[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6973-S6974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS ENDOWMENT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week the House of Representatives 
will take up the Department of Interior appropriations bill, which 
includes funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  It will be a watershed debate in Congress, because Republican 
extremists in the House are trying to eliminate Federal support for 
this important agency. The House Appropriations Committee has 
recommended only $10 million for the Endowment, and these funds would 
be used only to phase out the agency. The misguided Republican goal is 
to eliminate direct Federal support for music, dance, symphonies, and 
other arts in communities across America.
  The Republican position is so weak on the merits that the House 
leadership is attempting to use the parliamentary rules to block an up-
or-down vote on the merits of this important issue.
  Clearly, this unacceptable attack on the Arts Endowment deserves to 
be rejected. The Endowment has raised the quality of the arts in 
America. It has also strengthened support for the arts and interest in 
the arts by Americans in all walks of life in cities, towns, and 
villages in all parts of America.
  For example, under the Endowment's tenure the number of orchestras in 
America has doubled and the number of dance companies has increased 
tenfold. Other arts have witnessed similar expansions and earned broad 
public approval.
  An eloquent op-ed article in today's New York Times by the renowned 
actor, Alec Baldwin and Robert Lynch discusses the extraordinary record 
of achievement by the Arts Endowment. The article reminds each of us 
how much is at risk in the current debate, and the cynical Republicans 
strategy to prevent a vote on the merits. I ask unanimous consent that 
the article may be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 8, 1997]

                        Tyranny of the Minority

                   (By Alec Baldwin and Robert Lynch)

       Whether or not you believe the National Endowment for the 
     Arts should be eliminated, there is one basic principle upon 
     which we should all agree: Congress should at least vote on 
     the matter, and the majority should prevail.
       This notion may seem obvious, but it is the very principle 
     that the House leadership is undermining. The House 
     Appropriations Committee recommended giving the endowment $10 
     million for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1--only enough to 
     shut it down.
       We believe that a clear majority of House members want to 
     reject this scheme. After all, poll after poll shows that the 
     public supports the endowment. The Senate leadership has 
     indicated that it is willing to continue the N.E.A.'s current 
     level of financing, and the White House has threatened to 
     veto any bill eliminating the agency altogether.
       Despite these clear signals, House leaders are using 
     parliamentary rules to block an open and fair vote. The 
     leadership is requiring advocates for the N.E.A. to win a 
     procedural vote--before the bill can even be debated on the 
     House floor. If this sounds unfair, that's because it is.
       Why does the House leadership want to drive this train into 
     a head-on collision? If Congress can't eliminate a small 
     agency like the N.E.A., conservatives argue, it can never cut 
     big-ticket items that will help balance the budget and reduce 
     the deficit. As Representative John Doolittle of California 
     put it, ``It is gut-check time for the entire House.''
       This statement sounds compelling, but it's a red herring. 
     If anything, the N.E.A. actually helps balance the budget. 
     The endowment has helped a booming nonprofit arts industry, 
     which each year generates $36.8 billion in revenue and pays 
     $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes.
       Every argument for elimination of the endowment crumbles 
     under scrutiny. Conservatives say the agency is elitist, but 
     the facts show that the N.E.A. actually helps average 
     American families gain more access to the arts. When 
     extremists argue that the Government should not be deciding 
     what is good art, the facts show that it is not the 
     Government, but panels of everyday citizens with working 
     knowledge and expertise in the arts who are the ones making 
     grant recommendations.
       And although the agency is depicted as nothing but the 
     purveyor of pornography, the reality is far different. The 
     N.E.A. has made more than 112,000 grants supporting 
     everything from the design competition for the Vietnam 
     Memorial in Washington, to gospel music in Lyon, Miss. Fewer 
     than 40 grants have caused controversy--that means 99.96 
     percent of the endowment's grants have been an unquestioned 
     success. Moreover, two years ago Congress tightened the rules 
     for N.E.A. grants to prevent further controversy.
       Facts, however, no longer seem relevant when it comes to 
     the N.E.A. Some members of Congress continue to invent one 
     myth after another as a pretext for eliminating the N.E.A., 
     just so they can claim victory in some form, any form.
       Dick Armey, the House majority leader, claims that a 
     handful of Republicans worked out a budget agreement two 
     years ago that pledged partial financing for the N.E.A. in 
     exchange for a phase-out of the agency over two years. As a 
     result, he is now calling for this new Congress to uphold 
     this alleged deal.
       But Mr. Armey doesn't point out that this agreement was 
     specifically excluded in the final appropriations bill two 
     years ago. In fact, it was never included in any bill enacted 
     into law.
       Even if the agreement were valid, Mr. Armey himself 
     provides a reason not to support it. Explaining why he was 
     not bound by the recent balanced budget agreement, he 
     recently said: ``The basic rule around this town is that if 
     you're not in the room and you don't make the agreement, 
     you're not bound by it.''
       Mr. Armey makes an excellent point. He and other House 
     leaders should stop bullying rank-and-file members to 
     eliminate the N.E.A. After all, will Americans think that 
     using arcane parliamentary rules to eliminate the endowment 
     is an achievement worthy of the 105th Congress?

  Mr COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S6974]]



                          ____________________