[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S553-S554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the effort to defund the 
National Endowment for the Arts. Playing games with the budget 
appropriations in this manner is contrary to the Nation's welfare. The 
intent to incapacitate and slowly dismantle the agency by obstructing 
the planning and grantmaking processes appears to be a deliberate 
attempt to terminate Federal support for the arts and to deny Americans 
access to their cultural heritage.
  Some may believe that the arts will be able to generate the local 
support necessary to sustain themselves, but I am fearful the opposite 
will be true. Local dollars are already stretched to capacity. Major 
arts funders such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Charitable 
Trusts in Philadelphia, and the James Irvine Foundation in California 
have stated publicly that foundations will not and cannot replace 
Federal funding. Corporate giving has declined in recent years despite 
economic growth and there is little, if any, reason to believe that 
will change. The commercial entertainment industry continues to resist 
investing in the source of much of its talent. Further, 

[[Page S554]]
removal of both the national recognition and the stimulation of 
partnerships offered through Federal grants will produce a dramatic 
reduction in State and local support.
  The Rockefeller Foundation surveyed 40 foundations and found every 
donor but one unable to increase their cultural portfolios. Dr. Alberta 
Arthurs concluded her report of the study by stating, ``The cultural 
situation we have created in the last 30 years is a dense and delicate 
balance of private and public interests and funds. If this is to be 
disturbed, what will replace it?''
  Opponents of the Arts Endowment know that a replacement is unlikely. 
The cry to privatize is but a code word for eliminate. These are the 
same people who advocate for new tax laws that would end deductions for 
individual and corporate contributions to the arts.
  The National Endowment for the Arts has been remarkably successful in 
furthering the ideals for which it was created. The arts are no longer 
viewed as the privileged domain of a relatively few practitioners and 
connoisseurs; they are no longer considered as incidental or peripheral 
to our way of life. Every single community in our country now has 
access to its indigenous and creative national culture. Without Arts 
Endowment funding, many popular programs simply would not exist, let 
alone be made available to millions of Americans in all parts of our 
Nation. The major arts institutions serving well-to-do patrons in urban 
areas will survive, but how many children, elderly, disabled, inner-
city and rural dwellers will be able to participate? How will new 
audiences gain access to our common culture?
  Targeting the Arts Endowment is not about balancing the budget. It is 
about throwing out the solid arts networks built over 30 years because 
of unease caused by a few controversial grants. The Arts Endowment has 
already cracked down on such grants, and it has certainly borne its 
fair share of cuts. Recently, the agency eliminated 47 percent of its 
staff positions and reorganized its administration and grantmaking to 
adjust to a 40-percent reduction in its budget. Anything more would 
severely damage the availability and accessibility of countless arts 
programs in communities nationwide. It must not happen.
  I would urge my colleagues to stop playing politics with the 
Endowment, honor the appropriations that both Houses have passed, and 
enact a bridge that will enable this agency, already hampered by severe 
funding reductions, to get on with its valuable work in an orderly 
fashion.

                          ____________________