[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BEING FLOGGED WITH A WET NOODLE NOT SO BAD
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last evening I mentioned an editorial in
yesterday's Washington Post--which a growing number of people call the
The Washington Compost. The editorial writers of The Post, who never
allow accuracy or fairness to interfere with an ad hominem attack on
someone with whom they disagree, published a mean-spirited opinion
piece favoring proposed legislation that is tantamount to having
Congress write an open-ended check requiring the American taxpayers to
pay for a new Smithsonian museum at a time when the Federal Government
has already run up a debt of more than $4.6 trillion.
The editorial, entitled ``Another Congressional Casualty?'' was akin
to being flogged with a wet noodle. In short, the editorial was
remarkable in that it was difficult to find any accuracy in it.
For example, Mr. President, the editorial stated that Senator Robert
C. Byrd's amendment to the proposed museum legislation makes clear the
new museum can't ask for public money for at least 5 years. In fact,
the opposite is true. Had the editors bothered to look at the bill,
they would have found that in section 9, the Byrd amendment reads as
follows:
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary only for costs directly relating to the operation
and maintenance of the Museum.
The Washington Post editorial writer conveniently neglected to
mention that thus far, the Smithsonian has refused to provide Congress
with any budget estimates for its first 5 years of operation, or any
assessment of the burden on the taxpayers in connection with the
proposed museum's programs and activities, which will include traveling
road shows, media promotions, and training programs. Nor has the
Smithsonian been willing to advise Congress as to an estimate for the
number of employees the museum will hire, their salaries, or how much
of these salaries the taxpayer will have to foot.
For the record, I have, on numerous occasions asked the Smithsonian
for the projected budget of this proposed museum including costs for
its establishment, and its operation, maintenance and activities. The
first Smithsonian response stated that the $475,000 already
appropriated will be used to establish the museum, and that over the
next 5 years, no additional taxpayer funds will be needed for the
establishment of the museum. But the Smithsonian official refused to
say how much in taxpayer funds will be needed for the other costs of
the museum, that is, for its operation, maintenance and programs,
including the traveling exhibits, the media promotions and the training
programs for African Americans, all of which will amount to the bulk of
the cost of the museum.
So, I wrote back, thanking the Smithsonian for telling me how much it
will cost to establish the museum, which of course was not the question
I had asked. But now please tell me, I wrote, ``how much in Federal
funds do you project that the museum will spend, for each of the next 5
fiscal years, for all other aspects of the museum, that is, its
maintenance, operation, programs and other costs, other than the costs
for establishing the museum?''
The Smithsonian responded that it will develop a strategy for private
funding to support the establishment of the museum, a question I had
not asked. I asked about the cost of all other aspects of the museum,
that is, maintenance, operation, programs and other costs.
So, you see what is going on, Mr. President, ask the Smithsonian one
question, and you get a nonanswer, an answer to an entirely different
question. The Washington Post editorial writer accepted the nonanswer
as if it was the gospel.
Then the editorial claimed I raised dark hints that the Nation of
Islam will want a museum of their own if we create an African-American
Museum. A contrived falsehood.
What I asked the Smithsonian, in my letter of June 8, was: (1) What
criteria were used in approving a museum specifically dedicated to
African-Americans? and (2) Will the Smithsonian support creation of
separate museums for all ethnic, racial and religious minorities
meeting this criteria?
Mr. President, those are reasonable questions, and we'd better get
answers to them now--not later. Once Congress establishes a museum
dedicated solely to African-Americans every other minority will give
thought to asking the taxpayers to pony up for a special museum for
them. In fact, a Smithsonian report of May of this year, titled,
``Willful Neglect: The Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Latinos'' has
already recommended a new museum dedicated to Americans of Hispanic
descent.
Once Congress gives the go ahead for African-Americans, how can
Congress then say no to Hispanics, and the next group, and the next
group after that? Of course Congress can't, and Congress won't. So
where will it stop? No one knows. I doubt it will ever stop as long as
Congress has the power to reach into the pockets of the American
taxpayer and siege larger and larger amounts of tax dollars.
Mr. President, I did, in my questions to the Smithsonian, inquire as
to how the Smithsonian would deal with requests by the Nation of Islam
which may desire to participate in the museum's programs and
activities, a valid question inasmuch as the taxpayer is already
subsidizing the Nation of Islam through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
I also asked how the Smithsonian would deal with requests to honor
any of the leaders of the Nation of Islam. Another good question, to
which I did not receive a straight answer, inasmuch, as I doubt many
Americans want their tax dollars being spent to honor Louis Farrakhan
and his ilk.
It is by no means far-fetched to anticipate requests to honor in the
museum's exhibits, people like Farrakhan, remember, it is the
Smithsonian which attempted to use the 50th anniversary of the dropping
of the atomic bomb as an excuse for putting together an exhibit
demonizing America.
The Post editors also lament what they claim is the possible loss of
important collections, if the Congress fails to soak the taxpayer for
this proposed museum. The editors declined to mention that these
collections can be acquired by the Smithsonian for display in existing
museums and exhibits dedicated to African-Americans.
You see, Mr. President, there is the question of whether this
proposed museum duplicates activities already being undertaken by the
Smithsonian. The answer is that it does. First, there is the Anacostia
Neighborhood Museum--which the Smithsonian advertises as a Smithsonian
Museum of African American History and Culture. Yet the multi-million
dollar museum to be created by the pending amendment is also portrayed
by the Smithsonian to be a Museum of African American History and
Culture.
If there is already one museum, financed by the taxpayers, dedicated
to African American History and Culture, why is another one needed?
Then, there is the African Art Museum on the Mall. And the National
Museum of American History, which has two separate exhibits dedicated
to African-Americans. And the National Museum of American Art, which
this month opens an entire wing of one floor of its building dedicated
to an African-American art exhibit entitled, ``Free Within Ourselves.''
And the National Portrait Gallery which features one exhibit on
African-American journalists of the World War II era, and another
exhibit entitled ``The Harlem Renaissance.'' The list goes on and on.
Mr. President, the bottom line is that with a $4.6 trillion Federal
debt the Washington Post could not, on the facts, justify a new
Smithsonian museum when, (1) nobody knows how much it will cost, and
(2) we don't know the number of employees, what their pay will be or
who will pay them, (3) it duplicates other museums already funded
within the Smithsonian, (4) the Smithsonian can't afford upkeep on
museums and collections it already has and, (5) the museum will
undertake numerous extraneous activities such as training programs,
seminars and travel of which no cost estimates have been provided.
So, Mr. President, the Washington Post did the next best thing--it
handed out another one of its mean-spirited ad hominems. The trouble
is, it was still a wet noodle.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Washington Post
editorial, ``Another Congressional Casualty?'', be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 6, 1994]
Another Congressional Casualty?
Back in 1990 when Congress first took up the idea of
establishing a Smithsonian museum of African American
``history and heritage,'' the museum's projected opening date
was 1996. That still seemed feasible earlier this year: The
House overwhelmingly passed a bill authorizing the museum,
which would let it begin seeking contributions and gathering
artifacts, and the Senate seemed poised to do likewise. Only
one senator has been heard to express any opposition to the
bill as it now exists. But that senator is Jesse Helms, and
given the welter of other filibusters that need breaking in
the Senate's last days, supporters now say the African
American museum is a long shot at best.
Lots of worthy legislation is expiring this month, of
course. But there are a few extra reasons for shame if the
Senate lets Mr. Helms kill this one. The first is that the
senator's stated concerns, reiterated in lists of questions
to the Smithsonian--mainly about possible cost and possible
undue ``influence'' by unsavory groups--have been
exhaustively and repeatedly answered. An amendment by Sen.
Robert Byrd makes clear the new museum can't ask for public
money for at least five years. (The designated building
already exists, and most funds are to be raised privately.)
The senator's dark hints that ``other groups,'' including the
Nation of Islam, will ``want one too'' if this museum is
created ignore the entire existing governance structure of
the Smithsonian, not to mention a decade's worth of
discussion as to what kinds of additions the Mall should make
to its portrayal of history.
More important is that another year's delay would do
serious damage to the quality of what the museum ultimately
could show. The delay threatens irretrievable loss of some
important collections that Smithsonian prospectors have
already identified--including actual 19th-century photographs
taken on slave ships--but that, once identified, have come to
the attention of private collectors. It was a Republican
criticism in Congress that put a curb on the Smithsonian's
ability to solicit such contributions, after complaints that
the museum was backing congressional overseers into a corner
by coming to them seeking funds for already-promised
acquisitions. Museum officials then agreed that no such major
acquisitions could be made without congressional
authorization for the museum in which they would be put. That
makes good sense--except when Congress dallies year after
year for no other reason than procedural snarls and one
senator's mean-spirited obstruction.
____________________