[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5138-H5168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall No. 
264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The amendment offered by Representatives Klug, Miller, and Foley to 
increase by $292 million the bill's rescission of $100 million from the 
Energy Department's Clean Coal Technology Program [CCTP] is one I agree 
with wholeheartedly.
  This program has been plagued by a history of waste and 
mismanagement. A 1991 U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] report 
discovered that a large portion of projects had either been terminated 
within a few years of being unfunded, experienced substantial schedule 
delays, or exceeded their budgets. In addition, the same GAO report 
found that ``DOE selected some projects that are demonstrating 
technologies that might have been commercialized without federal 
assistance.''
  During an era of supposed fiscal responsibility, this program 
illuminates inefficiencies of the past.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Royce] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
       Page 59, line 10, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced 
     by $21,014,000)''.

                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 246, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--175

     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boswell
     Bryant
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Woolsey

                               NOES--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield

[[Page H5139]]


     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Doolittle
     Farr
     Hansen
     Hostettler
     Molinari
     Riggs
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1043

  Mr. TORRES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No.'s 264 and 265, I was unable 
to be present to vote due to a personal family commitment off of 
Capitol Hill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both 
matters.

                              {time}  1045

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments at this point, the 
Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts, $10,000,000.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise for a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language 
contained on page 76, lines 10 through 13, constitutes an unauthorized 
appropriation in violation of clause 2 of House rule XXI.
  Mr. Chairman, the language I have specified is an appropriation of 
$10 million for necessary expenses of the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts 
expired in fiscal year 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, specifically, clause 2(a) of House rule XXI states, 
``No appropriation shall be reported in a general appropriation bill 
for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, since the National Endowment for the Arts is clearly 
not authorized in law, and the bill includes an appropriation of funds 
for this agency, I make a point of order that the language is in 
obvious violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I request that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] withhold his point of order to permit me to make a 
statement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois may be heard on his point 
of order.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I wondered whether he would defer his point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] reserve 
the point of order only to permit the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] to strike the last word?
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane] for permitting me to discuss the amendment and to hold off the 
point of order.
  I dare to think of offering an amendment in view of what happened on 
the floor yesterday, in view of the remarkable closeness of the vote, 
which our side thought we had won, I dare to hope that perhaps some of 
my colleagues on the other side may, including the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane], might want to give the Members of the House a 
chance to vote on NEA to see whether or not the House would again 
sustain his position in opposition to the point of order.
  Would it be as close as the vote on the rule? I would be willing to 
bet that the vote on NEA itself would support NEA by at least 50 votes. 
If my memory serves me correctly, that was the difference the last time 
my colleague rose to kill NEA.
  Is it possible that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane], might withdraw his point of order to give us this opportunity 
to let the Members of the House vote on the subject? What does he 
think?
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully like the approach of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to this issue, and I know he has 
fought valiantly through the years. But, as I indicated, these are the 
rules of the House; and as a result of that, I still adhere to the 
point of order that I made, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane] is absolutely correct. They are the rules of the 
House. I was hoping that perhaps he would overlook the strict version 
of the rules of the House and give us the opportunity to have our vote 
on NEA.
  Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative except 
to concede the point of order.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. CRANE. I do insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member that wishes to be heard on 
the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule. In reviewing section 11(c) of the 
National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, codified in 
title 20, section 960, of the United States Code, the Chair finds that 
the authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts has lapsed 
with fiscal year 1993.
  The provision contains an unauthorized appropriation, and the point 
of order is sustained. Accordingly, the paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ehlers

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       Page 76, after line 13, insert the following:

                          SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS

Financial Assistance to States and Local Education Agencies To Support 
                                the Arts

       For the necessary expenses to carry out section 202, 
     $80,000,000. Each amount otherwise appropriated in this Act 
     (other than in this paragraph) is hereby reduced by 0.62 
     percent.

                           General Provisions


           termination of the national endowment for the arts

       Sec. 201. (a) Repealers.--Sections 5, 5A, and 6 of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 954, 955) are repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Declaration of purpose.--Section 2 of the National 
     Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 951) is amended--
       (A) in paragraphs (1) and (6) by striking ``arts and the'',
       (B) in paragraphs (2) and (5) by striking ``and the arts'',
       (C) in paragraphs (4), (5), and (9) by striking ``the arts 
     and'',
       (D) in paragraph (7) by striking ``the practice of art 
     and'',
       (E) by striking paragraph (11), and
       (F) in paragraph (12) by striking ``the Arts and'' and 
     redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (11).
       (2) Definitions.--Section 3 of the National Foundation on 
     the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 952) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (f), and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``to foster American artistic creativity, 
     to commission works of art,'',
       (ii) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``the National Council on the Arts or'', 
     and
       (II) by striking ``, as the case may be,'',

       (iii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking ``sections 5(l) and'' and inserting 
     ``section'',
       (II) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``artistic or'', and
       (III) in subparagraph (B)--

       (aa) by striking ``the National Council on the Arts and'', 
     and
       (bb) by striking ``, as the case may be,'', and
       (iv) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(b)'', and
       (C) by redesignating subsections (e) and (g) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively.
       (3) Establishment of National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities.--Section 4(a) of the National Foundation on the 
     Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 953(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``the Arts and'' each place it appears, and
       (ii) by striking ``a National Endowment for the Arts,'',
       (B) in subsection (b) by striking ``and the arts'', and
       (C) in the heading of such section by striking ``the arts 
     and''.
       (4) Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.--
     Section 9 of the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 958) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``the Arts and'',
       (B) in subsection (b) by striking ``the Chairperson of the 
     National Endowment for the Arts,'',

[[Page H5140]]

       (C) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the Chairperson of the 
     National Endowment for the Arts and'',
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) by striking ``the National Endowment for the Arts'', 
     and
       (II) by striking ``Humanities,'' and inserting 
     ``Humanities'', and
       (iii) in paragraphs (6) and (7) by striking ``the arts 
     and''.
       (5) Administrative functions.--Section 10 of the National 
     Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 959) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``in them'',
       (II) by striking ``the Chairperson of the National 
     Endowment for the Arts and'', and
       (III) by striking ``, in carrying out their respective 
     functions,'',

       (ii) by striking ``of an Endowment'' each place it appears,
       (iii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking ``of that Endowment'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities'',
       (II) by striking ``sections 6(f) and'' and inserting 
     ``section'', and
       (III) by striking ``sections 5(c) and'' and inserting 
     ``section'', and

       (iv) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Chairperson's 
     functions, define their duties, and supervise their 
     activities'' and inserting ``functions, define the 
     activities, and supervise the activities of the 
     Chairperson'',
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), and
       (ii) in paragraph (4)--

       (I) by striking ``one of its Endowments and received by the 
     Chairperson of an Endowment'' and inserting ``the National 
     Endowment for the Humanities and received by the Chairperson 
     of that Endowment'', and
       (II) by striking ``(4)'',

       (C) by striking subsection (c),
       (D) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``Chairperson of the National Endowment for 
     the Arts and the'', and
       (ii) by striking ``each'' the first place it appears,
       (E) in subsection (e)--
       (i) by striking ``National Council on the Arts and the'', 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``, respectively,'', and
       (F) in subsection (f)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``Chairperson of the National Endowment for 
     the Arts and the'', and
       (II) by striking ``sections 5(c) and'' and inserting 
     ``section'',

       (ii) in paragraph (2)(A)--

       (I) by striking ``either of the Endowments'' and inserting 
     ``National Endowment for the Humanities'', and
       (II) by striking ``involved'', and

       (iii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``that provided such financial assistance'' 
     each place it appears, and
       (II) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or''.

       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 11 of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 960) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (C), and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``(B)'',
       (B) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A), and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``(B)'', and
       (II) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively,

       (C) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A),
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (A),
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (C), and
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) by striking ``(D)'' and inserting ``(B)'', and
       (II) by striking ``and subparagraph (B)'',

       (D) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (i) by striking ``Chairperson of the National Endowment for 
     the Arts and the'',
       (ii) by striking ``, as the case may be,'', and
       (iii) by striking ``section 5(e), section 5(l)(2), section 
     7(f),'' and inserting ``section 7(f)'',
       (E) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1), and
       (ii) in paragraph (2) by striking ``(2)'',
       (F) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1), and
       (ii) in paragraph (2) by striking ``(2)'', and
       (G) by striking subsection (f).
       (d) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) Transfer of property.--On the effective date of the 
     amendments made by this section, all property donated, 
     bequeathed, or devised to the National Endowment for the Arts 
     and held by such Endowment on such date is hereby transferred 
     to the National Endowment for the Humanities.
       (2) Termination of operations.--The Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall provide for the termination of 
     the affairs of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Council on the Arts. Except as provided in paragraph 
     (1), the Director shall provide for the transfer or other 
     disposition of personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, 
     contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of 
     appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds 
     held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made 
     available in connection with implementing the authorities 
     terminated by the amendments made by this section.
       (e) Conforming Amendments to Other Laws.
       (1) Poet laureate consultant.--Section 601 of Arts, 
     Humanities, and Museums Amendments of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 177) is 
     amended by striking subsection (c).
       (2) Executive schedule pay rate.--Title 5 of the United 
     States Code is amended in section 5314 by striking the item 
     relating to the Chairman of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts.
       (3) Inspector General Act of 1978.--Subsection (a)(2) of 
     the first section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App. 8G(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts''.
       (4) Delta Region Preservation Commission.--Section 907(a) 
     of National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     230f(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (7),
       (B) in the first paragraph (8) by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting ``; and'', and
       (C) by redesignating the first paragraph (8) as paragraph 
     (7).
       (5) National teacher academies.--Section 514(b)(4) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1103c(b)(4)) is 
     amended by striking ``and the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities''.
       (6) Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Program.--Section 932(a)(3) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1134i(a)(3)) 
     is amended by striking ``the National Endowment for the 
     Arts,''.
       (7) Graduate assistance in areas of national need.--Section 
     943(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1134n(b)) is amended by striking ``National Endowments for 
     the Arts and the Humanities'' and inserting ``National 
     Endowment for the Humanities''.
       (8) American Folklife Center.--Section 4(b) of the American 
     Folklife Preservation Act (20 U.S.C. 2103(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (5), and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively.
       (9) Japan-United States Friendship Commission.--Section 
     4(a) of the Japan-United States Friendship Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2903(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3) by adding ``and'' at the end, and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
       (10) Standards and systems for outdoor advertising Signs.--
     Section 131(q)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``including the National Endowment for the 
     Arts,''.
       (11) International Culture and Trade Center Commission.--
     Section 7(c)(1) of Federal Triangle Development Act (40 
     U.S.C. 1106(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (I), and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (I).
       (12) Livable cities.--The Livable Cities Act of 1978 (42 
     U.S.C. 8143 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 804--
       (i) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``and'' at the end,
       (ii) by striking paragraphs (5) and (7), and
       (iii) in paragraph (6)--

       (I) by striking ``; and'' at the end and inserting a 
     period, and
       (II) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (5), and

       (B) in section 805--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``, in consultation with the Chairman,'', 
     and
       (II) in paragraph (3) by striking ``jointly by the 
     Secretary and the Chairman'' and inserting ``by the 
     Secretary'',

       (ii) in subsection (b) by striking ``and the Chairman shall 
     establish jointly'' and inserting ``shall establish'',
       (iii) in subsection (c) by striking ``jointly by the 
     Secretary and the Chairman'' and inserting ``by the 
     Secretary'',
       (iv) in subsection (d)--

       (I) by striking ``consult with the Chairman and'', and
       (II) by striking ``jointly by the Secretary and the 
     Chairman'' and inserting ``by the Secretary'', and

       (v) in subsection (e) by striking ``, in cooperation with 
     the Chairman,''.
       (13) Conversion of railroad passenger provisions.--Title 49 
     of the United States Code is amended--
       (A) in section 5562 by striking subsection (c),
       (B) in section 5563(a)(4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by adding ``or'' at the end,
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B), and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph 
     (B),
       (C) in section 5564(c)(1)(C) by striking ``or the Chairman 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts'', and
       (D) in section 5565(c)(1)(B) by striking ``or the Chairman 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts''.
       (14) Educational Research, Development, Dissemination and 
     Improvement Act of 1994.--Title IX of Public Law 103-227 (20 
     U.S.C. 6001 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 921(j)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (5), and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and
       (B) in section 931(h)(3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (H), and

[[Page H5141]]

       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (I), (J), (K), and (L) 
     as subparagraphs(H), (I), (J), and (K), respectively.
       (15) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--The 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by 
     the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
     382), is amended--
       (A) in section 2101(b) by striking ``the National Endowment 
     for the Arts,'',
       (B) in section 2205(c)(1)(D) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts,'' and inserting ``and'',
       (C) in section 2208(d)(1)(H)(v)--
       (i) by inserting ``and'' after ``Services,'' the 2nd place 
     it appears, and
       (ii) by striking ``, and the National Endowment for the 
     Arts'',
       (D) in section 2209(b)(1)(C)(vi) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts,'',
       (E) in section 3121(c)(2) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts,'',
       (F) in section 10401--
       (i) in subsection (d)(6) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts,'', and
       (ii) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``the National 
     Endowment for the Arts,'',
       (G) in section 10411(a)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (2), and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (7), respectively,
       (H) in section 10412(b)--
       (i) in paragraph (2) by striking ``the Chairman of the 
     National Endowment for the Arts,'', and
       (ii) in paragraph (7) by striking ``, the Chairman of the 
     National Endowment for the Arts'',
       (I) in section 10414(a)(2)(B)--
       (i) in clause (i) by inserting ``and'' at the end,
       (ii) by striking clause (ii), and
       (iii) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (16) Delta Region Heritage; New Orleans Jazz Commission.--
     Public Law 103-433 (108 Stat. 4515) is amended--
       (A) in section 1104(b) by striking ``the Chairman of the 
     National Endowment for the Arts,'', and
       (B) in section 1207(b)(6) by striking ``and one member from 
     recommendations submitted by the Chairman of the National 
     Endowment of the Arts,''.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1997.


federal financial assistance to the states and local education agencies 
                          to support the arts

       Sec. 202. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as 
     the ``Art for Kids Act''.
       (b) Grants to States.--From funds allotted under subsection 
     (e)(2), the Secretary of Education may make grants to 
     eligible States to support the arts in such a manner as will 
     furnish adequate programs, facilities, and services in the 
     arts to all the people and communities in each of the several 
     States through--
       (1) projects and productions which have substantial 
     national or international artistic and cultural significance;
       (2) projects and productions, meeting professional 
     standards of authenticity or tradition, irrespective of 
     origin, which are of significant merit;
       (3) projects and productions that will encourage and assist 
     artists to work in residence at an educational or cultural 
     institution;
       (4) projects and productions which have substantial 
     artistic and cultural significance;
       (5) projects and productions that will encourage public 
     knowledge, education, understanding, and appreciation of the 
     arts;
       (6) workshops that will encourage and develop the 
     appreciation and enjoyment of the arts by our citizens;
       (7) programs for the arts at the local level; and
       (8) projects that enhance managerial and organizational 
     skills and capabilities.
       (c) Grants to Local Education Agencies.--From funds 
     allotted under subsection (e)(1), the Secretary of Education 
     may make grants to eligible local education agencies to carry 
     out activities relating to the arts for the benefit of 
     children.
       (d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section in any fiscal year, a State or local education 
     agency shall submit an application for such grants at such 
     time as shall be specified by the Secretary and accompany 
     such application with a plan that the Secretary finds--
       (1) in the case of a State applicant, designates or 
     provides for the establishment of a State agency (hereinafter 
     in this section referred to as the ``State agency'') as the 
     sole agency for the administration of the State plan;
       (2) provides that funds paid to the State or the local 
     education agency under this section will be expended solely 
     on projects, productions, and activities approved by the 
     State agency or the local education agency, as the case may 
     be, described in subsection (b) or (c), respectively;
       (3) provides that such projects, productions, and 
     activities will be carried out--
       (A) in public, private, or public charter schools;
       (B) on government property;
       (C) in government-owned or community art museums; or
       (D) in government-owned or community theaters;
       (4) provides that the State agency or the local education 
     agency, as the case may be, will make such reports, in such 
     form and containing such information, as the Secretary may 
     from time to time require, including a description of the 
     progress made toward achieving the goals of the plan 
     involved;
       (5) provides--
       (A) assurances that the State agency has held, after 
     reasonable notice, public meetings in the State to allow all 
     groups of artists, interested organizations, and the public 
     to present views and make recommendations regarding the State 
     plan; and
       (B) a summary of such recommendations and the State 
     agency's response to such recommendations;
       (6) contains--
       (A) a description of the level of participation during the 
     most recent preceding year for which information is available 
     by artists, artists' organizations, and arts organizations in 
     projects and productions for which financial assistance is 
     provided under this section;
       (B) in the case of a State applicant, for the most recent 
     preceding year for which information is available, a 
     description of the extent projects and productions receiving 
     financial assistance from the State agency are available to 
     all people and communities in the State; and
       (C) a description of projects and productions receiving 
     financial assistance under this section that exist or are 
     being developed to secure wider participation of artists, 
     artists' organizations, and arts organizations identified 
     under clause (i) of this subparagraph or that address the 
     availability of the arts to all people or communities 
     identified under subparagraph (B);
       (7) an assurance that no part of a grant received under 
     this section will be used for any project, production, or 
     activity that is obscene or contains sexually explicit 
     conduct;
       (8) an assurance that no part of a grant received under 
     this section will be used to provide financial assistance to 
     any applicant who in the then preceding 5-year period had 
     artistic control of, or contributed significant financial 
     support for any project, production, or activity that was 
     obscene or contained sexually explicit conduct; and
       (9) an assurance that such funds will be used to 
     supplement, and not to supplant, non-Federal funds.

     No application may be approved unless the accompanying plan 
     satisfies the requirements specified in this subsection.
       (e) Allotment of Funds.--
       (1) 60 percent of the funds appropriated for any fiscal 
     year to carry out this section shall be allotted by the 
     Secretary among local education agencies based on the 
     population of children who are not less than 5 years of age, 
     and not more than 17 years of age, residing in the 
     geographical area under the jurisdiction of such agencies.
       (2) 37 percent of the funds appropriated for any fiscal 
     year to carry out this section shall be allotted by the 
     Secretary among the States as follows:
       (A) If the amount appropriated for a fiscal year does not 
     exceed $11,200,000, then the each State shall receive an 
     equal share of such amount.
       (B) If the amount appropriated for a fiscal year does 
     exceed $11,200,000, then--
       (i) the each State shall receive $200,000; and
       (ii) the amount remaining after making the allotment 
     required by clause (i) shall be allocated among the States 
     based on population.
       (f) Maintenance of Effort.--
       (1) States.--If in any fiscal year the amount of non-
     Federal funds expended by a State to carry out activities 
     relating to the arts is less that the amount of such funds so 
     expended in the preceding fiscal year by such State, then the 
     amount such State would be eligible to receive under this 
     section but for the operation of this paragraph shall be 
     reduced by 3 times the percentage reduction of such non-
     Federal funds.
       (2) Local Education Agencies.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), if in any fiscal year the amount of non-
     Federal funds expended by a local education agency to carry 
     out activities relating to the arts is less than 90 percent 
     the amount of such funds so expended in the preceding fiscal 
     year by such agency, then such agency shall be ineligible to 
     receive a grant under this section for each fiscal year in 5-
     year period beginning after the fiscal year in which the 
     reduction occurs.
       (B) If throughout any period of 5 consecutive fiscal years 
     the aggregate amount of non-Federal funds expended by a local 
     education agency to carry out activities relating to the arts 
     is less than 80 percent the amount of such funds so expended 
     in the 5-year period ending immediately before such period of 
     5 consecutive fiscal years, then such agency shall be 
     ineligible to receive a grant under this section for each 
     fiscal year in 5-year period beginning immediately after such 
     period of 5 consecutive fiscal years during which the 
     reduction occurs.
       (g) Compliance.--Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable 
     notice and opportunity for hearing, finds that--
       (1) a State agency or local education agency is not 
     complying substantially with terms and conditions of its plan 
     approved under this section; or
       (2) any funds granted to a State agency or local education 
     agency under this section have been diverted from the 
     purposes for which they were allotted or paid;

     the Secretary shall immediately notify the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the State

[[Page H5142]]

     agency or local education agency with respect to which such 
     finding was made that no further grants will be made under 
     this section to such agency until there is no longer any 
     default or failure to comply or the diversion has been 
     corrected, or, if compliance or correction is impossible, 
     until such agency repays or arranges the repayment of the 
     Federal funds which have been improperly diverted or 
     expended.
       (h) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall issue guidelines that 
     facilitate compliance with this section.
       (i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``arts'' includes, but is not limited to, 
     music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, 
     creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, 
     sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, costume and 
     fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, 
     video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the 
     presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such 
     major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the 
     diverse peoples of this country, and the study and 
     application of the arts to the human environment;
       (2) the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' has the meaning 
     given it in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code;
       (3) the term ``local education agency'' has the meaning 
     given it in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (4) the term ``production'' means plays (with or without 
     music), ballet, dance and choral performances, concerts, 
     recitals, operas, exhibitions, readings, motion pictures, 
     television, radio, film, video tape and sound recordings, and 
     any other activities involving the execution or rendition of 
     the arts;
       (5) the term ``project'' means programs organized to carry 
     out this section, including programs to foster American 
     artistic creativity, to commission works of art, to create 
     opportunities for individuals to develop artistic talents 
     when carried on as a part of a program otherwise included in 
     this definition, and to develop and enhance public knowledge 
     and understanding of the arts, and includes, where 
     appropriate, rental or purchase of facilities, purchase or 
     rental of land, and acquisition of equipment, and includes 
     the renovation of facilities if (i) the amount of the 
     expenditure of Federal funds for such purpose in the case of 
     any project does not exceed $250,000;
       (6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education; and
       (7) the term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States.
       (i) Report by Inspector General.--The Inspector General of 
     the Department of Education shall submit annually to the 
     Congress a report describing the extent to which recipients 
     of grants made under subsections (b) and (c) comply with the 
     requirements of this section.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $80,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] and a Member opposed the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is an attempt to mediate or to end a long-standing 
dispute in the House of Representatives regarding funding of the arts. 
As my colleagues well know, every year we have a battle about the NEA 
and the manner in which it disburses Federal funding. This year for the 
first time it appears definite that the House will not approve funding 
for the NEA, as we just observed.
  This amendment is an effort to separate the issue into two aspects. 
One is the funding of the arts. The second is the method of 
distributing the funding for the arts. The purpose of my amendment is 
to avoid the battles we have had in the past about the NEA and the 
manner in which they distributed their funds by developing a new 
distribution system and yet maintain the funding of the arts that we 
have had during the past year.
  The amount of money we are arguing about is relatively small in the 
sense of the amount per citizen. Last year we funded the arts in this 
Nation to the tune of 38 cents per capita. The bill that is before us 
had great difficulty reaching the floor. As we all know, the rule 
passed by only one vote. And yet the entire debate appeared to focus on 
the arts and the funding for the arts.
  I happen to support the arts. I also support funding for the arts. In 
fact, I support Federal funding for the arts when it is handled 
appropriately.
  This amendment will provide appropriate funding for the arts. The NEA 
has proved to be a lightning rod. It has attracted all types of 
criticism because they have, upon occasion, given money for art which 
is profane, or obscene, or vulgar, or sacrilegious, or sometimes all 
four.
  The amendment avoids this problem by recognizing that there are not 
enough votes in this body, as it is presently constituted, to support 
the continuation of the NEA, and simply says we will recognize the fact 
that the NEA cannot pass the House of Representatives but it is very 
important to continue the funding.
  This amendment has other advantages over past methods of distributing 
funding. One of my goals was to achieve equity. Currently we have 
approximately $229,000 contributed by every Member's district toward 
the operation of the NEA and the funding of the arts. Of that amount, 
most districts do not get anywhere near that kind of money back.
  In fact, 25 percent of the arts funding distributed in programs by 
the NEA went to one State. Let me say that again. One-fourth of all 
arts programs funding went to one State. That is hardly what one would 
consider equitable funding. I refuse to believe that one-fourth of the 
worthy artists in this country all reside in one State.
  The amount we are advocating is $80 million, which is even less than 
last year. It is 31 cents per capita. So if any citizen should happen 
to write one of my colleagues and object to the Federal funding of the 
arts, they are spending more on their stamp than they spend on support 
of the arts. I think that helps put this in perspective.
  This is not, however, a reduction from last year, even though it is 
almost a $20 million reduction in total funding. It simply gets rid of 
$20 million in overhead and internal operations of the NEA which we 
will not be perpetuating.
  The amendment is somewhat vague about the precise guidelines to be 
followed in distributing the funds, and that was done deliberately 
because, at the request of the authorizing committee, they wish to 
prepare an authorization bill. And we have a gentleman's agreement that 
the actions of the authorizing committee will, in fact, guide the 
deliberations of the House members of the conference once this bill 
reaches the conference committee.
  Now, I am concerned, because this effort emphasizes funding for the 
arts and equitable distribution for the funding of the arts, and I have 
been told that some of the Members on this body on the other side of 
the aisle plan to vote against this amendment because it does not 
continue the NEA.
  I urge Members on the other side of the aisle not to listen to that 
argument. I happen to believe funding the arts is more important than 
the existence of the NEA. I think it is much preferable to send a bill 
from this House containing $80 million to fund the arts and provide 
some continuation of funding than to send a bill across to the other 
side of the rotunda which has zero dollars appropriated for the funding 
of the arts.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bill. This is a new approach that will provide block grants to the 
States. It will provide as much funding for the arts commissions for 
their own general distributional purposes as they had last year in 
every State, or, perhaps, in many cases more. Approximately 26 of the 
50 States will get more money this time because we will not have one-
fourth going to one State.
  Furthermore, it provides additional money for arts education in the 
schools, and I believe that is very, very important. First of all, it 
is proven that arts education at an early age helps in brain 
development and helps students do better in other fields. But, in 
addition to that, I believe that proper arts education will help 
develop greater arts appreciation in this Nation and will ensure 
healthy continuation of the arts in the future.
  So Mr. Chairman, I urge that this amendment be adopted, that we not 
get wrapped up in the details of the distribution mechanism. We can 
certainly work that out through the authorizing committee as we go to 
conference. But this, I believe, is a worthy amendment which will 
continue funding for the arts even though the NEA will no longer exist 
as the House bill passes.

[[Page H5143]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I want to 
request the attention of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  I asked NEA how much money is being allocated to the States; and I 
was told that by statute 35 percent of the program funds are being 
allocated to the States, but that in practice 37 percent of their 
program funds. I was told also that under their interpretation the 
amount that my colleague would make available would be less for each 
State than the amount they currently get.
  I thought the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] ought to know that 
so that he might have the opportunity of verifying it with NEA, as 
well.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of those figures. First of all, 
I think two comments must be made. They are per-State figures. They 
also include roughly $2 million which is designated for arts education. 
We are designating far more than that for arts education. I did not 
include that in the title.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the other 
fact that they distributed I think is very misleading. They do not 
include, in the total being distributed to the States, the arts funding 
that we are distributing, and it makes it look like every State is 
getting less money. That is simply not true.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point I was trying 
to make is that there is not a great discrepancy between the amount 
that the States are currently getting under the NEA programs and the 
amount that I understand the gentleman proposes to make available under 
his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Ehlers amendment because it is designed to gut the NEA.
  The National Association of State Arts Agencies, which is the 
organization that represents the State arts agencies that would get 
these block grants, is strongly opposed to the Ehlers amendment because 
they know that it will not help them provide quality programs to young 
people.

                              {time}  1100

  These arts agencies benefit from NEA's experience and their 
leadership in creating partnerships with schools and universities 
across the country. They cannot do that on their own and certainly not 
with the small amount of money they would get from the Ehlers proposal.
  Think about this. Under the Ehlers proposal, each school board would 
get about $3,000, or $1 per child. That is not going to work. It is 
almost laughable. No wonder that they oppose it.
  Further, this amendment requires the Department of Education to 
create a new bureaucracy to administer the program. DOE does not have 
any competitive grant programs by subject area now. NEA has the staff 
expertise. DOE does not.
  Let us not pretend that a vote for the Ehlers amendment represents a 
commitment to arts in this country. These State art agencies rely upon 
Federal leadership and direct funding of national initiatives to 
attract private, corporate, and foundation support, especially from 
funders who can be encouraged to provide matching support. That is why 
the major corporations have already told us they will not fill this 
vacuum.
  But right now we are getting about $12 in nonfederal funding for 
every dollar that the NEA provides. That is what is working. It is seed 
money. It will not be seed money under this proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, 
because this amendment is not what the State art agencies want and it 
is certainly not what our country needs.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
excellent amendment and just to answer a few of the questions that have 
been raised. First, why have we had this incredible debate over the 
last number of years?
  It is not whether or not we spend the money, but in essence it has 
been who spends the money. We have had people in the NEA here in 
Washington, for whatever reason, who have disbursed money in a way that 
has embarrassed this House. We have had the horror stories of people 
handing out $10 bills to illegal aliens on the international border on 
the basis that that is an art project that shows the contribution of 
illegal aliens to the U.S. economy. We have had the desecration of the 
crucifix, these famous cases where absolute obscenity has been funded 
with U.S. taxpayer dollars, and the taxpayers do not like that.
  This amendment does exactly the right thing. It eliminates the NEA, 
and that is the problem, the people who spend the money. But it does 
spend some money in a way that we all agree money should be spent, and 
that is that it gives it to kids. It sends money, most of the money, to 
the art classes in our grade schools, grammar schools and high schools 
throughout this country.
  Pictures like this one, this was a picture from the district of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] done by Christopher Suniga from 
North High School in his district. This represents, and we all see, the 
great representation and manifestation of the talent of our kids when 
we walk the hallway from the Cannon Building over here to the Capitol 
to vote. We see wonderful art. We see all these budding artists who are 
being taught great art in their classes.
  We have had art classes in schools for hundreds of years in this 
country. What this money will do is go to those kids, go to those 
classes. If the gentleman says, ``Well, a dollar a student isn't going 
to do any good,'' I say it is going to do a lot more than handing out 
$10 bills to illegal aliens at the international border as some kind of 
a fuzzy-headed art project. We are not going to give the money to aging 
hippies anymore to desecrate the crucifix or do other strange things. 
We are going to give it to our kids, our 10 and 12 and 14 and 16-year-
old kids who have talent, who want to develop that talent.
  Lastly, it is going to give it to the kids on a per capita basis. 
That means, I say to my great friends from New York who have gotten 25 
percent of the money over the years, all the States are going to get an 
equal amount of money based on their population, based on the number of 
kids they have who need to develop this talent.
  This is a great amendment. It eliminates the NEA, and it funds art 
where we really should fund it, and that is with our children. I thank 
the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates], who over the years has been such a strong defender of the 
National Endowment for the Arts, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, 
do not be fooled by the Ehlers amendment. The intent, as the gentleman 
from California just stated, is to eliminate the NEA and to try to give 
cover to a few Members in providing money to State arts councils and 
back to the schools. The State arts councils say, ``We don't want the 
money. We think this is a mistake. Killing the Endowment, our partner, 
is a mistake.''
  I must tell Members that over the years, and I have served on this 
committee for 21 years and I have watched the NEA, we have made some 
improvements. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], when he was the 
ranking member, insisted on language. I worked with him on that 
language to make certain that we got quality funding by the NEA. Out of 
100,000 grants, 50 have been controversial. When it comes to the arts, 
that is not a big deal.
  I want to say to my Republican friends, many of which have joined 
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] in signing a letter to the 
leadership on this issue, this is our test vote. This is our 
opportunity to say whether we are for the Endowment or

[[Page H5144]]

whether we are against the Endowment. I think a showing defeating the 
Ehlers amendment is the right thing to do. Then we can move on and deal 
with the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  The Endowment has worked well. I can tell my colleagues from the 
State of Washington's perspective, in 1977 we received 3 challenge 
grants. It had more to do with developing the arts in Washington State 
and in Seattle than any other thing. The work over the years with the 
Endowment has been good and positive. Jane Alexander has been an 
outstanding leader at the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Again, this is a bad amendment. It is nothing but a cover for those 
people who want to have it both ways. I hope the House will reject it 
and let us go on and move forward.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would simply respond, those 
who know me well know I do not try to fool anyone and this amendment is 
not intended to fool anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the authorizing committee 
with jurisdiction over NEA, I would like to make a few comments about 
my understanding of the future of NEA.
  At the outset, I would note that over the years, nothing associated 
with the NEA has ever been easy. There are always competing factions 
with strong views. In fact, because of these strongly held views, 1993 
was the last year the NEA was authorized and for the past few years it 
has been continued on a year-to-year basis only by virtue of the 
appropriations process. In 1995, my committee did vote out, with some 
bipartisan help, an authorization to phase it out over a 3-year period. 
However, the leadership did not see fit to bring that to the floor of 
the House.
  Now we have before us a rule which would allow the Ehlers amendment, 
block grant amendment, which is authorizing legislation to be attached 
to the appropriations bill. I would have preferred that they wait 
before moving authorizing legislation on this bill. However, it is my 
understanding that the authorizing committee will be permitted to work 
its will, according to the majority leader and the chairman of the 
appropriations Subcommittee on Interior.
  Here is my understanding of how it will happen. Assuming the Ehlers 
amendment is adopted and goes to conference, the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce will work its will through the normal authorizing 
process in developing an arts-related bill over the next several weeks. 
It is my hope that the bill will be promptly reported from the 
committee prior to the end of September before the conference is held, 
and we will fill in all the details as far as what the bill will do.
  Thereafter, the bill would be made available to the Interior 
conferees as a clear statement of the authorizing committee's views on 
the future of NEA. My understanding is the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Interior will ensure that the authorizing committee's bill becomes 
the official position of the House in conference.
  I do want to point out that I had a letter some months ago from Ms. 
Alexander, concerned that one of my subcommittees was doing a witch-
hunt. I assured her that would not happen. However, I asked her to do 
what I did. We appreciate in my area the money we get for the York 
Symphony Orchestra, a very small amount but we appreciate what we get. 
However, I asked her to do what I did. I looked at ``Watermelon Woman'' 
in its entirety, I looked at ``Sex Is'' in its entirety, and I asked 
her to do the same and then report back to me and tell me what it is I 
missed, because I am sure I must have missed something, there must have 
been some reason for tax dollars to be used for those two films. As 
yet, I have not had a response.
  I have long believed that the normal protocol of deferring to the 
authorizing committee is the way to handle these matters. With the 
understanding I have with the subcommittee chair and with our 
leadership, I will support the action that is being taken today.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds in order to ask 
the gentleman a question. Do I understand the gentleman correctly that 
if the Ehlers amendment passes, he will then activate his committee in 
order to pass an arts bill?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. YATES. Suppose Ehlers does not pass. Would the gentleman 
nevertheless activate his committee?
  Mr. GOODLING. We probably will run out of time, because it will not 
become an emergency.
  Mr. YATES. In other words, the activating of the gentleman's 
committee will depend upon passage of the Ehlers amendment?
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have the chance today to uphold a long 
and a proud Federal commitment to culture and to humanity in the United 
States. But we can only maintain strong national support for the arts 
by rejecting block grants and restoring funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  NEA opponents might make my colleagues think that the NEA budget is 
colossal, but NEA funds are 0.01 percent of the budget, a tiny amount 
of money. Eliminating the NEA would not balance our budget, but it 
would bankrupt an essential element of our Nation's culture and 
artistic heritage. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it turns us back to the Dark 
Ages.
  Providing a small amount of money for the arts through the NEA is a 
catalyst for local, State, and private arts support. It ensures that 
small communities as well as large can enjoy American treasures in 
literature, painting, film, and the theater.
  A small amount of NEA seed money has helped Connecticut's arts 
thrive. We saw the results this summer and last summer with performers 
from around the world who came to New Haven for the Second Annual 
International Festival of Arts and Ideas. The nonprofit arts employed 
more than 17,000 people in Connecticut and generated more than $1 
billion for the State's economy in 1 year.
  The NEA ensures that the arts are enjoyed not only by the affluent in 
large cities but by the less well off in small towns. National grants 
are efficient. They allow exhibits and performers to travel to places. 
Even a small community that cannot afford a symphony can still enjoy a 
traveling orchestra's music.
  NEA grants have had a positive effect across this Nation. One 
example: 3 grants benefited 140 small communities in all parts of this 
country. A grant to the Spanish Repertory Theater in New York enabled 
the company to tour Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, New 
Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. If funds are block 
granted to the States, these kinds of traveling exhibits will be much 
harder to fund and to coordinate. The National Assembly of State Arts 
Agencies opposes block grants. Let us not return to the Dark Ages.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of the arts, I want 
to add my voice to the others raised in support of the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment. While this amendment would eliminate the NEA, it would not 
eliminate Federal funding for the arts. Instead, it would block grant 
Federal arts funds to allow communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC, to decide what kinds of projects are appropriate for funding in 
their areas. In light of the many questionable projects funded by the 
NEA in recent years, I think this is a very appropriate solution.
  Under this proposal, more money will be provided for arts education 
in schools so that students will have access to art, whether it be 
going to a symphony or having an artist visit

[[Page H5145]]

their school. In many of my rural communities, they just do not have 
the resources to provide these kinds of opportunities for their young 
students. This amendment addresses that situation and will be very 
beneficial to the youth of America, because the arts expand the mind 
and heart, they stimulate creativity and they encourage creative self-
expression.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage support of the Ehlers-Hunter amendment.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Again I return to the statement by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. If I 
understand him correctly, he finds fault with the Ehlers amendment 
because he proposes, if the Ehlers amendment is successful and passes, 
he is going to call his committee in order to pass a bill that is more 
appropriate that he can turn over to the conferees, rather than the 
Ehlers amendment itself. If the Ehlers amendment fails, he said, he 
will not have to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican leadership voted 
to kill the National Endowment for the Arts, and today unfortunately 
they are dancing on its grave.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Michigan, this amendment is 
not a compromise, it is a sham. It will not undo the damage that will 
be inflicted on communities across the Nation by eliminating the NEA.
  We do not need a new bureaucracy at the Department of Education, a 
new distribution system to support the arts. The NEA, particularly 
under the leadership of Jane Alexander, already has the expertise and a 
proven record of getting the job done.
  Let me remind my colleagues that out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded 
grants over the past 32 years, only 45 are controversial. That is less 
than four one-hundredths of 1 percent of all grants. Let us not throw 
the baby out with the bath water simply because a few grants years ago 
were controversial.
  As I mentioned yesterday, this battle is not about defending the 
values of mainstream America. This is about pandering to Pat Robertson 
and the Christian Coalition. The assault on the arts, on cultural 
expression itself, is an outrage, and it must be defeated.
  One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the 
support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized 
nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area, even 
with a fully funded NEA.
  But let us be honest. This is not a fight over money. The leadership 
wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic 
expression in a free society. Polls overwhelmingly show that the 
American public supports Federal funding for the arts because students, 
artists, musicians, teachers, orchestras, theaters, dance companies 
across the country benefit from the NEA support. For many Americans, 
whether they live in the suburbs or cities or rural areas, the NEA is 
critical in making the arts affordable and accessible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment. Preserve the NEA.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply point out that if we had a better distribution 
mechanism that was not so controversial, we would probably have much 
more money to distribute to the arts than we do now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this 
time. As chairman of the oversight committee that has responsibility 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, we have done oversight work, 
and the reason I am supporting my colleague's amendment today is 
because I believe it addresses the worst abuses that we have uncovered 
in the National Endowment for the Arts. It does not address them all, 
but it addresses the worst ones.
  What are they? As this amendment does, it takes away the $20 million 
in administrative overhead that the National Endowment spends each and 
every year, $20 million to distribute an additional $80 million. That 
is an unreasonable cost.
  Where does the money go? The National Endowment for the Arts, as an 
example, has spent $21,000 per employee on a computer system. Not bad. 
The disappointing thing is that computer system still is not up and 
running and does not even do e-mail.
  The second abuse that this program deals with is the distribution of 
funds. I do not think this House would ever develop a program from 
scratch that would ensure that 143 congressional districts get no money 
directly from the program. We would never develop a program that sends 
25 percent of the funds to one State. This amendment assures that we 
will equitably distribute funds throughout the country.
  And the third thing that this amendment does is it moves 
decisionmaking for the local arts programs to where those decisions can 
be best made, where they will be supported by the local community, 
where they will be supported by the American public, moving 
decisionmaking for arts projects back to the State level, and the 
money, the additional funds, are moved into arts education for our 
kids.
  This is a great program, this is a good amendment, it does not go 
exactly where we need to go, but it moves the program in the right 
direction and handles the worst abuses for an ineffective bureaucracy.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is not even a serious 
legislative effort. It is very clear what is going on here is simply 
``Operation Cover Your Tail.'' We have had a lot of people in this 
House who promised to vote for funding the arts, but yesterday they 
chose to assassinate the arts behind the cover of the Ehlers amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a smokescreen amendment, and I think the 
comments of the Chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
indicate just how unreal this proposal is as an alternative. What he 
really indicated by his remarks is that this is just a time filler. It 
is a device by which to kill the National Endowment for the Arts, and 
then they figure out later how they are going to explain it to the 
folks back home and come up with some other scheme to cover what they 
have done.
  What he said in response to the comments of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] is, ``Well, if this amendment passes, then what 
we'll do is, we'll pull our committee together and we will really then 
figure out what it is we really want to do, and then we will send it on 
to the conferees.'' When he was asked would he do that same thing if 
the Ehlers amendment is not adopted, he said no.
  That indicates that this Ehlers amendment is nothing but a device by 
which you accomplish the assassination of the National Endowment for 
the Arts. That is all it is, and it just seems to me that that is not 
what a majority of Members in both parties in this House want to do.
  Now I have served, when I first came to the Congress I served, on 
this subcommittee as one of my first assignments. I remember for years 
the wonderful bipartisan support that we had for the Endowment. People 
now complain about a couple of the grants that the Endowment was 
involved in because they say that they produced art that is not 
consistent with American values. There is no question about that, and I 
agree with that. But they have had about a 99 or 97 percent success 
rate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to meet the Member of Congress who has 
that high a performance by any standard, no matter who would determine 
that standard.
  Let us be very clear about it. The arts community is against the 
Ehlers amendment. The State arts agencies who would receive a very 
large share of the funds under this amendment do not want this 
amendment. And the idea that we are going to turn this over as an 
orphan program to the Department of Education, which at least a third 
of my colleagues on that side of the aisle have been trying to abolish, 
indicates just what a slapdash operation this really is.

[[Page H5146]]

  So it seems to me if my colleagues are serious, if they want to cast 
a vote that will keep continued pressure on to resurrect a meaningful 
arts program, they will vote this down and they will insist that the 
committee in conference resurrect the National Endowment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe this amendment is definitely not 
a smokescreen. I have never smoked in my life.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Over the years they have 
done a valiant job with this budget. I happen to have a hundred percent 
record of arts support. I voted against the rule yesterday. I think the 
National Endowment was not treated fairly in the rule, and that is why 
I voted against this.
  Now those of us who believe that the Federal Government has a role in 
the arts, the Ehlers proposal is the one thing we have to show that 
this House cares for Federal support of the arts. Let us forget about 
some of the administrative machinery right now. I think the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] is on the right track. That does not mean we 
have every dot dotted and every I dotted and so forth.
  It is wrong to deny this House a vote, and this is the chance to vote 
and show our support for the arts. This is the one opportunity we will 
have on this bill going into negotiations with the Senate. They might 
well succeed in having the NEA continued, and I would support that. But 
I think we have to go in with support of the Federal Government for the 
arts.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] formerly has 30 percent of 
those funds going to the State arts councils. I am quite familiar with 
the California State Arts Council which does an outstanding job. Sixty 
percent would be going to public schools. Only 3 percent on 
administration, not 20 percent.
  This proposal does not pretend to be perfect. I think universities 
with outreach efforts in inner cities and public schools need to be 
supported.
  Revenue sharing that we had in this country between 1973 and 1983 
worked. Who did not like it? The Washington lobbyists. Who did not like 
it? The staff on the Hill and people that had been here too long on the 
Hill.
  This program will work. Give it a chance. Vote for the Ehlers 
proposal. Vote for Federal support of the arts.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I have the greatest respect for my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn], but I should like to point out to him that in 
the years I have been in the Congress and in the number of times that I 
have been in conferences with the Senate, I have gone through those 
conferences with bills that had no appropriations on programs from the 
House and appropriations that came from the Senate that had to be 
reconciled, and I suspect that the Senate will approve an appropriation 
for NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we would be better off going to the Senate 
with a vote like we had yesterday on NEA, 217 to 216, showing that the 
House still wanted to have NEA rather than clouding the issue with an 
amendment like the Ehlers amendment.
  Nevertheless I respect the position the gentleman has taken.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would be the last person in this bill to 
defend the obscene art that is the controversy about the funding. But 
to me, I am a bit troubled; I am still smarting from the vote yesterday 
on the rule.
  The gentleman here, who I served with for 22 years, and there is not 
a finer man that has ever served in this body than the gentleman from 
Illinois, [Mr. Sid Yates], a man of integrity who has had many awards 
from the arts community, and the Committee on Rules waived points of 
order. This is legislation on an appropriation; make no mistake about 
that. They waived the points of order to allow this amendment to come 
up. They denied the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] the same 
courtesy to offer his amendment up or down on NEA funding.

                              {time}  1130

  This is wrong. My friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], who I 
served with on the Subcommittee on Military Construction for many, many 
years, and we have saved this country a million dollars in funds for 
our military and quality of life, but to make a rule to where they 
waive the points of order to allow an amendment such as this, and they 
deny a man who has been in this House for many, many years, a man of 
integrity, it is just not right.
  Let me make one other point. All the abuses that have been in the 
grants and what has taken place, let me just kind of draw an analogy 
here. I serve on the Committee on National Security. We had some 
scandals in our academies, in the Naval Academy, in West Point and the 
others. We do not close the schools down. We try to correct them, which 
is what we have done in this area.
  We have tremendous cost overruns on weapons systems. We do not quit 
spending money for defense. We try to fix it. We do not try to kill it 
in a roundabout way and allow an unfair rule on this House floor to 
responsible Members that have given their lives in service to their 
countrymen here on this floor. That is not democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not right. I would like to ask the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], if I could, on most of these amendments 
that come up that call for block grants, they pass out literature that 
says how much each district in the country will get. Do Members have 
such a printout that we could have, where I will know how much these 
block grants we will get in the Eighth District in North Carolina, or 
statewide, under block grants? Or have Members gone that far in 
analyzing the block grants?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, I 
do have a chart here. I have not distributed it. It is not by district, 
because we do not know how the State agencies or how the State art 
commissions would distribute on a per district basis, but I do have a 
breakdown by State of how much would be given to each State for the use 
of their arts commission to distribute and how much would be given for 
their schools to distribute.
  Mr. HEFNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just make this 
final point. Living in rural North Carolina, my kids were in grade 
school, and nothing pleased them any more than when the symphony or a 
portion of the symphony from Charlotte or someplace came and performed 
at their school.
  It was the highlight of their day and the highlight of their week 
when they could participate in something that they would not be able to 
participate in otherwise. To me this is just an absolute tragedy when 
we did not allow a vote, an up-and-down vote for my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that under the NEA 25 percent of 
the funding went to one State. There was a lot of talk about the NEA, 
about distributing funds to the little people. Our program does a lot 
better job at distributing funds to the little people than the NEA has 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Blunt].
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, as we look for alternatives today, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Duncan Hunter. My freshmen colleague the gentleman from 
Kansas, Mr. Jerry Moran, a couple of months ago began to mention this 
concept to me as a concept that he thought would work.
  We are looking to new and better ways to do things. Clearly Members 
are

[[Page H5147]]

not going to privatize or turn back to the States the obligation to 
defend the country, so we have to look for different ways to solve 
problems, management problems in the Defense Department.
  We are talking about an agency that spends 20 percent of its money 
just to administer its programs, and according to their own inspector 
general's report, as of March 31, 1996, 63 percent of the project costs 
were not reconcilable to the accounting records, 79 percent had 
inadequate documentation, 53 percent failed to engage independent 
auditors, even though their grant requirement absolutely required that.
  We are not debating today whether or not to spend money on the arts. 
The key here is not about spending money on the arts. We are for the 
first time really significantly debating where is the better place to 
make this decision. Should this decision be made in Washington, or can 
this decision be made better in the States?
  We got an opportunity to look to the States. The State art councils 
have done a good job distributing the State money. Thirty percent of 
the NEA-distributed money has gone to six cities in America. In the 
Seventh District of Missouri that I represent, of the money distributed 
by the NEA, even though our proportionate share would be a quarter of a 
million dollars, we get back $5,000. The State arts councils are going 
to do a better job in distributing this money. They are going to do a 
better job administratively in spending it.
  I urge support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the 
actions taken by the House leadership to prevent the vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to restore 
funding to the NEA. This amendment was cooked up in the middle of the 
night. It has not been considered by any committee nor had the benefit 
of any public hearing. It would effectively waste the $80 million it 
appropriates with virtually no benefit to the arts.
  For 30 years, Mr. Chairman, the NEA has brought art and culture to 
those who would not otherwise have access do it. Before the NEA there 
were 58 orchestras in the country. Today there are more than 1,000. 
Before the NEA there were 37 professional dance companies. Now there 
are 300. Before the NEA, only 1 million people went to the theater in 
this country every year. Today more than 55 million do. Without the 
NEA, we will revert to the old situation where the arts were not 
accessible to most people in this country.
  But this amendment eliminates the NEA. It would instead distribute 
$600 or $1,000 to every school district. $600 for an entire school 
district? What use could they make of that? The amendment is so 
restrictive, there is no guarantee, no assurance it would continue our 
support for symphonies, operas, concerts in the park, local Shakespeare 
festivals and touring dance and theater groups that benefit entire 
communities, not only schoolchildren. Even the State arts agencies that 
would directly receive 30 percent of the block grants strongly oppose 
the amendment.
  The amendment does not recognize the purpose of a national arts 
agency, and therefore it tends to set up a distribution system that 
sounds fair but in reality is completely unworkable.
  The amendment will eliminate funding for the traveling theater and 
dance groups that visit small towns and communities all across the 
Nation, because if States control these funds they will have no 
incentive to support theater or dance groups that travel to other 
States outside their borders.
  And the amendment will distribute an equal portion of Federal money 
to every region. But we all know this makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, 
should New York City get the same amount of money for wheat subsidies 
as towns in Kansas and Iowa, even though we grow no wheat in New York 
City? Of course not. Some regions have more wheat farmers and others 
have more artists, and Federal funds should be distributed accordingly.
  In the end, wheat subsidies help consumers nationwide, and NEA grants 
bring excellent art produced by the country's finest artists to people 
all over the country.
  I hope it is very clear that the amendment is a fraud, designed only 
to create a political fig leaf for those whose constituents will not 
appreciate their votes yesterday to kill the NEA.
  Do not be deceived. Vote against this amendment, and wait for the 
Senate and the President to rescue the arts in this country from the 
folly of this House.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment eliminating the NEA and block granting funding and giving 
control to the local school boards. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
opposition to the Ehlers-Hunter measure. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ehlers-Hunter NEA 
amendment. Though I support the efforts of both of my distinguished 
colleagues in trying to formulate a workable compromise that would fund 
the arts, I believe it is too little and too late.
  I strongly support the vital need to continue funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, and it is distressing that this 
amendment terminates this important agency.
  Over the past 30 years, our quality of life has been improved by the 
National Endowment for the Arts. Support for the arts acknowledges our 
Nation's commitment to freedom of expression, one of the basic 
principles upon which our Nation is founded. Cutting funding for the 
arts will deny citizens this essential freedom, and detract from the 
quality of life in our Nation.
  The President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities released the 
report entitled Creative America, which makes several recommendations 
about the need to strengthen support for cultural in our country. It 
applauds our American spirit, and observes that an energetic cultural 
life contributes to a strong democracy. This report not only highlights 
our Nation's unique tradition of philanthropy, but also mentions that 
the baby-boomer generation, and new American corporations, are not 
fulfilling this standard of giving. It saddens me that something as 
important as the arts, which has been so integral to our American 
heritage, is being cast aside by our younger generations as something 
of little value.
  By block granting funding for the arts and fragmenting the NEA, our 
Nation would be the first among cultured nations to eliminate the arts 
from our Nation's priorities. As chairman of the International 
Relations Committee, I recognize the importance of the arts on an 
international level, in helping to foster a common appreciation of 
history and culture that are so essential to humanity. If we eliminate 
the NEA we will be erasing an essential part of our culture.
  Moreover, this measure which block grants funding for the arts, 
places most of the authority for distribution of art funding to local 
school boards, virtually eliminating a significant Federal role.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment and instead work with our colleagues in the conference to 
provide full funding for the NEA.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers-Hunter amendment. I 
am deeply offended by the subterfuge which it represents as a backdoor 
way of putting money into the Department of Education, frequently the 
target of the majority side of the aisle.
  What offends me more than that, however, is that we stand here every 
day preaching the rule of law, where we insist that for Americans, that 
there is an even application of the rule of law and that it ought to be 
abided by.
  This House has rules that ought to be abided by, and the rule says 
that you cannot authorize on an appropriation bill. On that basis they 
have ruled out of order the ranking member's amendment to restore 
funding. Well, that is fine. If they are going to enforce the rule of 
law and apply that to the gentleman's amendment, that is fine.
  But on the other hand, through a manipulation of the rules of this 
House, they have allowed an amendment to come forth which does not even 
belong in this appropriation bill. It goes to another committee on 
appropriations. It

[[Page H5148]]

has to do with funding of the Department of Education.
  If Members do not believe me, they should remind themselves about the 
words of the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, who said on the floor of this House that if the Ehlers 
amendment passed his committee will be put to work to write the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, if that is not back door subterfuge, I do not know what 
is. If we have problems in explaining what we do to our constituents, I 
hope Members can go back to their constituents and explain what we are 
doing today.
  The annihilation of the National Endowment for the Arts is a very, 
very serious act, prompted by a few objections to maybe less than 50 
art programs or projects among millions. If we are offended by these 
things, make the rules tougher, but do not do away with the symbol of 
national support for the idea of creativity, which is the essence of 
free expression protected by our Constitution.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply remark that the rules of the House 
provide that a waiver protecting from a point of order applies only if 
the chairman of the authorization committee authorizes it. That is what 
happened in this case. So the rules of the House were followed.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the rural States in mid-
America, I speak in favor of the Ehlers-Hunter amendment for a number 
of reasons. First, the status quo funding of the NEA results not in art 
education, but in art arrogance. Do we really need a centralized, 
federalized ministry on the arts to tell the people of America what is 
good and what is not good art, what does and does not deserve funding?
  Second, the present philosophy of the NEA does not accomplish its 
original mission of providing art education to underserved areas; not 
the big cities, but underserved areas. Rather, Washington control 
results in mismanagement and a lack of common sense in art funding.
  The Ehlers amendment gets the money to the State art agencies, which 
do a good job, and it also for the first time provides funding for art 
programs in schools. I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense 
approach to arts by voting for art education and not art arrogance.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I take issue with my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] when he said that they observed the rules of the 
House when the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
gave his consent. I gathered the impression that the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce did not give his consent. He 
came down in the well of the House and said that if the gentleman's 
amendment passes, he is going to put his committee to work to pass a 
bill that means something, and then turn it over to the conferees.
  What happened, of course, was that the Committee on Rules waived all 
points of order with respect to the gentleman's amendment, which 
included the rule that required the approval of the chairman of the 
legislative committee. That is what happened in this particular case.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I do not question the good faith effort 
of our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], but I do 
have to say I rise in strong opposition to this proposal. This is no 
way to run a railroad, and it is certainly no way to legislate. This is 
not the time nor is the appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior 
bill the place to undertake a complete overhaul of our arts funding 
process. This is a job for the authorization committee, the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak with some authority on this because I have been 
a member of that committee, and also a leader for years in reforming 
the NEA, so I think I have some understanding of what is involved here.

                              {time}  1145

  Regardless of my commitment to the NEA, the point here today is that 
we are about to establish an entirely new program that we know next to 
nothing about. There are a lot of questions here. I do not have time 
too go into all of them, but I have a list of questions here that are 
not answered. And some of the answers that are not in the legislation, 
proposed legislation, are said to be for the committee report.
  Is that any way to legislate? That is ridiculous. But without going 
into all of the questions, aside from real serious questions about how 
the funding formula is distributed, I want to ask my colleagues at 
least two questions:
  Will the bill be written in the conference if the committee of 
jurisdiction, as the chairman has said, does not act? Are we handing 
that over to a conference committee? I doubt it.
  What will it mean in terms of the conference committee in the Senate 
having worked its will on the NEA? Will it undermine that effort? There 
are questions on both sides of this issue.
  To my Republican colleagues, particularly those who have sworn 
allegiance to eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, is not 
anyone here concerned that this proposal creates a new bureaucracy in 
the Department of Education?
  Those are but two of about 10 important questions that are left 
unanswered in this procedure.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the list of questions to which 
I referred:

             Addition to Statements--Questions About Ehlers

       Mr. Yates cannot offer his amendment because the NEA has 
     not been reauthorized by the Education Committee since 1993. 
     Should we be approving here a 28-page amendment that 
     substitutes for the Committee's authorization process?
       Has anyone seen the formula for distribution? If not, when 
     will we see it? Before conference? Before final passage? 
     Before enactment?
       Will the bill be written in conference if the committee of 
     jurisdiction doesn't act?
       Do we know how this will affect each State?
       Many of my Republican colleagues have sworn allegiance to 
     the cause of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education. 
     Isn't anyone concerned that in this proposal we are handing a 
     new $80 million bureaucracy to DOE?
       What experience does the DOE have in operating an arts 
     program?
       There are about 16,000 local school boards across the 
     Nation. Under Ehlers, each one would get about $3,000 each. 
     It seems to me that the paperwork involved in this program 
     will cost each district more than $3,000. Is it worth it?
       The Ehlers amendment contains a 3 percent funding figure 
     for administrative costs? Whose administrative costs? Will 
     the States get any of this? If not, why is this not one of 
     those famous ``unfunded mandates'' we so strongly oppose in 
     this House?

  I recommend a ``no'' vote on Ehlers.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, Government support of the 
arts has created access to the arts for millions of Americans and has 
provided tremendous economic and educational benefits to our Nation.
  Just as the Department of Education embodies our belief that 
mastering a disciplined body of knowledge is essential to exercising 
freedom with responsibility, so the NEA embodies our national 
commitment to the arts and our recognition that creativity is 
absolutely essential to an entrepreneurial economy in a visionary 
democracy.
  It is no surprise that students who have 4 more years of art 
education have SAT scores that are significantly higher than those that 
do not. Further, arts moneys have been the most successful economic 
development program in our great cities.
  I rise at this time in support of the Ehlers amendment because it 
significantly restores funding for the arts while the underlying bill 
slashes funding 90 percent. It also recognizes that there is a need for 
a Federal role in funding the arts.
  The Ehlers amendment is therefore better than the underlying bill. 
However, it is dangerous to make significant changes in any Government 
agency without hearings and this amendment has some serious problems. 
It

[[Page H5149]]

eliminates any significant Federal role in supporting unique museums, 
theaters, symphonies, and dance troops that are institutions of 
national significance and value. Also, by sending the education dollars 
directly to the schools, it destroys the powerful partnerships that 
have emerged and been developed between the great museums like 
Hartford's Wadsworth Atheneum and local schools. These partnerships 
provide a totally different and higher order of arts experience to our 
children than could any public school arts department.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends the House into conference, and 
this is where I disagree respectfully with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. It sends the House bill into conference with 
far more dollars in it than the base bill and a clear message of 
support for a Federal role. In conference I would hope the NEA 
structures prevail and this bill goes to hearing as part of the 
reauthorization process.
  Government support of the arts at the Federal, State, and local 
levels has created access to the arts for millions of Americans, and 
has provided tremendous economic and educational benefits to our 
Nation. Funding from the National Endowment of the Arts [NEA] directly 
or indirectly supports thousands of programs that bring the arts to 
urban and rural communities, with local decisionmakers selecting 
cultural activities of importance to their communities. NEA-supported 
arts education programs open the doors of museums and symphonies to 
thousands of students and bring unique arts experiences into the 
classrooms.
  Just as the Department of Education embodies our belief that 
mastering a disciplined body of knowledge is essential to exercising 
freedom with responsibility, so the NEA embodies our national 
commitment to the arts, and our recognition that creativity is 
absolutely essential to an entrepreneurial economy and a visionary 
democracy.
  It is no surprise that students who have 4 or more years of art 
education have SAT scores that are significantly higher than those who 
do not. Direct and indirect funding from the NEA is essential to 
continuing and developing quality art education that will build the 
skilled minds and hands needed to shape our future.
  The economic impact of the arts is significant and especially 
dramatic in our great cities, large and small. Of all the urban 
economic development programs, arts funding has proven to be among the 
most important of our great cities. An investment equal to 38 cents per 
American, one one-hundredth of 1 percent of our total Federal budget, 
stimulates 18 times that amount from other sources. Nationally, 
nonprofit arts generate $37 billion in economic activity, support 1.3 
million jobs, and return $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes. The arts 
are good business.
  I rise in support of the Ehlers amendment because it restores 
significant funding for the arts and recognizes the Federal 
responsibility to fund the arts, while the underlying bill slashes 
funding by 90 percent. The Ehlers amendment, therefore, is better than 
the alternative--which provides virtually no funding at all. However, 
it is dangerous to make significant changes in any government agency 
without hearings and this amendment has some serious weaknesses. It 
eliminates any significant Federal role in supporting the unique 
museums, theaters, symphonies, and dance companies that are 
institutions of national significance and value. Also, by sending the 
education funding directly to the schools, it destroys the powerful 
partnerships between great museums like Hartford's Wadsworth Atheneum 
and local partner schools. These partnerships provide totally different 
and higher order arts experiences to our children than could be 
provided by school arts departments alone.
  Public Law 89-209, the law establishing the NEA, states: ``It is 
necessary and appropriate for the federal government to help create and 
sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination 
and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release 
of this creative talent.'' I take that responsibility very seriously.
  The arts are an integral part of our society and our economy. The 
American people recognize the importance of the arts. Seventy-nine 
precent of them support a government role in funding the arts. This 
amendment sends the House bill into conference with more dollars than 
the base bill and clear support for a Federal role in arts funding. In 
conference we should retain current the NEA structures and send this 
thoughtful amendment to hearing as part of the reauthorization process.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to repeat what I 
said with respect to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. I think 
that if we went into conference with the Ehlers amendment, we would be 
in a very weak position because the Senate, I am sure, will put an 
appropriate amount of money in the bill. And it all depends on what my 
good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and I are able to 
come up with in our negotiations with the Senate.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to 
reauthorize the NEA legislation either under Democratic leadership or 
Republican leadership. It is my hope that the conference committee will 
take the old language, and then we could go into the authorizing 
process this year and bring together some of the interests of 
conservatives who have opposed NEA but many of whom do not oppose some 
Federal funding of the arts in our Nation and really think through how 
do we get a reauthorization that meets the needs of all of us. But that 
is a separate issue. I think in the conference committee we could go 
forward.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest the vote yesterday 
indicated that conservatives who are opposed to it would have been 
outvoted, had we had a chance to vote on NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. I rise in opposition because if something is not 
broken, then there is no need to mend it. There is no need to fix it. 
The fact of the matter is the NEA has, for a number of years, developed 
tremendous outreach to the arts community all over America. Everybody 
involved in the arts, they know. Everybody involved in the arts, they 
are a part of. They know where the programs are. They know where the 
funds need to go. They know the kind of activities that need to take 
place. I believe, again, if it is not broke, do not fix it. I commend 
my colleague from Illinois for having been a longtime guardian of these 
programs. I stand with him and say, if it is not broke, do not fix it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in objection to the Ehlers amendment. Under the 
Ehlers amendment, the NEA would be eliminated as we know it. The Ehlers 
amendment would appropriate $80 million in Federal funds to be 
allocated as block grants. Under this proposal, 97 percent of the money 
is to go directly to State arts councils and local school boards for 
only school-based arts education programs.
  Beyond monetary terms, this shift of 60 percent of the funds 
allocated entirely toward schools, which serve primarily k-12 needs are 
the funds that support institutions that promote lifelong learning, 
such as museums, dance companies, theaters, outreach programs, 
community-based programs, and folks arts are lost. These arts and 
humanities programs that Americans have grown to know and love over the 
years no longer will be funded.
  This proposal means that a majority of Federal arts funding would not 
be available for cultural organizations and some of their programs. 
Important programs that enrich the lives of many across this Nation. 
Although the State Arts Council may receive slightly more money, they 
cannot possibly compensate for this loss. The 7th 
Congressional District of Illinois which I represent would lose over 
$1.8 million overall based on fiscal year 1997 appropriations. This is 
bad for Chicago, but more important it is bad for America. I say it is 
bad for America because Americans come to Chicago.
  There are numerous organizations that would be hurt by this proposal 
in my district, fine institutions that people across this Nation 
enjoy--such as the Art Institute of Chicago, the Chicago Artist's 
Coalition, the Chicago Dance Arts Coalition, Inc., Hubbard Street Dance 
Chicago, Illinois Arts Council, Lyric Opera of Chicago, Museum of 
Contemporary Art, Urban Gateways, and the YMCA's USA Literature Special 
projects would no longer receive their much-needed NEA funds.
  I join with my constituents, the State arts agencies and the mayors 
across our great Nation that reflect the view of millions in my 
opposition to the Ehlers amendment that greatly hinders our Nation's 
commitment to the arts.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, most of us here in this body and citizens 
across

[[Page H5150]]

the country were offended with some of the arts that were funded by the 
NEA in years past. We had a fellow colleague, Paul Henry, who led the 
successful fight to stop much of that abuse of taxpayer money several 
years ago. I am delighted that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers], his successor, has followed that same trail.
  Because we did not have an authorization, money could and was struck 
for the NEA. That is a simple tact under the rules of the House. The 
Ehlers amendment is a step in the right direction for allowing the 
funding for the arts. No, the Ehlers amendment is not music to 
everyone's ears. It does not fund symphonies and a number of worthwhile 
organizations, museums that today are funded. I know that there are a 
number of things that we need to correct in the future with those 
things in mind.
  But today we need to adopt the Ehlers amendment and we need to let 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce reauthorize this very 
valuable program for the future. The bottom line here is that we would 
rather have something than nothing, and the Ehlers amendment is a good 
step in the right direction. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Ehlers] has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to 
close.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts but in strong 
opposition to the Ehlers amendment which at its best is an untested way 
of handling arts funding. The NEA is indeed a lightening rod. It has 
some basic good ideas. I give them a lot of credit for that.
  But this concept is less than 24 hours old at this point. It has not 
been tested across the country. Virtually nobody really understands 
what is in it. In addition, it is a travesty that we are not in this 
body voting on NEA funding, which every single Member knows would be 
reinstated to the exact amount it got last year if we were given that 
opportunity, because of legislative process and procedures that has 
been avoided. The bottom line is that most groups in this country that 
I have been in touch with through fax, by telephone call, whatever, are 
in opposition to this amendment. That goes all the way from the 
Conference of Mayors to arts groups in general to business leaders to 
State arts agencies, all of whom are saying this is not the way to 
proceed.
  So it is a dilemma for those of us who support the arts. I oppose the 
Ehlers amendment. I believe that we must move ahead with good arts 
funding by the Senate and by the White House.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bono].
  (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak but I am sitting in 
my office choking on the rhetoric that I am hearing on what a great 
contribution the NEA is to the arts. I have been in the arts for 30 
years. That has been my occupation. I know of no one in 30 years in the 
arts that has been assisted by the NEA. I do not see where the NEA is 
this amazing contribution to mankind and has brought all these artists 
forward.
  Furthermore, there is no equity as far as how artists are selected or 
chosen. There is no system. There is no equity. And I would not qualify 
and many of my colleagues that are artists, successful artists, would 
not qualify today. So finally we have a system, the Ehlers amendment, 
that would at least have a fairness as far as qualifying or as far as 
assisting artists, and we are denying that and we are giving it to a 
group. I wish Congress would stop thinking that they are experts on 
everything. They certainly are not experts on art and they do not know 
what they are talking about when they talk about the NEA.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, despite a few mistakes, the National 
Endowment for the Arts has worked and continues to work remarkably 
well. It provides funds on the basis of excellence, not merely 
population. That is not an elitism, that is the time-honored 
conservative principle of giving money where it will be used most 
effectively. Under the Ehlers plan, the distribution of funds on 
population, every single State except one, every single State except 
one loses money.
  The discretionary grants are gone and the 37 percent distribution 
formula means every State loses money. The only place that came out on 
the plus side of the ledger is when you distribute money for students 
and then you give them 90 cents apiece to buy crayons and construction 
paper. Support the NEA.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for a brief 
response.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York, just made a statement 
that every State loses. He is undoubtedly basing that on the NEA flier 
that I mentioned earlier on, which was distributed and simply gave 
inaccurate information. States do not lose. They in fact do gain.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has suggested I gave 
inaccurate information to the House. The gentleman has suggested that 
the gentleman in the well has given inaccurate information to the 
House. I would like the opportunity to correct that statement. How do I 
get time to do that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan may yield time as he sees 
fit.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds for a response to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, under the population aid formula, 37 
percent distribution of funds, every State except Florida loses money 
because we eliminate all discretionary spending.
  Where you gain money, and it is marginal, is under the student aid 
distribution formula, and that is about 90 cents a student, which will 
allow them to buy crayons and construction paper.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, rather than continue that mini-debate, I 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ehlers 
amendment. We have had problems with the NEA because a few artists want 
to extend beyond what is acceptable with public funds.
  We have had great success with the State arts councils. I want to 
give them the funds they need to continue. There is a legitimate matter 
of debate about the use of public funds for art, but I believe that in 
a great civilization there has always been the use of public funds to 
support the arts. America is such a great civilization.
  I ask my colleagues to set aside their concerns and to help us move 
to a substantial situation of providing assistance to our State arts 
councils. Perhaps too much is allocated to the schools at the expense 
of the State arts councils, but this Ehlers amendment is a valid 
effort. I think it is important that we move in this direction. It is 
the solution in the long term.
  The national level will always be contentious. It is time to get the 
money to the State arts councils. They have done an extraordinary job 
in deciding how to spend their funds. I urge Members to support the 
Ehlers amendment to expedite this process to the final solution.
  The Ehlers amendments would replace the National Endowment for the 
Arts (NEA) with a block grant program to the State art councils and 
public school districts.
  This Member has always been in favor of public funding for the arts. 
Every great civilization has always had public support of the arts. 
America is a great civilization and we should continue small but 
reasonable Federal funding in this area.
  This Member has great confidence in the State arts councils. For 
example, there is no doubt that the Nebraska

[[Page H5151]]

Arts Council will make the right decisions regarding use of Federal 
funds.
  As we all know, the controversy surrounding the NEA is largely the 
result of inappropriate funding decisions regarding pornographic or 
obscene projects which have been the subject of strenuous objections by 
many Members of Congress, including this Member. Because of the strong 
public opposition to the NEA, the best way to ensure continued Federal 
support of the arts is to send the money to the State art councils and 
public schools for distribution. A vote for the Ehlers amendment is a 
vote to support the arts.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the arts by voting ``aye'' on the Ehlers amendment.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply reiterate the choice before us is very clear at this 
point. This amendment, in spite of the accusations made against it, is 
not a smoke screen, it is not trying to fool anyone. It is a simple 
attempt at providing continued Federal funding for the arts, given the 
fact that the House at this moment in time is not prepared to continue 
the NEA.
  So the issue is clear. Do we want to send a bill to the Senate that 
has no NEA and no arts funding, or do we want to send a bill to the 
Senate that has no NEA but does have continued arts funding?
  The choice to me is very clear. Let us continue the Federal support 
for the arts. Let us continue to provide funding for the arts through 
the various State agencies that are available, through the arts 
education programs at various States and that school districts have. I 
believe it will be a more equitable distribution than we have had. It 
certainly will be far less controversial, and I believe it will be 
beneficial for the arts, for the people of this Nation who are 
interested in the arts, and it will be beneficial for the students who 
will be learning about the arts. I think it is a win-win situation.
  I urge all Members of this body to forget partisan differences, to 
forget the arguments about the NEA and say at this point in time the 
best thing we can do is pass this amendment and send this bill to the 
Senate with continued funding for the arts, and we will there, in 
conference, resolve the issues about the future of the NEA. So I urge 
all Members of this body, regardless of partisan differences, to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me just say I think the direction that the Ehlers amendment is 
taking us is the right direction. Clearly, this is a new approach and a 
new way of funding the arts at the Federal level. It indicates our 
commitment to making sure that at local levels, local communities and 
the States have resources for funding.
  I wanted to say to my good friend from New York that I would 
certainly urge, in conference, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], who has been working in this direction for several years, 
to work with him and anyone else to make sure that States actually do 
have full funds. There is no question about whose list is right, whose 
list is wrong. Our goal is to get funding to the States to have a 
mechanism for the States to be able to help fund the arts in an 
appropriate way under local leadership.
  This is the only point I would make to our friends who are arguing so 
passionately for the endowment to the arts: If one talks to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], who I think is a very 
reasonable and a very responsible person, he will advise that as 
recently as this year he tried to get information out of the NEA, 
defending certain films that they had granted, that he could not 
defend. He could not defend why taxpayers were paying for them. He 
could not understand what was the point of certain types of gratuitous 
pornography and gratuitous violence in a way that made no sense. Yet we 
want to find a way, with local communities, with local input, with 
local involvement, to fund the arts.
  So I think for those who care about the arts as opposed to the 
National Endowment, this is actually going to take most of the 
argument, most of the controversy, most of the irritation out of the 
system and allow us to focus, instead, on how do we help the local 
symphony, how do we help the local ballet, how do we help the local art 
museum, and to do it in a way which allows us to build support for the 
arts rather than engage in arguments over controversy.
  I think it is an important step in the right direction. I commend the 
gentleman from Michigan for his leadership and the gentleman from Ohio 
for having organized it, and I believe this is the best way to have 
funding for the arts at the local level, where it matters, so that 
local communities can have the kinds of involvement and input they 
should have.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the most distinguished gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Republican 
assault on creativity in America and urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Ehlers amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers 
amendment. The past 24 hours have been sad and disappointing ones for 
the House of Representatives, because the Republican leadership has 
refused to allow the Ehlers amendment of our distinguished ranking 
member, Representative Sidney Yates. The regular order of the House 
will call for the ranking member to have an amendment made in order on 
a subject on which he has standing. No one in the country has more 
standing on the arts than Sid Yates--a champion indeed. We are all 
privileged to call him colleague.
  Yesterday, Mr. Armey said that the Ehlers amendment would put 
Crayolas in the hands of our children. Yes Crayolas and that's about 
all. The Ehlers amendment would translate into less than $1 per child. 
That's for a small box of crayons with no burnt siena and azure blue.
  The Rep leadership has shown its true colors on this Ehlers 
amendment. In the debate on the NEA they claim they need to reduce the 
deficit. Today they are spending that money on the Ehlers amendment. 
This is about content restruction not deficit reduction. The Ehlers 
amendment is a transparent figleaf to give cover to those 
Representatives who voted against arts in America.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this hoax and reject the Ehlers 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, again I find myself differing from my 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. He made the statement 
that the House did not propose to approve NEA. Now, that was never made 
clear, I suggest to the gentleman. The vote on the rule yesterday was 
certainly not an open and shut and clean vote on NEA.
  I suggested to the House today that if they gave the opportunity to 
this House for me to offer my amendment to reinstate NEA and give it 
some money to operate, I would be willing to bet, a substantial sum, in 
view of yesterday's very, very close vote, that the House would have 
supported NEA. We never had that opportunity to pass upon that 
question.
  I want to close by saying that even the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce [Mr. Goodling], refused to accept the 
Ehlers amendment. He said clearly, in response to the question that I 
asked him, that if the Ehlers amendment passed, he would unite his 
committee and pass legislation to correct the defects that are in the 
legislation so he could have a bill that he could give the conferees 
between the House and the Senate as representing the House side.
  So, obviously, this Ehlers amendment is in the nature of a figleaf. 
It does make available some of the money for art, but not in a way that 
is effective and certainly not in the way that

[[Page H5152]]

art has been distributed over the years so effectively by the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote down the Ehlers amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts 
and against the Ehlers amendment which would abolish the NEA and 
provide insufficient and ineffective block grants to the States.
  The Ehlers amendment would eliminate the National Endowment for the 
Arts. This is a move that even State arts agencies oppose. Why adopt an 
amendment that even the very organizations purported to benefit think 
it is a bad idea?
  NEA funding, on the other hand, allows artists and presenters to 
bring the arts directly to students and the community at large.
  I did some math on Mr. Ehlers' amendment. Assuming all States get an 
equal share of this funding, and each school district gets an equal 
share within the State, each California school district will receive 
$961 per school district.
  Even if a school district consisted of only one elementary, middle, 
and high school, $961 would barely purchase a set of colored pencils 
for each student.
  Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the Ehlers amendment failed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers 
amendment. This amendment would eliminate the National Endowment for 
the Arts and is opposed by the very State art councils it purports to 
help.
  In all candor, the Ehlers amendment is something of a smoke screen. 
We should be having a straight, up-or-down vote on the NEA, and we 
would have had one if the leadership of the House had not blocked the 
Yates amendment from even being debated by a procedural slight of hand. 
Whatever you think about the NEA--whether or not you support Federal 
funding for the arts--everyone should agree that we should have a fair, 
up-or-down vote on the issue. The Yates amendment would have given 
Members the option of restoring funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts. It is unfortunate that the House won't have the opportunity 
to debate it.
  The spending priorities of this Congress continue to amaze me. Just 
the other week, this House of Representatives voted to purchase nine 
additional B-2 bombers that the Secretary of Defense and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have told Congress repeatedly that they do want or 
need. These planes will cost $13.6 billion dollars to build and an 
additional $13.2 billion to operate and maintain.
  What a difference 2 weeks make. Today the House is considering 
legislation that eliminates funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Apparently, the House leadership has determined that, after 
spending billions of dollars for B-2 bombers the Pentagon says it 
doesn't need, there isn't any money left to support the arts in the 
United States. For all the extreme and inaccurate rhetoric coming from 
the other side about the expense and utility of the Arts Endowment, the 
truth is that the NEA represents just one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 
Federal budget. Put another way, the NEA costs each American less than 
38 cents a year: That's three dimes, one nickel and three pennies.
  So what are our constituents getting for their 38 cents? Since the 
NEA was created 32 years ago, the number of arts organizations has 
dramatically increased. When the NEA was established, there were only 
56 nonprofit theaters in America; today there are over 400. The number 
of orchestras have quadruped in number to over 200. Opera companies 
have grown from 27 to nearly 100. Our country's modest investment in 
the NEA helps support folk festivals, community theater, free lawn 
concerts, arts exhibitions in public libraries, and chamber music in 
rural areas. The NEA helps to bring the arts to millions of school 
children. Just last week, millions of Americans saw the broadcast of 
the Fourth of July concert on the Mail by the National Symphony. The 
NEA helped make that possible.

  The Endowment also serves as a catalyst for private investment in the 
arts. Every dollar awarded by the NEA attracts $12 from State and local 
art agencies, corporations and other private sources. Indeed, the non-
for-profit arts generate $37 billion in economic activity and support 
more than a million jobs. On the community level, the art activities 
supported by the NEA simulate local economies, promote tourism, and 
make our communities better places to live.
  Elimination of the NEA would not mean the elimination of the arts in 
America. What it would mean is that the arts could become inaccessible 
to many Americans. The arts should not be just for the well-to-do.
  Opponents of the Arts endowment insist on rehashing old arguments 
against a few controversial grants awarded by the NEA over the last 
three decades. The fact of the matter is that only a handful of the 
more than 112,000 grants awarded since the NEA's founding have proven 
to be controversial, and most of these grants were awarded years ago 
before Congress and the NEA took steps to curb funding to objectionable 
projects. Yet the opponents of the NEA would throw the baby out with 
the bath water.
  Had the leadership permitted us to debate it, the Yates amendment 
would have given Members the choice of restoring the NEA's funding at 
last year's level. I would point out that the Yates amendment was 
deficit-neutral since it contained offsetting spending reductions in 
other programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA is the country's largest single supporter of 
the arts in America. Other nations, far less wealthy than the United 
States, do much more to support the arts in their countries. Let's not 
eliminate the little the Federal Government does do to make the arts 
accessible to every American.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Ehlers amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers 
amendment and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Much of the controversy over the National endowment for the Arts 
[NEA] stems from a very small number of artistic projects funded by the 
NEA which some people find in poor taste or morally objectionable. In 
fact, only 45 out of the 112,000 NEA grants awarded over more than 32 
years have been controversial. Further, ``taste'' and ``moral 
objection'' are highly subjective yardsticks by which to measure the 
arts, and I certainly do not take issue with those subjective 
judgments.
  I do, however, take issue with the conclusions such people draw that, 
because they object to the work a few artists have produced with NEA 
funding, the whole program should be terminated. Make no mistake--that 
is what will happen if the Ehlers amendment is adopted. This proposal 
for a block grant to States will diminish the national stature of the 
arts; it will substitute the judgment of one level of government for 
another; it is no guarantee the States' judgment will be any better 
than that of the NEA; and, in the long run, it will mean diminished 
funding and the ultimate termination of support for public funding for 
the arts.
  In my congressional district, over my entire service in the Congress, 
I have never heard an objection to a local arts initiative supported by 
the NEA. Quite the contrary, those funds are highly prized and put to 
very good use to stimulate initiatives in small communities, which 
would not have been possible without those very modest Federal NEA 
funds. A few examples from this past year will suffice to make the 
point: Little Falls received $7,500 for the St. Francis Music Center; 
Pequot Lakes Children's Theater Company received $22,000 for the 
production of a new work, ``A Mark Twain Storybook,'' scheduled for an 
extended tour during the 1996-97 season; the public television station 
in Duluth received a $40,000 grant to broadcast ``Headwaters,'' an 
acclaimed public TV series; and the College of St. Scholastica's Arts 
Midwest group received a grant for $131,000 for a performing arts tour 
by the college's arts group.
  In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Era, it was the doges of 
Italy, the archdukes of Austria, the kings and queens and other 
nobility throughout Europe, and a few individual wealthy patrons who 
supported the arts. In our post-monarchy world of democracy and 
egalitarian governments, it has been the Fortune 500 corporations and 
wealthy philanthropic industrialists who supported the arts, until the 
election of President John F. Kennedy. He recognized that a nation that 
rightly invests in the infrastructure, military readiness, education, 
and adventure in space should also invest in the enrichment of the 
human spirit by supporting the arts, and he launched the National 
Endowment for the Arts and its companion program, the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  If your community happens to be fortunate enough to have Fortune 500 
mega-corporations in its midst, or a philanthropic foundation with a 
commitment to the arts, children's theater, community music centers, 
the local symphony orchestra, and other similar expressions of the 
spirit, the arts may well be adequately nurtured. But if your community 
happens to be rural, remote, and devoid of multimillionaire 
philanthropies, then the arts and artists will either perish, if they 
exist, or never take root at all for lack of funding.
  President Kennedy said: ``A nation devoid of the arts has nothing to 
look backward at with pride, nor to look forward to with hope.'' The 
NEA has, for people in many small communities and their artists, been a 
source of both pride and hope. Do not vote to extinguish either hope or 
the NEA.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong 
disappointment that the rule for debate of the Interior appropriations 
bill blocked an open and fair vote on funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  I support the NEA, as do a majority of my constituents and, according 
to poll after poll, a majority of Americans. NEA-funded activities have 
permitted public school students in San

[[Page H5153]]

Pedro, Venice, and Torrance the opportunity to participate in 
improvisational theater sponsored by a touring performing arts and 
musical company. They have enjoyed special education operatic 
performances. They city of Venice has hosted numerous performing arts 
events, arts displays, and multi-media activities. And, a grant to the 
LA Theater Works Program in my district enabled a set of five American 
stage plays taped for radio to be donated to 500 underserved libraries 
throughout the country. Events, programs, and gifts such as these 
foster creativity and an appreciation of our rich and diverse cultural 
and artistic heritage.
  Mr. Chairman, private funds alone will not permit the continuation of 
activities like these should Congress eliminate the National Endowment 
for the Arts. And, while I certainly understand the necessity of 
restructuring and reforming the NEA, elimination is not reform. As 
mandated in past Congresses, the NEA has worked tirelessly to ensure 
that local decision makers are given the ability to fund the programs 
needed and requested by their communities. The proposal to transfer 
arts funding to State agencies will only waste precious dollars in 
creating 50 new bureaucracies to administer a program effectively run 
now by the NEA. States and cities tell us they are concerned that other 
funding sources they currently enjoy in support of their arts programs 
will dry up.
  The House should be allowed to debate the future of this agency 
openly and fully and to vote. Regrettably, it won't. I oppose this rule 
which sanctions tyranny of the minority, and the ideologically driven 
policy it seeks to implement.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ehlers amendment. 
I have long been a supporter of the arts in America. Although I did 
vote in favor of the rule yesterday, which allowed for arts block 
grants as a substitute for NEA funds, I did so in strong recognition of 
the importance of arts and as a method of continuing dialog between 
arts supporters and opponents.
  I do however, have concerns that the Ehlers compromise does not 
adequately recognize the importance of the Federal arts presence, and 
that it does not adequately fund or allow States to fund traveling art 
projects and other activities which had been funded by NEA program 
grants.
  Many of these grants, such as the Glen Ellen Children's Chorus, the 
Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestra, and the American Western Composers 
Midwest Chapter have done an excellent job of providing arts education 
and enrichment throughout the State of Illinois, and I ask unanimous 
consent to include in the Record a complete list of the outstanding 
arts organizations funded by NEA program grants in Illinois.
  The amendment, although not a perfect compromise does continue arts 
funding in America. I support its affirmation of the State and local 
arts agencies funded by State arts councils. Indeed, its recognition of 
the importance of arts education is also well intended. I therefore 
urge support of the amendment.
  While saying this, I also urge the House and Senate conferees to 
strongly consider the importance of the Federal arts programs ongoing 
in the United States as they evaluate arts programs either within or 
outside of the National Endowment for the Arts structure.
  I appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal and this 
bill, and I urge support of the Ehlers amendment, and the importance of 
arts in America.

                     NEA Dollars Fund Illinois Arts

       In addition to the block grant made to the Illinois Arts 
     Council, the NEA directly funded the following groups in 
     Illinois this year.
       American Library Association (for the ``Writers Live at the 
     Library'' Program)
       American Women Composers Midwest Chapter (to support 
     American Women Composer 15th Anniversary Gala Opening 
     Concert)
       Art Institute of Chicago (to support ``Cinema in a Chinese 
     Sphere: Before and After 1997'' & to support the traveling 
     exhibition ``Art and Archaeology of Ancient West Mexico'')
       Arts Matter (for production of support materials for 
     Gallery 37)
       Chicago Children's Choir (to support increase in 
     programming for children)
       Chicago Children's Theatre, Inc. (to support production of 
     ``A Woman of Truth,'' a one-act play celebrating the life of 
     Sojourner Truth)
       Chicago New Art Association (to support the exhibition 
     review section of the New Art Examiner)
       Chicago Public Art Group (to establish a cash reserve)
       Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. (to support Goodman Theatre's 
     Student Subscription Series)
       Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestra (to support in-school 
     outreach project called ``Music Pathways'')
       Chinese Music Society (to support a series of lectures and 
     educational concerts of Chinese music)
       City Lit Theatre Company (to support collaborative program 
     with high school students & to develop and present an 
     original theatre/jazz performance piece based on John Clellon 
     Holmes's novel, ``The Horn'')
       City of Chicago, Illinois (to support collaborations 
     between the Chicago Coalition of Community Cultural Centers 
     and the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs)
       Columbia College (to support Dance Center presentations, 
     including ``Celebrate Africa/Celebrate Chicago,'' the 
     Festival of Solo Artists, and the Festival of European 
     Premieres)
       Court Theatre Fund (for presentation of ``The Iphigenia 
     Cycle'')
       ETA Creative Arts Foundation (to support ``The Voice: 
     Celebrating Divas of the African World'')
       Facets-Multimedia, Incorporated (to support 1997 Chicago 
     International Children's Film Festival)
       Free Street Theatre (to support ``TeenStreet,'' a jobs 
     program offered to low-income, inner city teenagers, 
     involving creative writing and theater performance)
       Glen Ellyn Children's Chorus (for educational outreach 
     programs)
       Guild Complex (to support ``Poets Across the Generations,'' 
     a series of 6 readings)
       Hubbard Street Dance Chicago (to create new works)
       Illinois Alliance for Arts Education (to support expansion 
     of the ARTSMART program into Quad Cities, Springfield, 
     Rockford, Peoria, Champagne/Urbana, and Decatur)
       Illinois State University (to support development of 
     website for the independent literary presses and writers' 
     conferences)
       Jazz Institute of Chicago, Inc. (to support musician fees 
     for 1997 Chicago Jazz Festival)
       Little City Foundation (for exhibition of artwork created 
     by people with developmental disabilities)
       Lookingglass Theatre Company (to support world premiere of 
     the play, ``My Life in Pop: A Theatrical Essay on Popular 
     Music in Context'')
       Lyric Opera Center for American Artists (to support world 
     premier of ``Between Two Worlds'')
       Lyric Opera of Chicago (to support world premier of the 
     opera, ``Amistad'')
       Merit Music Program, Inc. (for augmentation of existing 
     endowment)
       Mostly Music, Inc. (to support the beginning of 3 year 
     retrospective of 20th Century American Chamber Music)
       Muntu Dance Theater (for commissioning of Jawole Jo Zoller 
     to choreograph ``Roots n Blues'')
       National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of 
     the USA (to support expansion of the National Readings Tour 
     of the National Writer's Voice Project)
       Orchestral Association (for scholarships for members of 
     Civic Orchestra of Chicago & to support a month-long 
     residency devoted exclusively to the performance of new, 
     modern, and contemporary music, directed by Principal Guest 
     Conductor Pierre Boulez)
       Quad City Arts, Inc. (to support Visiting Artist Series)
       Randolph Street Gallery, Inc. (to support ``Trance,'' a 
     multi-disciplinary project exploring the role of race and 
     ethnicity in America)
       Ravinia (to support student artist jazz camp scholarships 
     and Jazz in the Schools Mentor Program with Chicago Public 
     Schools)
       Renaissance Society at the University of Chicago (to 
     support exhibition of African-American artist Kerry James 
     Marshall)
       Review of Contemporary Fiction, Inc. (for recovery and 
     publication of out of print works of fiction by Dalkey 
     Archive Press)
       Shakespeare Repertory (to support live musicians for 
     Shakespeare productions)
       Sutherland Community Arts Initiative (for 1997 JAAZ 
     Festival)
       University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (to support the 
     1997-1998 New Visions series performances)
       Victory Gardens Theater (to support development of new 
     plays)
       Remember in your letter to specifically mention any of the 
     above programs that you attended and enjoyed.
       In addition to state and local programs, NEA funds support 
     public radio and television programs which reach millions of 
     listeners and viewers nationally. In your letter, please 
     refer to any such programs that you listen to or watch.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of full funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  The NEA is a precious gift to all Americans, and we should be 
lauding, not killing it.
  The NEA is responsible for teaching art and music to children in our 
schools. It brings exhibits to small towns and cities in America--
places which cannot afford, or do not have the market to support a 
touring dance group or play.
  And it is partly responsible for allowing some of America's greatest 
artists to get their start. Who knows where the next Stephen Spielberg, 
Maya Angelou, or Leonard Bernstein will come from?
  As a New Yorker, I am proud that the NEA helps make our museums and 
galleries among the greatest in the world. I am proud that people from 
across the country and around the globe come to New York City to hear 
our operas, see

[[Page H5154]]

our plays, listen to our symphonies, and enjoy the creativity that 
abounds.
  The NEA is an integral part of what makes New York great. And it 
gives those who otherwise would not receive funding a chance to 
succeed--a chance to be great.
  And NEA is an important economic tool for New York. Some areas of the 
country depend upon soy beans--and they get generous farm subsidies. 
Other areas depend upon the defense industry--and they get huge 
contracts. New York depends upon creativity. We get a very small 
stipend from the NEA to help struggling artists, struggling galleries, 
and struggling art schools.
  There are those on the right who seek to stifle the creativity of 
artists--those who fear freedom of expression. I would argue that 
Government censorship is a greater fear.
  When police start coming into the homes of Oklahoma families to 
confiscate copies of The Tin Drum, all Americans should be alarmed. 
When political leaders demand that Schindler's List be barred from 
television, we should take pause.
  That is why I rise in support of NEA, and in support of painters, 
sculptors, playwrights, musicians, authors, teachers, lithographers, 
photographers, and all those who make this world a more beautiful and 
interesting place.
  Let's make this tiny investment to help others achieve greatness.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in fervent opposition 
to the amendment offered by Representative Ehlers and Representative 
Hunter to H.R. 2107--the Interior appropriations for fiscal year 1998. 
I oppose this amendment because it summarily terminates the National 
Endowment for the Arts [NEA].
  Under the Ehlers amendment, only $80 million will be granted to the 
States for arts funding. This will be done in block grants to the 
States. Thirty-seven percent, or $29.6 million, will be granted 
directly to State art commission; 60 percent, or $48 million, will be 
granted directly to local school boards to fund school-based art 
activities in the form of arts education block grants; and 3 percent, 
or $2.4 million, will be allocated for administrative costs.
  The 3 percent allocation to the States will amount to nothing more 
than a burden on the States to administer another Federal Program. 
There are many questions that must be answered regarding this new plan. 
Will this 3 percent allocation be sufficient to administer a brand new 
program to all of the 50 States. This amounts to $2.4 million allocated 
to administer arts funding to each of the 50 States for distribution of 
moneys to the numerous school districts in the United States as well as 
the many art commissions of the 50 States. Is this really possible?
  Government bureaucrats, whether State, Federal or local, should not 
be involved in deciding what art is worthy of funding. Under the NEA, 
panels of private citizens make decisions in a three-step process.
  First, panels comprised of citizens from every geographic, ethnic and 
minority, and artistic and cultural background representing views of 
the general public make the initial decisions of accepting 
applications. This allows for those who are best qualified to make 
artistic decisions to do so.
  Second, the chosen applications are then reviewed by the National 
Council on the Arts. This Council consists of 26 private citizens who 
are nominated by the President. They are each confirmed by the Senate 
to 6-year terms.
  Third, the applications are then forwarded to the Chairman of the 
Council for a final review and decision. Mr. Speaker this is the way 
that decisions for the arts should be done; by the people. The citizens 
of the NEA are experts in their fields of art and culture.
  There is no doubt that an investment in the NEA is an exemplary 
investment in the culture of American people. The NEA costs each 
American a grand total of 38 cents per year. With this incredible 
investment, the NEA enhances the quality of life for Americans through 
a diverse and breathtaking array of cultural activities from the best 
in theater, touring dance companies, folk festivals, music concerts, 
museums and orchestras. This vast array of arts entertainment is 
extended to our Nation's schools where millions of students and 
children benefit each year.
  That is why this amendment offered by Representative Ehlers  is 
unnecessary and duplicitous. It seeks to do what the NEA is already 
doing. Representative Ehlers' amendment allocates 60 percent of the 
block grants proposed for the States, or $48 million to be targeted for 
school-based arts activities. However, the NEA already funds arts 
projects where students greatly benefit.
  Representative Ehlers' amendment seeks to allocate 37 percent or 
$29.6 million of his proposed block grants to the States, to be 
targeted for State art commissions. However, this is already being 
done. In Houston, for 1997, no less than 13 reputable arts 
organizations received much needed NEA funding. These organizations 
are: Houston Grand Opera Association; Menil Foundation; Museum of Fine 
Arts, Houston; Contemporary Arts Association of Houston; Cultural Arts 
Council of Houston; Da Camera Society of Texas; The Ensemble Theater; 
Project Row Houses; University of Houston-University Park Location; 
Rice University; and Writers in the Schools.
  These grants to the organizations and schools are vital for creation 
and presentation, planning and stabilization, as well as education and 
access.
  The beauty of these grants from the NEA is that they cover a myriad 
of cultural and ethnic representations of art. From The Ensemble 
Theater which showcases African-American artists to the University of 
Houston and Rice University which each train young artists, the NEA is 
making a marked difference in the quality of life for all different 
cultures represented in America.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the arts and humanities are 
important to the cultural life and diversity of our country--to people 
of all ages, to people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our 
rural communities--and support efforts to promote the arts and 
humanities because of what they make possible in Delaware.
  For example, funding for the NEA and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities [NEH] helps the Delaware Division of the Arts and the 
Delaware Humanities Forum provide grants for many community and school 
activities, productions, and initiatives. In addition, the NEA provides 
direct funding to the Delaware Symphony Orchestra, the Delaware Theatre 
Company, and OperaDelaware. Americans of all ages, race, and income 
levels can benefit from the educational and cultural opportunities of 
the arts and humanities, fostered through the NEA and the NEH. Our 
State agency does tremendous work in enabling the arts to flourish in 
our State--in the schools and throughout our rural communities.
  I would have liked Members of the House to have had the opportunity 
to cast an up-or-down vote on funding for the NEA. Unfortunately, the 
rule crafted did not permit a fair and open debate on this important 
issue. And the only amendment permitted was one that would eliminate 
the NEA and instead provide $80 million in funding to States and 
schools for arts programs.
  While I do think the block grant concept is one that deserves 
consideration and further review, I am opposing the amendment offered 
by Representative Ehlers of Michigan because I think it is a late and 
harried attempt to partially address the situation while still killing 
the NEA. I would support holding congressional hearings on his proposal 
and learning more about how it would work. At this point, we have no 
idea what the impact would be on States' arts agencies; how 
specifically the funding formulas for distributing grants to both the 
States and the schools would work; whether it would warrant a new 
bureaucracy within the Department of Education to administer these 
grants to both the States and the schools; whether or not underserved 
communities would benefit from these grants; whether lifelong learning 
programs and programs benefiting older Americans would continue; and a 
variety of other questions and concerns.
  Because this amendment, while offered with good intentions by Vern 
Ehlers, is poorly understood, should not have been the only 
alternative, was offered as a quick fix to a spending bill, and was 
terribly manipulated from a procedural point of view, I opposed the 
rule to bring this bill forward and must at this time oppose the Ehlers 
amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA 
broadens public access to the arts for all Americans.
  The latest Lou Harris poll indicates that 79 percent of the American 
public favors a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 86 
percent of adult Americans participated in the arts last year. Federal 
funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute 
to our society both financially and educationally.
  Financially, the NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of 
communities. The nonprofit arts community generates $36.8 billion 
annually in economic activity, supports 1.3 million jobs and returns 
$3.4 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes.
  Federal funding for the arts is critical to leveraging private 
funding. NEA requires grant recipients to match all Federal grants up 
to 4 to 1. It is also important to note that the NEA's budget 
represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal 
budget. In fiscal year 1997, we spent $99.4 million on the NEA, and 
almost twice that, $176.2 million, on military bands.
  Society benefits from this small investment particularly when art is 
part of a comprehensive educational program. Recognizing this,

[[Page H5155]]

NEA Chairwoman Jane Alexander has made arts education her top priority. 
Each year, the Arts Endowment opens creative doors to millions of 
school children, including at-risk youth. Participation in the arts 
improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline, 
and provides creative outlets for self-expression. The arts also help 
prepare America's future high-technology workforce by helping students 
develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication 
ability, and expand creativity--all important career skills for the 
21st century.
  Students who study the arts outperform nonarts students on the SAT, 
according to reports by the College Entrance Examination Board. In 
1995, SAT takers with course work in music performance scored 51 points 
higher on the math portion than students with no course work or 
experience in the arts. Scores for those with course work in music 
appreciation were 61 points higher on verbal and 46 points higher on 
the math portion. And longer arts study means even higher SAT scores: 
in 1995, those who had studied the arts 4 or more years scored 59 
points higher and 44 points higher on the verbal and math portions 
respectively than students with no course work.
  Exposing children to the arts is more important now that we know how 
crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and 
emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children 
respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA increases opportunities 
for parents and teachers to share art with children who may not 
otherwise have such opportunities.
  In Michigan, the NEA supports apprenticeships, mentoring programs, 
and in-school performances. These programs enrich the cultural fabric 
of our community. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
continuation of the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, for less than 38 cents a year, each 
American supports a program which benefits our country culturally, 
educationally, and economically. Since its creation over 30 years ago 
by President Johnson, the National Endowment for the Arts has more than 
proven its value. Today, I would like to stress the importance of the 
NEA, and urge that my colleagues vote to save it.
  Balancing the budget is a goal that we all share, and we are on the 
right road to achieving that goal. We have all worked hard, as has 
President Clinton, to bring more fiscal order to our house by 
eliminating unnecessary programs and wasteful bureaucracy. Earlier this 
week, the Washington Post reported, as did newspapers across the 
country, that even without cutting additional governmental programs, 
our budget could well be balanced by 1998.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we struggle to balance the Federal 
budget many of my colleagues have targeted the NEA as a program which 
could, and should, be eliminated. However, even if the NEA was 
eliminated, it would do little to balance our budget, as the NEA 
accounts for less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the budget. We 
spend more on military bands each year than on the NEA. Furthermore, a 
$99 million Federal investment in the NEA yielded a $3.4 billion return 
to the Treasury in taxes from the arts.
  Another oft-mentioned misperception is that NEA funds are used to 
sponsor controversial programs that Americans find distasteful. The 
majority of these claims are distorted, overblown, or misunderstood. 
While it is true that some clearly distasteful projects were funded in 
the past, it is also true that the rules as to which programs can be 
funded have been changed to eliminate funding for controversial 
projects.
  The NEA was created to enrich cultural lives in all corners of 
America. The arts have always flourished in our Nation's biggest 
cities, but not so in may of our rural areas, less affluent areas, and 
smaller communities; the NEA has changed this. Without the NEA, 
Michigan communities such as Muskegon, Ada, Tecumseh, Flint, Ypsilanti, 
Dearborn, Temperance, and Monroe would not be able to offer the quality 
arts programs that they can today; these programs make a difference. In 
Michigan's 16th District, the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, 
the University of Michigan-Dearborn, numerous youth and community 
programs could lose all Federal funding.
  Mr. Chairman, arts exposure and education is of great importance to 
our children and our future. Statistics don't lie. Students with 4 
years of arts education score, on the average, 35 points higher on the 
Scholastic Aptitude Test. Arts help students excel in math, science, 
reading, and all areas requiring critical thinking.
  Finally, Americans enjoy the arts and support the NEA; 79 percent 
support funding for arts programs.
  When looking at the NEA, I urge my fellow colleagues to think about 
the budget, think about the importance of our culture, think about our 
children, think about our future, and reject narrow thinking. Join with 
me today to save the NEA.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in adamant support of 
continued funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. As we work 
through the budget process, deciding to build weapons of destruction, 
and spend unknown billions on the intelligence community, we must 
maintain spending for the arts and humanities.
  Arts and humanities are a critical part of what civilized life is 
about, and I have very serious disagreements with those who want to 
increase funding for B-2 bombers and cut back on cultural programs for 
all Americans at the same time. Each B-2 bomber costs at least $1.5 
billion, 15 times more than the entire funding for the NEA. This 
Congress must decide whether we will continue to increase the 
destructive capability of this Nation without regard to creative and 
artistic expression.
  The NEA helps enhance the lives of the children and adults by 
supporting organizations which encourage individuals to cultivate their 
creative energies. Further, public funding of the arts allows many more 
people the chance to attend exhibits and performances, not just those 
who can afford expensive theater tickets. NEA is not pork for the rich 
and elite. It is crucial funding that brings art to people, schools, 
and communities that otherwise would not be able to afford them.
  Arts teach our children understanding, self-expression, cooperation 
and self-discipline, and tell the story of a nation. Today's children 
should be inspired by music and theater and creative art, rather than 
desensitized to violence on television by a Congress that sends a 
message to the young people of this country that bombs and bullets are 
a higher priority than painting and singing.
  In my State of Vermont, NEA funding has supported symphony concerts 
in rural underserved communities. NEA dollars have assisted in 
community-based artist-in-residence programs and a collection of the 
work and biographies and self-taught artists in northern rural Vermont. 
The NEA is a major funder of the Vermont Council on the Arts, an 
organization that brings the arts and festivals to communities across 
the State. NEA moneys have funded many other projects in Vermont that 
otherwise would not have been possible.
  The elimination of the NEA would decimate funding for the arts across 
the country. We would likely witness a domino effect wherein local and 
State governments redirect their spending priorities in reaction to 
changes in Federal spending. private support cannot possibly replace 
the role of Federal dollars in arts funding. From 1992 to 1995, there 
was a $270 million decline in real dollars in private giving to the 
arts. Small and rural communities are even more at risk, since they 
receive far fewer private dollars toward the arts. The elimination of 
the NEA is contrary to the public will. Recent polls show that 79 
percent of the American public favors a governmental role in funding 
the arts.
  Every year the nonprofit arts community creates nearly $37 billion in 
economic activity in this country and 1.3 million American jobs. For 
every dollar the NEA invests in communities, there is a twenty-fold 
return in jobs, services, and contracts.
  The arts are an important part of the foundation of every healthy 
democracy. The NEA brings the arts to communities all across the 
country regardless of geographic location or level of income.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 271, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--155

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boyd
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     McCollum

[[Page H5156]]


     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--271

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Doolittle
     Farr
     Hansen
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1225

  Messrs. PAYNE, CANNON, and COX of California, and Mrs. EMERSON and 
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CRAPO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $96,100,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities, 
     pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for administering 
     the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
       Beginning on page 76, strike line 14 and all that follows 
     through line 10 on page 77.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the Chabot 
amendment en bloc?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, there is only one 
amendment. What is the en bloc?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment by the gentleman from Ohio addresses two 
consecutive paragraphs, which would require unanimous consent for 
consideration simultaneously.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Hearing no objection, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. 
It strikes all funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
and it saves the American taxpayers $110 million.
  Members will recall that it was a former chairman of the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, the NEH, Lynn Cheney, who was head of 
that organization for about 7 years, from 1986 to 1993, who concluded 
that the NEH indeed does more harm than good and should be closed down 
once and for all.
  My amendment does just that. There are many problems with the NEH. 
First, it is an agency that historically has squandered millions of tax 
dollars on silly projects that benefit few, if any, hardworking 
taxpayers. Second, it has come to breed a form of arrogance that only a 
true culture bureaucrat, as George Will would call them, could concoct. 
We have debated this issue before, so I will not recite the laundry 
list of questionable projects funded for the benefit of the cultural 
and academic elite at the expense of the average taxpayers. I will not 
dwell on Sheldon Hackney's national conversation kit, which ostensibly 
would teach us all how to talk to one another, all for the mere $1.7 
million to teach Americans how to talk.
  I will not dwell too much on the NEH's highly controversial national 
standards for teaching history in our school systems or any of the 
other questionable projects deemed worthy of our tax dollars by a 
handful of Washington bureaucrats. The NEH record is there for all to 
see. That is why when I offered a similar amendment to the fiscal year 
1996 Interior appropriations bill, it was endorsed by groups like the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens 
for a Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, and those same 
organizations, as well as the National Tax Limitation Committee, 
Capital Watch, Frontiers of Freedom, the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute and others, are supporting it again this year.
  Mr. Chairman, whenever I am called on to discuss the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, I cannot help but recall a letter that I 
once received from the top NEH bureaucrat in my State of Ohio. He told 
me, and it was a letter, so I cannot tell Members whether he had a 
straight face at the time he sent it or not. He said, ``if there were 
no NEH, the public intellectual life of Ohio would shrink 
considerably.'' He really said that.
  I can tell Members I spend quite a lot of time with the people of 
Ohio, and I have a little bit more faith in their intellectual 
abilities than do the NEH bureaucrats. I am pretty certain that without 
the NEH the people of Ohio would do quite well. In fact, I know they 
would do just fine. I am reasonably sure that very few of those 
taxpayers, save a handful of NEH functionaries and beneficiaries, would 
even notice the difference. Mr. Chairman, I think that most of us know 
that the NEH benefits the very few at the expense of all working 
Americans.

[[Page H5157]]

  It is unfair that those taxpayers should shoulder the burden. A yes 
for this particular amendment I believe is a vote for the taxpayer. A 
no vote signifies support for the status quo, and another $110 million 
tax for the culture bureaucrats to do with basically what they want.
  I know there are many, many things that one can point out that the 
NEH arguably has done a good job at, some programs that have benefited 
some people. On the other hand, there have been an awful lot of abuses. 
More importantly, it basically is a matter of one's philosophy.
  I happen to think that these things which are funded by the NEH, 
where some of them may be worthy, they should be privately funded, they 
should be locally funded, but they should not be funded by the Federal 
Government. These dollars should not be taken out of the pockets of 
hardworking taxpayers in this country and given basically to academic 
elites to do with what they want.
  They have programs where we have summer institutes and seminars, 
where they junket elite academics in places such as Hawaii, which I am 
sure is a very nice place, and Germany and all around the world to 
essentially take a vacation, pay them thousands of dollars to do that. 
I think these dollars ought to stay in the pockets of the hardworking 
American citizens. I do not think that we ought to give these dollars 
to academic elites.
  Again, I am sure there are many Members who will say they do this, 
they preserve books, they do other things. All those things are fine. 
It is a matter of should Federal tax dollars go for these things. I 
would argue no, they should be funded privately, locally, and not with 
the money of the hardworking taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought that after the effort of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot] last year that perhaps we were not going to encounter 
the same kind of opposition from him that we now experience. I cannot 
understand how a nice person such as the gentleman from Ohio can offer 
a destructive amendment of this kind. How can a Member of the House be 
against an organization whose primary purpose is preserving and 
protecting the history of the United States and in teaching that 
history to our children? Is there any reason in our budget for the 
reduction of this very essential part of our culture?
  The House has just signed and approved a $268 billion authorization 
for our war machine. The money that is in this bill for the humanities 
is part of our peace machine. We have wars, we have people who have to 
be trained to try to stop wars and to make agreements before wars or 
after wars, and humanities makes a major contribution in that respect.
  It has special projects to preserve history. It has a project to 
preserve the Nation's major newspapers so that they do not crumble into 
bits. They have projects to save the Nation's most important books 
which are burning up because they are being destroyed. It is helping to 
finance the leading universities in the country and their libraries in 
order to protect 20 million books which are now threatened with utter 
destruction by the fragmentation and yellowing of their pages.
  What do we gain with this amendment? Yes, we will gain $110 million 
for the taxpayer, but the losses will be enormous. The losses of the 
opportunities to teachers to improve their methods of teaching history, 
the opportunities of learning to teach philosophy, the opportunities of 
learning all of the social sciences that are so essential to the well-
being of a democracy. Those will be lost.
  I hope that the Members of the House will look at this amendment very 
carefully and that they will conclude with me that the work of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities is necessary to preserve and to 
foster the social fabric of our country and vote down this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I want to concur with the view of the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, I was unable to speak on the last amendment that 
failed, and I am pleased that it did fail. I think that the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities 
really represent a symbol of the preservation of the creative genius of 
us as Americans, as a part of our culture, as a part of the fostering 
of creativity. It is enormously important as an export product. Look at 
what we are doing in terms of the flourishing of ideas and free 
thought. I suppose that some of it becomes controversial, but if I look 
at John Stuart Mill or I look at others that have written in philosophy 
and religion, I am certain at times that their views were 
controversial, but that is the nature of this particular endeavor in 
the humanities and in the arts. It is coming to grips with issues that 
very often are not popular or may even be unpopular. This is an 
enormous reservoir in protection of the creativity which is the genius 
of this country, the pluralism of this country, one of our great 
strengths, the fact that these two entities at the Federal level have 
been so successful. Yes, there have been issues that are controversial.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. I think that if we look at the programs like the Poet in 
Residence in Olivia, MN, that goes to the grade schools, these are not 
the Robert Frosts of the world but they are people that are endeavoring 
in the arts and have basically given their life in terms of teaching, 
of helping and in fostering this creativity which is a great economic 
and I say a great strength in terms of who we are as an American 
people. To bring these amendments to the floor and to treat them and to 
point out the criticisms, yes, there will be criticisms wherever that 
occurs, but I think we have a great opportunity here to keep these 
programs in place. They are good programs, they are supported by the 
public, and they are really touching the quintessential fabric of what 
our Nation and what our people are about. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his opposition.
  Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman for his very substantial 
contribution in opposition to the amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment. 
The National Endowment for the Humanities funds programs promoting 
history, English, literature, foreign languages, sociology, 
anthropology and comparative literature. The NEH provides grants to 
colleges and universities, to museums and libraries in all 50 States, 
and the State humanities councils reach out to increase our citizens' 
understanding of history and culture.
  Mr. Chairman, the humanities are critical to our society. They teach 
us who we were, who we are, and what we might become for a cost of only 
42 cents per American. NEH is the largest single source of support for 
research and scholarships in the humanities in the United States. It 
also funds preservation of millions of historically and culturally 
important books that are in need of being preserved.
  Despite our low funding allocation in Florida, my State has reaped a 
substantial benefit from NEH grants, which have been used for projects 
as diverse as helping to restore libraries that were ruined during 
Hurricane Andrew to leveraging over $2 million in local and State 
contributions just this year.

                              {time}  1245

  As the past president of the Florida Humanities Council, I am keenly 
aware of the importance of NEH funds and the negative impact of 
eliminating such funding. I urge my fellow Members to vote against this 
amendment and maintain the Committee on Appropriations' funding level.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment and to second 
the things I have just heard from the last couple of speakers. It seems 
like that we forget in this time and age, when we are working so hard, 
to be sure and bring up equal opportunity to everybody, the electronic 
age and fiber optic

[[Page H5158]]

networks and all these things, and then we decide to take a program 
that enhances and reaches out to everybody and start picking it apart. 
And I am a little bit appalled that this would take place.
  So I rise opposed to my colleague's amendment to eliminate the 
funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. This, modest by 
most government standards, program over the past 20 years has been able 
to provide literally opportunities for thousands of teachers through 
its training seminars and other programs, and these teachers have in 
turn been able to touch the lives of millions of our children.
  The NEH supports scholarly research, education, public programs in 
the humanities through grants to individuals, institutions, and 
organizations for projects and programs. NEH provides many small grants 
for speakers and purchasing books for reading discussion groups. It 
reaches across the land in sparse and low-populated areas, poor areas, 
provides opportunities for people to have an equal opportunity to have 
part of those things being discussed so well. In Iowa many of these 
small grants are barely over $1,000 each, but it touches a lot of 
lives.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to remain in the past. Our 
country depends on our teachers' ability to train our young people to 
continually look forward. So let us move to the light, not to the 
darkness. Do not support this amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to eliminate funding for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, NEH. I had hoped that all of our Members 
might have had an opportunity earlier this year to attend a gathering 
here on Capitol Hill when all the citizen and staff leadership of the 
humanities councils, the State humanities councils from around the 
country, had their meeting here. Their guest speaker was Stephen 
Ambrose, the author of the recently acclaimed book ``Undaunted 
Courage.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, also a distinguished former alumni of the 
University of Wisconsin.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, 
and he is an exceptional graduate and has claims, I think, down in 
Tulane as well.
  This Member is most familiar with the National Endowment for the 
Humanities through the activities of the Nebraska Humanities Council 
which consistently provides high quality humanities programming at very 
little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my State. It is not a 
program for the elite. Since 1973 they have funded programs in more 
than 200 different communities in all of Nebraska's 93 counties, 
reaching more communities each year. Some of those counties have fewer 
than 500 residents and are especially appreciative of this assistance. 
Surely the same type of examples that I am going to use could be cited 
for every State.
  Now this is in direct contrast to what the gentleman from Ohio has 
indicated. That is to say, for example, in Nebraska, and I believe in 
most States, or maybe all, many, many of our taxpayers are 
beneficiaries of NEH funding. This is absolutely not an elitist 
program.
  The Nebraska Humanities Council has been especially effective at 
reaching residents in the First Congressional District of Nebraska. 
This Member's district encompasses Lincoln with its colleges and 
museums as well as the small cities and villages whose primary formal 
educational assets are their libraries and their consolidated public 
and religious schools.
  For example, the council has developed a humanities resource center 
with a large speakers bureau, exhibits, films and videos that enable 
the smallest communities to benefit from the cultural resources of 
Nebraska's metropolitan areas and metropolitan areas from elsewhere in 
the Great Plains. The speakers bureau has been particularly helpful to 
Nebraska schools as they comply with the new requirement for 
multicultural education. Of course, the Humanities Council does not 
charge the schools for this valuable educational service.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, for these and many other reasons this 
Member urges the defeat of the Chabot amendment. The National Endowment 
for the Humanities is a highly appropriate use of a modest amount of 
public funds in a great and diverse country like the United States of 
America.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Chabot amendment, and here is 
why.
  As my colleagues know, we are kind of getting involved in what policy 
should be or, I guess, what is good and what makes sense and so forth. 
But we should remember that just because something is a good program 
does not mean that it should not be recognized and supported locally as 
a good program, as opposed to Washington has to do everything because 
if we do not do it, it means we do not love humanity or people or 
little children or sex and gender studies or some of the other valuable 
projects the NEH gets involved in. But just imagine this, Mr. Chairman:
  If a person were on a diet, if they were on a 6-month diet to lose 30 
pounds, and they got to the fourth month and they had lost 28 pounds, 
would they stop dieting? As my colleagues know, this person is ahead of 
their time schedule, they had not reached their goal yet. Would they 
quit exercising and start eating ice cream again and say, ``Hey, 
look''?
  The situation that we are in right now is similar to that fiscally, 
Mr. Chairman. We have reduced the deficit greatly. The Wall Street 
Journal said yesterday we may have the deficit projection as low as $45 
billion, and I want Members of the House to think about this: If we can 
get within $45 billion of balancing the budget, is it not incumbent on 
us as Members of Congress to do everything we can to go ahead and push 
toward that zero, to reach the goal? If we were on the diet, reach it 
in 4 months instead of 6 months?
  As my colleagues know, this money, this appropriation for NEH, it is 
within the budget. But that does not mean it is good. That does not 
mean that everything about the budget is perfect.
  What is in here that is so necessary? I think we should look at this 
question: Are our projects necessary for the Federal Government? Not 
just are they nice and are they pleasant, and does it make us feel 
intellectual or cultural or whatever.
  And I know there are Members who do feel cultural when they see that 
$400,000 went to Doran Ross at UCLA for, quote, ``The Art of Being 
Kuna: The Expressive Culture of the San Blas Islands, Panama,'' 
$400,000. Not many constituents in my district make that kind of money.
  Or how about this one: $108,000 to Howard Kushner of San Diego State 
University for ``The History of Tourette's Syndrome.''
  How about this? A grant of $135,000 to Edward English of the 
University of Notre Dame for ``Sex and Gender in the Middle Ages.'' 
Boy, a burning issue in my district. This is from the year 1150 to 
1450, for those of my colleagues who are interested in getting a copy 
of it. I do not know if it will apply, but it was a good old 5-week 
summer junket for 24 college students.
  How about this one? A grant of $201,000 to Laurie Kahn-Leavitt of 
Filmmakers Collaborative for ``A Midwife's Tale: Discovering the World 
of Martha Ballard.'' Now has anybody read that? I mean all those 
defenders of NEH, tell me, was Martha Ballard's story a good one? I 
missed it.
  As my colleagues know, my kids are dying to see ``Jurassic Park'' or 
the sequel, ``Lost World'', but we have not seen Martha Ballard. A 
grant of $201,000; again, not many people in my district are making 
money like that.
  Or how about this: $34,500 to Carol Maier of Kent State for 
``Delirium and Destiny.'' Well, that is a good one.
  What happened to private initiatives? What happened to spending State 
or local money if it is so important?
  As my colleagues know, we are not really arguing here if NEH is good 
or bad. What we are really saying: Is it necessary, is it necessary to 
borrow

[[Page H5159]]

children's money to pay for such projects? I submit, Mr. Chairman, it 
is not necessary to have this program, and as long as we are $5.4 
trillion in debt we should be able to ask ourselves this question:
  If this was coming out of my pocketbook, if it was coming out of my 
wallet, would I spend the money this way, or am I just doing it because 
it is taxpayers' money?
  I would say to the Members of the House, If you can say yes, this is 
how I would, in fact, spend my money, than certainly they want to vote 
against the Chabot amendment. But if they are doing it just because 
somebody else is paying for it, think about the $5 trillion debt, think 
about the children who will be inheriting so much of this debt and vote 
for the Chabot amendment. And join, in doing that, the National 
Taxpayer's Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for A 
Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, National Tax Limitation Committee and 
Capitol Watch.

       Below are a few examples of how the NEH is wasting tax 
     dollars. When the average salary in America is approximately 
     $20,000 a year, does it really make sense that the taxpayers 
     are giving:
       $150,000 to Jacquelynn Baas at UC Berkely for 
     ``Interpretive Programs for `Face of the Gods: Art and Altars 
     of the African Diaspora' '';
       $400,000 to Doral H. Ross at UCLA for ``The Art of Being 
     Kuna: The Expressive Culture of the San Blas Islands, 
     Panama'';
       $108,000 to Howard I. Kushner of San Diego State University 
     for ``History of Tourette's Syndrome'';
       $140,000 to Devon G. Pena of Colorado College for ``Upper 
     Rio Grande Hispano Farms: A Cultural and Natural History of 
     Land Ethics in Transition, 1850-1994'';
       $135,000 to Edward D. English of the University of Notre 
     Dame for ``Sex and Gender in the Middle Ages, 1150-1450,'' 
     supporting a five-week summer institute for 24 college 
     teachers;
       $201,000 to Laurie Kahn-Leavitt of Filmmakers Collaborative 
     for ``A Midwife's Tale: Discovering the World of Martha 
     Ballard'' to support production of a test reel for a feature 
     length documentary film on the life and world of 18th-century 
     midwife Martha Ballard;
       $34,000 to Mary Ann Smart of SUNY research Foundation/Stony 
     Brook Main Campus for ``Representations of Gender and 
     Sexuality in Opera,'' ``to support a conference to examine 
     new ways to understand the cultural context of opera texts 
     and music, focusing on how new musicological work on gender 
     can be applied to the study of opera'';
       $210,742 to Charles V. Blatz of the University of Toledo 
     for ``Humanities 2000: A Multi-Year Collaboration to 
     Strengthen the Humanities Foundations'';
       $34,500 to Carol Maier of Kent State University for 
     ``Delirium and Destiny''; and
       $114,000 to Catholic University to support the preparation 
     of a database of indices for the Gregorian chants found in 
     ten major manuscripts, to be disseminated on diskettes and on 
     the Internet?
       Among many, many other such projects, remember, too, that:
       The American history standards released by the NEH have 
     been widely criticized as very flawed. Former NEH chairman 
     Lynne Cheney has publicly disavowed the project. Indeed, she 
     recently called for an end to federal funding for the NEH 
     altogether.
       Current NEH head Sheldon Hackney is spending $1.7 million 
     to promote a ``national conversation.'' Over the objections 
     of his own National Council, Hackney pushed through a 
     ``national conversation'' television program.
       ``Do you really think voters in your home state will 
     understand why these programs were killed?'' the NEH lobby 
     asks in its most recent ad. A better question might be, why 
     were the programs funded by the federal government in the 
     first place? They are worthy programs, surely, but why do 
     they need federal tax dollars at this time of massive 
     deficits?

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not help but rise, having attended ``Midwife's 
Tale'' with Martha Ballard, and it was done in Maine, and it was done 
through a grant through the National Endowment for the Humanities. It 
was a story about a midwife working in rural Maine in the early 1800's. 
It was a story of women working and women's roles in a part of Maine 
and a part of this country that had never been told before, and without 
that grant and without that research would never have been known. I 
attended that film to a packed hall, and it was in northern Maine.
  My district is the most rural district east of the Mississippi. There 
are 32 rural health clinics in my district. My district borders Canada, 
New Hampshire, and the rock-bound coast, and without the support from 
the National Endowment for the Humanities we would not have been able 
to see performances like this. We would not be able to get the arts and 
humanities involved and we would not have been able to have that 
involvement.
  One of the greatest studies that has been accomplished has shown us 
that students involved in arts and humanities programs, and this is 
through testing, have been able to improve their SAT scores by 50 and 
60 points. Arts and humanities is not an appetizer, it is part of the 
main course. The more that we understand, like in a diet that was 
referred to earlier as balanced nutrition, nothing in excess and 
everything in moderation, it is how we ought to look at arts and 
humanities. It is a lot more important.
  This weekend is the birthday of Andrew Wyeth. He is going to be 80. 
It is going to be celebrated at the Farnsworth Museum in Maine, and how 
fitting to have a discussion here in the national Congress as to how 
unimportant arts and humanities are, and being able to pick on 
particular projects that are being done in particular areas without 
really knowing what those projects did.
  The arts and humanities are going to allow a hundred small towns in 
Maine under the century project to do oral history projects. Some of 
the great histories in minds over time have told us that if we can take 
the culture of a previous generation and be able to mix it with the 
next generation, that that is the product of success.
  So I think our strength comes from our culture. It is our glue that 
holds our communities together, and if the National Endowment for the 
Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are going to provide 
the glue that is going to hold our families, communities and counties 
and States together and help to do that, then those are the things that 
we ought to be encouraging.
  It seems to me that the money that is being spent in proportion to 
the national Federal budget is very minuscule for the impact that it is 
making because these are matching grants. They require contributions at 
the local, private, State level to be matched. Those are the kinds of 
the things that we want to nurture.
  Mr. Chairman, I would think that a party that is interested in family 
values and community values and in bringing people together and in 
breaking down those barriers would be very much supportive of these 
kinds of efforts. So this is a program that has a proven track record, 
one we ought to support.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the Chabot amendment. I 
would point out initially that the amount of money that we are talking 
about here in the funding, the $110 million, is a reduction from a 
substantially higher amount, closer to $200 million, which has been 
done as a reasonable step in conserving the taxpayers' money.

                              {time}  1300

  I am a strong supporter of what we have been able to do with the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. The Delaware Humanities Forum is 
an organization which funds the humanities in Delaware. It receives 
nearly 90 percent of its money from the NEH.
  I was in Bridgeville, DE. Let me explain where Bridgeville, DE, is. 
If anyone has their senses about them, they are going to go through it 
on the way to Rehoboth, DE. That is how you get there, you go right 
through, on your way there. It is a lovely farming community in Sussex 
County, DE.
  I was there on October 18 of last year with most of the elected 
officials locally and in the State of Delaware. It might have had 
something to do with the fact that the election was a couple weeks 
later, too. It was for the world premier of this movie, ``If You Lived 
Here You Would Be Home Now,'' which is a slogan they use and which 
other towns use.
  It is a film about the life and work of a painter whose name is Jack 
Lewis. Jack Lewis came to Bridgeville, DE, as part of a work project 
many, many years ago, in the thirties. He is 82 years old now. This is 
an incredible film. It was shown in the high school gymnasium; 700 
people showed up to see

[[Page H5160]]

this film because of their pride in Jack Lewis. They had to have a 
second showing, and I understand that was almost sold out as well later 
in that particular evening.
  Mr. Chairman, the movie is interesting. I will read what it says on 
the back of the container for it. It says:

       In Bridgeville, Delaware, a town known mostly for the 
     amount of scrapple, apples, and chickens it produces, New 
     Deal artist Jack Lewis has integrated his art and murals into 
     the lives of its citizens, and empowered these working people 
     to express themselves on their own. By following how this 
     artist has touched the lives of people who would not normally 
     be exposed to art, the film explores larger issues about the 
     role of the artist in society, public funding for culture, 
     and cultural elitism, all from the perspective of a small 
     town.

  I can tell the Members that the people of that town, to a man or 
woman in that audience, embraced that movie as they have embraced this 
artist who has taught the children, has taught the disabled, has taught 
the disenfranchised young people that had no place to go, has been in 
our prisons, has done so much for Delaware. It has been shown all over 
the State of Delaware. We have tried to get it, and may still do it, on 
public television.
  A review in the Washington Post said that perhaps there is a lesson 
in that story there about learning to love what is all around you, 
which is how Bridgeville has come to love art; it is everywhere you 
look. Because of Lewis, it has seeped into the lives of the barbers, 
dry cleaners, firefighters, undertakers.
  This was $50,000 that was put in by the Delaware Humanities Forum, 
which they say gets its money from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities to help make this film which has pleased so many people in 
my State, and in my judgment could please people around the country if 
they had a chance to see it.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, like everything else there is some risk, and 
there are some things that perhaps should not be funded, but the bottom 
line is so many wonderful things have happened through the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  I would strongly urge every single person on the Republican and 
Democratic side of the aisle to reject this amendment, to realize that 
we have already made sufficient cuts, and to realize that if we manage 
the National Endowment for the Humanities well, it can do a wonderful 
job in teaching us so much about our history and all the other things 
that other speakers have spoken to.
  I strongly embrace the National Endowment for the Humanities funding 
as put forward by the committee, and I would urge everybody to oppose 
the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise today in opposition to the 
amendment. I do so from a background in the humanities. In fact, as I 
mentioned yesterday, my first exposure to Congress was when I chaired 
the California Council for the Humanities and was national president of 
the Federation of State Humanities Councils, and I had the privilege at 
that time to meet the committee that was chaired at that time by my 
congressman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sidney Yates.
  I think I am here because of the background that I have had with the 
humanities. I have profound respect for the work that has gone on under 
the sponsorship of the National Endowment for the Humanities. I have to 
say that I resent the accusation that the work of NEH is conducted 
primarily by and for the benefit of academic elites and bureaucrats.
  My own background is in the University of California, and I have 
sometimes been described as an academic elite, but the situation with 
NEH is that they stand as the one clear agency in the country that is 
dedicated to overcoming that kind of gap.
  Most of the programs that NEH sponsors have a very definite and 
required public dimension. I am thinking of all the programs we have 
watched on public television. I think of the programs for young 
scholars, some of whom are academically certified, some of whom are not 
yet but have shown unusual promise. Scholars all over the country have 
had their careers boosted, and energized by support from the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  I would like to call attention to two specific projects that NEH has 
funded and supports that have had profound ramifications around the 
country. I think first of all of the State programs. The gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] mentioned the great work of the Nebraska 
Council on the Humanities. The same is true for the one in California, 
and all of the States have these public programs that bring people 
together.
  The NEH lifelong education. Education does not end at the age of 22, 
at the end of a college career, but should be lifelong, and it is the 
NEH that has been chiefly responsible for energizing lifelong education 
in this country.
  Second, I would like to point out that 50,000 schoolteachers, have 
participated in the summer seminar program that has been sponsored by 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. Think of the reverberations 
from that. Fifty thousand schoolteachers, hard-working men and women, 
not making any money on this, giving up their summertime to come and 
work with a scholar in order to perfect their skills and to perfect 
their teaching ability. Then they go back home. Think of the 
ramifications of that in the classroom and how many students are 
touched by the work that has happened in those seminars.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think that a nation should be 
judged on how it relates to its intellectual heritage. That is really 
what is at stake here. I stand in very strong opposition to the 
amendment, because I am a full-scale believer in the work of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment and 
in very strong support of the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
The National Endowment for the Humanities supports long-term 
collaborative projects of national significance that could not be 
funded by any single State or single institution.
  For instance, the NEA funded the Ken Burns series, ``The Civil War,'' 
``Roots,'' ``Baseball.'' Think of the number of Americans whose 
understanding of our history was enlarged by those series, but in 
addition, they also increased tourism at our national battlefields and 
other Civil War sites by one-third. The Civil War series created real 
dollars to real communities, because Americans were more knowledgeable 
about their own history. The NEH funds projects like the Brittle Books 
project, to preserve the manuscripts that record our early history but 
were printed on paper that is disintegrating. Those national treasures 
must be preserved with national dollars. That is not a project that any 
State or any institution could undertake.
  In addition, the NEH leverages millions and millions of dollars to 
enable local and State organizations to better educate their people and 
better preserve their history. In Connecticut alone, challenge grants 
from the NEH have leveraged $1 billion. Many, many have benefited: 
little towns, small cities, children, schools, adults, and town 
libraries.
  In Bristol, CT, the American Clock and Watch Museum was able to put 
on a presentation of the Origins of the American Industrial Revolution 
in Connecticut. Clock-making, enriched our understanding of that small 
city's role in a very important industry. The New England Carousel 
Museum is another Bristol beneficiary along with all who tour that gem 
of a museum. Falls Village and Canaan got money to help plan the Depot 
Museum in Heritage Park.
  This will go not only to help those small towns in Connecticut bring 
their history into focus and display it in a way that others can 
understand, but also to create a tourist attraction that will broaden 
their economic base and better support their people, thus enriching the 
knowledge and understanding of the people of that corner and all who 
pass through it, while strengthening its economy.
  In Farmington, CT, NEH money has helped us uncover the history of the

[[Page H5161]]

Farmington Canal, preserve that canal, and educate people about it. 
Those are the kinds of projects that no individual small town can 
support and be responsible for entirely, but that are of not only local 
and State significance, but also of national significance.
  In Litchfield, preservation of the Nation's first law school is 
something that we all should care about, we all should be interested 
in. Certainly the local community is interested and the State has been 
as well, but critical NEH dollars have helped us succeed with that 
project. I could go on and on with projects, and examples of 
educational series that our art museums have been able to offer because 
of the NEH grants, but my point is clear NEH affects the lives of every 
one of us in small towns and very rural communities and throughout 
America.
  It also does things like sponsoring seminars for teachers, enabling 
them in the summer to work with outstanding scholars, and deepen their 
understanding of the subject matter they are responsible for teaching 
to our young people.
  Recently the Carnegie Foundation completed a study that showed that 
there was a direct correlation between children's achievement in our 
public schools and the depth of subject matter expertise of their 
teachers. So this kind of effort to give teachers the opportunity to 
work with outstanding scholars in their area has a direct effect on the 
achievement of our children in our public schools.
  Over 3 million Americans have taken part in NEA-sponsored reading and 
discussion programs in libraries in all 50 States over the last 16 
years. Lifelong learning makes a nation strong, creates understanding 
and spirit that not only enriches individuals but whole communities and 
the fabric of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment and support of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have gone through a number of pieces of legislation 
here today, and the sum total of what we are doing seems to say, bring 
on the darkness; that if we came out of the dark ages and went into the 
renaissance, if we put this Congress in charge, they would try to shut 
down thinking.
  The idea that a great country can be sustained while there is no 
central government playing a critical role in thinking and in 
education, in preservation, that is an idea that other countries have 
tried. If Members go to them, they would not want to stay there.
  Everybody understands there ought to be some balance in what we do in 
government. If we can give the head of Microsoft a $6 billion or $9 
billion tax savings, driven by the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, it seems we can take a few of those pennies back to make sure 
that the intellectual matter that has built this country is preserved.
  Mr. Chairman, this book is now preserved. It is by Melville. Without 
the preservation funds, when you turn or crease the page, it comes 
apart. So our choice is simple. This country has prospered because we 
tried to make sure that the broadest base of our citizenry had access 
to information, to knowledge, to science. The question is, Are we going 
to cut one activity that is critical in many aspects to get at the 
small communities?
  It is almost like the Post Office; if you live in New York City or 
Boston, you do not need us. What you produce helps the rest of us, 
often, but the critical mass, to have an arts program or what have you, 
saving books, that will occur at the great institutions in the large 
cities. But for those of us who represent average people in smaller 
communities, what these programs provide is the enlightenment. It is an 
opportunity to build a society with a broad recognition of what is out 
there in the world.
  I would venture to say when we talk about trade balance, when we talk 
about a competitive country, there is nothing more important than what 
we are fighting about here today.
  Reject this amendment. Members should understand their responsibility 
as national legislators, building a future for this country. Do not 
turn back to the darkness and end the enlightenment.

                              {time}  1315

  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to proceed out of order 
for 1 minute.)


                          Legislative Schedule

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the Members what we plan 
to do is have a vote on the Chabot amendment. That will be all we will 
do for the rest of the day. We will rise immediately after the 
completion of that vote. So this will enable those that are planning 
for airplanes and so on, there will be one more vote and then we will 
rise.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment that is being brought to the 
House is an example of Members who understand the cost of everything 
and the value of nothing.
  I just heard a prior speaker, a few speeches ago, lecture us about 
the $100 million-plus a year that this endowment costs the taxpayer. It 
is true. It does. But the same gentleman who spoke voted last week to 
require this country to buy nine B-2 bombers that the Pentagon did not 
want. Each one of those B-2 bombers cost $1.2 billion. This Congress 
chose, over the advice of the Pentagon, to buy nine of those. The cost 
of those nine B-2 bombers would fund this account for the next 99 
years. So who is kidding whom?
  This is not about whether taxpayers' money is going to be saved or 
not. This issue is whether or not we are going to make a small 
investment to preserve the best of American heritage and to help us to 
the best of our ability to rise above the lesser aspects of our 
natures.
  That is what the humanities are all about. Let me explain what the 
National Endowment for the Humanities does. It provides exhibits. It 
helps libraries all over the country to preserve some of their prize 
possessions. If you ask any historian what is the greatest historical 
loss to mankind's base of knowledge in the history of the world, they 
will say it was the loss of the Egyptian library at Alexandria. We lost 
all of the treasures, all of the institutional memory of that ancient 
age. And it took humanity literally hundreds of years to begin to 
reaccumulate that knowledge and that understanding.
  This endowment helps to preserve books. It helps to preserve 
documents. It helps to preserve archival material. It helps to preserve 
historical newspapers. It has produced films which have won Peabody 
awards, Emmys, you name it. It does not serve the cultural elite of 
this country. The cultural and economic elite of this country, any time 
it wants, has access to this kind of material. They have got the bucks 
to pay for it. They have the leisure time to experience it. And they 
have the family history that makes children sensitive to it.
  It is the average family in this country that does not live in a city 
which has a great university, it does not live in a city with one of 
the outstanding libraries in the country. Members of Congress take for 
granted the fact we can go down to the National Archives, see the great 
documents of our history. We think nothing of that. Most Americans 
would give their eyeteeth to have that opportunity.
  It is the small towns, it is the people of average means, it is the 
people of average life experience who most need the benefits that this 
appropriation produces.
  Yet we are told we cannot afford that. We are told that by one of the 
same Members who stood on the floor or stood on the floor of the 
Committee on Appropriations just 3 days ago and argued that we ought to 
continue subsidizing tobacco.
  I ask my colleagues, what is a better investment in American tax 
dollars? There is very little doubt in my mind. Has the Endowment 
occasionally been embarrassed by an idiotic use of one of their grants? 
Yes, they have. Have you ever been embarrassed? Has any Member of 
Congress ever been embarrassed by an idiotic act that we ourselves have 
committed or an act of our staff? Of course we have.
  I wish any Member of this House had a batting average as good as the 
National Endowment for the Arts or the Humanities. We make as many 
mistakes in a day as they make in a year. Members can vote any way they 
want.

[[Page H5162]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. OBEY was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, those of you who know me know that I often 
quote my favorite poet, Archie the Cockroach. It is not my religious 
bible, but it is my philosophical bible.
  I want to read my colleagues something that Archie wrote a long time 
ago: He wrote it about the movies, but you can just as easily say it in 
reference to the arts or the humanities. He said this:

       They are instinctively trying to preserve for the public 
     some kind of stuff that wins an audience away from the often 
     sordid surface of existence. They may do it badly. They may 
     do it obviously. They may do it crudely. But they do have a 
     hunch that what the millions want is to be shown that there 
     is something possible to the human race besides the dull 
     repetition of the triviality which is often the routine of 
     common existence. And every now and then they blunder into 
     doing something with just a touch of the universal.

  Now, to me that is what the Endowment for the Arts and the Endowment 
for the Humanities is all about. I would just suggest that if Members 
want to save money, I can show them 50 line items in appropriation 
bills that I will serve the American public. This is a tiny little 
amount, but it is crucial to seeing to it that we can spread the basic 
foundations of our society and western values as broadly as possible in 
this society. Is it done error free? Of course not, because everyone is 
human. But I say that the routine of common existence would be just a 
little less rich without the services that this appropriation provides, 
and this Congress would be out of its head to pass this amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, many colleagues on both sides have stood up and said 
that maybe it is just a little bit of money. National Endowment for the 
Arts, which I did not get a chance to speak on in the last amendment, 
it is only a little bit of money, $100 million a year. I swore that if 
I ever spoke that a million dollars was a little bit of money, that I 
would leave this body, because it is a lot of money and I think we need 
to take that into account.
  There are Members here and they have the right to that opinion that 
government can do things better. I think Charlie the Cockroach, 
whatever his name, would feel better if he had the right to control his 
own destiny instead of other people controlling it. That $110 million a 
year for the NEA and $100 million for the NEH adds up to a lot of 
dollars. Let us take a 10-year period.
  When the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about the real future and 
the light of the future, I think the real light of this great country 
was born on individualism, from people creating their own destiny, not 
Federal Government. If we look at what the NEH does, have they done 
some good things? Sure, I am sure they do. And the NEA, have they done 
good things? Yes.
  But when we take a look at what the real light is, is it giving back 
taxpaying Americans dollars instead of sending it to Washington? You 
have to borrow the money. That $200 million a year, you have to borrow 
that money to be able to spend it and then make people think that you 
are giving them a good deal.
  I submit that it is not a good deal, Mr. Chairman. We have people in 
San Diego, in my area like U.S.S. Grant Sharp, Adm. Grant Sharp, four-
star admiral, we have Wally Schirra, an astronaut. I would love the 
humanities to come in and talk about their history. But we do that with 
PBS and private funds. The Government does not have to do that.
  The gentleman from Maine that talked about this great program in 
Maine that they have. If it is so important to Maine, I have never seen 
it. Joe Sixpack in my State or county has never seen it. Let people 
from Maine, if it is so important, support it. Why should Joe Sixpack 
from all the other districts fund this?
  There are some great individual programs. The gentleman talked about 
the B-2, a controversial issue. I would submit to take a look, is there 
a need for the B-2? Is there a mission in the future for it? I say yes. 
And if not, what would you do, spend another $12 billion just on the 
R&D that goes on with what the new B-2 is or whatever replaces it? That 
is going to cost more in those dollars.
  I would submit that the gentleman from Wisconsin has not sat over the 
top of Hanoi like I have and watched two B-52's go down in flames, with 
the horror of watching those men die because they were flying in 40-
year-old airplanes. Yes, there is an issue. I think the perspective is 
different.
  But the perspective of the American people is not to have the Federal 
Government do it. It is awful hard to outspend a liberal. We will give 
a figure to balance the budget and you will give a higher figure. Then 
you will say we are cutting, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, 
education and the environment or these programs, and look how wonderful 
they are.
  The President wants a $3 billion literacy program. Mr. Chairman, we 
have 14 literacy programs in the Federal Government. What is wrong with 
paying for one and fully funding it and getting rid of the 
bureaucracies and getting rid of the bureaucracy of the NEA and funding 
down the arts where parents and children and schools can make those 
decisions? No, they want the Federal Government.
  If you take a look at whether it is health care controlled by the 
Federal Government, whether it is education controlled by the Federal 
Government, or history standards controlled by the Federal Government 
in which they had more study about Madonna and McCarthyism than they 
did the Magna Carta, or whether it is private control of private 
property. No, I am not talking about the Federal Government. I am 
talking about the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Engels 
about control of everything that goes on in River City, in Washington, 
DC and by Government.
  I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, that we change those things. Yes, 
the cockroach would be much happier if he had the destiny of his own 
life to live instead of people that borrow money here that do not have 
to pay it back, they do not, even the people they spend it on do not 
have to pay it back. Americans have to pay it back.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment to abolish 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. This House seems intent on 
doing an interesting day's work. First let us destroy our support for 
the arts, that is in the morning; and in the afternoon let us destroy 
the humanities.
  That is a good day's work. The humanities are critical to any free 
and democratic society. The study of history, the study of philosophy, 
literature, religion, how are people supposed to make intelligent 
decisions and govern ourselves if we do not support the study of 
history and philosophy and literature and religion? The purpose of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities is to promote this, to promote 
research in education and the preservation of knowledge, to promote the 
preservation of our cultural heritage. This House is willing to spend, 
we are this year appropriating somewhere in the neighborhood of $270 
billion to the Department of Defense for our physical defense.
  One can think, as I do, that that is a little too much, but no one 
will quibble that we should spend a lot of money for our physical 
defense.

                              {time}  1330

  But the NEH, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 
National Endowment for the Arts, that is money spent for our cultural 
and civil defense, for our cultural heritage, so that we have a country 
that is worth in every sense defending.
  The NEH funds professional development for teachers to preserve our 
heritage for the next generation. Fifty thousand teachers have 
benefited from its summer seminars, and they have reached in turn 7\1/
2\ million students.
  NEH grants are being used to fund multimedia database programs on the 
Supreme Court, the Civil War and the philosophies and civilizations of 
ancient Greece and Rome, from which we learn so much.

[[Page H5163]]

  The endowment provides national leadership for efforts to digitize 
and make more accessible such important texts and documents as the Dead 
Sea Scrolls, ancient Egyptian papyrus fragments and the works of 
Shakespeare. The endowment has preserved 750,000 brittle books and 55 
million pages of American newspapers.
  It is crucial to our efforts to preserve the writings and ideas of 
American culture. In fact, the NEH is crucial to efforts to preserve 
the writings of American Presidents, including those of George 
Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower.
  I hear the gentleman from California saying we do not need the NEH to 
do this; let people spend their own money to do it. Who would preserve 
our cultural heritage? Who would spend the money to physically treat 
books, physically and chemically treat books so that their pages do not 
fall apart with age, books that are 50, 100, and 200 years old? The 
private sector will not do it. Government has to do it because it is 
essential that it be done to preserve our heritage. But the private 
sector will not do that.
  Do we want to eliminate funding for a program whose primary purpose 
is to preserve American history and culture? We have cut funding for 
this substantially. Two years ago the funding was $172 million, about 
.01 percent of the budget. The current fiscal year it is being slashed 
to $110 million, but that is not enough. They argue it must be 
eliminated.
  To argue that this is too large an investment to preserve our 
cultural heritage is absurd. As was mentioned before, we voted for nine 
B-2 bombers in the current budget that the Pentagon says it does not 
need to defend us. One B-2 bomber, the cost of it, could fund the NEH 
for a dozen years.
  The NEA has made mistakes on grants, the NEH has made mistakes on 
grants. Sure. But that is the real motive for eliminating them. But 
that makes about as much sense as saying that people have cheated on 
Medicare, some insurance companies have overbilled the Government, some 
doctors have overbilled the Government, so let us eliminate Medicare. 
No, let us have better protections.
  The decisions that we make on spending are reflective of what kind of 
a country it is we want. Do we want a Nation that values learning, that 
rewards curiosity, that devotes resources to learning about the past so 
that we know how to seek a better future? If that is the kind of Nation 
we want, it is crucial we continue our commitment to the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to compound the damage we did 
this morning on the NEA. Reject this amendment to eliminate the NEH. 
Let us not be totally shameful today.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from Ohio, and I think Ohio has a stake in this 
debate because it is my colleague from Ohio who would like to eliminate 
the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  The charge has been made that this is an endowment which supports the 
cultural elite. Now, it is true that the city of Cincinnati, OH, is one 
of the great cities in this country. It is a city where the arts are 
valued and the humanities are valued and where many wealthy people 
contribute to both.
  However, I represent a different part of Ohio. My part of Ohio is a 
part of Ohio where the largest city is only 25,000 in number. In my 
part of Ohio the median family income is $22,000 a year. My part of 
Ohio needs the National Endowment for the Humanities. I can say that in 
my district alone, since 1970, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities has contributed nearly $80,000, but that has been used to 
leverage almost $350,000.
  In my small counties numerous worthy projects depend upon funding 
from the National Endowment for the Humanities. In Athens County, WOUB 
radio, Ohio University; the telecommunications center at Ohio 
University; in Clinton County, Wilmington College benefits, as well as 
does the local library; in Gallia County, the University of Rio Grande 
and the French Art Colony; in Jackson County, the local library; in 
Meigs County, the Pioneer and Historical Society benefits from the 
National Endowment for the Humanities; in Ross County, the Ross County 
Public Library and the Ross County Historical Society; in Scioto 
County, my home county, the Southern Ohio Museum and Cultural Center 
benefits; Shawnee State University, which is Ohio's newest and smallest 
State university, benefits from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities; in Vinton County, which is Ohio's smallest and poorest 
county, the local library benefits; in Warren County, the county 
library; in Washington County, Marietta College and the local library. 
On and on and on.
  These are not cultural elites. These are citizens in small 
communities in one of the most historic and beautiful parts of our 
Nation who need the National Endowment for the Humanities in order to 
continue very worthy programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to reconsider, to 
reconsider this misguided attempt to eliminate the National Endowment 
for the Humanities.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities was 
established more than three decades ago because, in the words of the 
Columbus, OH, Dispatch, democracy demands wisdom and vision in its 
citizens.
  Now, the more responsible amendment that we should be debating today 
would be one that would restore the $40 million to this budget that was 
cut in this bill from the President's request or the $14 million cut 
from last year's funding level. That is what we should be doing, and we 
could have compelling arguments to do that and, I would think, win on 
that debate. But, instead, here we have to defend a program that has 
justified itself for 30 years, that has made a difference in almost 
every community across the country.
  In Alexandria, VA, right across the Potomac River, 150 years ago 
Alexandria was part of Washington, DC, but there was a vote to 
retrocede. Because the African-American citizens could not vote, that 
vote won, and Alexandria went on to become one of the principal slave 
capitals of the South. For the next 150 years there was a struggle that 
required the highest levels of courage and character and leadership on 
the part of our African-American citizens to transform our community 
and that of northern Virginia and the Washington metropolitan area. 
They had to risk beatings, they had to risk persecution and oppression 
when they would go in and integrate libraries, integrate the school 
system, the stores, the drugstores; and over a long history, they 
succeeded.

  Now, why is that relevant to this discussion? Because it is the 
National Endowment for the Humanities that is bringing that history 
alive to the children of our school system, black and white alike, and 
throughout the Washington metropolitan area.
  Now, it took years for the citizens of our community to meet the 
exacting standards of the National Endowment for the Humanities. But 
once they met them, then we were able to draw upon substantial sums of 
other money to make history come alive, to enable our schoolchildren to 
realize the strong shoulders on which they stand today. That is what 
inspires leadership, that is what keeps our country a great country, 
that understanding of history, that understanding of the kind of 
character and courage that gave us the foundation upon which we 
progress.
  NEH has proven itself in the same way that the principles of this 
country have proven themselves. But it is integral to sustaining our 
principles as a democratic free country that believes in free speech, 
that believes in education, that believes in inclusiveness of all of 
our citizens.
  NEH needs to be expanded, not cut back, but certainly the least we 
can do for our country and its people is to defeat this amendment 
today.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes but I do rise in 
opposition to the Chabot amendment. I urge our colleagues to defeat it 
and to defeat it resoundingly.
  In the earlier debate we talked about the importance of the arts, of 
music to our country. If the arts and music

[[Page H5164]]

touch the heart of our country, certainly the humanities enhance the 
soul of our great country.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities supports scholarly 
research, education and public programs in the humanities. The NEH 
preserves our national heritage by helping to keep our historical 
record intact. It builds citizenship by providing a way for citizens to 
study and understand principles and practices of American democracy. It 
strengthens our communities through State councils and local grants.
  ``No, the marketplace,'' as Ken Burns said in his recent article, 
``will not produce the good works of the endowments.'' He said further, 
``It is my sincere belief that anything that threatens these 
institutions weakens our country.''
  I hope that my colleagues, when they vote, will vote to strengthen 
our country. In his article, Ken Burns, and I want to quote because I 
think it would be interesting to Members, also said, ``Without a doubt, 
my film series on the Civil War or Baseball could not have been made 
without the endowment. It not only provided one of the largest grants, 
thereby attracting other donators, but some of its grants to archival 
institutions made possible the restoration of historical photographs we 
used,'' he said, ``to tell our story.''
  He further said, and I will close with these remarks, ``Early on, 
Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers knew that the pursuit 
of happiness did not mean a hedonistic search for pleasure in the 
marketplace but an active involvement of the mind in the higher aspects 
of human endeavor; namely, education, music, the arts and history.''
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of our Founding 
Father Thomas Jefferson, to support the humanities and vote no on the 
very destructive Chabot amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague, and in so doing I would like to applaud the 
comments of the two previous speakers, the gentleman from northern 
Virginia and the gentlewoman from California, for their eloquent 
remarks in defense of their position opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make a few observations. First of all, while I 
stand in vehement opposition to the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague, I think in one sense he has done this body a 
great service, and that is to provide an opportunity for many of my 
colleagues to march into the well of this House and to inform other 
Members of Congress and the American people of all of the vital 
services provided by the Endowment for the Humanities, and to do so 
with great eloquence and great precision.
  Second, I would like to make this observation. A couple of weeks ago 
the Committee on National Security brought the military budget for this 
fiscal year to the floor of the U.S. Congress. In my capacity as 
ranking member of that committee I tried to point out, on more than one 
occasion, that one of our significant vital national security 
interests, Mr. Chairman, is a well trained, well educated, well 
informed citizenry that is capable of engaging the economic, cultural, 
and civic affairs of our Nation.
  I would argue with my distinguished colleague that this amendment 
striking all of the funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities 
strikes at the heart of a vital national security interest of this 
Nation, and that is to have an informed, vitalized, intelligent, 
capable citizenry in this country.

                              {time}  1345

  One of the previous speakers, arguing in defense of this amendment, 
challenged some of the activities of the National Endowment of the 
Humanities because it opened us up to ideas. Only an ignorant society, 
Mr. Chairman, would run from ideas.
  What makes us brilliant, what makes us capable is that we expose our 
youth and our children to the magnificence and wonder of great ideas. 
The day that we begin to censure ideas and to censure thought is the 
day that we go back into the 19th century and do not walk into the 21st 
century.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest things that we have is our 
children; and one of our greatest contributions to our children is a 
contribution to their education, allowing them to function and to cope 
in a society, in a world that is rapidly changing, growing with 
increasing complexity and increasing challenges.
  I would suggest, with those observations, Mr. Chairman, that all of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle reject this amendment and say 
to our people, young and old alike, across the myriad of perspectives 
in this country, that we would not strike at a very important, vital 
national security interest of this country, and that is the education 
and the information that needs to flow to the people of this country.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I strongly oppose the amendment of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], and I want to tell 
this Congress why we should focus our attention on doing just the 
opposite. We should focus our attention on trying to centralize the 
amount of moneys we are going to give to the humanities.
  I have heard many arguments this morning, Mr. Chairman. Many of them 
seek to sort of disperse the power and the money for the humanities. 
That is a wrong approach, Mr. Chairman. What it does is it proliferates 
weakness.
  My colleagues say they want to give it in block grants to the States? 
That is one proposal, to give States a block grant. It does not make 
sense, in that there would be no centralized entity to focus, to 
leverage, to try to get the most of the small amount of Federal money 
that they are now dispensing.
  First of all, if someone in this House is against an idea, it does 
not make sense to try and kill that idea through appropriations, 
because through appropriations we have never looked into the rationale 
of this program. We really do not know exactly what they do.
  We do know that many of the things that they do are very, very good 
and some of the things that the National Endowment purports to help 
this country with are not good. That is so with all of our programs.
  Our beloved leader and ranking member has tried very hard for about 
25 or 30 years to build the arts and humanities in this country; and, 
with one fell swoop, we are going to wipe out both of these efforts. It 
does not make sense. What they are doing is dissipating the amount of 
moneys we have already put into this area, and now they are going to 
say they are not good, they are not good enough for our scrutiny, so we 
are going to wipe them out.
  First of all, how is any school system or any other entity in this 
country going to be able to leverage the moneys that the Federal 
Government has put into the humanities or that it purports to put in 
there? There is no one agency in this country that can leverage that 
money as much as they have done it.
  So they strengthen our communities and, most of all, they seek to 
maintain a historical perspective, Mr. Chairman. And we must, we must 
maintain that historical perspective. If we do not, we cannot keep the 
legacy of this country going, and it must be kept going. We must 
continue to remember what has been done in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a question: Whether or not 
when we disburse this money to every different entity or agency that we 
can find, just to get it away from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, they are going to leverage in different ways, they are 
going to have a diverse kind of programming. We do not really know what 
we are going to get, a mishmash.
  So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, we can stimulate local economies 
through the National Endowment. It forces the people who are teaching. 
Are we going to have 59 or 60 ways of teaching? The National Endowment 
for the Humanities has brought in all of these people who are offering 
or trying to do something in the area of the humanities and giving them 
a series of forums and workshops to teach them ways to do this.
  I beg of this House, Mr. Chairman, to defeat this amendment, because 
it is one that will kill the humanities movement in this country.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I was 
back in my office listening to the debate, and I

[[Page H5165]]

really felt that I would not forgive myself if I did not come to the 
floor and add my voice to those who were saying that this is not an 
amendment that this House should vote for.
  I think this is a basic philosophical difference. Some of my 
colleagues, well-intentioned, have the attitude that any government is 
bad, that the Federal Government is bad, that somehow or other 
government and programs of government are inherently evil.
  I do not come from that perspective. We are one great Nation. We are 
50 States, but we are one great Nation. And, certainly, the National 
Endowment for the Humanities teaches us that we are one great Nation, 
we have so much in common, that there is so much to preserve, that 
there is so much that we need as a Nation to bring us closer together.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities does that. It is the 
largest source of support for the humanities nationwide. Federal 
support is vital in order for the infrastructure of humanities to 
continue to exist.
  The next largest source of giving for humanities is the Mellon 
Foundation, which gives about $30 million annually, compared to $110 
million for the NEH.
  Government is important when the private sector cannot do the kinds 
of things that we need it to do. The NEH, to me, is public and private 
partnership working at its best. It gives grants that stimulate various 
humanities projects. Without these grants, without the seed money, 
these projects would never come to fruition.
  We are one great Nation. We are a great country. We have a Federal 
Government. The Federal Government should be doing the kinds of things, 
in my opinion, that the National Endowment for the Humanities does.
  Now projects like collecting and editing the papers of the Nation's 
Presidents, Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Eisenhower, would more than 
likely stop production, many would close down all together if the NEH 
was abolished.
  NEH funding is often the lifeblood of support for such large, complex 
research undertakings. A half million American school children would be 
deprived of the benefits of being taught by the thousands of humanities 
teachers who each year refresh their knowledge and understanding of 
humanities in our great Nation by attending NEH-sponsored summer 
seminars and institutes.

  The NEH, as my colleagues have said, is a good buy. The cost to each 
American is only 42 cents a year, which is one one-hundredth of 1 
percent of the Federal budget. The activities of the State humanities 
councils all across America would probably close, most would go out of 
business, if this amendment were to pass.
  Some of my colleagues might say, ``Well, so what? If it cannot be 
sustained by the private sector, let it close.'' But I think this is a 
very, very shortsighted attitude. If things can be sustained by the 
private sector, then they well ought to be. But, again, if we can have 
this public-private partnership that works, why would we not want to 
reward success?
  This is a program that has been working. It has not been a failure. 
Where there are Government programs that have been failures, we should 
eliminate them. When there is too much fat in the budget, we should cut 
the fat. But when there is a program that is working, like the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, we ought to be strengthening these 
programs, not cutting their legs out from under them.
  Access to humanities programming would be closed off to millions of 
Americans in rural areas who are less well off. I represent an urban 
area, and we would probably have these things continuing, but people in 
rural areas would not be able to do that. Without NEH, who else would 
have provided the vital seed money to nurture a landmark event in our 
Nation's cultural life like the Library of America series? Those of us 
who are familiar with that series know how important and vital it is 
and what a vital role the NEH played in that.
  So let me just say, in summation, that I think that this amendment is 
a very, very shortsighted amendment. Again, where there is fat in the 
budget, we ought to cut it out. Where the private sector can fill in, 
then Government ought not to do it. But when we have a public-private 
partnership that works, this kind of funding works, this Congress ought 
to be saying thank you and we ought to be strengthening it and 
nurturing it and, yes, even adding additional dollars to it, rather 
than trying to cut it out.
  I do not come from the philosophy that Government is inherently bad 
or evil. I think we need Government. We do not need too much 
Government, but we do not need too little Government either. And where 
Government provides vital resources such as the NEH, those resources 
should be supported by this Congress, not have the legs cut out from 
under them.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the Members that we will 
conclude debate on this today but will roll the vote until next 
Tuesday, so that those Members that have airplanes to catch, there will 
be no more votes today. We will just go on until the debate is 
concluded, and at that point we will roll the vote.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas must yield to the gentleman 
from Illinois for the parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, did I understand the chairman to say that 
there would be speaking as long as Members wanted to speak? Is that 
only on this amendment or on other amendments?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, this 
amendment only. When the debate on this amendment is concluded, we will 
roll the vote and rise.
  Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question. I have just 
been told that one Member of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] has indicated that if this bill goes down on final 
passage, that all Democratic projects are going to be stripped out of 
the bill. I would like to know if that kind of blackmail is going on on 
the part of his leadership or not.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I know absolutely nothing about that, and I 
think that is misinformation. There has been nothing of that type by 
way of information or discussion transmitted to me. It is totally news 
to me.
  Mr. OBEY. I would certainly take the gentleman at his word. I would 
simply ask that he check with his own Whip's office to make certain 
that that is not the case. If the majority party wants to really blow 
up this place, that is a good way to do it; and I do not think it would 
be very smart to try it.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think that 
the gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is not the way we 
approach things. He can see that in the way the bill is constructed. It 
is very bipartisan.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I know that is 
the way the gentleman approaches things, but as he knows sometimes 
things are decided above our pay grade, and I think we need to know 
whether we are operating in the atmosphere of reasonableness or of 
sharks.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Would the Chair please provide me the 
amount of time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas has 4 minutes remaining of 
her 5 minutes.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for an additional 1 minute.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect my colleagues who 
have had a great deal of concern with

[[Page H5166]]

both the National Endowment for the Arts and with the National 
Endowment for the Humanities. I know that many have done it out of an 
earnestness of what they believe the values of this Nation should be. 
But even though with respect for their position, I cannot accept it.
  Just as I thought the amendments dealing with the elimination of the 
National Endowment for the Arts were foolish and foolhardy, both the 
amendment to eliminate and the amendment that did not pass that would 
have in essence eliminated under the Ehlers amendment the NEA, this 
amendment, the National Endowment for the Humanities, to eliminate it 
is similarly foolish and foolhardy.
  Might I share with Members as a youngster growing up in America how 
important it was as the learning process unfolded before me to 
understand that I was not alone with respect to my history. I was not 
alone as an African-American in this Nation without history or roots. 
Although the educational system as I was growing up was not as detailed 
and as clear about the richness of African-American history, I am very 
proud today to say that many research projects that have been funded by 
the National Endowment for the Humanities have given depth to the rich 
and diverse culture of this Nation.
  It has given depth to the very rich Indian American culture, the 
culture of the original natives of this great land. It has funded 
projects so that our schoolchildren could understand the value of 
American Indian history. It also has responded to the emerging Hispanic 
culture and in its research funding grants has seen the value of 
training teachers who understand multi-culturalism.
  Tears came to my eyes in 1977 when an account by Alex Haley that was 
then fictionalized into a movie called ``Roots'' began to unfold for 
all of America what the slave history was about and the subsequent 
history of the 1800's, and then the entrenchment of this divide in this 
Nation, but yet the joys that came about.
  I, too, celebrated in that fiction, fiction as it was put to story in 
a movie, but yet as it was told in truth in Alex Haley's book 
``Roots.'' It was exciting for those of us who had finished most of our 
education because, sad to say, in the 1950's and 1960's, there was 
little diverse history taught in our schools. But the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, independent and free as it is, with 
public dollars, when this country began to accept the multiplicity of 
its very diverse culture, began to train teachers to teach those of us 
who wanted to learn about the richness of this history.
  He is now telling us that he would cut off the opportunity for my 
children and grandchildren to be able to believe in a Nation that is so 
diverse. How many of us fully understood, even as it was told, the 
Civil War story? But yet the NEH had enough courage to support the 
Burns' effort in this Civil War story that so many of us looked at on 
PBS, the Public Broadcasting System.
  Likewise, the NEH supported a documentary history of the emancipation 
from 1861 to 1867. It included the fact that we in Texas only knew of 
that emancipation in 1865, two years after the emancipation in 1863. 
But it had to be an independent body that helped all of the Nation 
understand what emancipation meant.
  And so I am saddened that we have this divide and that we would use 
the issue of arts and the issue of the humanities as a wedge issue and 
a budget-cutting issue when in fact, as I have said before, a people 
who continue to trample on its arts, its culture and its history are 
doomed to perish.
  I believe that this amendment will bring about a perishing of the 
rich cultural diversity and the long and rich history that this Nation 
is developing. Vote down this amendment and support the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words in order to engage in a colloquy on an 
unrelated matter with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to engage 
the gentleman from Ohio in a colloquy to receive his views and to 
receive and understand the subcommittee's views on the nature of the 
matching requirements that will apply to the completion of the Lewis 
and Clark Trail Interpretive Center in Nebraska. It is my understanding 
that the matching requirements for the additional fiscal year 1998 
appropriations for the center, plus the previously appropriated 
$391,000 in total can be matched by cash, materials, and services. 
While it is my understanding that a substantial cash contribution will 
be required, it is further my understanding that such materials, 
services and activities in non-cash contributions could include 
contributed architectural and engineering plans or planning activities, 
construction materials, landscape planning and plant materials, survey 
activities, utilities installation and/or relevant new artwork 
creations.
  Mr. Chairman, is my understanding of the nature and the anticipated 
matching contributions for the center correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman knows, I have held all these types of 
interpretive centers to strict cost-share requirements including 
substantial cash. That is because we have so many requests and we try 
to stretch our dollars. However, the other services the gentleman 
detailed are also acceptable as a portion of the matching contribution 
necessary to meet the subcommittee's requirements.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for his statement, patience, assistance and good will, and 
I also thank his staff for similar reasons.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to prolong this discussion nor this 
debate. But I think one of the reasons that so many people have spoken 
on this particular issue is because of the depth of their feelings with 
reference to how effective the National Endowment for the Humanities 
has been. In my own city, the city of Chicago, a city that is the 
essence of diversity, a city that has ethnic enclaves all over its 
landscape, through this kind of programming people have been able to 
come together to interact, to explore, to take hard, good looks, to be 
involved in things like Imagine Chicago, to be involved in programs at 
the Newberry Library or to be involved in finding out how other groups 
actually live and function in this great Nation that we call the United 
States of America.
  I would think that any diminution of these activities would go 
against the grain, because one of the things I have learned is that in 
order to make democracy real, there is a need to understand how the 
other fellow thinks, how the other person feels, even the opportunity 
to walk in his or her footsteps and shoes. I would stand with all of 
those who have suggested that this program, and for the money that is 
expended on it, is worth its weight in gold, because it provides the 
golden opportunity for Americans to truly learn about each other and 
the contributions that we have all made. I join with those who are in 
opposition and say let us keep America interacting rather than shutting 
Americans away from each other.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I have always understood that the 
most important obligation that each of us as a private citizen in 
America has is to somehow translate the history of this country and to 
make sure that the children that come in the future have a full and 
knowledgeable understanding of the history of this Nation and what 
makes it great, what makes it operate, and who the people are in the 
length and breadth of this land.
  In order for the people of this House who represent this Nation to 
fulfill that solemn obligation, to extend who we are to the future, 
this Congress 30 years ago decided that we had to have

[[Page H5167]]

a National Foundation for the Humanities in order to make sure that the 
history of this Nation and our understanding of it as it began and as 
it grew and as it is today and as we would like it to be in the future 
has the awesome support and foundation in a national kind of 
responsibility, and that is why the Endowment was created.
  Each of us represents about 600,000 or 700,000 persons. We cannot 
begin to really express each and every person within our constituency, 
though that is our obligation. And so as we come to the House to meet 
our challenges, to extend the security of this Nation through 
education, we look to the National Endowment for the Humanities to help 
us in this endeavor.
  And so at this moment in our debate, to kill this national 
organization seems to me to not understand why it was created in the 
first place. It is to take each of us, 435 Members of Congress, each 
from diverse backgrounds, each from very different districts. Most of 
us cannot comprehend the districts that some Members represent. But 
surely we are the product of our district, our education, our cultural 
experience, our academic training and so forth and we come here with 
the responsibility to represent that constituency. But in this House, 
we know that we have far greater responsibilities than our own 
district. We have to represent the Nation. This Nation has a huge 
responsibility, and, that is, to unite this diverse entity called 
America and to understand it and to make sure that those things that 
are important, that began it continue on, to motivate our young people, 
to carry forth the noble traditions and principles of this democracy. 
If we simply let the States and the school systems and the private 
entities decide what is important for us as a Nation on an individual 
basis in our cities and in our school systems and in our States, we 
will lose that very important influence of the national unity of this 
country.
  This is America, the United States of 50 States and territories. It 
is our obligation as the Federal Congress to understand our 
responsibility. That is exactly what the National Endowment for the 
Humanities is, to bring forth that rich history of our country, to 
understand the diversity of this Nation, to pull all these diverse 
people together, and to let us march down into history as one people 
with the fundamental principles of Americanism and freedom and liberty 
and all the things that are important for the future of this world into 
the essence and spirit of America. That is what the National Endowment 
for the Humanities stands for. To destruct it and to say, well, private 
sectors and the individual States can carry this forward, they cannot. 
Because no individual private foundation, no individual State can 
represent the spirit of America in the way that it must be represented 
if we are to be one country and one nation.

                              {time}  1415

  So I plead with those who seek to destruct this organization to 
understand what they are doing. It is not just to save money, it is not 
to try to express some conservative belief that less government is 
better government. It is a failure to understand our individual citizen 
responsibility that we represent the United States and that we have a 
fundamental responsibility to carry forward to the future the history, 
the understanding, the diversity, the culture, what makes us a special 
people in this universe.
  I ask my colleagues not to support this amendment.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for the work that has 
gone into this bill; I thank my colleague from Cincinnati for his 
effort that has gone into this amendment. I do not agree with it, but I 
must say that there have been few amendments brought in recent weeks 
that have provoked a more constructive dialog on this floor than this 
one. It has invoked the deepest sense of what it means to be an 
American.
  As my colleagues know, 4 months ago this body in its common judgment 
decided to abandon this Capitol to go away to a small place in Hershey, 
PA to talk about those things that bind us together. We talked about 
the things that were important to us as Americans representing 260 
million Americans in all of our diversity. We came together and 
listened to David McCullough, the noted historian, who in his moving 
keynote address invoked the words of Daniel Boorstin, another noted 
historian and a former Librarian of Congress, when he suggested that 
one cannot grow a garden by planting cut flowers. His point was that we 
need to understand the genesis of where we come from in order to have a 
flourishing garden. He was suggesting that we need to know where we 
have been in order to have a sense of where we are going.
  We have been in this place before. We have been in a time when this 
body and this Nation, locked in a time of change, has been at 
intellectual war with itself. And yet we have known that we can grow 
beyond that and to conduct this conflict of ideas in a way that is 
civil and it makes some sense to the Nation.
  A hundred years ago in 1892, Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland 
conducted a campaign one of the most lackluster campaigns in the 
Nation's history at a time when it may have been more important to 
understand what the causes of history were at that time. They, like 
many of us, found themselves in a time when political leaders knew more 
than they dared to say and who worried more than they dared to show. It 
was a time when the illustrious Committee of Ten came forward to make 
recommendations to this Nation to bring about healing in a time of 
change, and the Subcommittee on History, which included even Woodrow 
Wilson relatively early in his career, argued that the importance of 
history, just as Boorstin and McCullough suggested, was at the heart of 
what it took to be Americans.
  Today, we face the same kind of demands. The Bradley Commission on 
History, a decade ago, articulated the same kinds of things when they 
suggested, as we need to derive from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, the importance of developing a shared sense of humanity, to 
understand ourselves and others, to understand how we resemble and 
differ from one another, to question stereotypes of ourselves and 
others, to discern the difference between fact and conjecture, to grasp 
the complexity of historical cause, to distrust the simple answer and 
the dismissive explanation, to respect particularity and avoid false 
analogy, to recognize the abuse of historical lessons, and to 
understand that ignorance of the past may make us prisoners of it, to 
recognize that not all problems have solutions, to be prepared for the 
irrational, the accidental, in human affairs, and to grasp the power of 
ideas and character in history.
  Perhaps no one said it better than did Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 
who in addressing the graduating class of the Harvard Law School in the 
1880s suggested that perhaps the greatest service that one can do in a 
democracy is to see the future as far as one may, to feel the force 
behind every detail, to try to hammer out products that are sound and 
come back to seek to make them first rate, and to let the results speak 
for themselves. No more cogent articulation of the importance of 
understanding where we have been and where we are going has been put 
before the Nation.
  The work that has gone into this bill is enormously important. I look 
at the kind of effort that has gone into the national heritage 
corridors, living examples of our history, understanding the forces 
that bound us together a century and a century and a half ago and that 
are every bit as important to us today. In concrete terms they 
represent what the National Endowment for the Humanities represents in 
conceptual terms, our living history embodied in the work that we do 
today.
  I thank the chairman for the work that has led to this bill. I thank 
my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, for provoking this debate, and I 
thank all my colleagues for listening to it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if we eliminate the Federal commitment 
to the arts by eliminating or severely reducing the National Endowment 
for the Arts, I believe we do a great disservice to the American 
people. Likewise, if we eliminate our commitment to the Humanities, we 
do a great disservice to our entire democracy.
  Investments in our cultural institutions, like the NEA and NEH, are 
investments in the livability of our communities. For just 38 cents per 
year per American, NEA-supported programs help enhance the quality of 
life for

[[Page H5168]]

Americans in every community in this country. For just 68 cents per 
year per American, NEH-supported programs to preserve our heritage by 
keeping our historical records intact and building citizenship by 
providing citizens to study and understand principles and practices of 
American democracy. In fact, Congress established the NEH because 
``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.''
  But the NEA and NEH do not perform this important function alone--the 
Nation's cultural support system is a complex structure pieced together 
from many different sources, including earned income, private 
donations, corporate donations, and government grants. The cultural 
heritage of our communities rely upon all those sources to remain 
whole--including the Federal commitment. It's the partnership formed by 
all these entities, from private investors, to cities, States, and the 
Federal Government, that makes the system work.
  Adequately funding the National Endowment for the Arts, in 
particular, is absolutely critical to the State of Oregon, which has 
suffered in recent years from cutbacks at the State and local levels. 
Portland and other cities in Oregon have managed to make this work by 
using public funds to leverage as much private investment as possible. 
Portland arts groups manage to attain about 68 percent of their 
financial resources from the box office, which is higher than the 
national average of 50 percent. Portland companies have stepped up to 
the plate--doubling their investment between 1990 and 1995. The public 
investment, particularly the investment from the NEA, is absolutely 
critical to preserving these opportunities.
  Why is it important to preserve these cultural investments? A 
commitment to culture pays many dividends--dividends that promote our 
economic development and our understanding of the world around us. 
Economically, an investment in culture as helped promotes tourism. 
People flock to cities that support the arts and humanities, benefiting 
hotels, convention centers, restaurants, and countless other businesses 
related to entertainment and tourism. In fact, the nonprofit arts 
industry generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, 
supports 1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the Federal 
Government in income taxes and an additional $1.2 billion in State and 
local tax revenue.
  An investment in culture also helps previously disenfranchised groups 
gain access to new cultural experiences. The NEA, for example, provides 
fun and educational arts programs for children that help students and 
teachers develop arts, environment, and urban planning curricula. 
Public funds, like those from the NEA, are also critical to keeping 
ticket prices low, giving lower income individuals and seniors the 
opportunity to attend cultural events. If ticket prices reflected the 
entire cost of the event, cultural events would by necessity be denied 
many of our citizens, especially the young and elderly.
  We won't be able to balance the budget by eliminating spending on our 
Nation's cultural heritage--and if we do so, we will lose much more as 
a society and a nation than we would ever gain in deficit reduction. 
This approach is shortsighted and doesn't recognize the long-term 
economic and social benefits an investment in culture convey to our 
communities and the Nation as a whole.
  The President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities recently rleased 
a report that could help focus our priorities for American cultural 
resources, if we listen to their recommendations--restoring Federal 
funding for cultural activities; enhancing the ability of the 
Endowments to attract and accept gifts; and ensuring that our Tax Code 
helps encourage charitable contributions.
  We have the tools, infrastructure and innovative spirit in place to 
make communities across the Nation more livable through cultural 
opportunities. What we need to promote is a national commitment to 
improving the livability of our communities by investing in culture. We 
can develop and promote that national commitment through the NEA and 
the NEH.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if a civilization is judged by its 
culture, Republicans have gone a long way toward destroying America 
with their actions in the past 2 days. Yesterday the GOP voted to 
eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, which makes theater, 
symphonies, and art programs available to Americans across the Nation.
  Today, Republicans are trying to eliminate the National Endowment for 
the Humanities, which plays a vital role in advancing the educational 
and cultural health of our Nation, and in preserving the landmarks of 
our history. The NEH has made possible a wide range of activities to 
improve the quality of education and indeed, the very quality of life 
in communities throughout the country.
  Let me tell you about just one of the projects that could not have 
happened without the help of the NEH. The Yale-New Haven Teacher's 
Institute brings public school teachers from New Haven together with 
faculty from Yale University and gives them the opportunity for in-
depth study of a variety of subjects. It gives teachers the opportunity 
to bring new materials back to their students in the public schools of 
New Haven and add to their curriculum.
  This project is seen as a model for collaborative efforts of 
universities and public schools to improve education throughout the 
United States. Yet it may not have happened without a $750,000 
challenge grant from the NEH--which spurred a fundraising drive of $3 
million in private funds to permanently endow this development program.
  The NEH and NEA make up just a tiny portion of our budget--and that 
investment pays off in so many ways, spurring jobs and private 
investment and preserving our heritage for generations to come. Who 
knows how many children have had their interest sparked in a whole new 
subject thanks to an NEH sponsored program. Don't put out that spark. 
Don't destroy our heritage. Vote against destroying the NEH.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] will 
be postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chabot) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2107), 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, l998, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________