[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11980-S12000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished manager of 
the bill is waiting for other matters to be brought up. I am just going 
to speak very briefly on a matter that will be coming up this morning.
  There will be a debate on what level of funding we have for the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. There is no question in my mind that some would like to 
eliminate both of them. Some have said this will be a trophy on their 
wall if this new Congress were to eliminate the National Endowment for 

[[Page S11981]]
the Arts and eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  It will not be stated quite that way. There will not be a vote up or 
down on the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House to eliminate 
them this year because this would not pass. What it would be is a case 
of dramatically cutting their budgets this year, dramatically cutting 
their budgets next year and then, like the Cheshire cat in ``Alice in 
Wonderland,'' it will disappear, only the smile will be there--and not 
even that. In fact, something other than a smile will be there. There 
will be the disappointed faces of the people in the Northeast Kingdom 
of Vermont, in the little towns of Vermont that have had art brought to 
them in a way that they never could have otherwise except for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  These are the towns, Mr. President, when Vermont celebrated its 
bicentennial, where the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, an orchestra that 
has received grants from the national endowments, was able to perform 
in every one of the communities of Vermont. Some of these communities 
are 38 people. Victory, VT, has 38 people. Burlington, VT, our largest 
community, has 38,000. It is 1,000 times larger and still one of the 
smallest communities in the country. But at the very least, at the very 
least, a soloist was at each one of them, and some of them the whole 
symphony orchestra was there.
  This might not seem like much for those of us who are literally able 
to walk from here to the Kennedy Center or Constitution Hall or a 
number of other places to hear wonderful symphonies or watch great 
plays or listen to some of the noted historians or writers of our 
country. But we sit here, making nearly $135,000 a year, able to walk 
downtown and see anything we want. While these small towns in the 
Northeast Kingdom, with a per capita income that is one of the lowest 
in the country, if they are going to see it, it will be with the help 
of the national endowments, either the arts or the humanities.
  The same can be said in all 50 of our States. Historians who have 
written, educators who have gotten their views to a wider audience 
through the National Endowment for the Humanities. Art that was 
available at one time in this country only to the monied and 
intellectually gifted elite, is now available to all of us. Suddenly 
those who considered themselves the elite, find that perhaps they were 
not as knowledgeable as those who had been closed off from the arts 
before.
  We are, as I said, in other areas, the most wealthy, powerful Nation 
on Earth. Are we going to be the only major Nation on Earth that does 
not give support to its arts, does not give support to its humanities? 
I have heard Americans stand up so many times and say, ``I am an 
American. We know what is best.'' And we look at people from other 
countries, whatever country you want to fill in, and say, ``Boy, if 
they only had the advantages we do.''
  But so many times, these people have the advantages of much more 
ancient cultures. They have the advantage of the arts and the 
humanities that are helped by their governments, by their countries. 
This is not a case where we are talking about the Government somehow 
sponsoring or directing the arts and humanities. It is all of us, 
because all of us are the Government--260 million Americans. And we can 
say to our elected representatives, we want as much of the great arts 
and the great humanities and the great thinkers and the great geniuses 
of our country available to all of us as Americans. Whether we live in 
the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont or in metropolitan New York City or in 
Los Angeles or in a tiny town in Oklahoma, we can all have it 
available, at least to the extent possible. And in areas where we are 
going into wider access, with the Internet on through, we should be 
encouraging even more.
  Now, Mr. President, does that mean that every single artist ever 
helped, every single writer ever helped, every single musician ever 
helped is going to be somebody I agree with, or the distinguished 
Presiding Officer or the distinguished manager of the bill agrees with? 
Absolutely not. Absolutely not, just as I suspect that during the era 
of DeMedici, there are those who said that the Michelangelos and the 
DaVincis and the others of the era did things that they did not agree 
with.
  I think some of the people who even today criticize some of the great 
American novels of our country, those of Mark Twain and others--we know 
the reaction in Ireland to James Joyce's writings. We know the reaction 
in other parts of the world to writings that are now considered 
classics. We think of the scandal of the Goya nudes. We think of the 
scandals and the reaction against paintings of people like Van Gogh, 
who died in poverty. Yet, now we look at them and say what great steps 
forward. And ``Guernica,'' Picasso's great cry against the evils of 
fascism, when that first came out people said, ``That is terrible.'' 
Now whenever displayed, everybody lines up to see it.
  So what I am saying, Mr. President, is our country is marked as much 
not just by our strength and our manufacturing, not just by our 
strength of the military, not even by the strength of the security of 
our unprotected but impregnable borders; our strength is also in our 
ideas, our art, and our accessibility of them to all of us. Not to some 
ivory-towered intellectual elite, because we are a country that has 
never put great stock in that. We are a country that puts great stock 
in our people, all our people. We must continue to make the arts and 
humanities available to all our people.
  I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont and I tell him that 
when I started speaking, there was nobody seeking recognition. I 
thought perhaps we could start this up. So I will yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the remarks of the Senator from Vermont 
are totally appropriate. We are in the process of what I hope will be a 
successful attempt to work out changes in the appropriations bill to be 
adopted. I greatly appreciate the remarks that we have just heard.
  I must say, Mr. President, I feel like the Grinch. I am here managing 
a bill in which almost every account gets less money than it does for 
the current year. And the arguments for each of these programs, taken 
in isolation of course, is a persuasive argument, one that persuades me 
except for the fact that there is no free lunch. Every extra dollar for 
a program A must be taken out of program B. And most of the B's that 
have been sought so far have been functions which are only funded by 
the Federal Government, rather than grant functions, subsidies to the 
private sector, and the like. Nevertheless, I have every hope that we 
are going to be able to reach an accommodation on this.
  The junior Senator from Vermont, who was equally interested in the 
issue, is here. And so I have invited him and the Senator from Rhode 
Island to speak to these arts questions while we try to settle an 
amendment which will be proposed later and which perhaps under those 
circumstances can be accepted without further debate.
  If the Senator from Vermont will withhold for just a moment, I have a 
unanimous-consent request with respect to the committee report. I will 
ask that we take up and adopt the committee amendment that deals with 
the endowment so that an amendment to that will be in order when we get 
it settled.
  First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a statement clarifying several provisions in the committee 
report accompanying this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Senate Report 104-125 Clarifications

       On page 38, the amount provided for Resource Valuation does 
     not include an increase of $600,000 for the marine minerals 
     program. The amount provided for marine minerals is the same 
     as the budget request, which is a $600,000 increase over 
     fiscal year 1995.
       On page 46 of the report, there are a couple of corrections 
     to the table for Central Office operations. For the Assistant 
     Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Budget estimate column 
     should reflect ``0'', the Committee recommendation should be 
     ``2,168,000'', and the Change column should be 
     ``+2,168,000''. For Other general administration, the Budget 
     estimate column should be ``45,164,000'', the Committee 
     recommendation should ``$34,187,000'', and the Change column 
     should be ``-11,759,000''. The totals for General 
     Administration are correct as shown in the 

[[Page S11982]]
     table. The general reduction of $24,700,000 for Central Office 
     operations is shown in the change column only. The general 
     reduction of $24,700,000 should be reflected in the Committee 
     recommendation column as well. The total for Central Office 
     operations in the Committee recommendation column is correct 
     and does include the $24,700,000 reduction.
       On page 47 of the report under ``Other recurring 
     programs'', the Committee has assumed a reduction of 
     $2,373,000 for facilities operations and maintenance from the 
     budget request and $2,000,000 from the fiscal year 1995 
     level.
       On page 48 of the report under ``Nonrecurring programs'', 
     there should be no reduction mentioned for pay cost 
     absorption. The reduction for pay costs was taken as part of 
     the resources management and trust activities transferred to 
     the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians and are 
     reflected in the totals for that office.
       On page 49 of the report, it is the intent of the Committee 
     that none of the reductions for Central Office operations be 
     applied against the two offices transferred to the Office of 
     the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
       On page 80 of the report, a reduction of $4,000,000 is 
     indicated for fossil energy environmental restoration. This 
     reduction is to be taken from low priority projects that do 
     not present imminent threats to health and safety.
       Also on page 80 of the report, except for $295,000 provided 
     for technical and program management support, the funds 
     provided for Cooperative Research and Development are to be 
     divided equally between the Western Research Institute and 
     the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental 
     Research Center.
       On page 82, with respect to funds provided for program 
     direction, no funds are to be reallocated between the various 
     facilities to implement Strategic Alignment Initiative 
     without prior approval of the Committee, consistent with the 
     reprogramming guidelines, which apply to organizational 
     changes.
       On page 86 of the report, the second paragraph and third 
     paragraphs should be reversed in order.
       On page 94, the amount provided for facilities and 
     environmental health support is $900,000 above the House 
     level and $1,201,000 above the budget request.
       On page 138 of the report, there are a couple of 
     corrections to the table for Central Office operations. For 
     the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Budget 
     estimate column should reflect ``0'', the House allowance 
     should be ``2,939,000'', the Committee recommendation should 
     be ``2,168,000'', and the change column should be 
     ``+2,168,000''. For Other general administration, the Budget 
     estimate column should be ``45,164,000'', the House allowance 
     should be ``41,808,000'', the Committee recommendation should 
     be ``$34,187,000'', and the Change column should be 
     ``-11,759,000''. The totals for General Administration are 
     correct as shown in the table.
       On page 113 of the report, reference to $27,411,000 for 
     tribally controlled community colleges, Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs, should be deleted since these activities are 
     authorized.
              Committee Amendment on Page 95, Lines 19-21

  Mr. GORTON. Second, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we 
lay aside the pending amendment and take up the committee amendment 
found on page 95, lines 19-21.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment on page 95, lines 19 through 21.

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 95, lines 19 through 21, strike the following: ``, 
     subject to passage by the House of Representatives of a bill 
     authorizing such appropriation,''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is the committee amendment dealing 
with the endowment. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], had objected 
to our taking that up last night. He has now withdrawn that objection 
if we adopt it under the same circumstances that we have adopted the 
other committee amendments. As a part of the overall text, it will be 
open to amendment. So I do not believe there is any debate on it. I 
urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The committee amendment on page 95, lines 19-21, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as has been pointed out by the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, we are in the 
process of trying to work out a solution to the very difficult 
questions of the fundings of the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum 
Services.
  This is critically important because we must make sure that these 
very fine institutions survive. I am hopeful that we will reach an 
agreement, which will not make us all happy obviously, but which will 
allow us to go forward to reauthorize the endowments and to proceed on 
to conference, where we will at least know from both sides that the 
endowments will survive as will the museums services.
  So I think that is all of our desires. This is a very volatile issue 
and yet an extremely important one. I note, for instance that this 
topic of funding for the arts and humanities has made the cover of Time 
magazine, and the article asks the question as to whether or not this 
institution, the Congress, will support the Endowments and recognize 
the importance of that to our Nation.
  Let me give us all a little bit of a briefing on where we have gone 
this year relating to the concerns that have been expressed by Members. 
They are primarily related to grants that have been approved by the 
endowments which are considered by the American public as being less 
than acceptable, and concerns as they relate to the issue of 
pornography.
  This has been a plaguing matter, and we have tried to relieve the 
public of anxiety over the years. To a large extent, we have prevailed 
in the sense that very few items, if any, have come to our attention in 
recent years that in any way have offended the public.
  But under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum in our committee this 
year, we took up the Endowments and reauthorized them. In doing so, we 
also changed the law such that the chance of having the American public 
offended by grants for projects that they consider less than acceptable 
is totally eliminated.
  How have we done that? First of all, we have addressed the issue of 
individual grants, where many of the problems have been. Individual 
artists are chosen by peer groups to be awarded a grant, and sometimes 
the grantee, the person who gets the grant, does not necessarily come 
forth with the kind of art that was anticipated by the peers. Thus, we 
get into great disputes and embarrassments. As this body knows, we have 
displays on the floor showing the kind of art that was referred to and 
the offensive aspects of it.
  Under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum, we eliminated any 
possibility of that happening again. The individual grants to artists 
are limited only to the area of literature. That, in my opinion, goes a 
little too far, and it may end up being changed. Still, that action 
certainly responds to those concerns that have been raised.
  In addition to that, there have been problems with subgrants and some 
seasonal support grants where the NEA itself has no knowledge of what 
is going to be done with funds designated to an institution or for a 
season of productions. Many times it is just administrative expenses 
that have been supported by the national endowment. Yet, on the stage, 
if something occurs which is offensive and because there was a small 
amount of money that was spread throughout the whole budget of the 
institution which allowed this to occur on the stage, the national 
endowments have taken the rap and gotten a bad name. Such examples have 
been eliminated from having the possibility of receiving funds.
  There still will be grants available to individuals at the State 
level, and there will be a large number of challenge grants. All these 
things that are presently allowed under the national endowments, all 
the good works which have not proven to be offensive to anyone, will 
still will be able to go forward.
  On the other hand, unfortunately, due to these unfortunate matters, 
we have seen efforts to totally do away with the endowments. With that 
in mind, and without knowing for certain as to how this will come out 
in the House and the Senate--the thing we want to do today, the most 
critical 

[[Page S11983]]
thing, is to make sure that the endowments continue as strongly as 
possible this next year.
  We have in the committee, under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum, 
as I mentioned, changed the endowments significantly and have taken 
steps to prevent those kinds of embarrassing matters from occurring in 
the future. These changes were made to protect the public and protect 
the endowments, and those changes that I mentioned before have now been 
incorporated into the text of the subcommittee appropriations bill.
  So as well as appropriating funds to the endowments, we have changed 
the current law to prevent the kinds of grants that have, in the past 
caused a great deal of trouble.
  Many of us would like the endowments to receive more money, and in 
taking the action that we will today, I hope to assure that there will 
be more money available to those agencies, as compared to what the 
committee has recommended. This is not the first time we have 
confronted this type of crisis situation of severe budget cutting. 
Fourteen years ago we faced such a crisis and an attempt to eliminate 
the Endowments. We survived and survived with about half the funding. 
Unfortunately, that is nearly where we find ourselves today. For the 
endowments to exist, there is a great deal of pressure to try and make 
sure we do not end up having to account for or explain questionable 
grants as we have had to in the past.
  So I am hopeful we will reach a resolution which will be acceptable 
to Members and that we will not run the risk of losing the Endowments.
  There are a number of Senators who have been helpful. At this time, I 
would like to yield the floor so that Senator Pell, one of the great 
defenders and also creators of the endowments, could make his remarks.
  I want to, again, pay my respects to the incredible work that he has 
done in the area of the arts and humanities and the museum services 
over the years. He kept them alive and strong and has defended them 
with all the vigor possible.
  At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont 
for his very nice words and say it was just about 30 years ago that the 
Senator from New York, Mr. Javits, and I were able to get this 
legislation through. Those 30 years have gone very quickly. Many things 
have happened, but I think judgment, in connection with the arts and 
humanities, has been borne out.
  The debate reminds me of a story I know concerning Winston Churchill. 
In the darkest days of the Second World War when the outcome of the 
battle, the conflict, was still unknown, a young staff assistant on the 
Prime Minister's staff found, to his shock, that the Government was 
funding the British Arts Council throughout the war. He went dashing 
off to Mr. Churchill, informed him that he found more funds for the war 
effort and how extraordinary it was that scarce resources were going 
for such a purpose when the empire was in the midst of a life-and-death 
struggle. I am told Winston Churchill turned to the young man and 
replied, ``I remind you, sir, it is exactly this for which we are 
fighting.''
  I think this thought should remain in our minds as we discuss this 
issue. I think we should also bear in our mind whether we, as a Nation, 
want to be remembered as Athens was or Sparta was. Athens was noted for 
its diversity of culture; Sparta noted for its armaments, weapons, and 
warmaking ability. I think we would prefer to be remembered as an 
Athens and it is exactly that for which this legislation needs us.
  Rather than being a subsidy for the rich, one of the primary missions 
of the NEA has been to encourage the spread of American culture beyond 
those individuals, communities, and regions rich enough to afford it.
  Uncharacteristically among Federal programs, endowment dollars 
multiply and foster national support for the arts. The early endowment 
grants drew matching grants of about $1.5 billion in private, State, 
and local patrons. It is true that without the NEA and the NEH we would 
still have our history, literature and art. But these things would be 
reserved for those who can afford it. I think it is unfair to our 
citizens and for some individuals to assert that only wealthy Americans 
are interested in the development of the arts. I know as one Senator, I 
believe and the evidence supports the fact that Americans from every 
walk of life, from every economic level, strongly desire to seek access 
to cultural events in their own home communities.
  From an economic viewpoint, the dollars sent by the arts endowment to 
communities around our Nation have been a very successful investment. 
For every dollar the endowment invests, there is created a tenfold 
return in jobs, services, and contracts.
  The arts, fostered by the national endowment, encourage national and 
international tourism, attract and retain businesses in our 
communities, stimulate real estate development, increase the production 
of exportable copyright materials and, most important, contribute to 
our tax base.
 Governors and mayors from around the Nation can attest to the manner 
in which the endowment-supported projects have breathed new life into 
the downtown areas of their towns and cities. New businesses and 
tourists congregate in those areas which have developed a cultural 
life. San Antonio, Cleveland, Greenville, Oklahoma City, and Birmingham 
are among the cities studies have shown the enormous economic 
contribution of the arts.

  Rather than being a subsidy for the rich, this has as its primary 
mission the encouragement of American culture beyond any small circle 
of those able to afford it. It is true that without the NEA and the NEH 
we would still have a history, literature, and art, but it would be 
reserved for those who could afford it.
  All told, I can think of no legislation that would, for less money, 
add more to the quality of life for our citizens and our communities.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, and that as 
the years go on we will have increased it and emphasized it. It has 
been 30 years since we started, 30 years since on the Senate floor some 
of us have advocated it. I hope that 30 years from now, down the road, 
we will continue to spend money on the arts and we will be known as not 
only a great Nation and a superpower, but known as the Athens of the 
world, the leader in the arts, humanities, literature, poetry, 
painting, and the like.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to my friend 
Senator Pell, who through the years has been such an extraordinary 
supporter of the arts--music, theater, visual arts, the performing 
arts. He is an extraordinary man, a gentle man, and a gentleman. And I 
also pay tribute to Senator Jeffords, who must just be listed as 
totally consistent, totally steady, totally fair as he pursues this 
great interest of his.
  As for me, I, too, have found the arts and music and history and the 
visual and performing arts to be a very important part of my life. If 
politics is your sole reason for existence, it is a very barren 
experience, a rather barbaric experience. For me, the arts and music 
are the salvation, the softening of the edges of what we do here. And 
so, throughout the years, I have tried my level best to support these 
projects and programs, and I do thank Senator Pell and Senator 
Jeffords.
  I think this is an excellent amendment, restoring a total of $17 
million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and for the 
Institute of Museum Services, which is a very small agency that does 
very big work.
  I think we have to commend Jane Alexander, a remarkably astute, 
bright, effervescent lady who knows what the problems of the NEA are 
and has sought to correct them, and has done a magnificent job of that. 
Also Sheldon Hackney of the National Endowment of the Humanities knows 
the problems, perceives them, intelligently looks at them, and has to 
suffer, along with Jane Alexander, the slings and arrows of an 
outrageous fortune, especially when he proposes something, I think, as 
vital as having a ``National Conversation,'' which would be well worth 

[[Page S11984]]
doing, so that instead of the subterranean dealings with issues such as 
immigration and racism and homosexuality, we would discuss those things 
in a national conversation, where people could come into a civil 
surrounding and talk instead of just saying the most evil thing and 
writing the most outrageous columns--doing all the divisive things that 
are done in this remarkable arena.
  I think this is an excellent step. I am proud to cosponsor it. The 
amendment is budget neutral. We would offset the funds, as indicated in 
the amendment, by striking at administrative costs. Many smaller 
programs are exempted from this reduction, as is the Park Service and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We realize those two offices have taken 
some pretty good shots. It is all there. Many of my colleagues who 
support the arts may be feeling the pressure in this year of budget 
constraint. But even if we pass this important amendment, the arts 
endowments will have taken a very tough hit, a full 30-percent cut--the 
deepest in the bill.
  Without this amendment, State grants at the NEA will be reduced by 30 
percent, and ``national significance'' grants will be slashed by more 
than 50 percent. I believe that is a very high, very inequitable 
reduction that does not accurately reflect the usual thoughtful 
sentiment of this body.
  I understand all of the difficulties. I commend Senator Gorton, a 
steady, thoughtful person, who listens to all of us, hears our pleas, 
which finally turn into plaintive wails or peals for assistance from on 
high; and Senator Byrd, who listens so patiently and wisely to all of 
this, and has, for so many years. He is absolutely tireless and is 
exceedingly fair in his work.
  The fact is, in my State, direct Federal grants from the arts 
agencies provide critical funding for marvelous institutions that are 
seen and visited by people all over the United States. There are the 
Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody; the Grand Teton Music Festival, 
in its 7 weeks of performance in the beauty of Jackson Hole, where we 
have previously hosted the New York Philharmonic in residence for 2 
weeks during our centennial year; the University of Wyoming Art Museum; 
the Mountain Man Museum; the Nicolaysen Museum, and in Southwest 
Wyoming; Green River; Rock Springs, all are receiving funding. There 
are hundreds of smaller programs that we do not see, and these 
endowments enrich the lives of so many Americans, particularly those in 
rural communities or ``frontier'' communities such as Wyoming.
  The State art grants that find their way to small towns are also used 
at schools and local festivals. One found its way into the use of an 
``art mobile'' at the University of Wyoming--my vital wife Ann was so 
very active in that--where you take original art, such as etchings, 
water colors, oils, out ``on the road'' to tiny towns where young 
people walk up and say, ``What is an etching? How do you do that?''
  And you say, ``Well, you take a copper plate and either do it in dry 
point, or you do this by pouring acid in there and that eats those 
lines out, and then you put ink in there and place paper there, and you 
press it and pull it, and that is an etching.''
  And they say, ``I did not know that!''
  They might also say, ``What is dry point?'' ``What is gouache?'' 
Those things may mean nothing to some but to a kid, they may fire the 
imagination. That is what we should do.
  People in rural areas simply do not have any access to the many 
privately-funded cultural institutions that exist in larger cities. 
Indeed, it illustrates the bizarre irony of the argument that the 
endowments are ``welfare for the rich.''
  Just let me conclude with a few of the programs that are supported by 
the Wyoming Arts and Humanities Council. I will leave it up to my 
colleagues to decide whether these programs provide ``welfare for the 
rich'':
  An Arapaho language immersion program for preschoolers on the Wind 
River Indian Reservation;
  A performance of the Bear Lake Music Festival Orchestra at Evanston 
High School;
  A presentation of Handel's ``Messiah'' in Afton, WY, in the Star 
Valley;
  A theater production for people with physical and mental handicaps in 
Riverton;
  ``Fiddler on the Roof'' presented in Sundance, WY;
  Operating support for the famed drum and bugle corps, ``The Casper 
Troopers'';
  Concert performances by ``The Grizzlies'' in Meeteetse, Torrington, 
Saratoga, and Encampment;
  A ``Young Author's'' contest at Saint Stephens Indian School;
  A fellowship for research on Shoshone Indian history;
  A ``Centennial Singers'' performance in Baggs, WY;
  A performance of the Utah Symphony in Wind River;
  Musical workshops and a concert at the Chugwater Attendance Center;
  Fellowship to research child development at the former Heart Mountain 
Japanese Relocation Center;
  Lectures by biblical archaeologists presented by the UW religious 
studies committee;
  Operating funds for the ``Traveling Western Art Exhibit'' in Green 
River;
  A Wyoming territorial park exhibit of the first women to serve as 
members of common law juries;
  Support for the children's theater in Thermopolis;
  A jazz festival in Powell;
  To bring a visiting artist to Pinedale;
  A guest lecture on ``The Oregon Trail'' in Medicine Bow;
  A folk dance performance in Dubois; and
  Over 100 grants to elementary and secondary schools for arts in 
education.
  A program at the former Heart Mountain Japanese Relocation Center. 
That ought to be studied. This is where our fellow citizens were placed 
behind barbed wire in 1943. They were not aliens, they were not 
permanent resident aliens; they were U.S. citizens put behind wire. 
That is where I first met Congressman Norm Mineta. We were together in 
the Boy Scouts--he behind the wire, and me in the town of Cody. 
Interesting times. The two of us have shared much together in talking 
about it and remembering it.
  The people who attend these events are not ``highbrow elitists.'' 
They are genuine, hard-working, sensible folks whose lives are truly 
brightened and improved by the work of the NEA and NEH. And today these 
folks are provided enlightenment in a sea of the present shallowest, 
coarsest television pop culture of the ages.
  People certainly do actively participate in the arts. In the past 4 
years, more than 3 million people have attended NEA or NEA-supported 
events or facilities in Wyoming alone. That is not too bad in a State 
with only 476,000 people!
  Yes, yes, there is always going to be the emotional debate regarding 
obscenity. We have all seen the grotesque--stupefying, actually--and 
explicit photographs and listened to the very real concerns of many 
Members of the Congress. But in nearly 30 years, with nearly 100,000 
grants, only a small handful of those projects have been controversial 
in any way. That is a pretty good track record, a handful of decisions 
in 30 years. I believe we could find a greater number of mistakes or 
oversights in many more Federal agencies, or perhaps even in the 
Congress itself! We just might have made a mistake or two here in 30 
years. But that never receives the same level of intense scrutiny. In 
directing our displeasure, we should attack the cancer, not kill the 
patient.
  The arts are an integral part of our society and serve as a unifying 
force. We are all concerned about the economy and appropriate use of 
dollars. But this is a measure that I hope will pass.
  I thank again Senator Gorton. I thank all those involved--Senator 
Byrd. The Interior appropriations bill is all about conserving our 
Nation's resources. I deeply believe the money we spend on our culture 
is no less important than the money we spend on our natural resources, 
our forests, our animals--the flora, the fauna--and our energy. This 
bill provides a great deal of taxpayers' money to conserve those 
natural riches. We should make a similar Federal commitment to 
stimulate and preserve fully our Nation's varied cultural treasures and 
riches.
  I thank the Chair and I thank particularly the managers of the bill 
for their extraordinary patience and courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  
[[Page S11985]]



                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a technical point. I ask unanimous consent 
the last committee amendment adopted on the National Endowment for the 
Arts be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I simply want to pay tribute to the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, for the 
expert and patient way in which he has dealt with this issue. It is my 
belief the amendment that is going to be offered by the Senator from 
Vermont is a salutary one. It is one I support and intend to vote for. 
It is my understanding that it enjoys wide support in the body and 
will, in all probability, be agreed to.
  I want to repeat my own commitment to some kind of national presence 
with respect to the arts. Senator Hutchison and I have introduced a 
bill that would create a single endowment, combining the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
in an effort to get more efficiency out of the overhead money connected 
with these efforts. But I believe, for the same reasons the Senator 
from Wyoming has outlined, that cutting off all significant national 
presence in this area would be a mistake, and it would hit most 
heavily, ironically, in the more rural areas.
  In the State of Utah we have a long history of commitment to the arts 
and involvement with the arts. It goes all the way back to Brigham 
Young, the first Governor of the Territory of Utah, who, in their days 
of poverty, led the original settlers of Utah to build a theater and to 
recognize the importance of the arts that early in their lives. That is 
a tradition I am proud of and that I want to perpetuate here.
  I simply want to make the point that Federal arts funding is not 
sufficient to sustain any of the groups that depend upon it. They all 
require much more private funding than they get from the Federal 
Government. The thing the Federal funding does is give, if you will, a 
``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' to the fundraising efforts of 
the locals, who are trying to support arts in the community. 
Particularly in rural areas, which abound in my State, there would be a 
devastating effect on the fundraising efforts of local people if the 
imprimatur that comes from the NEA were to disappear.
  For that reason I intend to vote for this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak today more broadly 
about the future of the National Endowment for the Arts as opposed to 
speaking specifically on this amendment. I had earlier thought about 
possibly offering an amendment of my own which, if agreed to, would 
have accomplished the objective of moving us in the direction of 
privatization of the endowments--both the arts endowment as well as the 
humanities endowment. For a variety of reasons, I have decided to 
withhold at this time. If we do bring our bill to the floor, which has 
passed the Labor Committee, to authorize the endowments, I will 
probably offer my amendment in that context where I think it would be 
more appropriate. I also may, at a later date, bring it as a 
freestanding amendment somewhere else, if I believe circumstances 
warrant that.
  I would like reflect here, today, a different viewpoint, to some 
extent, than that which we have heard; specifically, the viewpoint that 
one can be pro-art, and a supporter of arts, and a believer that the 
arts are important to this country, while not necessarily supporting 
the notion that the Federal Government and taxpayer dollars ought to be 
used to support the endowment, or a similar national entity supporting 
the arts.
  I have given a lot of thought to this, because I do not come at this 
from the perspective of feeling we should diminish the role of the arts 
in our society. But as I talked to constituents and watched the debate 
and read the articles that have been referenced here, I have 
increasingly come to the conclusion we are headed in the direction, 
ultimately, that will be a lose-lose for America and specifically for 
people who support the arts.
  There are, obviously, a lot of arguments against the notion of 
Federal support in general. There is the philosophical question of 
whether or not the Government has an appropriate role in supporting the 
arts. I do not wish to address that today. There is obviously quite a 
lot of division on that.
  But we are in an era of limited budget availability for all programs, 
and while certainly a case has been made by some that the arts, as a 
priority, should be high on the list, it is hard in an era where we are 
limiting the growth of many important programs--whether it is Medicaid 
or Medicare or school lunches or anything else--that those priorities 
should not come first.
  In addition--and quite visibly in recent months, of course--we have 
had questions once again raised about the funding of art projects or of 
artists or of entities which sponsor what clearly becomes objectionable 
expressions of art. And whether it was the eating performances or the 
more recent Horizons project in California, I think American taxpayers 
are rightfully upset when they see their dollars being used to 
subsidize in part or in full what at least is claimed to be art but 
which, at least to them, is in fact objectionable and in some cases 
perceived to be obscene.
  These issues will not go away. I think we, as the Congress, should 
try to look at the long-range perspective here, not just the question 
of whether or not there are $99 million or $112 million next year in 
the endowment's war chest. The fact is, these problems will continue. I 
do not think halfway measures will work.
  Consider where we are headed. Where we are headed now is in a 
direction in which we both provide less funding than in the past for 
the endowments, but with more strings, more hoops to jump through, more 
restrictions on the kind of support that is going to be provided. It is 
my belief that this approach will continue to make the money available 
to the arts scarcer--at least that from the Federal Government. And I 
believe we will continue to increase the amount of regulations on the 
endowments in the years ahead, because I think we are probably no more 
than one or two additional objectionable projects away from a complete 
elimination of funding.
  I think that is a lose-lose situation. It is a ``lose'' in the sense 
the Federal support, or national support, for the arts will end in its 
entirety. And it will happen so suddenly there will not be an adequate 
time of transition to deal with that cessation of support.
  And the reason it will happen is because we cannot, in my judgment, 
in Congress ever successfully arbitrate the dispute which on the one 
hand has constituents calling and complaining to us that we should not 
be providing taxpayer funds for what they consider to be obscenity or 
objectionable art and on the other hand please the people who are 
beneficiaries of this, be they the artists or museums or others who say 
we should not censor the arts.
  When Government gets into the middle of providing support and then 
placing strings on the various grants that are given, we inevitably 
have, I think, an impossible fine line to try to walk: the line that 
separates obscenity on the one hand and censorship on the other.
  So it is my view that all the intermediate steps, whether it is just 
giving the money back to private institutions rather than individual 
artists or just giving the money to State councils or putting a lot of 
boards and regulations into place, all of these I think are going to 
appease for a short period of time only. And then another project will 
come along that people find so objectionable that I think the 
grassroots will rise up and cause a majority of people in the Congress 
to say ``enough is enough.'' Indeed, on the House side, I guess that is 
where they have already arrived.
  So what I will be offering, as I say, at some point is an amendment 
that I brought before our committee, the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, an amendment on a reauthorization bill which called for a 
privatization of the national endowments, a privatization over a 
sufficiently lengthy period of time--5 years--that would give the 
endowments an opportunity to make the transition from Government 
funding to private funding. It would proceed on a slow enough pace I 
think for the entities to be able to develop 

[[Page S11986]]
the kind of financial resources necessary to continue to be national 
entities but to no longer be ones which had either, A, direct taxpayer 
support; or, B, a lot of Government censorship as part of their day-to-
day regimen.
  I know that some people question whether or not this is feasible. But 
the fact of the matter is that today the role in terms of the funding 
that we provide--that is, the Congress provides--the arts is a very 
small percentage of the total amount of funding that the arts receive 
annually. Indeed, it is less than 2 percent. Our $145 or $147 million, 
which was this year's funding level, is just a thimbleful of support 
compared to what comes from private sources. Mr. President, over $9 
billion in support of the arts comes from private sources.
  It seems to me that it is very likely and very feasible that a 
national entity which would continue to provide the sort of national 
imprimatur that we have heard discussed here today would be able to 
raise the kinds of resources necessary to maintain a level of activity 
at least as vigorous as we currently have. Indeed, I would suggest that 
a national entity, if it received as much support from the artists and 
the arts community that we have seen evidenced in this debate, would be 
able to have even more resources available to support the causes that 
such a national entity decided to back.
  So, Mr. President, without belaboring the issue at great length 
today, I will be coming back to this Chamber at some point with an 
amendment which will outline a 5-year plan of privatization. I think 
the net effect of that will be a win-win: a win in the sense that there 
will remain a national entity providing the imprimatur of support for 
worthy arts projects across America; a win for the taxpayers in the 
sense that those who wish to continue supporting it could make 
charitable contributions and receive tax deductions for those 
charitable contributions, but the taxpayers who do not support the 
program will no longer be forced directly to support such an entity; 
and I think a win for the American people in general and for the arts 
community in particular because I believe when it is over and that 
process is in place, that there will be more, not less, support 
available from a national source to give those worthy projects the 
backing they need to remain in existence.
  Mr. President, I will be bringing this to the floor sometime in the 
near future. I look forward to discussing it further with interested 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is informed that the 
pending amendment is the Craig amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending 
amendment so that I might offer my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Amendment No. 2304 To Various Committee Amendments

 (Purpose: To increase the funding for the National Endowment for the 
 Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of 
                            Museum Services)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Pell, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, and Ms. Moseley-Braun 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2304 to various committee 
     amendments.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I respectfully object. I would like for the 
clerk to read the entire amendment. I want to be sure everything is in 
there that I want in there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue to report.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to read as follows:

       On page 2, line 11, strike ``$565,936,000'' and insert 
     ``$564,938,000''.
       On page 2, line 24, strike ``$27,650,000'' and insert 
     ``$27,273,000''.
       On page 3, line 5, strike ``$565,936,000'' and insert 
     ``$564,938,000''.
       On page 3, line 11, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $44,879,000 of the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for administrative support for work 
     force and organizational support''.
       On page 9, line 23, strike ``$496,978,000'' and insert 
     ``$496,792,000''.
       On page 10, line 19, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $13,442,000 of the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for general administration and for the 
     Central Office Administration of the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service''.
       On page 16, line 13, strike ``$145,965,000'' and insert 
     ``$145,762,000''.
       On page 17, line 14, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $14,655,000 of the total amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for the administration of the Natural 
     Resource Science Agency''.
       On page 21, line 22, strike ``$577,503,000'' and insert 
     ``$577,157,000''.
       On page 24, line 13, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $25,027,000 of the total amount appropriated for the 
     United States Geological Survey shall be used for the general 
     administration of the United States Geological Survey''.
       On page 24, line 23, strike ``$182,169,000'' and insert 
     ``$181,725,000''.
       On page 26, line 14, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $32,099,000 of the amount appropriated shall be used for 
     administrative operations and general administration and for 
     the Minerals Management Service''.
       On page 27, line 10, strike ``$132,507,000'' and insert 
     ``$132,216,000''.
       On page 28, line 6, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $21,024,000 of the amount appropriated shall be used for 
     the general administration of the Bureau of Mines''.
       On page 28, line 14, strike ``$95,470,000'' and insert 
     ``$95,316,000''.
       On page 29, line 6, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $11,135,000 of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for the general administration of the 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement''.
       On page 29, line 12, strike ``$170,441,000'' and insert 
     ``$170,374,000''.
       On page 30, line 17, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $4,820,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading 
     shall be used for the general administration of the Abandoned 
     Mine Reclamation Fund''.
       On page 66, line 15, strike ``$1,256,043,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,252,291,000''.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the remainder of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 67, line 3, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $271,248,000 of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for the general administration of the 
     National Forest System for the Department of Agriculture''.
       On page 77, line 9, strike ``$376,181,000'' and insert 
     ``$376,027,000''.
       On page 77, line 12, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $11,167,000 of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for headquarters program direction and 
     fossil energy research and development for the Department of 
     Energy''.
       On page 78, line 3, strike ``$136,028,000'' and insert 
     ``$135,938,000''.
       On page 78, line 7, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $6,510,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading 
     shall be used for the program direction of the Naval 
     Petroleum Reserve for the Department of Energy''.
       On page 78, line 10, strike ``$576,976,000'' and insert 
     ``$576,661,000''.
       On page 79, line 2, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That not more 
     than $22,741,000 of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for the technical and financial 
     assistance management for energy conservation for the 
     Department of Energy''.
       On page 95, line 19, strike ``$82,259,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,753,000''.
       On page 96, line 23, strike ``$96,494,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,000,000''.
       On page 97, line 21, strike ``$21,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$22,000,000''.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act may be used to promote, disseminate, sponsor or produce 
     materials or performances which denigrate the objects or 
     beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion.''
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available 

[[Page S11987]]
     to the National Endowment for the Arts under this Act may be used to 
     promote, disseminate, sponsor or produce materials or 
     performances that depict or describe, in a patently offensive 
     way, sexual or excretory activities or organs.''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to explain what we are doing 
here.
  Our main concern and main desire and the purpose of this amendment is 
to ensure that the endowments go forward and that we will have in 
conference comparable bills which ensure the existence of the endowment 
and the Museum Services Institute. That is the essence of the amendment 
though we may have a change in just how the offsets are crafted for the 
increase in funding--but the level of the endowments will be raised to 
$110 million each.
  Also, there are two amendments that were added at the request of 
Senator Helms dealing with pornography and dealing with the 
inappropriate depiction of religious items which will be made a part of 
the agreement.
  I am hopeful that by doing this we can lay to rest the fear that many 
have that this Congress and the Senate in particular is going to step 
back from its commitment to the arts. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. And I hope with the near unanimity that we have on this 
amendment it would indicate appropriate guidance with respect to what 
is a proper utilization of money from the arts endowment, an issue that 
Senator Helms has addressed with his language and idicate as well that 
there is a desire to continue the operation of the endowments. The 
endowments will be operating at a greatly reduced level, though our 
amendment today will put them at a significantly higher level than the 
House has offered. We will have to discuss that issue further in 
conference.
  I should also like to point out how important the continuation of the 
endowments is. I will later make a part of the Record an article in the 
Smithsonian from May of this year: ``Deep in the North Country They 
Danced Their Hearts Out,'' which highlights the important ways 
endowment funds have been put to use.
  Also, as I mentioned, Time magazine had on its cover this week an 
indication of how incredibly important it is for this Nation to stand 
behind its commitment to the arts, for a nation without art and without 
a commitment to the arts, is really a nation without soul. And it is 
important that that is demonstrated by Congress, in particular.
  So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Jeffords, 
Simpson, Bumpers, and others in offering this amendment to strengthen 
the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
  The debate over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] is not about making 
tough budget choices. This is a debate over whether reason will prevail 
over hysteria.
  The Federal deficit is out of control and Congress must continue to 
make tough choices to get our fiscal books in order. But we are not 
going to balance the budget by eliminating Federal funding to the arts 
and humanities.
  Opponents of Federal support for the cultural agencies have singled 
out a tiny fraction of the total grants provided across country as 
objectionable. I, too, have found several of the projects which 
received funding personally disturbing.
  But since when does Congress eliminate an entire agency for a few bad 
grants? The Department of Defense would have been abolished long ago if 
it had been held to a similar criteria that a few bad contracts were 
justification for closing down the Pentagon.
  Federal cultural agencies have unfortunately become political symbols 
for groups that objected to that tiny fraction of grants. I strongly 
believe, however, that they are a worthy investment--even in these 
times of fiscal restraint.
  Promoting the arts and humanities is much more than awarding grants. 
These agencies promote programs that foster the healthy artistic and 
cultural weave that binds our diverse society together.
  I need to look no further than my home State of Vermont to see why we 
must maintain adequate Federal funding for NEA and NEH. It is easy to 
review lists of the grant awards that have been made in Vermont or any 
other State. Such a shallow approach belittles the work done by these 
agencies. These grants keep our culture vibrant and remind all of those 
who they touch how fortunate we are to live in these United States.
  Let me highlight some of the programs in Vermont and show how the 
benefits far exceed the minor investment we make to promote the arts 
and humanities.
  The Folklife Center is one recipient in Vermont of a challenge grant 
from the NEA. The center enriches Vermonters of all ages by displaying 
the beauty and importance of the artisans and their crafts of basketry, 
quiltmaking, stonework, slate and granite carving.
  Arts programs benefit the entire community.
  The Catamount Film and Arts Co. in a very rural part of Vermont, 
known as the Northeast Kingdom, has earned a national reputation for 
excellence in programming and community service. The $5,000 that they 
receive from the NEA enables them to present over 25 live performing 
arts events each year.
  Over 5,000 Vermonters visited the Rutland Region Ethnic Festival last 
year thanks to support from the NEA. Everyone enjoyed entertainment and 
a variety of foods from around the world.
  Through a grant from the NEH, the Mother Goose Program promotes 
literacy throughout Vermont by encouraging parents to read with their 
children. A special part of this program is dedicated to teen parents.
  Mr. President, every program in this appropriations bill is being 
cut. That is reality. This amendment brings parity to the arts and 
humanities.
  With the additional funds provided in this amendment, both NEA and 
NEH are funded at $110 million. This amendment is not perfect. Even at 
this level, NEA would be reduced by 32 percent and the NEH by 36 
percent from this year.
  I would certainly like to see funding for the NEA and NEH at a much 
higher level. More than the numbers involved, however, this amendment 
is a show of the Senate's commitment to continuing strong Federal arts 
and humanities programs now, and in the future.
  The NEA and NEH are extremely important to my home State of Vermont. 
And I am pleased to be working with my colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, to strengthen these institutions. Senator Jeffords has been 
tireless in his support for the arts and humanities.
  The amendment we are offering is about more than the State of 
Vermont, it is about our country as a whole.
  These agencies and the grants they award preserve and perpetuate our 
national cultural heritage. They deserve our support and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment which 
would restore a minimal amount of funding to our Nation's cultural 
endowments and the Institute of Museum Services. I am a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  I proudly stand here in support of the NEA, the NEH, and the IMS. The 
cuts in this bill which devastate the endowments will have serious 
implications on our local theaters, arts classrooms and on the creative 
voice of our Nation.
  Let us not kid ourselves. These cuts are not a result of fiscal 
restraint. The cost of maintaining the NEA amounts to 65 cents a 
person. A few days ago, we in the Senate defeated an amendment to the 
Defense appropriations bill that would have eliminated the $7 billion 
increase over the budget request. Seven billion dollars.
  Some may say that we need these funds to boost readiness. Mr. 
President, some may not know that the Department of Defense spends more 
money on military bands than we appropriate for the NEA. In fiscal year 
1995, the Department was appropriated $179.5 million. That is over $10 
million more than was appropriated for the NEA in fiscal year 1995, and 
almost twice as much as is appropriated for the NEA in this bill.
  Opponents of the NEA, NEH, and the IMS contend that Government should 
not fund the arts.
  Perhaps the entities should be privatized. Mr. President, military 

[[Page S11988]]
  bands play for free, with no private cost share. On the other hand, 
every Endowment dollar attracts $11 for the arts from State, regional 
and local arts agencies, foundations, corporations, businesses, and 
individuals.
  Now, I am not against military bands. But to claim that the NEA 
receives too much money while the military receives almost twice as 
much for military bands reflects skewed priorities.
  I am a longtime supporter of the Endowments. I fully believe that the 
arts and humanities reflect and shape what we are as a nation.
  It is not just the Lincoln Centers, the New Jersey Performing Arts 
Centers, the McCarter Theaters--it is a schoolchild's first exposure to 
creativity when he or she writes a poem or a story or draws a picture 
in class.
  It is their enchantment at hearing their first opera on a fifth grade 
field trip. It is their joy in performing in their grade school play or 
their high school production.
  It is the joy of millions who see productions from the smallest 
community theaters to Broadway, from the church pageant to the Mark 
Taper Forum in LA; from the band that plays in the local municipal 
Fourth of July parade to the Tyrone Guthrie Playhouse in Minneapolis.
  It is how America is represented to the rest of the world. It is how 
America reaches the rest of the world.
  These are our Shakespeares, our Maya Angelous, our Mary Cassats, our 
Dizzy Gillespies and Count Basies and Lionel Hamptons; our Whitney 
Houstons, and our Jane Alexanders whose achievements will never 
enlighten and enchant and allow generations to dream if we eliminate 
the funding.
  In the name of budget cutting we will be killing off a vital part of 
what we are. What we spend on the arts now is minuscule compared to the 
return. the arts are our past, our present, and our future. They are 
our collective memory and our collective dream.
  Mr. President, I have heard from hundreds of New Jerseyans on the NEA 
and the NEH. The level of support for the NEA and NEH is overwhelming. 
Let me relay to the Senate selections from a few of those letters:

       I am an eleven year old music student. My father has told 
     me that throughout history, almost all civilized governments 
     have supported the arts.
       I feel it would be a tragedy for this country, the greatest 
     in human history, to abandon the arts, and allow much beauty 
     to wither away.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       How can we contemplate eliminating these cultural 
     necessities while still pretending to be a great, mature 
     nation? The more we cut, the more careful we must be in order 
     not to lose what is valuable. Wholesale slash-and-burn is no 
     substitute for intelligent government.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       One of the reasons I love living in New Jersey is indeed 
     for the easy availability of the arts here. For a country 
     that prides itself on freedom of speech and a diversity of 
     points of view, it is only fitting that the nation as a whole 
     would act as an arts patron. This is hardly a novel idea--the 
     other industrialized nations subsidize their arts and artists 
     at far higher rates than we do.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Please don't let the NEA die. Let our elected leaders help 
     to leave a legacy to future generations.
       Help these generations become the enlightened, enriched 
     citizens of tomorrow.

  Mr. President, my constituents say it better than I do. Support this 
meager increase in funding for the NEA, the NEH, and the IMS. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend, Senator 
Pell, who was the prime sponsor for the legislation establishing these 
programs 30 years ago. I commend his vision and believe that the record 
of these agencies is a tremendous tribute to him.
  We have had over the period of recent weeks and months a relentless 
assault on the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities. I think many of us across this country 
understand the importance of these agencies. They are deserving of our 
support because they make an enormous difference in the quality of life 
of our Nation--and, most importantly, in our culture, helping to define 
the context of our history and our society. If we do not understand the 
humanities, we really fail to understand the individual aspects of our 
culture, and the unique aspects and values of our society.
  Although the funding levels for these agencies are modest, the 
achievements of this program have been extraordinary over any careful 
and honest examination of its history. The National Endowment for the 
Arts is the principle way that the Federal Government demonstrates the 
Nation's appreciation of and respect for the arts. Every great 
civilization from recorded times has valued the arts and valued the 
humanities. The legacy of the Endowments is extraordinary. Small 
communities and countless neighborhoods have benefited in a variety of 
different ways, further encouraging as the Endowments support programs 
and performances in theater, music, dance, poetry, and painting.
  We do not have to mention at this time the list of writers and 
painters, those individuals whose creative energy and expression have 
enriched the Nation, achieved the top tier of recognition and 
accomplishment, and look back with pride and gratitude to Endowment 
support in their early years of development.
  The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and Senator Leahy, along with 
Senator Pell and others, have been the workhorses in the effort to 
enact this legislation. I think all of us are grateful for all they 
have done.
  There are provisions included in this compromise amendment which I 
myself would oppose if they were offered as individual amendments. I 
continue to oppose any attempt to impose content restrictions on the 
grant-making process and hope that they will not be ultimately agreed 
to. Nonetheless, I also hope that adoption of this amendment is a clear 
indication of support for the arts and that the Endowments are here to 
stay.
  We will have an opportunity to fight another day to enhance their 
accessibility and availability to millions of our citizens. But clearly 
with the acceptance of this amendment the NEA and the NEH will continue 
to function and enrich the lives of millions of American citizens.
  The funding levels approved in the amendment are a significant 
increase over those approved by the House. I am pleased that we have 
been able to improve that level of support and, as I stated earlier, 
affirm our strong support for the continued existence of these agencies 
that contribute in such a meaningful way, to our American way of life.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas will yield just 
for a moment, I compliment the Senator from Vermont and the Senator 
from Massachusetts and others, the Senator from Wyoming, the 
distinguished chairman and others, who have worked closely, the Senator 
from Utah, the Senator from Rhode Island. I commend them very highly. 
It has been a very, very difficult time getting this far, and I hope we 
will see next year a chance to increase these funds once again. But I 
think it is absolutely essential we save these two endowments.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will my senior colleague yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague from Vermont 
for the effort he has put in over the years in this matter. We have 
worked very closely on this, and I can assure you that back in Vermont 
it is no political liability to do what we are doing here today as our 
State is very much involved in the arts and maintaining them. I know 
there are others who wish to speak. I know the junior Senator from 
Texas is here, and so I yield the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to speak in favor of the amendment because I agree with many 
of those who have spoken so far that we are a nation that should be 
committed to the American culture, and it should be a priority. I 
should like to speak from personal experience.
  I grew up in La Marque, TX, a town of 15,000. Now, obviously we did 
not have cultural centers in La Marque, TX, but because of the NEA and 
because of the commitment that we have in America to making sure our 
young 

[[Page S11989]]
people do have the ability to have access to the arts, I was able to go 
35 miles to Houston, TX, to see the ballet, to see the opera, to see 
the symphony. And from that, I received an awareness of a very 
important performing arts culture that I would not have had as a young 
girl in a very small town.
  That is duplicated all over this country. In Abilene, TX, a town of 
under 50,000, they now have a burgeoning opera helped by the NEA, and 
just this past month they performed ``La Traviata,'' and it was a 
sellout at every performance.
  Do we have problems with the NEA? Absolutely, we do. We all 
acknowledge that there are problems with the way things have been 
handled where taxpayers have been required to fund offensive art.
  Is the answer to do away with the American commitment to our culture? 
Absolutely not. What we must do is make sure we are funding what is 
uniquely American and what is educational for young people from small 
towns as well as young people in our inner cities about what is good in 
the world.
  An appreciation of the arts is a very important part of overall 
education. Senator Bennett of Utah and myself came up with a new bill 
to reorganize the NEA. Senator Jeffords and Senator Kassebaum came up 
with other ways to reorganize the NEA. Each is coming at this in a 
different way but not in such a different way that we will not be able 
to make some changes to improve the NEA, the NEH, and our museum 
services so that they will be available for more people in our country 
and so that we also will be able to keep the national treasures such as 
we have in Washington and New York.
 I think we can come up with a fair allocation.

  In our bill that Senator Bennett spoke about earlier today, we make 
sure that the funding goes to organizations of the arts, not to 
individual artists that might do things that would offend the 
conscience of mainstream America. We also have an outright ban of any 
kind of obscenity, pornography or anything that would violate the 
standards of common decency. Some people in the arts community like to 
say, ``Oh, but you cannot define decency. That would be too hard. That 
would offend our artistic license.''
  I could not disagree more. There is a standard of common decency. And 
when we are using American taxpayer dollars, I think we can easily 
determine what should be used for arts appreciation and what is 
inappropriate. Do those people have a right to go out and use private 
funds to have their interpretation of art? Absolutely. But do we have 
to have Government funding of that? No.
  I think we can make a clear distinction with American taxpayer 
dollars. So, yes, we have some problems. But we can face those problems 
without giving up the commitment to America's culture and to educate 
our children about the importance of appreciating the opera, 
appreciating our art museums, appreciating symphonies, and the ballet. 
Because I grew up in a town that was close to Houston where we had 
regional art centers, I was able to go to Houston every Saturday 
morning and participate in the Houston Youth Symphony ballet. So I had 
the opportunity to perform, to have access to this kind of very 
important part of my education.
  I want to make sure that the young girls and boys growing up all over 
our country have regional centers and that we have a commitment to that 
so that they will grow up to be able to appreciate and understand the 
importance of arts in our country.
  I want to end with a quote from John Ruskin, the great British art 
historian of the last century, who set down the standard for nations 
when he wrote, ``Great nations write their autobiographies in three 
manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the 
book of their art.''
  Mr. President, I want to make sure that we have the book of art and 
the book of words along with our great standard of deeds in this 
country for our future generations to appreciate. And that is the 
purpose of this amendment and the purpose of Senator Bennett and myself 
working with Senator Jeffords and Senator Kassebaum to make sure that 
the NEA does what our standards would require that they do; and that 
is, provide the support for the excellence in the arts for our future 
generations to be able to have the access that we would like for them 
to have.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to ask the gallery not 
show any signs of approval or disapproval to any statement.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I want to first compliment the Senators from Vermont 
for offering this amendment. And I intend to vote for it, but not with 
much relish. The reason I am not voting for it with much relish is 
because it still leaves the National Endowment of the Arts [NEA] and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] terribly underfunded.
  There is not anything wrong with this country and there is not 
anything wrong with Congress except our priorities. We can balance the 
budget by the year 2002. We could educate our children. We could teach 
humanities and the arts. We could become a much more civilized nation. 
But you cannot do that and take care of all these other things that are 
mostly political. For example, Congress is proposing to spend $7 
billion more on defense than even the Defense Department asked for. And 
people are almost afraid because they do not want to go home and say 
they voted against the defense bill, they do not want their opponent to 
say they are weak on defense.
  A lot of times I think--and I do not mean this to be demeaning of my 
colleagues--that one of the reasons people cast irresponsible votes 
around here is because it is easy, it is easy not to have to go home 
and explain a controversial vote. How many times do you read almost 
daily how people wish Congress would gather up their nerve and do the 
right thing? You know what that means? That means doing things that are 
controversial and that you have to give an accounting for.
  I have cast my share of controversial votes, and it gets me in a lot 
of hot water. For example, I am not going to vote for a school prayer 
amendment to the Constitution. I am for prayer in school but not for 
tinkering with the Constitution. I am not going to vote for the flag 
desecration amendment to the Constitution, where we would allow each 
State to decide what desecration is and the penalty therefor. What kind 
of a Constitution would it be where free speech will be determined by 
each of the 50 States? In one State you get the death penalty for 
spitting on the flag and another you get a $10 fine for burning one in 
public. What kind of result would that be? And it is controversial. You 
ask the ordinary man on the street in America, ``do you favor flag 
burning?'' ``Of course not. Who does?'' ``Do you favor prayer in 
school?'' People are sure that they are going to get stricken dead if 
they say no.
  You know why people vote for those things? Some of them vote for them 
honestly. They believe in it. And some of them simply do not want to go 
home and try to educate their electorate. You know being a legislator 
requires you to also be an educator.
  And so here we are, on the Interior appropriations bill, giving away 
$15.5 billion in gold and silver last night--corporate welfare galore--
and cutting the NEA and NEH. Even with this amendment, those two 
programs are still cut 30 percent. So what does that mean? A little 
State like mine that has a fine symphony is going to have to get out 
and grub it out and try to find some money to make up for what they are 
going to lose from the National Endowment for the Arts. The Arkansas 
Repertory Theater, not big but extremely important to a few people, is 
going to have to go out and try to find the money or have a lot fewer 
performances. The very things that are so limited, but which make us a 
more civilized nation, are what we are choosing to cut.
  Mr. President, most everybody whoever watched PBS knows who David 
McCullough is. He wrote that magnificent book on Harry Truman. And here 
is what he said about the NEH. Listen to this poignant quote.

       When I think of what the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities has done to support gifted young documentary 
     filmmakers like 

[[Page S11990]]
     Ken Burns, when I count up the programs in ``The American Experience'' 
     series that have benefited from Endowment funding--38 films 
     thus far, including biographical portraits of such American 
     figures as Eisenhower, FDR, Lindbergh, Duke Ellington, 
     Thurgood Marshall--when I see the magnificent library of 
     America volumes filling shelf after shelf, when I see in 
     libraries and archives the priceless historic documents that 
     have been preserved, all this, the films, the books, the 
     conservation efforts--because of endowment grants,
      I know absolutely the value of the returns for such 
     government investment.

  Many years ago I read in Time magazine where the University of Texas 
was offering a dynamite course on the differences in the philosophies 
of Virgil's ``Aeneid'' and Homer's ``Ulysses,'' sort of a comparison 
really of authoritarian versus nonauthoritarian governments.
  They had room for 224 teachers for a 9-week course at the University 
of Texas, and they had 4,400 teachers apply for those positions. What a 
dynamite subject for teachers to pass on to their students about the 
beginnings of our civilization and how we got to where we are now.
  So I began to try to get money here for that, because that one was 
privately funded. We finally got the National Endowment for the 
Humanities up to the point that last summer, Mr. President, they had 
3,250 teachers in those summer seminar courses in philosophy, political 
science, our beloved Constitution, literature, drama, and art, and they 
go back and they pass that off to 500,000 youngsters.
  So many children, particularly those who grow up in small towns like 
I did, are lucky to ever be exposed to anything that has any cultural 
enrichment. Turn the networks on tonight and turn on most of the pay-
per-view movies, and you know what you get. I would hate to be raising 
children today. I feel sorry for parents in this environment. I think 
parents ought to have a right to determine what their children are 
going to see, and at the rate we are going, they are not going to see 
``Mister Rogers,'' Big Bird, and ``Sesame Street.'' Oh, they must be 
subversive. Why else would we be cutting PBS funding?
  I remember when I was a sophomore in high school and we were reading 
``Beowulf'' we had a literature and English teacher, Miss Doll Means. 
She let us read a paragraph, and we would talk about that paragraph. I 
had been reading for a full page, and I looked up because I wondered 
why she was letting me read longer, and she said: ``You have a nice 
voice and you read beautifully.'' She did more for my self-esteem in 
about 3 seconds than anybody, except my father, before or since. It was 
her saying that to me, plus the fact that I had had some success as a 
trial lawyer, to jump up out of a town of 1,000 people and run for 
Governor.
  My father said public service is the noblest of all callings. I do 
not know what he would think today. I always thought I wanted my 
children to follow me in politics. I am not so sure. It was always a 
given that we would go into public service, and now with the 
atmosphere, poisoned as it is all across America, people becoming 
increasingly uncivilized--``thank you'' and ``please'' and ``excuse 
me'' are words you hardly ever hear anymore.
  Mr. President, when I went to World War II, I was stuck overseas at 
the end of the war. One day, I saw a note on the bulletin board: ``If 
you're interested in Shakespeare, show up at such and such a barracks 
tonight.'' I thought, I do not know anything about Shakespeare, but it 
beats sitting around the barracks. So I went. Six marines were there, 
and the teacher who was going to teach us about Shakespeare, as it 
turned out, not only was a Shakespearean scholar, but he was a Harvard 
professor. He had a tape recorder, which at that time was unheard of. I 
had never seen a tape recorder in my life. You could actually speak 
into a microphone and listen to your voice come back to you.
  So he said, ``We'll start off with Hamlet's speech to the players,'' 
and he did. He had a booming base voice. He said:

       Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, 
     trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it, as many of 
     your players do, I had as lief the towncrier spoke my lines.

  That was pretty common. That has been 50 years ago, and I still 
remember it. He played it back on the tape recorder, and it sounded so 
beautiful. He said, ``OK, you're first.'' And so I did it, and when he 
played it back to me, I could not believe I had an Arkansas twang. It 
was embarrassing to have to listen to it after Miss Doll Means told me 
I had a wonderful voice.
  But do you know what? That day, listening to that tape recorder, I 
made up my mind I was not going to be like everybody else. I was going 
to learn to speak. I knew English because Miss Doll Means taught me how 
to diagram sentences and I knew how to speak because it was genetic; my 
father was a great speaker.
  I said, ``I'm not going to be like everybody else and just drift 
through life. I am going to try to be distinct.''
  These are personal stories, but they relate to the subject we are 
debating today. Think of the 500,000 children that are exposed to these 
teachers who go to these NEH summer seminars. Think of the people who 
watched ``The Civil War'' series on PBS. Think of the moral stories 
that children get from ``Mister Rogers'' and ``Sesame Street'', and 
look at the way people dress and the way they act,
 and you wonder where this country is headed. You read ``The Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire'' and see if you see any analogies between 
then and now. Ask yourself why we spend less money on cultural 
enrichment than any other developed country in the world. I went to the 
Soviet Union in 1971. I was staggered by how much money that poor 
country spent on cultural programs, even trying to preserve the history 
of the czars.

  Well Mr. President, while my speech may have been too lengthy, I just 
want everyone to know that I think the reduction in spending on NEA and 
NEH is a terrible tragedy. I applaud the Senators from Vermont for 
trying to do something about it.
  I offered an amendment during subcommittee consideration of the 
Interior appropriations bill to increase funding for the NEH by $15 
million, and we succeeded. I am as proud of that as anything I have 
done since I have been in the Senate. But it pales in comparison to 
what we should be doing.
  Someday--and it may be too late--we are going to understand that 
funding for NEA and NEH is not wasted money. It is money that makes us 
a greater Nation. It makes us more civilized. It makes us appreciate 
where we came from. It is a tragedy that we have to cut it. But I am 
very pleased to support the amendment to increase the levels of funding 
in comparison to the House bill.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of 
comments regarding the pending amendment. I appreciate what Senator 
Simpson stated when he gave quite a list as to how the National 
Endowment for the Arts has helped rural States such as Wyoming. 
Certainly, I can show an equal list of what it has done for the State 
of Idaho. Senator Hutchison, who went into great deal of her own 
experience and how this has helped. I am receptive to those arguments.
  I know that we all realize there have been problems with the NEA with 
things that have been funded that I think no one in this Chamber is 
proud of. In fact, I remember last year there were examples of items 
that had been the product of perhaps grants from the National Endowment 
for the Arts that were in the Cloakroom that could not be brought out 
here because they were obscene. I do not think anybody can understand 
how we would utilize funds for that purpose.
  But that was under a different situation. There is a new director now 
at NEA, Jane Alexander. I think many of us who have been watching have 
been favorably impressed by her and by those that she has surrounded 
herself with in working on this.
  I say to those individuals that have this responsibility now, that as 
they look to the future, if in doubt, do not. If there is any question, 
if there is a gray area as to whether or not that particular project 
should or should not be funded because it could borderline on something 
that we would not want to see, that is not a question of censorship; 
that is a question of sponsorship. That is their responsibility. They 
must exercise that responsibility, and they must say on different 
occasions, no. Because if they do not, the Senate and the House will 
say no to the funding of the NEA.
  But this amendment that is before us now contains language of the 
Senator 

[[Page S11991]]
from North Carolina dealing with this question of obscenity, 
pornography. I feel it sets the parameters, sets the guidelines.
  But, again, we have a situation where we have new leadership in the 
National Endowment for the Arts, and I am supportive of that 
leadership. I say let them continue this effort now under the new 
regime.
  When I was mayor of Boise, ID, I know there were different occasions 
that, by use of public funds, not many but some, it serves as a 
catalyst so that you can increase efforts toward art and culture, 
because that defines a society. That is positive.
  So I do support this amendment that is before us. I do support the 
efforts of Jane Alexander and those individuals that are working with 
her, but to remind them that they are going to have to make the tough 
decisions because, if not, we certainly will.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield to the senior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague. I want to associate myself with his 
remarks. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
working out what could have been a very difficult situation and for 
recognizing, as I think the Senate always has, that there are public 
moneys for the arts, and there should be.
  But what my colleague from Idaho just said, we have also recognized 
that there is a clear difference between censorship and sponsorship and 
the use of public dollars. Certainly the use of public dollars ought to 
meet the broad test. And the broad test is, can the general public view 
these experiences or can they view these acquisitions or these 
sponsorships? I think when you are using public dollars, you have to 
say yes.
  While I appreciate some artists' expressions that others do not, I 
think it is important to recognize that we have the responsibility as 
the guardians of the public treasury and trust, that all that we do 
meets the broader test. Where there is an expressive individual who 
chooses to go in another direction, they ought to seek private 
sponsorship and not public sponsorship for such an expression.
  I agree with my colleague from Idaho, that while our funds are 
limited and while this amendment represents a substantial cut, it also 
says very clearly that the Senate, the Congress, wants to continue the 
National Endowment and all that it does for our communities, and 
especially for rural States as has been so eloquently expressed by 
some, where small communities have little to no access to what larger 
communities have and the National Endowment has brought them the arts 
in very unique and positive ways. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. To conclude, I thank the managers of the bill because 
I think they have been very helpful in bringing us to the point where 
we can move forward in the proper fashion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the 
Leahy-Jeffords amendment to restore funding to the National Endowment 
for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 
Institute for Museum Services. I believe it is important to note at the 
outset that this amendment will not fully restore funding for any of 
these agencies. Indeed, these agencies are still will face cuts 
approximately twice that of overall spending in the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I would like to share with the Senate just a few of 
the worthy programs in New Mexico that received funding in fiscal year 
1995 from these agencies. This funding includes $6,100 that the Museum 
of New Mexico received from the NEA for a traveling exhibit exploring 
the 20th century phenomenon of Hispanic women as santeras, or makers of 
saint icons, called ``The Art of the Santera.'' The making of santos is 
a particularly beautiful and respected art form in New Mexico, and this 
exhibit traveled throughout the Southwest. The museum also received NEA 
funding for a family photography project, which served over 24,000 New 
Mexicans in Raton, Aztec, Jemez, Fort Selden, Clovis, and Las Cruces. 
Participants in these mostly rural communities learned how to preserves 
old family photos, and used the photos to improve their understanding 
of their history and culture.
  The Museum of Indian Arts and Culture benefited from several NEA 
grants this year, including $34,000 for the ``Families and 
Communities'' demonstration and mentoring program. With this funding, 
the museum will be able to establish eight teams of established and 
younger Indian artists to conceive, create, and demonstrate their 
traditional arts. Visitors to the museum will be able to discuss and 
interact with the teams as they work.
  Mr. President, both of these award highlight the role the NEA has 
played and should continue to play in creating and disseminating 
culture, and facilitating communication and appreciation among the 
diverse communities living in New Mexico and throughout the Nation. In 
an increasingly balkanized society, we have more than enough issues 
that drive us apart. Art is a powerful tool we can use in our attempts 
to create ties that bind us back together.
  The NEA is also an important tool in educating our children. We know 
that many important skills can be taught to children using the arts. 
Yet in my State, and throughout the Nation, schools are struggling to 
find funding for art education. I believe that the NEA can help 
leverage funding for this important activity. The city of Santa Fe, for 
example, recently applied for a grant of up to $175,000 for arts 
education. I am told that this application was instrumental to the city 
council's quick approval of a commitment to match that funding. It is 
likely that if the city is successful in establishing this program with 
seed money from the NEA, it will find a way to continue the program, 
perhaps with the help of private funding. I believe the experience of 
the city of Santa Fe is a perfect example of how the NEA has been able, 
with limited funding, to seed the development of enduring and very 
beneficial programs.
  The final NEA grant in New Mexico I would briefly like to highlight 
was given to the Fund for Folk Culture, a national organization 
headquartered in Santa Fe. The Fund for Folk Culture has been able, 
with a $50,000 grant from the NEA, to hire a staff person to administer 
$750,000 in privately donated funds for grants to support folk art 
throughout the Nation. The NEA funding is needed because of the 
difficulty the Fund for Folk Culture faces in raising any private 
foundation money for salaries and administration. Mr. President, this 
grant is leveraging 15 times the amount of the NEA grant. I challenge 
my colleagues to point to other Federal programs with this sort of 
leveraging effect.
  The NEH and IMS also fund outstanding projects in New Mexico. One 
that I have found particularly interesting is a grant the University of 
New Mexico has received from the NEH to find, catalog, and microfilm 
2,600 historic newspapers. I am told by the managers of this project 
that many of the newspapers they are saving through this project are 
literally coming out of the attics of New Mexicans who had previously 
had no understanding of the historic resources lurking there. So far, 
300,000 pages have been microfilmed as part of this effort, which is 
part of a nationwide historic preservation project. When complete, the 
project will be an invaluable resource for both historians and 
residents of many of the small, rural communities in New Mexico and 
throughout the Nation.
  Mr. President, I could continue for some time on the benefits brought 
to my State and the Nation by the National Endowment for the Arts, the 
National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum 
Services. I believe that the examples I have given, however, highlight 
the central point I wish to make: Far from funding frivolous culture 
for the elite with public money, the NEA, NEH, and IMS are leveraging 
funding for educating our children, leveraging large amounts of private 
funding, and providing access to the arts and humanities for rural and 
disadvantaged American. This support is, in my opinion, critical to our 
sense of nation, and our ability to bridge the cultural differences 
that so often tear us apart rather than bring us together.
  For all of these reasons, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment of my 
colleagues from Vermont.

[[Page S11992]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone 
in this Chamber to argue that art does not enrich American life. I 
think it would be equally difficult to find someone who has not been 
touched by art in some way at some important point in their lives.
  There is no dispute that art has played an invaluable role in the 
cultural life of our Nation. Increasingly, however, we are presented 
with what amounts to a ``yes or no'' proposition: is art important 
enough to fund at the Federal level?
  I firmly believe the answer to that question is ``yes.'' Americans 
want the Federal Government to play a role in promoting the arts. And 
they feel so strongly about this issue precisely because the small 
amount of Federal funding received by the NEA each year goes so far 
toward enhancing the cultural life of our Nation.
  The matching power of NEA grants is exceptional. Every dollar we 
appropriate at the Federal level generates more than $12 at the State 
and local level. This extraordinary leveraging power has helped 
increase the number of arts organizations and opportunities around the 
country since the NEA's inception since 1965: the number of large 
symphony orchestras has doubled; the number of dance companies has 
increased from 37 to over 400; the number of theaters has multiplied by 
8; and the number of State arts agencies has increased from 5 to 50.
  I am not shy about admitting that a good deal of my support of the 
NEA derives from the benefits it provides my State. South Dakota is a 
rural State, and many communities could not maintain on their own the 
kinds of cultural opportunities they have been able to maintain with 
the help of the NEA and the South Dakota Arts Council, which also 
receives funding from the NEA.
  My hometown of Aberdeen, SD, a city of about 25,000 people, has an 
orchestra and a community theater, both of which are made possible in 
part because of NEA dollars. And my hometown is one of the biggest 
cities in South Dakota.
  The support provided by the NEA is even more important to the many 
smaller communities of my State: communities like Freeman, which has a 
Swiss choral society; Sisseton, which operates a Heritage Museum; and 
Faith, which has an arts and historical society--all of which operate 
with assistance from the NEA.
  This is a big return for a relatively small investment.
  Mr. President, I am aware of the budgetary constraints under which we 
operate this year. Each year our fiscal decisions get more difficult as 
the demands of a runaway deficit grow ever larger. In such an 
environment, we must look critically at every program, and the arts are 
no exception.
  But let us be fair, and let us be reasonable. When I am told that it 
costs each American only 64 cents per year to support the NEA, I have 
to admit that sounds like a good return on our investment. I do not 
believe the NEA deserves the level of funding cut it is facing. I do 
not believe Americans want this small investment--whose corresponding 
benefits are so great--taken away from them.
  Unfortunately, the NEA has been an easy political target because of a 
few controversial grants it has approved. I fully appreciate the 
intensity of public opposition to Federal support for specific projects 
that many Americans consider offensive, and it is appropriate that the 
public and their representatives in Congress press this issue 
forcefully.
  Concern about the NEA's grant application process has been expressed, 
and NEA Chair Jane Alexander has addressed that concern frankly and 
forthrightly. Moreover, I fully expect that dialogue between the 
Congress and Ms. Alexander to continue.
  Nonetheless, the statistics have been overwhelmingly clear on this 
issue: the number of controversial grants made by the NEA is 
exceedingly small when compared to the total number of NEA-funded 
projects.
  I should also add that I think it is unrealistic to expect the NEA to 
be entirely free of controversy. It never will be, and we should not 
expect it to be. In her remarks to the Senate Labor Committee during 
her confirmation hearing, Jane Alexander said that--

       * * * the very essence of art, after all, is to hold the 
     mirror up to nature; the arts reflect the diversity and 
     variety of human experience. We are, as Hamlet says, `the 
     abstracts and brief chroniclers of the time,' and, as such, 
     the artist often taps into the very issues of society that 
     are most sensitive.

  And that is the way it should be. We should have constructive debate 
on how to improve the grant application process and the operation of 
the NEA. But the fact that there is occasional controversy should not 
be used as an excuse to abolish the agency or drastically reduce its 
funding.
  Mr. President, I realize we must make significant cuts in the budget 
this year. The arts, like every other area, will have to carry its 
share of the burden in this effort. It is my hope, however, that this 
debate will be fair, enlightened, and reasoned. Americans deserve the 
NEA's positive contributions to our culture.
                    Amendment No. 2304, As Modified

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to modify my amendment. The 
modification is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment is so modified.

       The amendment (No. 2304), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 95, line 9 strike ``$82,259,000'' and insert 
     ``$88,765,000''.
       On page 96, line 6, strike ``$17,235,000'' and insert 
     ``$21,235,000''.
       On page 96, line 23, strike ``$96,494,000'' and insert 
     ``$94,000,000''.
       On page 97, line 6, strike ``$18,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,000,000''.
       On page 3, line 17, strike ``$242,159,000'' and insert 
     ``$240,159,000''.
       On page 67, line 11, strike ``$385,485,000'' and insert 
     ``$381,485,000''.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act may be used to promote, disseminate, sponsor or produce 
     materials or performances which denigrate the objects or 
     beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion.''
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available to the National Endowment for the 
     Arts under this Act may be used to promote, disseminate, 
     sponsor, or produce materials or performances that depict or 
     describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual or excretory 
     activities or organs.''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment, sponsored by myself and 
Senators Leahy, Simpson, Pell, Bumpers, Kennedy, and Dodd, restores 
funds to the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment does 
restore modest funds to the agency, but still in making this effort, 
the endowments will still carry the burden of greatly reduced budgets.
  As I rise today, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that we 
are not restoring even more funds to these agencies. I am well aware 
that cuts are inevitable this year, but I do not believe that these 
agencies should be singled out for a disproportionate share of 
reductions. The proposed reduction of 40 percent to the NEA will 
devastate the Endowment. More importantly, this reduction will have an 
enormously negative impact on communities throughout the Nation, 
especially rural communities.
  It is very necessary and appropriate for our Government to support 
these agencies that encourage learning and support scholarship, 
preserve paintings and writings for future generations, bring the 
beauty and magic of art to all Americans as well as preserve and 
nurture our cultural heritage. The small contributions we make to these 
agencies go a very long way in preserving our history and investing in 
our future. This mission has been at the heart of both Endowments since 
their creation. Federal support has been under attack and criticism 
from those who perceive the Endowments as nothing more than Federal 
support for the rich and cultural elite. But nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  We can point to many examples of the very real ways in which all of 
our States as well as local communities benefit from Endowment or IMS 
supported projects. The Endowments and the IMS support projects that 
invigorate our downtowns. The Shelburne Museum in Vermont attracts 
visitors from across the State, around the country and from abroad to 
see the wonders of this renowned folklife center. The Endowments and 
the IMS enrich the learning experiences of young 

[[Page S11993]]
people in small communities, through grants to programs such as the 
Music, Words, Opera in schools throughout the State of Delaware, or the 
Artist in Residence Program which brought the Quantum Brass Quartet to 
Big Sandy, TX. They support projects to protect our most venerable 
works and texts for all to appreciate and see. A grant to the 
Historical Society of Iowa will go to preserving Iowa newspapers and a 
grant to Johns Hopkins University will go toward preparing an edition 
of papers of President Eisenhower. The Endowments make available 
projects and programs which make learning our history accessible and 
engaging such as the Civil War series, the Baseball series and other 
series on FDR and on the American Revolution.
  The agencies have proven effective in nurturing our cultural 
heritage, making the arts and humanities accessible to all the corners 
of the Nation, providing learning opportunities for young and old and 
generally encouraging a growth and flourishing of the arts and 
humanities in this country. We should not take for granted the 
importance of the work of these agencies, especially in the difficult 
times that face our Nation.
  The benefit to Vermont from these agencies is immeasurable, and 
Vermont, while unique in so many ways has that in common with all the 
other States in the country--they are well served by the programs 
supported by the NEA, NEH, and IMS. The projects and programs that the 
NEA, NEH, and IMS support are important and consequential. We can look 
at specifics, and we must today understand the impact of the cuts we 
are considering today. These drastic cuts will jeopardize both the 
important work being done by States in supporting local projects which 
the strengthen and enhance the education of our young people and 
provide learning opportunities for those not in school.
  One cannot minimize the impact that arts has on increasing the level 
of participation, the level of interest, the level of commitment of 
children in school. One cannot minimize the value of having 
exceptional, world acclaimed dance companies like Mark Morris Dance 
Group and the Trisha Brown Company visit and perform to people in small 
communities in Vermont, or being able to participate in a cultural 
festival which brings people in the community together like the one in 
Rutland, my hometown, funded in part by the NEA--all in Vermont, all 
thanks to the support of the NEA, NEH, and IMS, and all of which are of 
significant importance and value to the people of the State. I am not 
willing to jeopardize the availability of the Vermont Council on the 
Humanities and their Beginning with Mother Goose Program; the Ethan 
Allen Homestead Trust in Burlington, and the Brattleboro Museum and Art 
Center, in Brattleboro supported by the IMS; and the Flynn Theater, the 
Vermont Council on the Arts in Montpelier and Crossroads Arts Council 
in Rutland supported by the NEA.
  I would like to share an article with you that appeared in 
Smithsonian magazine which was given to me by the Executive Director of 
the Vermont Council on the Arts, Nicki Clarke. It is about the Wolcott 
Children's Ballet, which sprang up in 1980 thanks to the incredible 
commitment of people in this community. It has continued on a shoe 
string budget and continues to have an enormous impact on the lives of 
all who are part of it--the young dancers, volunteers, instructors, 
Vermonters from Wolcott, Hardwick, and other towns. This ballet school 
has enriched the community, and made so many lives more full. It has 
received some of its much needed support from the Vermont Council on 
the Arts. Projects such as this are far too important to underestimate 
or ignore.
  So I ask for your support today of this modest effort to make sure 
these agencies can continue to do their good works.
  I will yield to the floor manager soon for his comments. What we have 
done here, through an error, we took the money from the wrong accounts. 
Looking at all the figures, I did not notice that. I apologize to my 
colleagues for that error. I think we have now adjusted the amendment 
to take the money from where everybody thought it was coming from.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smithsonian Magazine 
article to which I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Smithsonian, May 1995]

         Deep in the North Country, They Dance Their Hearts Out

                    (By Richard and Joyce Wolkomir)

       In an out-of-plumb town hall in Wolcott, in northern 
     Vermont's lumbering country, a child is dancing. It is 9 at 
     night. Under bare light bulbs hung from a tin ceiling, the 
     10-year-old pirouettes to Vivaldi's Four Seasons.
       ``Releve lent!''
       Kennet Oberly, director of the 50-dancer Wolcott Children's 
     Ballet, watches with penetrating black eyes as the girl rises 
     on the balls of her feet, practicing a solo sequence. When 
     the troupe takes The Four Seasons on the back roads in a few 
     weeks, 3,000 schoolchildren and hundreds of adults in 
     Vermont's hardscrabble ``Northeast Kingdom'' will see 
     classical ballet. Far from the spotlights, the cheering fans, 
     the megastars and the glittering performances of the nation's 
     premier companies--the American Ballet Theater, say, or the 
     Joffrey--a troupe of children practices in obscurity, 
     striving for perfection. Oberly wants every foot to arch 
     exactly. Every finger must curl just so. ``Arabesque,'' he 
     says. The child elevates one leg behind her, toes pointed.
       Oberly, bald on top, a mane of black hair spreading over 
     his collar, demonstrates the steps, lithe as an otter. 
     ``Good, Jamie,'' he says. ``Now, pose en arriere.'' A log 
     truck rumbles by, shaking the building. The child falters. A 
     gust spatters the windows with April sleet. Oberly stops the 
     battered tape recorder. Turning toward two visitors, he 
     pivots from the diaphragm, as if he were still onstage in 
     Stuttgart, Tallinn, Helsinki, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Paris, 
     Milan, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York. 
     ``We're getting there,'' he says. ``Almost.''
       Director and ballerina stoop to the day's final task. They 
     pull up strips of gray duct tape for sticking mats to the 
     floors, which decades of work boots and galoshes have worn 
     too slick for ballet slippers. The child pulls a parka over 
     her pink leotard. Outside, wisps of mist rise from the still-
     frozen ground. ``Repetition is the mother of learning,'' 
     Oberly says, and switches off the lights.
       Weeks later, on a Sunday morning in May, a local agitator 
     for good causes, Nola Denslow, is explaining how a classical 
     ballet troupe sprang up here. She is talking over pancakes 
     and maple syrup in the Village Restaurant in Hardwick, five 
     miles east of Wolcott. Many of the diners are wearing billed 
     caps inscribed ``Caterpillar'' or ``John Deere.'' Parked 
     outside are pickups with rifles racked across the rear 
     windows.
       It began when Nola Denslow knocked--presumptuously--on a 
     stranger's door. She had moved to Vermont with her seven 
     children ``hoping to re-create the romance of rural Mexico,'' 
     where she had once lived. But she found ``any chance to be 
     involved in the arts was limited.'' So in 1980 she dragooned 
     volunteers, raised funds and got Wolcott to transform its 
     boarded-up railroad station into an arts center, offering 
     courses in everything from music to pottery making.
       But no dance. Then Denslow heard that a retired ballerina 
     and her husband lived on a Wolcott farm. June Gorton had been 
     an early member of the Balanchine Company and had assisted 
     Jerome Robbins in choreographing
      The King And I. Denslow quickly was knocking at the Gortons' 
     door, which was opened by a gray-haired woman with a 
     dancer's regal posture.
       Teaching dance would be a tremendous service, Denslow said. 
     ``Absolutely not!'' June Gorton said. ``I don't dance 
     anymore.'' ``I'm really sorry,'' Denslow said, merciless in a 
     good cause. ``A lot of kids in this town should have this 
     opportunity.'' The next day, Denslow's telephone rang. ``I'll 
     do it.'' June Gorton said.
       She taught virtually for free. Her husband, Robert, built 
     sets. But eventually the arts center's federal funding 
     evaporated. Wolcott had to decide: road salt or watercolors? 
     The vote was 50 to 49 for road salt. ``When people realized 
     it was lost, a gasp went through the town meeting,'' says 
     Denslow. The Gortons announced they would fund the Wolcott 
     Children's Ballet themselves. Classes moved to the Wolcott 
     Town Hall.
       For many youngsters, the ballet had become indispensable. 
     Girls who had never heard classical music in their lives 
     discovered that, onstage, they could excel. ``Once, they were 
     rehearsing with the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, which had a 
     formidable conductor at the time,'' recalls Denslow. One 
     little dancer, normally a mouse, turned to the baton-waving 
     maestro on the podium and commanded: ``Increase the tempo, 
     please!''
       In 1991 a cerebral hemorrhage partially paralyzed June 
     Gorton. From her wheelchair she continued to take an active 
     interest in the ballet, but she could no longer teach. 
     Finding another director with June's qualifications, who 
     could work for almost nothing, would be impossible. But the 
     children were addicted. And so Wolcott took a deep breath and 
     decided to raise money to hire a director. A Utah dancer 
     agreed to come, despite the tiny salary. The ``studio'' 
     awaiting her had wavy floors; sets and costumes were all 
     homemade. She stayed only a year. And 

[[Page S11994]]
     then--by a fluke--Kennet Oberly and his wife, Larissa Sintsova, a 
     principal dancer with the Estonian National Ballet, arrived 
     from Tallinn.
       Oberly's father, a physicist, developed the lens coating on 
     the camera Neil Armstrong used on the moon. His mother, a 
     theater director, was a founding member of Washington, D.C.'s 
     Arena Stage Theater.
       ``When I was 5, in 1962, a touring group of West Side Story 
     came to Boston, where we lived, and it electrified me--the 
     energy, the music,'' Oberly remembers. ``But what really got 
     me was the guys jumping around in sneakers, knife fighting, 
     smoking and climbing chain link fences--I thought it would be 
     neat to get up there and smoke and climb chain link fences.'' 
     ``Wait until you're 8,'' his mother told him. When the family 
     moved to Pittsburgh Kennet told his mother: ``Now I'm 8.'' He 
     became the only boy in a ballet class of 30 girls. ``This was 
     not what I'd intended,'' he says.
       Still, by age 12 he was so promising that be became a 
     student at the Harkness Ballet in Manhattan. By age 14 he had 
     joined Germany's Stuttgart Ballet. Oberly danced next with 
     the Boston Ballet, the Houston Ballet, the European troupe of 
     Maurice Bejart, returning to the Boston Repertory Ballet in 
     1978. Then, for eight years he worked in Des Moines with 
     Ballet Iowa, rising from dancer to artistic director.
       He was ballet master of the Finnish National Ballet when 
     the Estonia Theater invited him to revive works by the 19th-
     century Danish choreographer August Bournonville. While 
     working with the Estonian ballet, Oberly married ballerina 
     Larissa Sintsova. He had taught at a ballet camp in Vermont, 
     and they decided to take over a dance school in Burlington. 
     But the deal fell through. When they heard that the Wolcott 
     Children's Ballet needed a director, ``I took the plunge,'' 
     says Oberly.
       His salary is about $20,000. But raising even that much is 
     formidable for the Children's Ballet. ``We're having a cash 
     crisis right now.'' Oberly says, shrugging, as he pets Masha 
     the cat, in his still mostly unfurnished house on one of 
     Hardwick's steep back streets. Sintsova teaches at the 
     Children's Ballet for free. ``You can't look at it as a 
     business, and that's one reason I like being here,'' says 
     Oberly. ``We're not trying to become the next Ballet of New 
     England--we are two professionals who settled here for our 
     own personal reasons, and we're trying to bring dance to the 
     Northeast Kingdom.''
       At 3 the next afternoon, he is back at the Wolcott Town 
     Hall, unrolling the floor mats. Bronwyn Potter, pianist for 
     the troupe, lays her pocketbook on the hall's worn upright 
     piano. Oberly begins taping down the mats.
       Six days a week he teaches the school's 48 students. He 
     also choreographs and conducts rehearsals for the spring 
     production. Last year the dancers performed The Four Seasons 
     in remote town halls throughout the Northeast Kingdom and in 
     northern New Hampshire.
       Tickets cost only about $5. In the isolated hill towns--
     Island Pond, Hardwick, Orleans--weathered men come in work 
     boots, and women wear their best dresses. Sometimes, as the 
     music wells and the costumed dancers spin and leap, children 
     in the audience run into the aisles to perform impromptu 
     solos. Every year, some join the Wolcott Children's Ballet 
     themselves.
       At 3:30 p.m. a class of such beginners arrives, four 
     ponytails, one pageboy. They line up in front of Oberly, 
     belt-high recruits gazing up at their giant drill sergeant. 
     Oberly demonstrates the movements he wants them to practice. 
     First position: heels together, toes totally turned out. 
     Second position: ``Move your heels a foot apart.'' Third 
     position . . . ``Elbow in front of your ribs,'' Oberly says, 
     eyeing his ragged line of 8-year-olds. While the girls slowly 
     execute two demi-plies, he straightens torsos and adjusts 
     elbows. He dances with one girl so she can mirror his 
     movements.
       As the lush practice music fills the hall, the little girls 
     frown in concentration. If they learn to make their plies and 
     jetes precisely and gracefully, they will join the troupe and 
     go on the tour. ``It's not so important, ladies, to lift your 
     leg high, because you get distortion,'' Oberly says. ``It's 
     like chocolate--do you want quantity or quality? We want 
     Belgian dark chocolate. And just a little of it.'' ``No!''--
     rebellion in the ranks. ``Hershey bars!'' ``A lot!'' Oberly 
     pretends to look crestfallen. An older group is now arriving, 
     their knapsacks full of schoolbooks and leotards and 
     slippers.
       Among the newcomers is Jamie McCollough, one of the 
     students Oberly considers talented enough for a ballet 
     career. That is her ardent plan, ``Finances are the hard 
     part,'' Jamie's father, Mark, a carpenter, had explained 
     earlier that day at the McCollough's old house in Wolcott, 
     which he is slowly shoring up and renovating.
      Jamie's mother, Mollie, a waitress, said: ``Sometimes on her 
     way to bed she actually apologizes for her passion for 
     ballet, even though she's in fourth grade and gets 
     straight A's! And in the morning she comes down and dances 
     to the refrigerator!''
       While the adults talked in the kitchen, Jamie and her 
     friend Cody Leary, who also plans a dance career, practiced 
     steps in the living room, in full stage regalia. The 
     McColloughs worry about funding Jamie's training as a dancer 
     once she is too old for the Wolcott Children's Ballet. They 
     worry about the troupe itself. ``I'm surprised about the 
     audiences because it's just about always full houses,'' said 
     Mark. ``But now we have to raise money.'' The fundraising 
     crisis, Mollie says, is never-ending.
       ``It's hard,'' she observes, ``to ask the same little 
     businesses month after month for money. Everything's 
     difficult.'' Mollie points to the kitchen's cinder-block 
     chimney, festooned with pairs of defunct dancing slippers. 
     ``Slippers--once a month! And the stockings!'' But they are 
     enthusiasts. As Mollie puts it: ``Can you believe it? 
     Ballet--here!''
       At the hillside home of 13-year-old Eliza Martin, another 
     of the dancers, the troupe's finances are also a worry. 
     Eliza's father, Tom, a cabinetmaker, builds props when the 
     troupe needs them. Her mother, Linda, Wolcott's town clerk, 
     also serves on the ballet's board of directors. She believes 
     the ballet has become part of everyday life here. ``I think 
     it gives the kids more than dance because it requires them to 
     commit themselves to something, and performing gives them 
     self-esteem. It's so important for adolescents to have a 
     chance to do something besides watch TV or hang around on the 
     streets--that's why I wanted to be a board member.''
       At the Wolcott Town Hall, Eliza Martin, Jamie McCollough, 
     Cody Leary and the rest of their group have taken the floor. 
     Oberly is eyeing their feet.
       ``What happens when you stand on your heels?'' he asks. 
     ``You fall down. The moral is, stand on the balls of your 
     feet. Even when you play basketball. Or prizefight. Do you 
     know who Muhammed Ali is? How could he dance like a butterfly 
     if he didn't stand on the balls of his feet?'' Oberly 
     presents a balletic interpretation of Muhammed Ali, dancing 
     like a butterfly. ``Each step you take is like stepping on 
     stones along a lake, and do you know why?'' Oberly asks. 
     ``Because every move you make for an audience must be 
     special.''
       Now the most advanced students are arriving, girls of 13 
     and 14. While they warm up at the barre, the younger group 
     disperses next door to the Wolcott Store and Gas Station for 
     a supper break. In their gauzy skirts and tights, holding 
     grinders and Fudgesicles and bottles of juice, they line up 
     at the counter behind two burly men
      in flannel shirts smeared with chain-saw oil, buying 
     cigarettes and six-packs. Then they hurry back to the town 
     hall to await their turn to rehearse for the spring tour.
       They practice late into the evening. ``One of our problems 
     here is that these children never see ballet,'' Oberly 
     announces. ``They have only me and Larissa and each other, so 
     we're all going to Boston.'' That weekend, most of the troupe 
     goes to the big city to see the Boston Ballet perform Eugene 
     Onegin. They return starry-eyed. Jamie McCollough and Cody 
     Leary declare they are even more determined to make their 
     careers in ballet. First, however, they must master The Four 
     Seasons. ``It's a meditation on the seasons,'' Oberly 
     explains to one class. ``Life is seasons, too, and we have 
     our own inner seasons.''
       But this is a dance with no story. He must find ways to 
     help the dancers bring it to life. ``Really slow, Kaili,'' he 
     says. Kaili Goslant, a slender 10-year-old from Morrisville, 
     whose mother is a police officer and whose father operates a 
     ski lift, is kneeling for a sequence in the ``spring'' 
     section. ``Make believe you're following a spider along the 
     ground,'' Oberly suddenly says. ``Catch it!'' Kaili follows--
     and grabs--the imaginary spider. And one more segment of The 
     Four Seasons is alive.
       A bearded man wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt walks 
     into the hall. He tells two visitors watching the rehearsal 
     that he is John Hancock, father of Juliette Hancock, one of 
     the Four Seasons dancers. He is a logger and the treasurer of 
     the ballet's board of directors.
       Luckily, he says, use of the Wolcott Town Hall costs just 
     $10 a day. ``If we had to pay at the commercial rate, we 
     couldn't do it.'' Tuition is a minuscule $5 per class. But 
     even these modest fees are waived for children whose parents 
     cannot afford them. Donations trickle in from businesses and 
     citizens. And the troupe applies hopefully for grants. The 
     Vermont Historical Society, for instance, funded half the 
     $1,600 for floor mats. Summers, when the resort town of Stowe 
     puts on pop concerts, Wolcott Children's Ballet volunteers 
     drive over the mountain to run a concession stand.
       A few afternoons later, Kennet Oberly is teaching his boys 
     class, while one mother, Peggy Sprague, watches from the 
     sidelines. Her daughter, Kate, has just finished her class, 
     and now it's her son Zachary's turn. When red-haired Zachary, 
     who is 11, decided to take ballet, his mother was 
     flabbergasted. ``I told Zach the other boys at school might 
     make fun of him, but he said he didn't care. He said it 
     teaches him good balance.''
       After the boys troop out, Larissa Sintsova takes over 
     another class. Her family moved to Estonia from Ukraine when 
     she was 6, and she graduated from the Tallinn Choreographic 
     Institute, becoming a principal dancer with the Estonian 
     National Ballet. She brings to
      the Wolcott Town Hall the Russian no-nonsense style of dance 
     teaching. As the six dancers line up at the barre, she 
     pats her midsection. ``Stomach!'' she says, and the 
     dancers instantly flatten in front. Satisfied, Sintsova 
     moves down the line to Jamie McCollough, who requires only 
     a slight adjustment to the curve of her wrist. ``Remember, 
     Jamie--nice hands,'' she says. Sintsova demonstrates new 
     steps. The dancers imitate her.
       ``Chest is nice, but back--like this,'' she says, arranging 
     a girl's posture as if arranging flowers. She drops to her 
     knees to study 

[[Page S11995]]
     moving feet. She shows Jamie McCollough and Cody Leary where to look. 
     Even the eyes--every molecule of the body--must be part of 
     the dance. ``Everybody! Elbows are very nice!'' she 
     announces. ``But hands and arms--not forming a round line!'' 
     She has them run through the routine again. ``Ever so slow, 
     Jamie,'' says Sintsova. ``And make the nice hands!''
       Later that evening, the company's directors meet at the 
     Puffer United Methodist Church in Morrisville. The issue is 
     the new budget. ``I always say, if they can run a tunnel 
     under the English Channel and connect Britain and France, we 
     can run a ballet company,'' says Mark Demers, minister of the 
     Morrisville church and also of the Methodist church in 
     Wolcott. ``But I just saw a cartoon where you come out of the 
     tunnel on the French side, and there's a huge guillotine 
     poised over the exit, which seems to sum up our situation.''
       ``We never made money on The Nutcracker at Christmas 
     before, so why is it budgeted to earn $3,500 now?'' asks Jack 
     Benoze, a retired Manhattan marketing executive, scrutinizing 
     the budget with a businessman's eye. ``Well, I was encouraged 
     by the attendance at Hardwick last year,'' responds treasurer 
     Hancock. ``I can guarantee the rent on the town hall will 
     increase, because the cost of fuel has doubled,'' says board 
     member Linda Martin.
       Tuition fees come up. Are they too low, especially when 
     low-income families aren't even charged? The troupe faces a 
     $1,700 shortfall. ``We don't want to turn children away,'' 
     says Mark Demers. ``We've never turned anyone away who 
     couldn't pay, but what about those who say they'll pay and 
     don't?'' asks Jack Benoze.
       The board decides to require 25 percent up front. But that 
     does not solve one embarrassing problem: the directors owe a 
     grant writer $1,000. ``We have to prioritize,'' says John 
     Hancock, sadly. He points out that he is already paying from 
     his own pocket for routine expenses, like the much-used duct 
     tape. Mark Demers volunteers to send the grant writer an 
     apologetic letter, explaining the delay in payment.
       The next afternoon, rehearsals for the spring production
        continue. Now the first performance is just days away. 
     ``Kennet, what's the story of The Four Seasons?'' asks one 
     small blonde girl. ``it's about all the insects in the 
     local swamp,'' Oberly says blandly.
       He lines up his ``insects'' for their next run-through. The 
     sequence calls for one dancer to lie prone and beat out time 
     on the floor with her hands, while another girl does a 
     headstand and three more dancers form a rotating ring. Oberly 
     gives more instruction in the art of walking, showing how to 
     keep the chest up and the eyes on the goal. ``You're going 
     somewhere,'' he says. The dancers do it all again. Finally, 
     Oberly nods.
       One May 19th last year, the Wolcott Children's Ballet began 
     its spring tour with five shows for schoolchildren, performed 
     at Johnson State College. (This fall they will be presenting 
     The Little Match Girl, using music composed by several girls 
     in the troupe who live on a communal farm in East Hardwick, 
     where they are home-schooled in music.) School buses from 
     throughout northern Vermont rolled up to the auditorium each 
     day, delivering 500 or so students per show.
       For the first performance, the auditorium was filled with 
     kids generating a DC-10 roar. One burly boy turned to the 
     adults sitting behind him and announced with historic 
     disgust: ``We have to come every year.'' He pointed to his 
     friend, who was even larger and rougher-looking: ``He likes 
     it!'' The friend reddened.
       Kennet Oberly walked onstage as the dancers cart-wheeled 
     and pirouetted behind him. He explained that the performance 
     had no sets because it was abstract. ``It's color, it's 
     emotion, but there is no story line--it is pure movement, and 
     it's about how we feel.'' The dancers were already moving 
     across the stage, he said, because the seasons never start 
     and never stop.
       The dance began. And the 500 youngsters in the audience--
     amazingly--were attentively silent. At the end, raucous 
     applause. Hoots. Whistles. As the audience left, several 
     small girls danced out the door.
       A few days later, the troupe began its next tour 
     performance at the Hardwick Town Hall, where the stage floor 
     is warped. It was, mostly, a bib overalls and billed-cap 
     crowd. As the music filled the little hall and the dancers 
     spun and leapt, seemingly in danger of tumbling off the tiny 
     stage, toddlers in the audience took to the aisles to dance 
     along. A tiny voice rose from somewhere in the hall: ``I like 
     the girls' costumes!''
       Onstage, two little girls whistled like the November wind. 
     Dancers whirled. Jamie McCollough danced her solo. Releve 
     lent, arabesque, pose en arriere . . . And she had--
     definitely--``the nice hands.''

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senators from 
Idaho, who have spoken, and the Senator from Texas, both Senators from 
Vermont, and the Senator from Arkansas, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, for the way in which we have been able to accommodate 
what I think is the justified expectations of people who sometimes 
rather strongly disagree. In any event, they formed a powerful combine, 
and together, with the cooperation from the Senator from North 
Carolina, who is deeply concerned about matters relating to obscenity 
and disrespect for religion, we have come upon and agreed upon an 
amendment in this field. I wish to make public the private assurances 
that I gave to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, that this is not 
a pro forma amendment that I have agreed to, and I will defend the 
position of the Senate in any conference vigorously.
  With that, I hope and trust that we are ready to accept the amendment 
by a voice vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to say one word. I thank 
certainly my colleague who I have known for many, many years, for all 
his assistance in bringing about what I believe we have as a consensus 
on passing this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2304, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2304) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                           Amendment No. 2303

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what amendment do we return now to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the Craig amendment No. 
2303.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns 
be added as a cosponsor to the amendment of Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, having spoken earlier to determine whether 
or not there were any objections or anyone else to speak, we have no 
speakers, and I believe we are ready to put the question.
Natural Resources Science Agency's [NRSA] Great Lakes Science Center in 
                             Ann Arbor, MI

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and 
Related Agencies in a brief discussion regarding the impact of H.R. 
1977 on the Natural Resources Science Agency's [NRSA] Great Lakes 
Science Center in Ann Arbor, MI.
  The committee's report accompanying the bill recommends approximately 
$145 million for the NRSA, about $28 million below the budget request. 
If the committee's recommended level prevails, will this center remain 
open in fiscal year 1996?
  Mr. GORTON. It is the committee's intent to provide sufficient funds 
for research so that research units such as the Great Lakes Science 
Center and other aquatic fishery research centers can continue to 
operate in fiscal year 1996 to the extent possible.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Washington for his 
responsiveness. As he may know, the Great Lakes Science Center conducts 
fishery stock assessments that are relied upon by States, tribes, and 
Canada, in part to help fulfill treaty obligations. Effective 
management of fish stocks in the Great Lakes is critical to the $4 
billion fishing industry in the region.
  The center has other important duties. Besides its fishery stock 
management activities, the center conducts invaluable scientific 
research on preventing, controlling, and mitigating the impacts of 
nonindigenous species, such as the zebra mussel. And, the center is 
conducting essential studies on the sources and health effects of 
toxics in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
  I have been a supporter of the NRSA in the past. However, I am very 
concerned about administration proposals for allocating any possible 
fiscal year 1996 budget reductions disproportionately to the Great 
Lakes region. I will strongly oppose efforts to close or significantly 
reduce the center's activities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Craig 
amendment? The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2303) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  
[[Page S11996]]

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe we now have a full list of 
amendments to be proposed by Members on this side of the aisle, and I 
believe the other side of the aisle is very close to that point. I urge 
anyone who wishes to add his or her name to do so. I hope that soon we 
can at least get the unanimous consent agreement on what amendments 
remain to be discussed.


                           Amendment No. 2305

    (Purpose: To permit the use of funds for the award of grants to 
individuals for National Heritage Fellowships and American Jazz Masters 
                              Fellowships)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Pell, and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 2305.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 135, line 25, insert before the period at the end 
     thereof the following: ``, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendments will be set aside.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not belabor the issue but I would 
like to explain this. I have the cosponsorship of Senator Pell and also 
Senator Simon for the amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1977 that 
would expand the category of individual fellowships that could be 
awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts to include National 
Heritage Fellowship Awards and American Jazz Masters Awards. Under the 
bill reported by committee, only literature individual grants could be 
awarded. This amendment provides no new funding--the NEA would have to 
pay for these honorific fellowships out of existing funds.
  Mr. President, the fellowships I am seeking to restore, out of 
existing funding for the NEA in the bill, are given in recognition of 
outstanding achievement in the folk arts and in jazz music. An 
individual cannot apply for these awards; he or she must be nominated. 
To the best of my knowledge, these awards have generated absolutely no 
controversy at any time. They have, however, generated great and well-
deserved pride for those receiving them, and have done much to preserve 
the folk and traditional art and jazz music that distinguish our great 
nation.
  To give some flavor of the artists recognized by these awards, I can 
share with my colleagues some of the artists recognized by the National 
Heritage Fellowship Program this year. They include Mary Holiday Black, 
a Navajo basket weaver, Robert Lockwood, Jr., an African-American blues 
guitarist, Donny Golden, an Irish-American step dancer, and Buck 
Ramsey, a cowboy poet and singer from Amarillo, TX. Jazz artists 
recognized this year include Ray Brown, Roy Haynes, and Horace Silver. 
Each of these artists is a part of our diverse and truly wonderful 
American cultural heritage, and all are worthy of our recognition. By 
recognizing these artists, we also gain the opportunity to appreciate 
our diversity, and the unifying effect this appreciation can have on 
our Nation.
  I think it is worth noting that we are not the only nation that 
recognizes its masters of traditional art forms. In fact, the 
fellowships I seek to restore are sometimes called National Treasure 
Awards because they resemble the Living National Treasures awards given 
in Japan. I am told that those awards in Japan are in fact richer 
awards, providing annual stipends for life. Our awards, by contrast, 
provide one-time awards of $10,000-$20,000.
  Although the financial award is often very important to the 
traditional artists and musicians receiving them, at least as important 
is the recognition that their art is cherished by our Nation. This 
national recognition simply cannot be recreated by the States, and for 
that reason, I believe that we must allow the NEA to continue these 
important programs.
  In closing, I would like to quote one of the several New Mexicans who 
have received a National Heritage Fellowship. Upon receiving his award 
during the Reagan administration, the great Santos woodcarver George 
Lopez noted, ``I receive this, but it is for all those who came before 
me and made a lesson for all of us with their lives.''
  Mr. President, let me just elaborate a little bit on each of these 
categories to make the point a little more clearly for my colleagues. 
The idea of these awards is to pick out a very few artists toward the 
end of their career, artists who provide a positive vision for what can 
be done and what can be preserved that is great in our culture and our 
heritage.
  The recipients this year come from a variety of States--from New 
York, Utah, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska, California, 
Ohio, Florida, South Dakota, and Texas. All of these recipients are 
deserving recipients.
  By giving them these National Heritage Fellowship Awards, we are 
acknowledging them for their work as teachers, their work as role 
models, mentors, or innovators. Each artist receives a one-time 
stipend, as I indicated.
  Let me say a couple of words about the Jazz Masters Award. There have 
been many great jazz artists in the history of our country who have 
received this award in recent years: Dizzy Gillespie, Count Basie, 
Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Bellson, Art Blakey, Sarah Vaughan, 
and Lionel Hampton are examples that I think all Members of this body 
will recognize.
  The present practice of the National Endowment for the Arts is to 
make awards to somewhere between 3 and 5 individuals each year under 
the Jazz Masters Awards, to make awards to 12 individuals each year 
under the National Heritage Award.
  As I said at the very beginning of my discussion, this is not an 
amendment to add money to the National Endowment for the Arts budget. 
All this amendment is, Mr. President, is a granting of authority for 
the National Endowment for the Arts to continue with these very 
valuable, very important programs which we have all recognized over the 
years.
  I point out to my colleagues and remind them that each year, here in 
the Senate, we have a reception at which we recognize and acknowledge 
and congratulate the winners of these National Heritage Fellowship 
Awards. So I think it would be highly misguided for this body at this 
time to approve legislation that prohibits the National Endowment for 
the Arts from going forward and maintaining this tradition that they 
have begun, which I think is so important to our country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a full list of the National Heritage Fellowship Award winners, by 
State.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered printed in the Record, 
as follows:


              NATIONAL HERITAGE FELLOWSHIP AWARDS BY STATE

                                Alabama

       Dewey Williams, Shape Note Singer 1983
       Jerry Brown, Potter
       Nora Ezell, African American Quilter


                                 Alaska

       Ester Littlefield, Alaskan Craftsman 1991
       Belle Deacon, Basketmaker
       Nichalos and Elena Charles, Woodcarvers
       Paul Tiulana, Eskimo Artist
       Jenny Thlunaut, Blanket Weaver


                                Arizona

       Chesley Wilson, Fiddle Maker


                                Arkansas

       Almeda Riddle, Ballad Singer 1983
       Glenn Ohrlin, Cowboy Singer


                               California

       Brownie McGhee, Blues Guitarist 1882
       John Lee Hooker, Blues Musician 1983
       Nativitad Cano, Mariachi 1990
       George Blake, Native American Craftsman 1991
       Edwardo Guerro, Mexican Composer 1991
       Kahmvong Insixiengmai, Asian Singer 1991
       Gussie Wells, African American Quilter
       Arble Williams, African American Quilter
       Francisco Aguabella, Afro Cuban Drummer
       John Naka, Bonsai Sculpter
       Louis Ortega, Raw-hide Worker
       Kansuna Fujima, Dancer
       Jose Guiterrez, Musician
       Richard Hagopian, Musician


                                Colorado

       Eppie Archuleta, Weaver


                              Connecticut

       T. Viswanhhan, Flute Master
       Ilias Kementzides, Musician


                                Florida

       Nikitias Tsimouris, Greek American Musician


                                Georgia

       Bessie Jones, Georgia Sea Island Singer 1982
       Hugh McGraw, Shape Note Singer 1982
       Lanier Meaders, Potter 1983
       Lucinda Toomer, Black Quilter 1983
       McIntosh County Shouters, Spiritual Performers 

[[Page S11997]]

       Claude Joseph Johnson, Singer


                                 Hawaii

       Marie McDonald, Lei Maker 1990
       Seisho Nakasone, Okinawan Musician 1991
       Nalani Kanaka'ole and Pualani Kanaka'ole Kanahele, Hula 
     Masters
       Emily Kau'i Zuttermeister, Hula Master
       Meali'i Kalama, Quilter
       Raymond Kane, Guitarist
       Clyde Sproat, Hawaian Cowboy Singer
                                 Idaho

       Rose Frank, Native American Weaver 1991
       Elmer Miller, Silversmith
       Jimmy Jausoro, Accordionist


                                Illinois

       Adam Popovich, Tamburitza Musician 1982
       Joe Shannon, Irish Piper 1983
       Michael Flatley, Irish Step Dancer
       Albert Luandrew, Blues Pianist


                                Indiana

       Earnest Bennett, Whittler


                                  Iowa

       Genevieve Mougin, Lebanese-American Lace Maker 1984
       Everett Kapayou, Native American Singer


                                 Kansas

       Sonia Domsch, Lacemaker
       Kepka Belton, Egg Painter


                                Kentucky

       Morgan Sexton, Banjo Player
       Clyde Davenport, Fiddler
       Lilly Mae Ledford, Musician
                               Louisiana

       Dewey Balfa, Cajun Fiddler 1982
       Ada Thomas, Chitimacha Basketweaver 1983
       Clifton Chenier, Creole Accordionist 1984
       Marc Savoy, Accordian Maker
       Inez Catalon, Singer
       Alfonse Ardoin, Accordionist
       Canray Fontenot, Fiddler
       Thomas Edison Ford, Cowboy Singer
       Allison Montana, Costume Maker


                                 Maine

       Slater Mildred Barker, Shaker Singer 1983
       Simon St. Pierre, French American Fiddler 1983


                                Maryland

       Lem Ward, Decoy Carver/Painter 1983
       Peou Khatna, Dancer
       Ola Belle Reed, Banjo Player


                             Massachusetts

       Joseph Cormier, Cape Breton Violinist 1984


                                Michigan

       Wade Mainer, Banjo Picker
       Yang Fang Nhu, Weaver
       Howard Armstrong, String Band Musician
       Art Moilanen, Accordionist


                               Minnesota

       Leif Melgaard, Woodcarver
       Maud Kagg, Ojibwe Storyteller
       Christy Hengel, Concertina Maker


                               Mississipi

       Othar Turner, Fife Player
       Jack Owens, Blues Singer


                                Missouri

       Henry Townsend, Blues Musician
       Mone and Vanxay Saenphimmachak, Lao Weaver
       Willie Mae Ford Smith, Gospel Singer
       Mabel Murphy, Quilter


                                Montana

       Walace McRae, Cowboy Poet


                                Nebraska

       Albert Fahlbusch, Hammered Dulcimer Maker/Player 1984


                                 Nevada

       B.B. King, Bluesman


                             New Hampshire

       Newton Washburn, Basket Maker


                               New Jersey

       Giuseppe and Raffaela DeFranco, Musicians
       Charles Hankins, Boat Maker
       Harry Shourds, Decoy Carver


                               New Mexico

       George Lopez, Santero 1982
       Margaret Tafoya, Santa Clara Potter 1984
       Cleofes Vigil, Storyteller/Singer
       Helen Cordero, Pueblo Potter
       Emilio and Senaida Romero, Hispanic-American Tin and 
     Embroidery Workers


                                New York

       Joe Heney, Irish Singer 1989
       Sanders ``Sonny'' Terry, Blues Musician 1982
       Mike Manteo, Sicilian Marionettist 1983
       Elizabeth Cotten, Black Songster/Songwriter 1984
       Martin Mulvihill, Irish-American Fiddler 1984
       Howard ``Snadman'' Sims, Black Tap Dancer 1984
       Dave Tarras, Clarinetist 1984
       Periklis Halkias, Greek Clarinetist
       Jack Coen, Irish Flautist
       Fatima Kuinova, Jewish Singer
       Ng Sheung-Chi, Chinese Folk Singer
       Liang-Xing Tang, Lute Player


                             North Carolina

       Tommy Jarrell, Appalachian Fiddler 1982
       Ray Hicks, Appalachian Storyteller 1983
       Stanley Hicks, Appalachian Storyteller/Musician/Instruent 
     Maker
       Bertha Cook, Knotted Bedspread Maker 1984
       Burlon Craig, Potter 1984
       John Dee Holeman, African-American Dancer/Singer
       Douglas Wallin, Ballad Singer
       Etta Baker, Guitarist
       Walker Calhoun, Cherokee Musician
       Doc Watson, Appalachian Guitarist


                              North Dakota

       Sister Rosalia Haber, Lace Maker


                                  Ohio

       Elijah Pierce, Carver/Painter 1982
       Kenny Sidle, Fiddler


                                Oklahoma

       Georgeann Robinson, Osage Ribbonworker 1982
       Joyce Doc Tate Nevaquaya, Indian Flutist
       Vanessa Paukeigope Morgan, Kiowa Regalia Maker
                                 Oregon

       Duff Severe, Western Saddlemaker 1982
       Bua Xou Mua, Hmong Musician
       Genoveva Castellanoz, Corona Maker


                              Pennsylvania

       Horace ``Spoons'' Williams, Spoons Player
       Em Bun, Silk Weaver
       LaVaughn Robinson, Tap Dancer


                              Puerto Rico

       Rafael Cepeda, Bomba Musician/Dancer
       Julio Negron-Rivera, Instrument Maker
       Juan Alindato, Carnival Mask Maker
       Emilio Rosado, Woodcarver
                             South Carolina

       Philip Simmons, Ornamental Ironworker 1982
       Janie Hunter, Black Singer/Storyteller 1984
       Mary Jane Manigault, Black Seagrass Basket Maker 1984


                              South Dakota

       Alice New Holy Blue Legs, Quill Artist
       Kevin Locke, Lakota Flute Player


                               Tennessee

       Bill Monroe, Bluegrass Singer 1982
       Alex Stewart, Cooper/Woodworker 1983
       Nimrod Workman, Ballad Singer
       Robert Spicer, Flat Foot Dancer
       Kenny Baker, Fiddler
       The Fairfield Four, Gospel Singers
       Earl Scruggs, Banjo Player


                                 Texas

       Lydia Mendoza, Mexican-American Singer 1982
       Narcisco Martinez, Tejano Accordionist/Composer 1983
       Valerio Longoria, Mexican-American Accordionist
       Alex Moore, Sr., Blues Pianist
       Pedro Ayala, Accordionist


                                Vermont

       Amber Densmore, Quilter


                                Virginia

       Ralph Stanley, Banjo Player
       John Jackson, Black Songster
       John Cephas, Blues Singer


                               Washington

       Santiago Alameda, Tex-Mex Conjunto Musician


                             West Virginia

       Melvin Win, Fiddler


                               Wisconsin

       Louis Bashell, Polka Master
       Gerald Hawpetoss, Menominee Reglia Maker
       Ethel Kvalheim, Rosemaller


                                Wyoming

       Don King, Saddle Maker

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to respond to any questions anyone has about 
this, if there is any confusion about the purpose of my amendment. It 
is an amendment I know several Senators support. Perhaps some of them 
would like to speak. I know the Senator from Vermont had indicated he 
wanted to speak briefly in favor of the amendment.
  Perhaps--in order to ensure that he has that opportunity, at least 
for a few moments here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from New Mexico. 
I understand the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] has had concerns 
about this amendment and it is also for that reason a quorum was put 
in. We needed to check with her to see whether or not she wished to 
speak on the amendment.
  I am now informed the Senator from Kansas will later put a statement 
in the Record on this, and is willing to allow the amendment to be 
voted on by voice vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just informed the manager I was 
advised by Senator Jeffords he did want to speak briefly in favor. I do 
not know if that is still the case, but we are checking on that. If we 
can just have another few moments with which to do that, and then have 
a voice vote? I certainly do not require a rollcall vote on the issue. 
I would just like him to be able to make a statement if he desires to 
do so.

[[Page S11998]]

  Mr. GORTON. I note the presence of the Senator from Vermont now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have listened to the statement of my 
good friend from New Mexico on the amendment. I personally support it. 
I do not believe in any way it goes against what we intended to do in 
the committee, with respect to individual artists and the questionable 
works of some.
  The purpose and intent of reducing those who are eligible for 
individual grants was to protect the integrity of what we are trying to 
do in preserving the endowment.
  I personally believe that the amendment represents an improvement in 
the bill.
  I have notified the chairman of the committee [Senator Kassebaum], 
who may or may not have an objection to it--notified her some time ago, 
Senator Kassebaum. I do not know her feelings. In committee she was 
very restrictive, and understandably so. But I support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. Based 
on the statement that the manager of the bill has made about the 
Senator from Kansas intending to put a statement in the Record but 
allowing this to be voice voted, I have no objection to that procedure. 
If we could dispose of it at this time, I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 2305, 
the Bingaman amendment?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2305) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are open for business. There may be 
discussions going on at the present time. I can say I know the Senator 
from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] has an amendment on stewardship incentive 
programs which will require debate and a vote. I believe the Senator 
from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] has an amendment on the red wolf, which 
I suspect will require a vote.
  I know Senator Simon has an amendment on a museum that I believe will 
require a vote. And perhaps two or three others.
  But I solicit Members to come to the floor and see whether or not we 
can accept their amendments or have a debate. The majority leader, 
understandably, would like very much to finish this bill by late this 
afternoon in order that we can go on to further business and begin our 
summer recess promptly.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I recognize that we have completed action 
on an amendment that was offered by Senator Jeffords relative to 
restoration of funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. However, I would like to make a 
brief statement on those issues.
  Mr. President, I am pleased with the action we have taken today. I 
share the disappointment of my colleague from Arkansas, Senator 
Bumpers, that it was not more substantial. And I hope that the action 
today is an indication of a continued interest by the Senate on the 
issue of national support for the arts and the humanities that we can 
build upon this decision in future years.
  I believe that this issue of the appropriateness of a national 
commitment to support the arts and humanities has unfortunately been 
trivialized in that a few extreme examples have been cited as 
representative of the totality of our national effort and have in fact 
distorted what the United States has done in terms of its support for 
the arts and humanities.
  Let me just mention a few things that benefit America in a very real 
and tangible sense which would not be but for this national commitment 
to the arts and the humanities. One of those is to bring the arts to 
the areas of America that would otherwise be excluded from such 
exposure because of their remoteness, because of their small 
population, because of their lack of a cultural infrastructure.
  In my own State of Florida, many small communities are benefited by 
having access to performing arts and creative arts which they would not 
have but for the grants that are made available either directly through 
the national endowments or through the State endowment programs that 
depend upon Federal support.
  One of the most important aspects of the National Endowment for the 
Humanities is the support for America's libraries. America's libraries 
are probably the most underappreciated aspect of our educational 
system. They provide resources increasingly in all of the means by 
which information and ideas and creativity are transmitted to all 
Americans. They are a free institution that contributes significantly 
to seeing that all Americans have an equal access to learning.
  We debated this extensively during the course of the 
telecommunications bill and decided that it was appropriate to give 
some special recognition to public libraries in terms of their access 
to the information highway. The National Endowment for the Humanities 
has been providing that on ramp for many years through its support of 
the expansion of opportunities available through public libraries.
  The preservation of historic documents is largely a responsibility of 
the National Endowment for the Humanities through programs like the 
Brittle Book program, which is converting tens of thousands of books 
which would otherwise evaporate in a physical sense, evaporate but for 
the efforts supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities to 
see that they are microfilmed and preserved. Today one of the most 
important aspects of this preservation relates to newspapers. As many 
newspapers, particularly smaller newspapers, go out of existence or 
merge, their libraries of old newspapers are now being preserved 
through the efforts of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an 
invaluable resource of the history and culture of our Nation.
  It is unfortunate that this debate on the national support for the 
humanities and arts is often characterized as elitist, that the only 
people who care about this issue are small groups of persons who are 
affluent enough to do this on their own and, therefore, inappropriate 
for public support.
  I disagree with that and so would the facts. As an example, Mr. 
President, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which most Americans 
have benefited from, even those who live thousands of miles away from 
New York City, that great world treasury draws more people annually 
than all of the sports teams in New York City. More people visit the 
Metropolitan Museum than visit the Giants, the Mets, the Yankees, the 
Knicks, and all of the other professional teams in New York City. It is 
not an elitist institution. It is an institution which serves the 
broadest public interest.
  There are important economic aspects of our support for the arts. 
Strong artistic institutions create a synergy in terms of the economics 
of the communities. There are many examples in my State. I would just 
cite the tremendous economic influence which the Miami City Ballet, 
which has received support through these endowments, has had in terms 
of supporting important artistic and economic components of our State. 
But beyond the economics, there are extremely important cultural 
aspects of our support for the arts.
  Throughout time, societies have influenced their world by the use of 
the arts. One of the reasons that the Greeks and the Romans, and the 
Egyptians before them, were such powerful influences and then have 
continued to influence our life today, is because of the arts and the 
use of the arts as a means of expressing a societal set of ideas and 
values which have had transcendence of importance.
 
[[Page S11999]]

  Today, the United States of America, while we may have a trade 
deficit in terms of the sale of products, has an enormous trade surplus 
in terms of the export of ideas and creativity. That not only has 
economic value, but it also helps to advance the cultural goals that 
the United States hopes to carry to the world. We want the world to see 
the values that we stand for--freedom, independence, respect for human 
rights, democracy, a market system that democratizes economic 
decisions. We would like to see the world adopt those values, not 
because we want to impose them but because we think those are the 
values that advance the human spirit. Our investment in and our 
dominant position in the culture of the world is an important means by 
which we will achieve that goal.
  The support for the small artistic institutions or the individual 
artists is the seed corn for our ability to exercise that type of a 
strong cultural influence in the world.
  One of my favorite political figures, Mr. President, was the 
President of Costa Rica during the 1940's and 1950's, President 
Figueres, whose son is now the President of Costa Rica. President 
Figueres did a number of bold acts as President of Costa Rica. He 
disbanded the army. He took the money that had been spent on the 
military and used it to enhance education and health and the arts, 
including the establishment of a national symphony for the small and 
relatively poor country of Costa Rica.
  President Figueres was much criticized for the establishment of a 
national symphony. It was too much for the economy of Costa Rica to be 
able to support. It was a diversion of funds away from more important 
and immediate needs of the people. President Figueres responded to 
those criticisms by saying, ``We in Costa Rica believe in work. We work 
hard on tractors. Why do we work hard on tractors if it is not to be 
able to listen to violins?''
  The arts express the reason for life. Tractors are important, but 
they are a means by which we can enrich our spirit by exposure to the 
arts.
  So, Mr. President, we have made a small step forward today in 
recognizing the importance of that in our times and in our society, the 
United States of America.
  It is not as far as I would have wished that it could have been but 
by preserving this base of national support for the humanities and the 
arts, I hope that we will be planting our own form of seed corn that 
will allow us to grow a deeper and more abundant support for these 
important national initiatives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a statement by the American Historian David McCullough in support of 
the Endowments for the Humanities and Arts.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Testimony of David McCullough Before the House Appropriations 
                   Subcommittee on February 16, 1995

       As a citizen I am greatly concerned about the decline of 
     library facilities in our schools, the decline, even the 
     elimination of art, music, and dramatic instruction in the 
     schools, the reduction of services at our public libraries, 
     and the current ill-reasoned, ill-informed assaults on public 
     television. But as one who works in public television. But as 
     one who works in public television and with schools and 
     universities, museums, libraries, I also know the marvelous 
     possibilities there are, how much more can be done and done 
     better, and that to me is what is so exciting.
       In the year 1814, after invading British troops burned the 
     congressional library, and Thomas Jefferson offered to sell 
     Congress his own library as a replacement, a heated debate 
     ensued. The issue, much like today, divided mainly on party 
     lines, with those in opposition to the purchase arguing that 
     the cost was too much or that since the books belonged to Mr. 
     Jefferson, a known free-thinker, some might not be at all 
     suitable. Critics attacked the very idea of wasting federal 
     money on ``philosophical nonsense.'' A large number of the 
     books were described by one member of Congress as 
     ``worthless, in languages which many can not read, and most 
     ought not.''
       But Congress voted for the purchase, $23,950 for 6,500 
     volumes. It may be seen as the beginning of federal 
     involvement in the arts and humanities and to the everlasting 
     benefit of the country. Today the Library of Congress is the 
     largest, finest repository of knowledge in the world, a crown 
     jewel in our national life.
       The Lincoln Memorial, completed in 1922, is a great work of 
     public art. Its colossal statue of Lincoln, an effort of 
     thirteen years by the American sculptor Daniel Chester 
     French, is indeed the greatest work of public sculpture in 
     America and stunning testimony to the virtue of public 
     support--public money--for the area. It was costly to create. 
     It is costly, still--more than a million dollars a year for 
     upkeep and guide personnel--and worth every Lincoln penny of 
     that.
       In the 1930s, during the hard times of the Great 
     Depression, came the Federal Writers Project, the Federal 
     Arts Projects, the Federal Theater Project, providing work 
     opportunities for writers and artists as never before. The 
     Federal Writers Project alone employed 12,000 people, among 
     whom were young Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Eudora Welty, 
     and Saul Bellow. The paintings, post office murals, the 
     incomparable series of state guidebooks that resulted are 
     among our national treasures.
       In World War II, hundreds of artists, photographers, 
     filmmakers were assigned to record the experiences of 
     American service men and women on both fronts, and again at 
     government expense.
       The programs and projects of the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities ``are sound investments for the federal government 
     to make, even during this era of fiscal constraints,''said 
     the chairman of the Endowment, Lynne Cheney, before a House 
     committee in 1991. The American people, she said the 
     following year, ``value the humanities and understand the 
     importance of things historical and cultural.'' Projects 
     supported by the Endowment, she continued, ``help to make 
     available a rich variety of opportunities for people to learn 
     more about the nation's heritage and the history and thought 
     of other cultures.'' What she said was right then and it is 
     right today, make no mistake.
       It is argued that because a few of the hundreds of programs 
     sponsored by the Endowments have proven unworthy, or ill-
     conceived, or worst of all, flagrantly offensive, that 
     therefore both the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities should be done away 
     with. That's absurd. It would be like saying that because of 
     the Tailhook Scandal we must get rid of the Navy.
       When I think of what the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities has done to support gifted young documentary film 
     makers like Ken Burns, when I count up the programs in The 
     American Experience series that have benefited from Endowment 
     funding--thirty-eight films thus far, including biographical 
     portraits of such American figures as Eisenhower, FDR, 
     Lindbergh, Duke Ellington, Thurgood Marshall--when I see the 
     magnificent Library of America volumes filling shelf after 
     shelf, when I see in my own research in libraries and 
     archives the priceless books and historic documents that have 
     been preserved, all this, the films, the books, the 
     conservation efforts--because of Endowment grants, I know 
     absolutely the lasting value of government support.
       Last night's broadcast of The American Experience, a 
     program called ``One Woman.
      One Vote,'' marking the 75th anniversary of the 19th 
     Amendment, was called ``first rate'' by The Wall Street 
     Journal, which also praised the ``intellectual mettle and 
     moral character'' of the protagonists portrayed in the 
     long fight for women's suffrage. The broadcast, funded in 
     part by the National Endowment for the Humanities, was 
     seen by about 5,000,000 people. And that's only the 
     beginning. As the executive producer of the series, Judy 
     Crichton, says, this is not ``disposal television.'' Every 
     program is rerun, and with the audiences for the second or 
     third broadcasts often lager than the first. Further, the 
     programs are used in schools throughout the country, and 
     more so all the time.
       Anyone who claims that commercial television could do the 
     same thing as well doesn't know what he's talking about.
       The Library of America has been called by Newsweek, ``the 
     most important book publishing project in the nation's 
     history.'' It is a collection of the riches of our American 
     literature and political philosophy, cloth-bound, on acid-
     free paper, and reasonably priced. There are now seventy-
     three titles in print, two and a half million of these books 
     in circulation. Were it not for the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities, the Library of America would not exist.
       Mr. Chairman, I can tell you about the rare documents in 
     the collection of the library of the Philadelphia Athenaeum, 
     including original architectural drawings of the Capitol, 
     that are being properly maintained with the help of NEH 
     grants. I can tell you about the twenty-year program, 
     starting in 1989, with congressional support, the goal being 
     to preserve on microfilm the content of some 3,000,000 
     brittle books. Grants already made will, when completed, have 
     saved the contents of 660,000 volumes. This is unprecedented. 
     And seventy libraries are taking part nationwide. I can tell 
     you about the humanities program at one of our oldest and 
     best small colleges, Union College in Schenectady, New York, 
     which next week celebrates its 200th birthday. Long known for 
     the strengths of its science and technology departments, 
     Union, motivated by two NEH grants, is greatly enlarging its 
     library and thus its whole humanities curriculum. Because of 
     three NEH grants for the new John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional 
     History Center, grants totaling $1,500,000, we have been able 
     to raise at least twice, if not three times that amount, from 
     private, corporate, and foundation sources. Critics of the 
     Endowments carp about money spent for elitists' interests. 
     Mr. Chairman, attendance for this 

[[Page S12000]]

     one new museum is expected to be somewhere between 400,000 
     and 500,000 people a year, including at least 100,000 school 
     children. And while the NEH grants represent only a fraction 
     of the total cost, perhaps 6 percent, I assure you the 
     project would not be where it is today had there been no 
     National Endowment endorsement.
       One of the glories of our American way of life, Mr. 
     Chairman, is our nation-wide system of public libraries, free 
     public libraries, the large majority of which, let me 
     emphasize, are located in small towns and cities of less than 
     25,000 people.
       When you cross the threshold into an American public 
     library, you enter a world of absolute equality. All are 
     welcome, all have the same access to the riches within.
       We hear much talk about the information highway. But 
     information isn't learning, isn't education, and there is no 
     education without books. In our wonderful public libraries 
     the books are free. Everyone has open access to ideas. The 
     computer hookups, too, are free. At the public library, a 
     youngster in a town on the Nebraska plains or a mill town in 
     Ohio can tie in to the same resources now as a student at one 
     of the great universities. Isn't that marvelous? Isn't that 
     American?
       Newspapers, magazines, books in bookstores, cable 
     television, they all cost money. They're all fine if you can 
     afford them. Our national parks now charge an admission. 
     There's even talk here of charging for a tour of the Capitol! 
     But the public libraries remain free to the people, thank 
     God, and I don't know of federal dollars better spent than 
     those that through the National Endowments go to support our 
     public libraries.
       Mr. Chairman, we now have 6,000,000 children living below 
     the poverty level--in this country, here in the United States 
     of America. What an outrage that is. And what a terrible cost 
     it will mean, unless something is done. What kind of 
     education will those children get? What kind of education 
     will any of our children get if the cutbacks continue in the 
     teaching of arts and music in our public school? What can we 
     expect when school libraries have no books, or when school 
     libraries shut down.
       Mr. Chairman, as good as the work of the National 
     Endowments has been it is hardly a scratch on what could be 
     done, and what needs to be done. We have, for example, the 
     two great existing national institutions of public television 
     and the public library system that could join forces. They're 
     going concerns, each with its own immense power. Join that 
     power, those resources, and the effect could mean new 
     breakthroughs in education at all levels. I feel very 
     strongly about this. I want to see television audiences 
     brought in to the libraries and the libraries brought home to 
     television audiences, and I am working on a new project to 
     that end.
       Instead of arguing over cutting the life out of the 
     existing programs of the Endowments, or ditching them 
     altogether, we ought to be joining forces in an effort to 
     make them better, more effective, of even greater benefit to 
     the country. We ought to be using our imaginations to do more 
     not less. Appropriations for the Endowments shouldn't be cut, 
     they should be doubled.
       Mr. Chairman, more than two hundred years ago, a member of 
     another congress, the Continental Congress, wrote privately 
     of his fear that the future might be in the hands of members 
     who would hold sway by ``noise not sense, by meanness not 
     greatness, by ignorance nor learning, by contracted hearts 
     not large souls.''
       As events would prove and to the everlasting benefit of our 
     nation, he, John Adams, and others of the founders were 
     Americans of abundant sense, learning, and soul, who knew 
     education to be the foundation upon which depended the whole 
     daring American experiment.
       If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects 
     what never was and never will be,'' warned Thomas Jefferson. 
     If was the example of America that so mattered for the future 
     of mankind.
       They were politicians, to be sure. They could be 
     inconsistent, contradictory, mistaken, human. But they were 
     great lovers of books, of language, of art, of history. They 
     were architects, musicians, philosophers, and poets, if not 
     in practice, then certainly at heart.
       John Adams, let us also not forget, was a farmer who worked 
     his land with his own hands, whose homestead comprised all of 
     four rooms.
       In your deliberations, Mr. Chairman, you and your fellow 
     members of Congress--you who have so much of the future of 
     the country in your hands--might well take to heart these 
     wonderful lines written by John Adams in a letter to his wife 
     Abigail.
       ``I must study politics and war that my sons may have 
     liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to 
     study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, 
     naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in 
     order to give their children a right to study painting, 
     poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and 
     porcelain.''
       Mr. Chairman, a great nation puts the highest value on its 
     art and literature, its history, its intellectual heritage. A 
     great nation takes its measure by the quality of life on its 
     citizens. A great nation takes care of its children, provides 
     schools second to none, schools where painting and music are 
     never dismissed as frills, never ever considered expendable. 
     A great nation prizes its poets no less than the best of it 
     politicians.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, with the permission and understanding of 
the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. 
Gorton], and also after consultation with the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for a time not to exceed 12 minutes in morning business.
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, the 
Senator from Arkansas has been waiting a long time to make remarks and 
I certainly want to allow him to make the remarks. We do have now 
present in the Chamber the Senator from Illinois, who will have an 
amendment which will require a rollcall vote. So as promptly as the 
Senator from Arkansas completes his remarks, I hope we will go to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, then let me withdraw that request.
  Mr. SIMON. Go ahead.
  Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from Illinois says he is waiting, so I will 
proceed.

                          ____________________