[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. ____________________