[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3855-H3856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        PRIVATE FUNDING FOR NEA
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, Last night multimillionaire Hollywood 
actors, actresses, and producers--one after another--got up to accept 
their Oscar during the Academy Awards and ranted on national television 
about the need to preserve Federal taxpayer funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  For most people these petty little tirades about the NEA were 
probably just annoying. But I got angry. Think about those spoiled rich 
elitists preaching to hard-working, middle-class Americans that 
America's families should make more sacrifices to fund a Federal Arts 
bureaucracy in Washington.
  Nearly all the people in that room were multimillonaire entertainers. 
God bless them for being successful. I don't begrudge them their 
success. But if they really believe the work of the NEA is so 
important, they should start up a foundation and put their own money 
where their mouth is.
  Steven Spielberg and Quincy Jones could personally fund the Endowment 
at its present funding levels with a portion of their annual incomes. 
Half of the proceeds from the movie Forrest Gump could fund the 
Endowment. I didn't hear any such offers from any celebrities. It is an 
outrage to have 
[[Page H3856]] these people tell viewers across America who are making 
$5 and $6 an hour or $20,000 and $30,000 a year that they should be 
making more sacrifices as taxpayers so we can have money for the NEA.
  I have nothing against the arts. I have personally contributed to the 
arts in my community. We need symphonies, community theatres, and local 
museums. Unlike the Hollywood hypocrites I have put my money where my 
mouth is.
  But I am definitely opposed to further taxpayer funding of the arts. 
There are other priorities in the Federal budget that are just more 
important, especially when the arts can and should be supported 
privately by those with the means to do so.
  The other problem with a government-funded arts program are the 
bizarre things that get funded when you trust bureaucrats with taxpayer 
dollars. I am not talking about the morally obscene grants, like the 
pornographic Mapplethorpe photos and the Annie Sprinkle nudie show--
although those are definitely outrageous examples of abuse. I am 
talking about more mundane examples of waste and abuse.
  Let me give you an example of a typical NEA grant. My hometown 
newspaper, the Springfield News-Leader, did a story on March 20 on a 
constituent of mine who recently received a $20,000 NEA grant to aid 
him in his work as a poet. A lot of people contacted my office and 
talked to me personally about this article.
  I will call this individual Mr. Grantee which is not his name.
  Mr. Grantee of Willard, MO is a creative writing professor at 
Southwest Missouri State University making $42,000 a year-- a salary 
funded by the taxpayers. His wife works on the government payroll as a 
nurse for the public school system. He says his $20,000 NEA grant will 
supplement his income so he won't have to teach summer school, allowing 
him to concentrate on his poetry.
  Mr. Grantee says: ``I will have less stress. I have a clearer 
creative mind.'' A $20,000 government grant would relieve a lot of 
stress for a lot of people, including those who don't already draw a 
government-paid family income of $60,000 or more a year.
  Mr. Grantee, a very honest fellow, says he has already incorporated 
the money into his family budget. He says he used some of the funds to 
buy a dishwasher and an airline ticket to a conference. He also says he 
plans to buy a personal computer. I can think of a lot of Americans who 
wouldn't mind the government buying them appliances or paying for their 
personal travel.
  We are promised by Mr. Grantee in the article that he will produce at 
least one book of poetry and that he will even begin work on a second 
before the grant money runs out--books he intends to commercially 
publish, no doubt, and for which he will receive royalties.
  I have nothing against Mr. Grantee personally, and I regret the need 
to use him as an example. But this sort of routine grant is exactly 
what is wrong with the NEA. When there are so many competing budget 
priorities, when hard-working taxpayers are already so burdened, I just 
cannot justify taking money from families--many of them making less 
than Mr. Grantee--to buy college professors dishwashers and supplement 
their Government salaries to relieve them from the stress of paying 
bills.
  Frankly, it is an outrage. While the flaky, politically correct 
Hollywierd crowd on the West Coast may look down on my unsophisticated 
concern for the average taxpayer, the time has come to defund the 
National Endowment for the Arts and get the Government out of the art 
business once and for all.
  Worthy art--whether it is Mr. Grantees poetry or the local symphony--
can survive with private support. Those who are spending so much energy 
and effort now to reserve taxpayer funding can and should turn their 
energy and effort toward private fundraising. That includes our self-
righteous friends in Hollywood.
  If the public will not support certain artistic endeavors through 
their voluntary contributions, I hardly see why I, as their elected 
representative, should force them to spend their tax dollars on them.


                          ____________________