done by the NEA, simply because a handful of 
controversial grants have been called into question.
  Once again, the focus of the controversy seems to be the role of the 
Federal Government in what essentially boils down to regulating the 
content of art.
  I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who want to know how our 
scarce Federal funds are being spent and to those who find certain 
types of art offensive. But I will and I must continue to oppose any 
effort that would expand the Federal Government's role in regulating 
art content.
  While the NEA grant making process is not perfect, it works. Compare 
the NEA's record with any other of those old Bill Proxmire Golden 
Fleece awards and the money gets spent pretty well. It is one of the 
best.
  Without question, there will be times where certain artists, exhibits 
and performances will receive funding for art that some people do not 
like.
  I want to remind my colleagues again, however, that this particular 
performance might not be the subject of national debate if Minnesota's 
largest daily newspaper had not decided to run a highly inflammatory 
article--written by a reporter who did not even attend the event--an 
article published 3 weeks after the event actually took place.
  Let me make a careful distinction, Mr. President, between art that 
may not be universally appreciated and material that is pornographic or 
obscene.
  Let me remind my colleagues that there is a legal process for 
defining what is and what is not pornographic or obscene--a process 
that is best left to the experience and the expertise of the courts.
  And, there is also a policy I helped create several years ago that 
requires NEA supported artists who violate local or State obscenity or 
pornographic statues to return their NEA grants.
  I might have less confidence in these legal safeguards, Mr. 
President, if I had not taken the time to learn more about how funding 
decisions are made at the Walker and other institutions in Minnesota.
  Hindsight is always 20-20. And, it is easy to be critical of 
performances like the one in question that are, admittedly, aimed at a 
small part of the artistic marketplace.
  But, I also want to assure my colleagues that the Walker Art Center 
does not employ a process to select programs under which anything goes. 
Criteria are used, market interests are weighed, and many proposals are 
turned down.
  The Walker Arts Center is one of our Nation's most esteemed museums. 
The Walker presents over 400 events each year, including some 140 
performances.
  This year, the Walker will serve over 700,000 people who attend a 
wide variety of events ranging from performances attended by small 
audiences in a number of different locations in the community to very 
large and well attended performances or exhibitions at the Walker's 
main facility near downtown Minneapolis.
  Just 2 weeks ago, 2,500 people filled the Minneapolis Sculpture 
Garden--adjacent to the Walker--to participate in a free performance of 
West African music and dance.
  Let me repeat, the Walker does not make light of its responsibility 
as a major cultural center. Decisions about which artists to present 
are based on both artistic merit and the interests of the diverse 
community it serves. A community that I am not sure is represented 
here.
  Performances are chosen after careful consideration by seasoned 
professionals in their respective fields. And, choices are made after 
long and careful examination of the disciplines involved.
  Criteria that the Walker uses in making these choices include the 
quality of intention and execution, innovation, point of the artist in 
his or her career, the impact the artist is having on the particular 
field, added value the performance will bring to the community and 
other factors that will create a balanced program throughout the entire 
year.
  One indicator of the Walker's reputation is the fact that it 
organizes presentations that travel all over the world. Its national 
partners include the Museum of the Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, 
Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and 
the Houston Grand Opera.
  I think it is important to remember, Mr. President, that the event 
that has become the focus of this debate was attended by an audience of 
about 100 people.
  The Walker sought to responsibly inform that audience in advance 
about the nature of the performance so that they could make their own 
decisions about its appropriateness.
  And, recognizing its own educational mission, the Walker organized a 
post-performance discussion for the audience, the artist and his 
company. About 80 percent of the audience stayed to join in what became 
a vigorous dialogue about the performance and its meaning to those who 
watched.
  For some, parallels with African blood rituals were noted. And, one 
of the Walker's cosponsors for this event called parts of the 
performance ``a metaphor for people suffering from AIDS.''
  I said just a moment ago, Mr. President, that I can understand that 
many individuals might be offended by what they read took place during 
this particular performance at the Walker. And, I can understand that 
they may now want to send a message that this type of performance has 
no business being funded by Federal taxpayers.
  But, whatever our feelings might be about any individual work of art 
or performance, those feelings do not justify the kind of punitive 
action that would result from the Appropriations Committee 
recommendation now before us.
  My personal preference is to fully restore the 5-percent cut that the 
committee has recommended.
  And at the very least we should remove the targeting feature which 
result in the wholesale gutting of important parts of the NEA's 
mission.
  Those cuts include a 42-percent reduction in the NEA's Theater 
Program--a 41.7-percent cut in visual arts.
  Among the Minnesota arts organizations and institutions funded last 
year in these categories are the Cricket Theater, Children's Theater 
Company and School, Guthrie Theater, Intermedia Arts of Minnesota, 
Minnesota Opera Company, Illusion Theater and School, Red Eye 
Collaboration, Minnesota Center for Book Arts, Mixed Blood Theater 
Company, Playwrights' Center, Inc., Film in the Cities, Center for Arts 
Criticism, and many, many others, both large and small.
  I cannot support a 40-percent cut in grants to these and other arts 
organizations--not just in Minnesota, but all over America.
  That is a lot more than just sending a message. We should not be here 
trying to legislate or punish the content of art on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. I strongly support the amendment offered by my colleague, 
Senator Jeffords, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
of the Senator from Vermont. As one who, together with Senator Javits, 
wrote the original legislation almost 30 years ago, I believe that the 
cuts in the budget to the National Endowment for the Arts reductions to 
the National Endowment for the Arts would be a real blow to mainstream 
arts organizations all around our Nation. In addition, targeting these 
cuts to the theater and performing-presenting programs would place the 
existence of many smaller organizations which serve rural and inner 
city communities in grave jeopardy.
  The theater, visual arts and performing-presenting programs have 
already suffered reductions of between $1 and $2 million in recent 
years. Under this bill, these programs would each lose over 40 percent 
of their present Federal funding around our Nation.
  For the Trinity Repertory Theater in my own State of Rhode Island, 
one of the most innovative and important theaters in the Nation, and 
one which has received significant funding from the Endowment's theater 
program, this cut would be very severe. A reduction in funding will 
require the theater to eliminate those programs which do not provide an 
immediate financial return. In the case of the Trinity Rep, this will 
mean elimination of the extraordinary Project Discovery Program which 
brings 18,000 Rhode Island high school students each year to see a 
theatrical production. Hence, the money cut from the NEA budget would 
result in a dramatic reduction in the theatrical programs available to 
lower income citizens that can presently be offered at a reduced price 
because of Federal aid.
  These targeted budget reductions would also end the efforts of the 
Endowment's Presenting and Commissioning Program to extend grants to 
rural and underserved areas, would virtually eliminate all theater 
educational programming and theater-for-youth programs and would 
eliminate funding for the development of new plays.
  Mr. President, the National Endowment has given over 100,000 grants 
throughout its existence, approximately 4,000 a year. Two or three of 
those a year have become controversial, including the grant to Walker 
Institute of Art under the previous Chairperson of the Endowment. While 
I do not agree with the controversial program that was, in turn, 
sponsored by the Walker Institute with the Federal funds it received, I 
am firmly of the mind that cutting nearly half of Federal funding for 
all our theaters and visual arts around the country is not the best 
solution and is not in our Nation's best interest. Using a 
colloquialism, it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  I hope that my colleagues will take these concerns into account, 
along with Ms. Alexander's efforts, to make the Endowment more 
accessible to applicants from communities around our Nation, and will 
support this amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the Senator 
from Rhode Island who really represents, just as one person, a lifelong 
commitment to the arts and humanities. Let me thank my colleague from 
Vermont for the amendment. Let me join in with the remarks of my 
colleague from Connecticut about the President pro tempore. We had a 
chance to talk about this particular controversy in Minnesota and 
really about his love and appreciation of the arts. I have no question 
at all about the Senator from West Virginia and his commitment to the 
arts and, in fact, the way in which the arts have affected his own 
life.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleague from Minnesota, 
Senator Durenberger, for his fine remarks. We are justifiably proud of 
the Walker Art Center. We do not want in any way, shape or form see 
that work decontexturalized. A focus on one particular performance--
agree or disagree--just does not give you a feel for the wonderful work 
this institution has done.read with great interest--and this is very 
much in the spirit of Senator Jefford's amendment--an article in 
today's Washington Post that described a new round of NEA grants as 
``showing strong support for arts education, rural and urban 
underserved populations, programming on public television, museum 
exhibitions, creative writing and not-for-profit theaters.''
  Clearly, Jane Alexander is just getting started and we should be 
supporting her. We are talking about an NEA that has seen its buying 
power shrink by some 46 percent since 1979. As my colleague from 
Illinois, my dear friend, Senator Simon, would say, ``We can do 
better.''
  This 5-percent cut was not even an across-the-board cut. Specific 
programs were cut in what I think really could end up being--though I 
hope some of this money will be restored--even if the authors did not 
intend it to be so, punitive. I think Senators should know what the 
potential of some of these cuts are, not in terms of statistics, but in 
terms of the faces and places of those citizens and organizations that 
would be affected.
  Mr. President, I speak of organizations like Atlanta's Alliance 
Theater; the Denver Center for the Performing Arts; and the Goodman 
Theater in Chicago, the Children's Theater Co. in Minneapolis, which 
reaches tens of thousands of schoolchildren in the Midwest; the 
Arkansas Repertory Theater which tours the rural South where there is 
little access to professional theater; the Pittsburgh Children's 
Festival which serves 100,000 people annually, drawing citizens from 
throughout the region; the Homer Council on the Arts in Homer, AK, 
which serves a community of 3,000 by presenting up to 150 artists to 
5,500 people annually; or the Wheeling Symphony in West Virginia which 
offers young people's concerts and a program that reaches 6,000 
elementary school students annually.
  The list could go on and on, Mr. President. My point is that all of 
these organizations are in jeopardy of losing all or some of their 
Federal funding if these cuts go through.
  As we all know, the importance of the arts to society goes back to 
the drawings on the wall of a cave. The arts today can be papier-mache 
in Mrs. Brown's third grade art class, or the Bay Area Philharmonic in 
San Francisco. It can be Native American, African-American, Chicano or 
Latino. The beautiful thing about the arts, Mr. President, is that its 
definition is so broad and so encompassing. It is, I believe, a 
statement of who we are as a society. Art has power. It has the power 
to heal, it has the power to educate.
  I urge my colleagues to not forget the power. I urge my colleagues to 
not forget the beauty. I urge my colleagues to not forget the 
importance of the arts to our country, to our society, to our world, to 
our families, to our children, to our grandchildren, and to our 
civilization. I hope that one way or another that these cuts will be 
restored because I think the arts are so enriching, such a positive 
affirmation of who we are. Therefore, I thank the Senator from Vermont 
for his amendment.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hatfield be considered as an original cosponsor of the firefighter 
amendment that the Senate will be voting on at 3:30 p.m. this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Baucus 
and Bingaman be added as cosponsors thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________