[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9363-S9375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Ashcroft amendment No. 1188 (to committee amendment 
     beginning on page 96, line 12 through page 97, line 8) to 
     eliminate funding for programs and activities carried out by 
     the National Endowment for the Arts.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just so we will be clear what we have agreed 
to, Senator Gorton and the other manager of the bill will be here to, 
again, further debate amendments on the Interior appropriations bill. 
They have been good partners on this appropriations bill and have 
worked out some of the areas where there have been disagreements, but 
there will be amendments and, I presume, votes throughout the day on a 
number of issues, including the National Endowment for the Arts issue, 
perhaps on some mining issues. I understand perhaps the Senator from 
Arkansas has an amendment.
  But we need to make progress on the Interior appropriations bill 
because we hope to finish it tonight or tomorrow and then go to FDA at 
some point. I hope we can work out a reasonable agreement where we can 
complete the debate on the Food and Drug Administration reform bill, 
and we hope to then pretty quickly, either late this week or early next 
week, go to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. That would be 
the 13th and last appropriations bill that we would have to deal with 
this session, and then we could focus the rest of next week and the 
next week on adopting conference reports to the appropriations bills. 
We will need to move them very quickly. It will be my intent to try and 
hold time and focus on getting those conference reports agreed to.
  I appreciate the cooperation of all Senators as we try to accommodate 
one of our most beloved Senators who has a problem this morning, and we 
will begin with the Interior appropriations momentarily. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are now on the Interior appropriations 
bill once again. I believe that the first vote on that bill will be on 
the Ashcroft-Helms amendment to strike the appropriation for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. There has been discussion of several 
other amendments relating to that endowment. I believe it appropriate 
to continue that debate until the cloture vote at noon. I know that the 
majority leader hopes, and I hope, that shortly after we get back on 
the Interior appropriations bill, after our FDA vote, that we will 
begin to vote on amendments relating to the National Endowment for the 
Arts. In any event, that is the subject at the present time. I invite 
all Members who are interested in any of the amendments on the National 
Endowment for the Arts to come to the floor and speak on that subject 
between now and noon.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is time controlled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the bill which 
has been brought forth by the Senator from Washington. I think he has 
done an extraordinary job in developing this appropriations language in 
this bill relative to the Interior and various departments which the 
Interior impacts. I especially want to thank him for his sensitivity 
relative to the Northeast.
  There is a different view in this country between the Northeast and 
the West on a number of issues that involve land conservation and the 
question especially of protecting lands, public lands. In the 
Northeast, especially in northern New England, we are still struggling 
with the fact that we would like to protect some additional lands. We 
have a spectacular place called the White Mountain National Forest in 
New Hampshire, and it is the most visited national forest in the 
country. In fact, it receives more visitors per year than Yellowstone, 
which is a national park. It is under tremendous pressures from popular 
use because it is so close to the megalopolis of New York, Boston, and 
Washington.
  It is an extraordinary place, but to maintain it and to maintain its 
character, it requires that we continue to address some of the 
inholding issues around the national forest, and the Senator from the 
West has been sensitive to the Senators from the East on this point. I 
thank very much the Senator from Washington for his sensitivity in 
allowing us to go forward in this bill and complete the purchase of a 
very critical piece of land called Lake Tarleton in New Hampshire.
  In addition, he has assisted us in a number of other areas in this 
bill, and I thank him for it.
  I also want to talk about a position that has been brought forward in 
this bill relative to the National Endowment for the Arts, because I 
think the Senator from Washington has reached the appropriate balance 
in the language which he has put in this bill relative to the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  The National Endowment for the Arts, as we all know, has been a 
lightning rod of controversy, especially on the House side, less so on 
our side of the aisle, because of some of the things that the Endowment 
over the years has funded, which have been mistakes, to say the least.
  But the fact is that there is a role, in my opinion, it is a limited 
role, but there is a role for the Federal Government and for State 
governments in the area of assisting the arts in this country.
  Arts are an expression of the culture of a country or a nation, an 
expression of the attitude, personality, and the strength of a nation. 
The ability to have a vibrant arts community in a nation is critical, I 
believe, to the good health and the good education of a nation.
  The Federal role, in participating in this, should be one of an 
incubator. The Federal role should be one as the starter of the 
initiatives. And the dollars which are put in this bill for the 
purposes of assisting the NEA and the Humanities Council are just 
that--they are startup dollars.
  Essentially, these dollars multiply two times, three times, sometimes 
five times their basic number.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arkansas for a 
question.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator explained some, I think, valid points 
concerning the role of our Government support for the arts. My question 
concerns the very, very high administrative costs that the National 
Endowment has experienced, approaching 20 cents on the dollar in 
administration, and the fact that the distribution of the funds from 
the National Endowment have gone primarily to very few cities in the 
country. In fact, I think one-third of all of the direct grants go to 
six cities in the United States. And the fact is that the Whitney 
Museum in

[[Page S9364]]

one exhibit received $400,000, received as much as the entire State of 
Arkansas last year.
  So my question is, if we are to continue a Government role in funding 
the arts, would it not be better to eliminate the National Endowment, 
block grant those funds directly to the States, cutting out the 20 
percent in administrative costs and the inequities in the funding 
formulas for the funding decisions of the National Endowment--and of 
course I have offered an amendment that would do exactly that--and 
provide 45 of the 50 States with more money for the arts than they 
currently receive under the status quo approach that we find in this 
bill?
  Mr. GREGG. That is a good question. I think it is one of the 
questions which we need to answer as we go forward with this bill. And 
there are a number of amendments--I think the Senator has one; and I 
believe there are other Senators who are offering them--as to the 
proper allocation of the dollars between the States and between the 
National Arts Council which administers the Federal moneys.
  But if I can come back to that point, I want to talk generally about 
the need for Government support of the arts; and then in the allocation 
area I would like to come back to that. Because I think, first, we have 
to reach a consensus that there is a need for any dollars in the arts 
community to come from the Federal Government or from the State 
governments, and that consensus is a long way from being reached. 
Certainly on the House side they appear to be very resistant to that.
  My view is, as I was saying earlier, that there is a need for the 
Federal Government to play a role as basically the initiator of arts 
activities, as the incubator that allows the multiplier to occur that 
creates funding for the arts.
  As Governor of New Hampshire I had the same issue before me as to 
whether or not the State government should be involved in funding the 
arts. And at a time when we were having the most severe recession 
probably ever in the history of the State of New Hampshire, 
regrettably, and we were having to curtail our funding in a variety of 
areas and cut them back dramatically, I maintained the arts funding, in 
fact increased it a little bit in the State because I felt strongly 
that, first, it gave definition and it gave a way of viewing our 
culture that was critical and, second, it also had a very positive 
impact, especially in New Hampshire, on our tourist industry.
  The arts--performing arts especially; but all forms of arts--go hand 
in hand, at least in New Hampshire, with the ability of the tourist 
industry, which happens to be our largest employer, to be a successful 
and vibrant industry.
  So there is an economic benefit of significant proportions to having 
a strong arts community. The investment which the State or the Federal 
Government makes in the arts community pays back not only in the way of 
getting more people involved in the arts, getting more schoolchildren 
involved in the arts, getting more parents involved with their kids in 
the arts, but also in the manner of producing economic activity which 
is fairly significant.
  The Senator from Arkansas has raised a very legitimate issue. I know 
his amendment raised this issue, an issue I raised in committee as a 
member of the authorizing committee. I sit on both the authorizing 
committee and have the good fortune to work with the Senator from 
Washington on the Appropriations Committee. But he has raised the 
issue, what is the proper allocation here? I think that is proper for 
debate. How much of the money should be retained with the central arts 
planning here in Washington and how much should go out to the States?
  I have always felt a larger percentage should go out to the States 
because I think that you get more benefit for the dollars spent at the 
State level. Therefore, a change in the formula would be something that 
I might well be amenable to. I have actually proposed such changes in 
committee. But I do think there is also a role, and I do not happen to 
believe we should eliminate a central arts council that manages a 
percentage of the dollars out of Washington.
  Why is that? Basically because there are a number of national efforts 
which do transcend State lines which need to get their funding out of a 
national fund as versus out of a State fund.
  For example, I believe the No. 1 item chosen by the NEA this year to 
fund--they have a competition obviously and, unfortunately, sometimes 
they choose some really poor ideas--but the No. 1 item that was agreed 
to on their list was to bring back out of mothballs the Egyptian 
exhibit which is now owned by the Brooklyn Museum. This is one of the 
most expansive exhibits of Egyptian art and artifacts in the world. It 
is competitive with the English collection and not completely 
competitive but certainly representative of even the collections in 
Cairo.
  These items had been sort of put in storage and collecting dust. Now 
the Brooklyn Museum has decided to bring them back. And I believe they 
are taking this around the country. It will be exceptionally 
educational for a large number of schoolchildren who participate in 
seeing this exhibit. It will be a national effort. That is the type of 
initiative that really should be supported from the national level as 
versus having to be absorbed by, for example, the State of New York 
which will obviously benefit from this exhibit but actually the whole 
country will benefit from it because it is going to travel around the 
country. There are other items, yes, that obviously are of a national 
nature and, yes, most of those institutions which are of a national 
nature, whether it be the New York Symphony or some sort of major 
proposal in Chicago or Los Angeles are centered in your major urban 
areas. That is just a fact of life. They are centered there for a 
variety of reasons and, therefore, those major urban areas do get a 
disproportionate amount of the national share of the NEA funding.

  But that is inevitably going to the happen that way as long as you 
have a national program that is trying to move these various cultural 
activities across the country. You are going to have to have a place 
where they are located where they start. The Boston Pops is in Boston, 
but it certainly has an impact across the country. Therefore, the main 
art centers of this Nation--and they do happen to be in your major 
urban areas--are always going to receive a disproportionate amount of 
the funds. So that does not bother me so much.
  What I do think is legitimate is the question of the proper 
allocation between the funds going to the National Endowment for the 
Arts versus going to the States. I do think we can take another look at 
that formula. I know the Senator from Arkansas is going to make a very 
aggressive and effective point for restructuring that formula, for 
restructuring the entire institution.
  I look forward to hearing his position on this. But I did want to 
make these initial comments first in support of the overall bill which 
I think the Senator from Washington has done an extraordinarily good 
job on and, second, in support of the basic thrust of his proposals 
relative to the endowments which are going to be the most controversial 
items I guess we will be hearing about on the floor. I yield back my 
time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Just responding to some of the comments of my colleague concerning 
the National Endowment for the Arts and the need to preserve and 
maintain that national entity, I think that if the record is examined, 
as it has been examined by the General Accounting Office and the 
inspector general's office, that the record of the National Endowment 
is not only deplorable but fails to justify its continued funding and 
continued existence.
  The issue of whether or not the Government plays a role in funding 
for the arts aside, the best means of providing the limited funding, 
the $100 million approximately that has been appropriated for arts this 
year directly in the NEA, I think is clear that that money would best 
be used by eliminating the existence of the National Endowment and 
allowing the funds to flow directly to the Governors, to the various 
States for distribution to those programs and those projects and those 
artists within the States that are most deserving.
  In fact, the notion that we are better off with a national endowment 
that

[[Page S9365]]

funds six States disproportionately, that funds certain congressional 
districts and certain States disproportionately, cannot be validated 
and cannot continue to be justified.
  We have a General Accounting Office report indicating that the 
administrative costs of the NEA, at almost 20 cents on the dollar, is 
higher than most other Federal agencies, much, much higher than the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  The mission statement for the National Endowment is simply that they 
are to broaden access to the arts. In effect, they are mandated to 
provide arts to underserved areas in this country. Yet, if you look at 
where the National Endowment today is sending those funds, it in no way 
corresponds to the mission that they have been given by this Congress 
to serve those areas which are, if you will, culturally deprived or who 
have less access to these arts programs.
  Six cities getting over one-third of the direct grants from the NEA 
cannot be justified. When we had--and the chairman is on the floor this 
morning--our hearing on the National Endowment in April, and Jane 
Alexander came in and testified before us, I questioned her as to why, 
in view of the mission of the NEA to provide arts for underserved 
areas, in view of that mission, why, out of 12 grant proposals from the 
State of Arkansas last year, was only 1 approved and the Arkansas Arts 
Council got approximately $400,000 last year. That equates to little 
more than many grants for single exhibits across this country.
  Her answer was that it is only in certain select States that we find 
the environment such to foster the arts. And she gave the analogy of 
growing apples. She said, apples grow everywhere, but there are certain 
areas of the country in which they are more productive. I think the 
implication that there are parts of this country that do not have 
potential artists, there are parts of this country that among their 
populations do not have those ready to blossom into writers and 
sculptors and authors, I think, is the very epitome of the elitism that 
the American people find so offensive by the National Endowment.
  So to my colleagues who believe that there is an important role that 
the Government plays in subsidizing and supporting arts, to those of my 
colleagues who feel very adamantly that we must show our support to 
culture and to the arts in general in this country by providing some 
seed money, I ask you to consider the possibility that we would be far 
better off eliminating the controversial and I think indefensible 
actions of the National Endowment, eliminate the NEA as it has 
traditionally existed, and allow that appropriation, exactly the same 
amount of money, the $100 million to be sent directly to the States on 
this basis: A $500,000 grant to every State, $200,000 to every 
territory, the remainder of the appropriation to be distributed on a 
strictly per capita basis.
  I ask you, could anything be more fair than that? If we took that 
simple formula, and we said that there will only be 1 percent spent for 
administrative costs on the Federal level, that the Department of 
Treasury can spend no more than $1 million to write those checks, and 
that the State arts councils or the State legislatures or the Governors 
can spend no more than 15 percent in overhead, that if we adopt that 
simple formula, the result is that 45 of the 50 States will come out 
ahead, that 45 of the 50 States will have more resources to fund arts 
in their States than under the current status quo which this bill, with 
all due respect, maintains.
  I simply ask my colleagues in the Senate, how can we, with a straight 
face, no matter which side we are on on the concept of whether the 
Government ought to be involved in the arts, how can we, with a 
straight face, face our constituents and say, we are going to defend 20 
percent administrative costs, we are going to defend one-third of the 
grants going to six cities, we are going to defend three-fourths of the 
grants going to congressional districts represented by Democrats?
  I just want to tell you, Mr. President, I do not believe those 
congressional districts represented by Democrats in this country are 
intrinsically less cultured or more culturally deprived or in more need 
of those arts grants than those congressional districts that happen to 
be represented by Republicans. Yet there has been a clear bias, with 75 
cents out of every $1 going to congressional districts represented by 
Democrats.
  It has been very selective funding by a group of elitists in 
Washington, bureaucrats in Washington, who make themselves the arbiters 
of what is good art and what is culture and where it should be funded.
  So I say consider an option that would say we will end the National 
Endowment, we will block grant the money to the States on a fair, fair, 
fair formula based upon the resident population. The result is that 45 
States are going to have more money for the arts, more money to help 
the local writer, more money to go to the schools for education 
programs in the arts, more money to help that struggling artist who may 
not have an opportunity and may not happen to live in the six blessed 
cities that have been honored by the NEA with over one-third of the 
grants.
  So when this amendment is debated and when this amendment is voted 
on, I trust later today, I ask my colleagues to look at that breakdown, 
to look at that chart, and to consider the fact that their State will 
come out ahead, that their Governor, their State legislature, or their 
State arts council will have more money to support their local efforts 
than under the status quo.
  Remember that we are not responsible to a few culture elitists. We 
are responsible to our constituents in our States for how those limited 
resources are spent and how we can support the arts. I believe it is 
fair. I believe it is equitable. I believe it makes eminent common 
sense. If we will just break out of our lock that the status quo has 
held over us in the disproportionate influence that this group at the 
NEA has had in this Congress and consider that there might be a better 
way, then I think the moral high ground is certainly on behalf of this 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it later today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from Arkansas has a minute, I would like 
to ask a question or two about this subject. I certainly support him in 
his effort.
  I believe it was Senator Helms yesterday who talked about substantial 
grants being given to Harvard University, which has an endowment of 
over $6 billion, I believe, and Yale University. Does the Senator know 
if those figures are correct? Are there universities, let me ask, in 
Arkansas who could use funding from the National Endowment for the Arts 
equally as those great universities?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question and 
thank him for his support and cosponsorship of this amendment.
  My answer is an unequivocal yes, that is accurate; the incidents that 
Senator Helms cited, to my knowledge, are accurate. And I secondly 
answer your question by saying, yes, there are many institutions in 
Arkansas very interested in the arts, very interested in promoting the 
arts within the State of Arkansas, many that have a great relationship 
with the local schools and foster arts education in those local schools 
who would rejoice at having additional funds.
  The State of Arkansas would more than double what would be available 
for arts in the State of Arkansas by going to the block grant approach.
  Senator Gregg, commenting earlier, was defending the distribution of 
these funds to a few select cities--one-third of all grants going to 
six cities. I say that many of those institutions currently receiving 
grants, like the Boston Symphony or like the Metropolitan Opera, are 
very well endowed, have very high annual incomes, have a huge base of 
support, and are less needy and less dependent upon any kind of Federal 
help than, say, the University of Arkansas or the University of Central 
Arkansas, or the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, or the many 
other fine institutions in Arkansas that would be able to work with our 
local schools and the Arkansas Arts Council, which received just a 
little over $400,000 last year. That was all the State of Arkansas 
received. The Whitney Museum by itself received almost as much as the 
State of Arkansas, and if I am correct, I believe the State of Alabama 
was in a similar dilemma.

[[Page S9366]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Whitney funding almost matched the entire funding of 
the State of Alabama. It is a concern.
  We have one of the finest Shakespeare festivals in the world. As a 
matter of fact, the Shakespeare theater in Montgomery is well renowned, 
and people have contributed very heavily of themselves. The former 
Postmaster General Winton Blount had gone beyond the call of duty in 
helping create this facility. We only got $15,000 for that premier, 
world-class facility that is supported substantially by the gifts of 
local residents.
  Let me ask you, if the money came to the State, would they be able if 
they so chose to give more money to the Shakespeare theater in 
Montgomery? Would they be able to do that?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That, of course, is the whole concept behind our 
amendment--local control. Send the money back to the States, the 
Governors, the State legislatures, and the State arts council would 
have the discretion to increase funding.
  In the case of Alabama, and I do not have the exact numbers in front 
of me, but the amount of resources available to the State of Alabama 
would be greatly enhanced under the block grants approach in which we 
send a $500,000 grant to every State, and then simply distribute it on 
a per capita basis. That would allow the State of Alabama to give much 
more to the Shakespearean theater.
  I was interested to hear your comments yesterday quoting Anthony 
Hopkins and his appreciation for that Shakespeare theater there in 
Montgomery.
  So the needed resources would be much more available, and that would 
be controlled locally. So insomuch as there was local support in 
Alabama for increased funding, I think the opportunity would be much 
enhanced.
  Frankly, I am puzzled why anyone would oppose the approach that you 
and I are offering. I can understand the 5 States that would lose 
funding being opposed to this, but the 45 States and the Senators from 
the 45 States that would see their funding for the arts increased under 
our approach while eliminating bureaucracy in Washington, it is really 
difficult for me to see how someone objects to that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Let me ask the Senator this, and this is something I 
think we failed to think enough about, Mr. President. This money that 
is being spent in our States, the decision of where and how to spend 
that money primarily is being decided by a group of people in 
Washington. Under this procedure not only will 45 States have more 
money--correct me if I am wrong--45 States will have more money, but 
they will also have more control and be able to make the decisions that 
they feel would be the best use of that money; is that correct?

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Senator Sessions, you are exactly right. One of the 
areas that this Republican-controlled Congress has pushed for most 
strongly has been local control. In welfare reform, in a whole host of 
areas, we said, ``Let's flow that power back out of Washington, back to 
the States.''
  There is no better example, I think, of where we could do that than 
in the area of the arts. We not only have a 20-percent overhead that we 
are paying just by having this bureaucracy of almost 150 employees 
dispensing this money, but we have a small group that makes decisions 
on what will be funded across this country, if you will, making 
themselves the arbiters of what is good art, and the control of our 
constituents is minimized because of the distance, the inability to 
really affect the decisions that are made.
  So, yes, I think the citizens of Alabama, the citizens of my home 
State of Arkansas, will have much greater input dealing with the 
Arkansas Arts Council or the Alabama Legislature, or the Governor's 
office than trying to affect the decisions that are made in Washington, 
DC, by a select group.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I understand one of the grants that was reported 
yesterday went to Philipps Academy, one of the most exclusive private 
prep schools, I think, in America. That is what I understood the 
reference to be. Do you think there are schools, public schools, 
throughout Arkansas and Alabama and other States in this Nation that 
would also likewise be able to make a claim for this money? And are any 
of those receiving any moneys from the National Endowment for the Arts 
in Arkansas and Alabama? In Alabama no private or public schools are 
receiving money as happened in the Northeast.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe those local schools in rural communities 
across our States and all across this country have a much more 
legitimate claim to those funds than where those funds have gone under 
the current status quo of the NEA.
  I grew up in a town with a population, when I lived there, of 894. I 
can remember in junior high school it being one of the great thrills 
when we were able to take a field trip 40 miles to the University of 
Arkansas and watch a Shakespearean play. That is the first time I had 
ever seen a Shakespearean play.
  Those kind of opportunities to the small communities of this country 
would be increased so much if we eliminated the Washington bureaucracy 
and allowed that money to flow back to the States.
  The objectionable art, Senator Sessions, that you cited yesterday, 
that Senator Helms spent a great deal of time on, that has 
characterized much of the debate around the NEA in recent years--if a 
local arts council, the State arts council, or State legislature or 
Governor made a decision to fund something that the mass of the people 
found highly objectionable, I guarantee you they will be more 
responsible in that State legislature or that State arts council, or 
that Governor will be far more responsive to the complaints of the 
people than a faraway bureaucracy in Washington, DC, in some ivory 
tower making those decisions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree with that and I support this 
bill wholeheartedly.
  I had an outstanding conversation with the three leaders and 
directors of three orchestras in Alabama. They are concerned about 
funding. They need the little funding that we do get. It helps them. 
They do not want to lose that. I can understand that. I asked them if 
we could come up with a way that will leave the bureaucracy and put 
more money in your hand, with more freedom to spend it as you wish, 
would you support that? And they said, yes, of course they would.
  I know some people believe and have committed themselves to 
supporting the National Endowment for the Arts, but the truth is it is 
not performing in a good and healthy way, it is not doing a good job of 
putting money to the arts, it is not invigorating the arts and 
providing leadership for an enhancement of the good and beautiful and 
fine in America. Too often, it is, in fact, participating in a 
degradation of the quality of art in America.
  What we need to do is make sure it is done right. I believe the 
people at the Alabama Arts Council, the arts councils in the other 
States around this country, if given the opportunity, would spend that 
money wisely. They would be much less likely to give it to the arcane, 
the pornographic, the bizarre, and the just plain silly that is so 
often happening today. It is just not acceptable.
  It is time for this body to follow through. It is time for this body, 
after years of begging and pleading with the National Endowment for the 
Arts to do a better job to manage their money better, to put an end to 
it and make sure that what we do actually supports the arts in an 
effective way. That is why I support this amendment.
  I am so proud of the Senator from Arkansas for his outstanding work 
on it, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, and the Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for their outstanding teamwork in putting this 
proposal together, which is a win-win situation for all America. It 
puts more money in the arts, and it will eliminate waste, bureaucracy, 
and silly funding projects.
  I think it is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to use just a few moments this 
morning to talk about this appropriations bill that is pending before 
the Senate and two projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
that the distinguished chairman, Senator Slade Gorton, had put into the 
bill but subjected them to prior authorization: The so-called 
Headwaters acquisition in California which could cost $250 million; is 
that correct, Senator Gorton?

[[Page S9367]]

  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And the so-called New World Mine in Montana, which is 
an effort to acquire a mine before it is mined. That is in Montana. I 
believe it would cost $65 million.
  Now, I am not here on the floor of the Senate to tell the Senate that 
these projects are good, should be done, or should not be done. But I 
am here to tell them absolutely and unequivocally that if the 
administration, through whatever source, is telling Senators that the 
budget agreement reflected that these projects should be funded, I am 
here to tell the Senate that is not true.
  Now, if the administration wants to say these are their high-priority 
items, which they have told the distinguished chairman, they are free 
to do that. In fact, they are free to do anything. Let me tell you that 
in the ritual and integrity of the agreement, they have spoken about 
these projects and some others. But we did not agree how the $700 
million in new money that we included in this budget agreement should 
be spent. So one would say, well, how should it be spent? Well, 
obviously, it was to be spent in a typical manner of spending money out 
of the land and water conservation fund. Congress and the White House 
have to work together to decide what they want to do. There is no 
priority treatment in this budget arrangement in any way, shape, or 
form.
  Now, what I would like to do just visually for everyone so that they 
will understand. I have before me and I am holding up an agreement 
called the bipartisan budget agreement, May 15, 1997. Now, it is 
historic. Nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the 
Senate, where the leadership from the Senate and House signed an 
agreement with the White House to do things in a budget. In this 
agreement, if you look at it, from its 1st page until its 24th page, 
and two attached letters relevant to taxes, you will not find the names 
of these two acquisitions--Headwaters Forest or the New World Mine--
mentioned. It is not in this agreement. Now, one might say, does it 
have to be? Yes. If it is a priority item that negotiators agreed would 
be done, it is in this agreement. If anybody wants to look at it, they 
can do so.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. GORTON. But I take it, Mr. President, that the $700 million for 
the land and water conservation fund is, in fact, in that agreement, is 
that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I am going to turn to that right now. It is in 
the agreement. Anybody who wants to look at it can look at page 19. 
There is a chart in here that says what this fund is about. 
Essentially, it says that we have decided that $700 million can be set 
aside, at the option of the Congress, to be used for land acquisition, 
and a budget flow even shows how it will be spent. And the language 
says the $700 million, if spent for priority Federal land acquisition, 
can be done in excess of the caps for discretionary spending. That is 
why the U.S. House did not even put it in their appropriations bill, 
because there is nothing in this agreement that mandates it. It says 
that if you include $700 million for land acquisition, then when you 
spend it, the budget credits it to the appropriations committee.
  Mr. GORTON. But I ask the Senator from New Mexico, there is nothing 
there that mentions any specific project?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assumed everybody would be looking at the agreement. 
You are correct. Verbally, I state there are three footnotes, there are 
two charts, and nowhere in that do these two projects appear. They are 
not mentioned.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I want to tell you one other thing. The two 
instruments that judge our budget responsibility, vis-a-vis the 
President, what have we agreed to do with our President--frankly, they 
are not enforceable and everybody knows that, but we have agreed to do 
it. Might I say that this chairman, Senator Slade Gorton, has taken the 
agreements that are stated and he has followed them. As a matter of 
fact, one found on page 24 of the agreement and is also in the budget 
resolution, which I will talk to in a moment, was approximately a $74 
million increase for Indian tribal priority allocation funding. Senator 
Gorton had a meeting and asked, ``Is that a priority agreement that we 
agreed with?'' I said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``So it will be funded.'' Is 
that not right?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, the only other instrument that has anything 
whatsoever to do with implementing this 24-page historic agreement is 
the budget resolution itself because what we chose to do is to put in 
the budget resolution the priority requirements of this agreement. So 
that if you look at page 23 of the budget resolution, you find a 
description of the $700 million for land acquisitions and exchanges, 
but no mention of any single project--not a single project mentioned. 
It merely states very precisely what I told the Senate 4 minutes ago 
when I said how the $700 million was to be set up. That is what it 
says.
  But conversely, throughout this agreement, throughout this budget 
resolution, when we have agreed on a specific program in this 
agreement, it is found in this resolution. So, Senator, if you want to 
look at this agreement and say, what did the Congress and the President 
say about Head Start, that might be a question you could put to me. I 
would say that we agreed in this agreement that Head Start was a 
priority. Lo and behold, you will find in the budget resolution that 
Head Start, in the function on education, is listed, and guess what? 
The dollar amount that we agreed upon is in the budget resolution.
  Now, frankly, I think it is absolutely patent that had we agreed to 
these two projects--and I repeat that I am not sure how I will vote 
when we really have them before us in a proper mode. I am not sure how 
I will vote in the committee that authorizes them. But the pure 
simplicity of what I have just explained would say that if we agreed to 
these two projects, you would find them in one of these agreements. In 
fact, if you found them in the 24-page agreement, you would find them 
in the function of the budget that funds these kinds of projects, and 
they would be stated there. Now, I note the chairman is on the floor 
with a question. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. GORTON. So, I ask the Senator from New Mexico, then the bill that 
I drafted and is being debated on the floor here today regarding 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior includes both the 
$700 million for the land and water conservation fund and a specific 
mention and, therefore, a degree of priority, for the New World Mine 
and for the California redwood purchase; this bill, in fact, goes 
beyond and is more specific than the budget agreement itself, is that 
not correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No question. But you might say, in this respect, it is 
contemplated that if the Congress, and thus the Senate as the 
initiator, at some point in time wanted to implement the $700 million 
fund, they would at some time have to decide what they are going to 
spend it on. At that point in time, however they decided, the White 
House and Congress would engage in a political dialog in the normal 
way, with each having its strengths; namely, a vote here, and namely, 
the President says I don't want it, do it another way; that is typical. 
That would be envisioned as part of how you would decide how to spend 
it.
  Mr. GORTON. And so when the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], chairing 
the committee on which, incidentally, each of us serves as well, states 
that he has a number of questions about the very complicated 
transactions for these two projects proposed by the President and 
wishes to deal with those in the normal course of authorizing 
legislation, he, the Senator from Alaska, in the view of the Senator 
from New Mexico, is taking a quite reasonable position?
  Mr. DOMENICI. As a matter of fact, the budget agreement doesn't say 
whether he should authorize them or not authorize them. The budget 
agreement speaks of allocating this money to this committee. But as I 
said, it does not prescribe the spending of the money in this committee 
on these projects. That is a legislative matter to be dealt with with 
the executive branch in the normal relationship that we have on 
spending money. It seems to me that the last thing that makes

[[Page S9368]]

this argument most rational is that if you didn't put the $700 million 
in at all, there could not be a letter sent around saying ``you 
violated the budget agreement.''

  As a matter of fact, the letter being sent by the administration--
frankly, I want everybody to know I am trying desperately to get 
everybody to comply with the budget agreement. We are not complying in 
every respect. Nobody is finding this Senator running around saying you 
don't have to. Maybe others are, but I am not. Frankly, when the 
administration, under letter of September 11, a statement of 
administration policy, on the first page of that communication, it 
says: ``In addition, the committee bill contains provisions that 
violate the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, such as the provision to 
require additional unnecessary authorizing language for key land 
acquisition in Montana and California.''
  It urges the Senate to strike that. They can urge that we strike it, 
but we are not striking it because it violates the budget agreement; we 
may or may not do it for some other reason. So, Senator, I wanted to 
come down here and make sure, since many Senators have stopped me and 
asked me if we agreed to these two projects, my answer is no.
  Now, are we forbidden from agreeing upon them and the $700 million to 
be used for them? Absolutely not. You are not disagreeing with that. As 
a matter of fact, you spend it. But you are saying that before we spend 
it we want to see what the authorizing committees say about that. I 
believe, to assume that you cannot authorize a project for the land and 
water conservation fund, which would give its resources from the $700 
million, is arguing an uncertainty. I mean, that can't be. We never 
said anything about that. Congress retained that right. Anything we 
didn't agree upon, the Congress can do. It is just that they can't do 
anything inconsistent with it.
  I could go on, Senator, but I think the Senate will take my word that 
if you look at the agreement and find specifics that are priorities, 
you will find them in the budget resolution, which this Senate passed 
overwhelmingly. Theres a lot of things in it that Senators said they 
didn't know were in it. That is not my fault. I will tell you that 
specifics like Head Start and specifics like a new program for literacy 
are found in the agreement as priorities, and they are found in the 
resolution--resolved that--priorities such as these shall be funded to 
the extent of so many million dollars.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico believes, under those 
circumstances, we are obligated to keep our part of the agreement?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from New Mexico feels that if we don't 
follow those, that a letter like this one from the administration, 
under cover of September 11, could clearly say this bill does not fund 
a priority item that was agreed upon. Therefore, it violates the budget 
agreement. I would not be here saying the correspondence is inaccurate, 
incorrect. It would be wrong. In this case, it is not.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just ask the Senator, because I don't intend to speak 
longer and clutter the Record unnecessarily, but would he think I 
should make the bipartisan agreement a part of the Record?
  Mr. GORTON. Why don't you make the relevant page of the bipartisan 
agreement a part of the Record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that page 19 of 
the agreement between the executive branch and the Congress be printed 
in the Record for purposes of showing how the priority land acquisition 
was described on the page of the agreement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                       Environmental reserve fund

               [Outlay increases in millions of dollars]

Orphan share spending:
    1998............................................................200
    1999............................................................200
    2000............................................................200
    2001............................................................200
    2002............................................................200
    5-Year Spending...............................................1,000
    10-Year Spending..............................................2,028

The proposal would provide new mandatory spending for orphan shares at 
Superfund hazardous waste cleanup sites. Orphan shares are portions of 
financial liability at Superfund sites allocated to non-Federal parties 
with limited or no ability to pay.
The funds will be reserved for this purpose based on the assumption of 
a policy agreement on orphan share spending.


            Priority Federal land acquisitions and exchanges

               [Outlay increases in millions of dollars]

Priority Federal Land Acquisitions and Exchanges:
    1998............................................................300
    1999............................................................150
    2000............................................................150
    2001............................................................100
    2002...............................................................
    5-Year Spending.................................................700
    10-Year Spending................................................700

Under this proposal, up to $315 million would be available from the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to finalize priority Federal 
land exchanges in FY 1998 and FY 1999.
Funding from the LWCF for other high priority Federal land acquisitions 
and exchanges (totaling $385 million) would be available in fiscal 
years 1999 through 2001.
The funding will be allocated to function 3000 as a reserve fund 
exclusively for this purpose.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't choose to put the budget resolution in the 
Record because it was adopted. I assume if anybody wants to refer to 
any changes on education or to find specifics on the crime section 
where we obligated funds for the FBI, et cetera, I assume you can look 
in the budget resolution and find it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have not heard every speech on the 
question of the National Endowment for the Arts. I know about the 
principal amendments. Frankly, the amendments that most intrigue me are 
those that propose for block grant. I am not sure I am going to vote 
for anything that provides for a block grant, based on what I know 
about the proposals that are being made. But I will come back to that 
in just a moment.
  I would like to share with my colleagues one of the reasons I am a 
strong supporter of the National Endowment for the Arts. If I were 
``king,'' we would be putting over $1 billion a year into the program, 
maybe more than that, because I personally feel that it provides the 
kind of cultural benefit that is not only sorely lacking in this 
country, but is diminishing. Mr. President, $100 million represents 
one-tenth of 1 percent of our $1.6 trillion-plus budget. That is 38 
cents for every American citizen to provide programs that enrich the 
culture of this Nation and give a lot of youngsters who would not 
otherwise have the opportunity the absolute, abject joy of enjoying 
music, good literature, and dance.

  I can tell you that no nation has ever really prospered well that 
didn't have a culture that embraced the performing arts and the fine 
arts.
  I am sorry Mapplethorpe ever got a grant. That is the thing that set 
off the firestorm in the country, from which we have never recovered in 
the Congress. But let me go back.
  I grew up in Charleston, AR, with a population during the Depression 
of 851 people. The only cultural enrichment we got in that town was a 
high school band. It was started when I was a sophomore in high school. 
So I took band and became a trumpet player and later became trumpet 
player in the University of Arkansas band as well as drum major of the 
Razorback Band--because I had learned some music in the high school 
band. I might add that we were extremely fortunate because we had an 
unusual band director, a brilliant man. He used to gather some members 
of the band at his home in the evening. We listened to great music--
Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Sibelius--and that is when I developed, as a 
very young teenager, a keen appreciation for symphonic music. We went 
to Jackson, MS, to a regional band contest, and our sextet won first 
place. Not only were we learning something about good music, but we 
were also learning something about how one builds his ego, his self-
esteem, and his pride out of this little town.
  So when I went to the University of Arkansas, as I said, I was in the 
band, sang in the university chorus, went to all the drama 
presentations, and then I went into the Marine Corps.
  After the war--I told this story a couple of years ago on the floor 
of the Senate--I was waiting to come home. I was in Hawaii. One day I 
saw a bulletin saying that anybody interested in Shakespeare should 
show up at such and such a barracks this evening at 7 o'clock. So I 
went. Lord knows I had

[[Page S9369]]

never been exposed to Shakespeare. The man who had put the sign up and 
who was going to teach Shakespeare turned out to be a Harvard professor 
of Shakespearean literature. He had a tape recorder. Tape recorders 
were unheard of then. I had never seen a tape recorder, and I certainly 
had never spoken into one, and, therefore, I didn't know what my voice 
sounded like.
  So, after giving us about a 1-hour lecture on Shakespeare, he took 
his tape recorder, and he said, ``I am going to deliver a couple of 
lines from Hamlet's Speech to the Players.'' He had a magnificent 
baritone voice with that Shakespearean accent. He spoke into his 
microphone, ``Speak the speech, I pray you.'' And then he went on. I 
could tell it to you now. I do not want to bore you with it. But I can 
still remember every word of it.
  So, when he played it back, it was so beautiful to hear this 
mellifluous voice. Then he handed it to me and said, ``Here, you do 
it.'' He put the lines in front of me, and I spoke into the tape 
recorder. Then he played it back. I could not believe how poorly I 
spoke.
  You know, I took a vow that evening that I did not want to sound like 
that. I wanted to have a rich tone of voice like he had. But, more than 
anything else, I discovered that there was a lot of literature that I 
knew nothing about that could be very enriching.
  So, I came back, and I studied diction and debate. I began, on 
occasions when I got a chance, to go to all the drama presentations. 
Most people in this audience are frustrated actors. But my point is all 
of that had such a powerful influence on my life. I daresay, if it had 
not been for those experiences, I would have never been Governor of my 
State, and I certainly wouldn't be standing here as a U.S. Senator. 
These are the sort of experiences that the National Endowment for the 
Arts funds for so many youngsters, experiences that they would never 
otherwise have.
  When I was Governor, my wife was looking for some way to use her 
position as First Lady to benefit the children of Arkansas. Nancy 
Hanks, who was then Chairman of the National Endowment, came to 
Arkansas at Betty's invitation. Betty talked Nancy Hanks into giving 
her a $50,000 grant to do a small pilot program of art in the first 
grade. Betty had been an art major. She thought children ought to be 
exposed to art in the first grade.

  So, the National Endowment, because of her appeal to Nancy Hanks, 
gave her $50,000, and she started a few programs. Today programs of 
that sort are common. Every first grade in Arkansas has art. It is 
mandated now.
  She had a little left over from the $50,000, so she decided she would 
take it down to the prison and see if any of the inmates had any talent 
for art. It was absolutely amazing how much talent the inmates had. All 
I could think about was how many of those people might not have been in 
prison if somebody had picked up on either their artistic talent or 
maybe some musical talent that had never been explored.
  Do you know something, Mr. President? When I became Governor of my 
State, the prisons were in such horrible condition that they were under 
the control of the Federal courts. We couldn't do anything in the 
prisons without Federal court approval, they were so terrible. I was 
sort of hesitant to go down there. But I went. I was doing everything I 
could to improve the condition of our prisons. You know what Winston 
Churchill said once that you can tell more about a civilization by the 
way they treat their elderly and the conditions of their prisons than 
anything else. It is a strange thing but probably true.
  So, I started going down to have lunch with the inmates. I would 
visit with them. I visited with the hardened killers that were on death 
row. I can tell you, I don't believe in all my conversations with the 
inmates in the Arkansas prisons that I ever visited one who had a role 
in the senior class play in high school, who played in the band, who 
had a college degree--though there were a few there--or who owned his 
own home. Nobody is shocked at that. We know who is in the prisons--
people from broken homes, people who are uneducated, and people who 
never had a dog's chance as far as learning anything about art, 
literature, or music.
  I can tell you that the $100 million we spend on this program may be 
the most productive money we spend. It is tragic that it is not at 
least 10 times more than it is. You think about the greatest Nation on 
Earth, the United States, spending 38 cents per person per year to 
support the arts while Canada and France spend $32, almost 100 times 
more per person than we do. In Germany, it is $27 per person. My 
colleague and I share a concern. I heard his speech a moment ago. He 
comes at it a little differently than I would. But certainly his 
argument about how much our home State gets is, in my opinion, a valid 
argument. We got about $400,000 this year. I think that in the past we 
have gotten as much as $500,000. But, if you disbursed the $100 million 
of the National Endowment for the Arts money according to population, 
we would get $1 million. We have 1 percent of the population of this 
country. We would get $1 million. We feel a little slighted.
  But there is another dimension to it. That is, if we are going to do 
block grants to the States, some money should be held aside for 
national programs that serve all of the States, such as PBS, public 
broadcasting. I see a lot of fine shows on PBS that are partially 
funded by NEA grants. In my opinion, many of those shows would not be 
there for all to enjoy without that funding. If you didn't have the 
National Endowment, a lot of national programs that benefit everybody, 
even National Public Radio in Alaska and West Virginia, would not 
exist.
  Second, the national programs that are funded by the National 
Endowment for the Arts raise an average of $12 in matching money for 
every dollar that NEA provides. In my State, we leverage $3 in matching 
funds for all the money you send to Arkansas. And we are proud of that.
  So, I am not so sure that, if you put these block grants out, you are 
not going to wind up losing a lot of matching dollars.
  Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas has an amendment that has 
some appeal to me. It provides 75 percent of the money in block grants. 
I think maybe 60 percent for openers would be better. So I am not 
totally opposed to that. But I am not going to vote for any proposal to 
block-grant money that does not carry with it a mandate for matching 
money. If we are going to match money, as we do in Arkansas now, $3 for 
every $1, why not require the same of block grant recipients?
  When you consider how much money the arts produce in this country--
between $30 and $40 billion a year--and you think about how much income 
tax we collect a year from the arts, we are big winners. The $100 
million is peanuts compared to the $ 3.4 billion in revenue the arts 
generate in this country.
  I am not going to take much more time here. I see we have other 
speakers wishing to speak. But there are some national programs that we 
need to continue funding with this money. The YMCA is putting culture 
programs in its facilities throughout the country with NEA support. 
There are a lot of NEA-funded regional dance tours, a lot of national 
dance tours, and programs for children everywhere.
  Incidentally, when I played in the high school band we thought we 
were pretty good. At the bi-State band contest with Oklahoma, the Iowa 
State band performed on the stage of the Fort Smith High School. I had 
never heard a really great band before. We only had 30 members in our 
band. Here was this Iowa State band with 150 members, and when that 
conductor brought his baton down, I thought I was going to faint. I had 
never heard such music. So it was, the first time I ever went to a 
symphony. I am telling you, these things are important to the culture 
of this country. I do not for the life of me understand the antipathy 
that some of the Members of this body have for what I consider to be 
absolutely essential and basic to the character of this country. It is 
important that we give a lot of citizens of this country access to the 
performing and fine arts. That would never happen if it were not for 
this program.
  I look forward to the day--I will not be here, Mr. President, after 
next year--but I yearn for the day when we treat this program with the 
respect and the money it deserves. And, like so many other things, if 
we do away with it and let that bulwark of our culture slip into 
oblivion, we will pay a very heavy price for it.

[[Page S9370]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can only add a little bit to what the 
Senator from Arkansas has just said. I wish he would not be leaving the 
Senate. I have told him that a hundred times, but I will say it one 
more time.
  Mr. President, as a Senator from Minnesota, I rise in support of the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. I am troubled we are out here on the floor, again defending 
the Federal role in really supporting the arts in communities all 
across our country. Some of my colleagues are arguing that, with their 
block grant proposals to States, they really support the NEA. This will 
just get the money to States in a more efficient manner, a more timely 
manner. But these amendments do nothing more--and I think everybody 
should be aware of this before they cast their votes--than cut off the 
lifeblood of the National Endowment for the Arts. That is exactly what 
these amendments do. I think that is the purpose of these amendments.
  There is a bitter irony to the timing of these amendments, because 
Jane Alexander has done such an excellent job of reorganizing the 
endowment. I come to the floor to recognize her fine work and to 
support the NEA. When Ms. Alexander was confirmed as Chairwoman of the 
NEA, she made a commitment that she was going to work closely with the 
Congress, that she would take necessary steps to reorganize the 
Endowment, and she has done that and, as a matter of fact, I think her 
effort has been nothing short of heroic. She has, through her 
leadership, helped form and lead a NEA that touches the lives of all 
citizens, regardless of their age, their race, their disability, their 
economic status or, I might add, their geographic location. Jane 
Alexander has been blessed with a lifetime of creativity and 
accomplishment and she has blessed our country with that creativity. 
She has done a marvelous job of bringing the arts into our classrooms 
and into every corner of our Nation.

  Now, again we are out here having to defend the NEA. The budget is 
pathetically low. We could do much more to fire the imaginations of 
children all across the country. Yet we have another attack on the NEA, 
out here on the floor today.
  In my State of Minnesota, the NEA has given support to the American 
Composers Forum, the Minnesota Alliance for Arts and Education, Gray 
Wolf Press, the Duluth Superior Symphony, the Rochester Civic Music 
Guild, as well as the nationally renowned Dale Warren Singers, the 
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra, and the Guthery Theater.
  In addition, because of support from NEA, national theater and dance 
groups have visited many rural communities all across the State of 
Minnesota. The NEA has supported some wonderful partnerships in 
Minnesota, including a partnership between the Minnesota Orchestra 
Association and the science museum, which has created an interactive 
work between actors, the full orchestra, and fifth and sixth graders. 
That is what this is all about.
  One grant we are especially proud of that really goes to Minnesota, 
but goes to the whole Nation--and one of the most important things 
about these grants is the way in which a grant can go, in this 
particular case to the Minneapolis Children's Theater Company--and what 
they have done is this grant has supported the development and 
production of a new work which is called the Mark Twain Storybook, 
which has toured 35 communities in 9 States, from Fergus Falls, MN, to 
Mabel, MN, to Skokie, IL, offering a total of 73 performances and 5 
workshops.
  Sometimes when my colleagues look at funding that goes to particular 
States, they forget that one of the things the NEA has done under Ms. 
Alexander's leadership is taking a chance, this particular case on the 
Minneapolis Children's Theater Company, which is marvelous, and they 
then take that on the road and reach out to 9 States, 73 performances, 
5 workshops. This is enriching work.
  I just would like to make the point that the block grant amendments 
are not friendly amendments. As I say, they undercut the very heart of 
what NEA is about, which is national leadership of the arts in our 
country. We as a national community make a commitment to the arts. We 
understand how important the arts are to enriching the lives of all of 
our citizens. We make it one of our priorities--not much of a priority, 
because we have had attacks on the NEA over the past few years and it 
is so severely underfunded--but, nevertheless, we as a national 
community understand that we make a commitment to leverage the funding 
and to get it to organizations to, in turn, get it to communities all 
across the country.
  The block grant proposal takes us in the exact opposite direction. I 
really do believe that the timing of these amendments is just way off. 
One more time, I just want to repeat for colleagues that regardless of 
the words that are uttered and regardless of the intentions of 
colleagues, I think the effect of these block grant amendments is to 
just cut off the very mission, the very lifeblood, the very richness, 
the very importance of what the NEA is all about.
  We are only talking about $100 million. It is an agency that has been 
severely undercut because of attacks of past Congresses. But I will 
tell you something, people in the country have rallied behind the NEA, 
I think in large part because of Ms. Alexander's leadership. We have an 
agency that is bringing the arts into classrooms and bringing arts into 
the communities all across our country. We have an agency which has 
done a marvelous job of being in partnership with local communities and 
States, doing a really superb job.
  Mr. President, I also want to have printed in the Record a letter 
from James Dusso, who is assistant director of the Minnesota State Arts 
Board. He writes in behalf of Robert Booker, who is the Minnesota State 
Art Board executive director, who is currently away at a conference, 
making it very clear that the Minnesota State Arts Board is opposed to 
the block grant amendments, making it very clear that Minnesota, and I 
think many, many people in the arts community, appreciate the work of 
NEA, and making it very clear that these amendments, rather than 
improving NEA's work, would severely undercut what this agency has been 
about.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Minnesota State Arts Board,

                                  St. Paul, MN, September 8, 1997.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
       Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing on behalf of Robert C. 
     Booker, the Minnesota State Arts Board's executive director, 
     who is currently away from the office at a conference 
     addressing enhanced accessibility to the arts for people of 
     all abilities.
       It is my understanding that the Senate is currently 
     discussing the amount and the type of support to be provided 
     to the National Endowment for the Arts. In that light, I 
     think it is important that you are aware of the following:
       The National Endowment for the Arts currently provides over 
     two million dollars to the state in grants to the Minnesota 
     State Arts Board and Minnesota arts organizations.
       Since 1994 the Arts Board has experienced a 48% reduction 
     in support from the National Endowment for the Arts. This 
     decrease parallels the NEA overall budget cuts from $175 
     million to the current $100 million and reflects their 
     ongoing problems in Congress.
       Minnesota is proud of the outstanding caliber of its 
     cultural institutions and its arts community. The citizens of 
     this State and our corporations and foundations have provided 
     extensive financial support to the arts in order to achieve 
     their current high artistic level. Within out state borders, 
     we are proud to have world-class arts organizations and 
     artists of international stature.
       Because of the quality of the arts in Minnesota, we 
     consistently have been ranked third to fifth among all states 
     in receiving National Endowment for the Arts support.
       Under a block grant funding structure at the National 
     Endowment for the Arts, Minnesota would drop to sixteenth or 
     lower in the amount of federal support it receives for the 
     arts.
       Block grants would minimize, if not eliminate, any national 
     leadership for the arts in the country.
       NEA support historically has been a valuable tool in 
     leveraging matching private support for the arts. Block 
     grants to states would take that tool away from arts 
     organizations, hampering their ability to raise needed 
     private support.

[[Page S9371]]

       Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there 
     is any additional information I can provide.
           Sincerely,
                                                      James Dusso,
                                               Assistant Director.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think these amendments represent a different kind of 
attack. We had amendments to just eliminate the NEA. We may have one of 
those amendments on the floor now, maybe, to eliminate NEA. We have had 
amendments in the past to severely undercut the funding for NEA.
  I just don't know what will satisfy colleagues. Jane Alexander made a 
commitment to us that she would be very tough in her management, she 
would do the necessary reorganization work, she would take all of her 
creativity and use that creativity to make the NEA an agency that 
clearly was rooted in communities all across our country. And for 
Minnesota, for rural America, the east coast, west coast, North and 
South--that is exactly what has been done. So I hope we will defeat 
these amendments and we can as a Senate vote for a commitment which is 
a national community commitment that we care about the arts, that we 
are committed to enriching the lives of children, all children in this 
country, and we are committed to making sure the arts reaches out and 
touches all of our citizens no matter their income, no matter their 
race, no matter disability, no matter age. That, I think, is what its 
mission is all about, and I think the NEA under Ms. Alexander's 
leadership deserves the strong support of the Senate. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today we are for arts. Last week we were 
for education. Before that we were for housing. In fact, we are in 
about a 60-year cycle where the way you show you are for something is 
to have the Federal Government take the money of working Americans and 
spend that money for them on the thing you want to show that you are 
for. For 60 years, the choice that has been presented on the floor of 
the Senate is a choice about whether or not you are for something based 
on spending the Federal taxpayer's money on it. The choice is not, 
``Are you for art?'' in the sense that you want to let working families 
keep their money to invest it in art, the choice is not whether you are 
for education but letting families decide how to spend their money on 
education. For 60 years, the only real choice we have had is whether or 
not we are for things based on spending the taxpayer's money.
  It is like the compassion debate we have in Washington. Compassion is 
not what you do with your money, it's what you do with the taxpayers' 
money.
  Rather than getting into all of the different elements of the debate 
today, I want to talk about this central point. This is the 12th 
appropriations bill that we have dealt with this year, and when it is 
passed today, we will have spent $268,195,000,000 on just domestic 
appropriations. Nobody knows how much money that is. I have a 
constituent, Ross Perot, who knows what a billion dollars is, but 
nobody knows what $268 billion is. But it comes down to $2,126 for 
every working American. When we pass this bill, we will have, in the 
last few weeks, spent $2,126 of the income on average of every working 
person in this country, and what we have decided and, in fact, what we 
are debating about the arts today is whether or not we are going to 
spend their money on this purpose.
  I know we hear our President say the age of big Government is over, 
but the plain truth is that next year, we are going to spend more money 
in Government as a percentage of the income of working Americans than 
we have ever spent in the history of the United States of America. We 
are going to have the largest Government that we have ever had in the 
history of America next year as a result of the money that we are 
spending here, as a result of the money that we have committed to 
programs we call entitlement programs and as a result of money that is 
being spent by State and local government. In other words, the tax 
burden on the average working American next year will be higher than it 
has ever been in the history of the country in terms of how much of 
their money the Government will be taking.
  How does this debate about the arts fit into that big picture? It 
seems to me that we are having the wrong debate. The debate here 
shouldn't be whether or not you are for the arts based on how much 
money the Government is going to take from working people and spend on 
arts. Why don't we have a debate about who should do the spending?
  I was examining the figures on spending for the National Endowment 
for the Arts, for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, programs where we are taking money 
out of the paychecks of working American families and we are bringing 
the money to Washington and deciding on their behalf that we want to 
spend it on NEA, NEH, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  We have heard a lot of debate about whether we are spending it 
wisely, whether what is being defined as art with the expenditure of 
our taxpayer money through NEA is, in many cases, art. I think the vast 
majority of Americans would say in many cases it is not.
  But the point is, if we took those three agencies and eliminated 
them, we could give an art and entertainment tax credit of about $200 
to every working family in America. It is in that context that I want 
to talk about the National Endowment for the Arts, because what we are 
deciding today is not that we are for the arts by voting to continue 
funding NEA. What we are deciding is that by funding NEA, NEH, and the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting that we are doing more for the 
average working family in terms of the arts and the humanities and 
access to information through broadcasting than they could do if they 
were able to keep $200 more and spend it as they chose.
  Granted, I am sure there are some here who would get up and say, 
``Wait a minute, with this $200, we are funding the symphony, and if we 
let working families keep the $200, they might go see Garth Brooks, 
they might decide to spend it going to three or four Texas A&M football 
games.'' I guess I would argue that families ought to have a right to 
choose what is art and what is entertainment to them rather than 
delegating that responsibility involuntarily through the IRS to 100 
Members of the Senate.
  In a very real sense, this is the choice that working families are 
making. How many families would choose to get an Internet hookup rather 
than to fund public broadcasting if they had the choice to make? How 
many families would choose to get the cable rather than to fund public 
broadcasting?

  So my point is, this is not a debate about whether you are for the 
arts or not. This is a debate about whether Government should be the 
final decisionmaker about what is art and what should be funded.
  Our colleague from Minnesota said, ``Well, this is only $100 
million.'' Well, $100 million is a lot of money.
  I personally would like to begin the process of making fewer 
decisions in Washington so that we could have more decisions made back 
home. I think part of our problem in the arts, part of our problem in 
Government, is that too many spending decisions are made around these 
committee room and Cabinet tables and too few decisions are made by 
families sitting around their kitchen tables. The question that we face 
as Republicans is, if we are not for less Government and more freedom, 
what are we for? What do we stand for? If we really want to reduce the 
size of Government and to let people keep more of what they earn to 
invest in their own family and their own future, to invest in their own 
art, to invest in their own entertainment, to invest in their own 
education and housing and nutrition, if that is what we really want, 
where do we begin?
  We are not eliminating a single program in the Federal Government 
this year that I am aware of. Not a single program in the Federal 
Government will be terminated as a result of this budget which will 
spend a record amount where we are increasing discretionary spending 
and, in the process, deciding that the Government ought to direct more 
goods and services and where they go.
  I don't, quite frankly, know a better place to start than the 
National Endowment for the Arts. It is not that I am against the 
National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
Humanities or against

[[Page S9372]]

public broadcasting. But the question is, why not eliminate these 
programs and let working families keep $200 more per family and decide 
what they want to invest that in, what brings the most to their family. 
It seems to me that that is the choice.
  As I understand it and they proliferated a little, we have three 
amendments that are before us in some form. One of the amendments would 
block grant the money to the States and eliminate the National 
Endowment for the Arts by giving the money directly to the States. 
Another amendment would give 75 percent of the money to the States, 
have 20 percent of the money go to national art organizations and give 
the National Endowment for the Arts 5 percent so we can maintain their 
infrastructure. The third proposal is to eliminate the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Since I see all three of these as an improvement over the status quo, 
I am going to vote for all three of them. But the position that I want 
to take today and make clear is that you are not saying whether or not 
you are for the arts based on how you vote on spending the taxpayers' 
money. I am for the arts, but I think families ought to have the right 
to decide what is art and what is not art. I think families ought to 
have the right to make these decisions. I don't think we should be 
making those decisions for them.
  Finally, if we are really serious about less Government and more 
freedom, if you really believe that Government is too big and too 
powerful and too expensive, if you really believe that having the 
average family give Government almost a third of its income is too 
much, if you believe all of those things, as I do, I don't see how you 
can then justify having the Government take $100 million from working 
families to spend on what we define as art.
  So I think this is a fundamental choice. I would have to say that for 
60 years, I think we have been making it the wrong way. For 60 years, 
we have been losing in the appropriations process, because the choice 
is always spending money and being for something, rather than not 
spending money. What I would like to do is to have the ability to put 
all these appropriations bills out here and go through them one by one 
and basically decide, would you like to do less of this and let 
families keep more of this money themselves? I think when we start 
changing the way we make these decisions, when we start looking at them 
from a bigger perspective, I think ultimately freedom will start 
winning in this debate instead of losing.

  The vote on NEA today is not a vote about arts to me, it is a vote 
about freedom. It is a question of whether or not we want the 
Government, with the highest tax burden in American history set to be 
imposed on working families next year, to spend another $100 million 
trying to tell people what is and what is not art, and I think given 
our record on the subject and given the issue itself, that we would be 
better off letting families keep this money. If they call Garth Brooks 
art, I call it art. If they would prefer spending their money on an 
Internet connection instead of public broadcasting, or if they would 
prefer going to Texas A&M football instead of going to the symphony, 
maybe there is wisdom in each and every household. And what is wisdom 
in each and every household can hardly be folly, even in the greatest 
nation in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I spoke at length yesterday. I will try 
not to beat that record, but I do want to make a few comments.
  First of all, if you take $100 million and divide it by 250 million, 
you come up with about 38 cents a person and that represents what the 
endowment costs. I think we have to put in focus what we spend on the 
arts and why we spend it there.
  We had some excellent presentations yesterday and we had some this 
morning on different views of how the money for the Endowment ought to 
be spent. I guess if you analyzed the Senate, we would have probably 70 
or 80 people who say, ``OK, let's spend the money, but we have a 
different way to spend it.''
  A number would spend it with more going to the States. Some would 
spend it with all going to the States. Others would spend it in 
different proportions. But I guess that if it was just a question of 
whether there ought to be that much money out there available, that we 
would have a big vote, 70, 80 votes in the Senate, and that is what we 
need to do--analyze and figure out whether the way we are spending it 
is the best way.
  That, I think, is what is being asked of this body, and I think is 
being asked of the people throughout the country: Are we spending too 
much on administration? Are we directing too much of the money to the 
big cities? Are we spending too much in other areas rather than out in 
the States? So I hope we keep that in mind as we go forward and examine 
the amendments that we will be faced with.
  I would also like to point out some of the very excellent points that 
were made by other Senators yesterday. I think Senator Bennett from 
Utah probably made one of the best presentations I have heard on why 
the Endowments are so important and what it does mean to have your 
particular program get the stamp of approval. As he stated, it is like 
the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for a program. What this does is 
allow you to not only utilize the money, the small amount of money you 
get from the Endowment, but to use that as a fundraiser to be able to 
let people know, ``Hey, this is a good program and it has the sanction 
of the Endowment and, therefore, you should help us put that program 
on.'' It was an excellent presentation.
  We have had others this morning, Senator Tim Hutchinson and others, 
as well as Senator Hutchison of Texas saying, well, yes, it is a good 
program, but more of it ought to be distributed to States and a lot 
less of it ought to be spent from Washington.
  I spent my time yesterday stating that I might have an amendment 
which would spend more of the money in the area of education, 
indicating that the studies demonstrate that those people who 
participate in programs of art and music do substantially better on 
SATs than those who do not. I think that is something we should take 
note of. And there are a lot of reasons for that.
  Some of the basic problems we have in education is the lack of 
discipline and respect by students. Both of these qualities come along 
with the arts and the programs with the arts--I delineated a number of 
those programs that I have viewed as I traveled around the country 
where students have done exceptionally well, from the east coast to the 
west coast. When the authorization bill came out of the committee, we 
suggested that NEA ought to look at trying to evaluate and assist the 
rest of the country, understand which programs do work, what programs 
are helpful in improving the access to the arts in education.
  Also, as I pointed out yesterday, there are many programs which have 
been successful in the cities around the country in helping those who 
are impoverished. I mentioned one program in New York City where there 
was a horrible situation--so many young people had come from homes of 
violence, where a member of a family had been killed. Through art and 
art therapy they were able to bring out the horrible experiences in 
that child's life and begin to open up a vista of perhaps a life 
without violence and fear introducing instead hope and other positive 
things like that.
  I think there is a general consensus--or close, a substantial number 
of Members of this body--that we ought to keep the Endowment but 
perhaps take a look at how those funds are utilized. So I expect that 
the Senator from Alaska will have an amendment along those lines.
  Also, I would like to just raise a few things. I did not talk about 
the importance of the Endowment in extending the benefits of the arts 
and the benefits of museums around the country.
  For instance, the Portland Arts Museum moves out to support the 
Northwest Film Festival, showcasing the works of artists from Alaska, 
Idaho, Montana, and Washington; the Paul Taylor Dance in New York 
received a grant to tour through Alaska, Texas, and California; the 
NEA-supported Educational Broadcasting Corporation in New York to put 
``Great Performances'' and ``American Masters'' on TV

[[Page S9373]]

for the enjoyment of millions. The New England Foundation for the Arts 
received a grant to bring the ``Dance on Tour'' program to Connecticut, 
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The 
YMCA in Chicago received a grant to expand its Writers Voice centers--
writing workshops for young people--to Georgia, New Hampshire, Florida, 
and Rhode Island.

  States have little incentive to fund projects which benefit people 
outside its borders, yet it is those partnerships which enrich our 
Nation. These are examples of why national leadership is important. So 
I hope that as we move forward we remind ourselves that there are many 
activities of the Endowment other than some of the areas of controversy 
that we have heard of.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are less than 30 minutes from moving on 
to another subject, the cloture vote on the bill relating to the Food 
and Drug Administration. If I may, I would like to summarize where we 
are on this interesting and multifaceted debate on the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, who is present on the floor, 
and Senator Helms have proposed an amendment that will terminate the 
National Endowment for the Arts in much the same way as the House of 
Representatives has already voted.
  I hope that we will be able to vote on that amendment in not too 
great a time after the completion of whatever the majority leader seeks 
to do with respect to the Food and Drug Administration bill. The 
Senator from Missouri may very well tell us how much more time he 
thinks he needs on his amendment.
  After that, logically the next amendment would be that proposed by 
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], which would also close down 
the National Endowment for the Arts but would transfer the money to, I 
believe, the National Park Service for the preservation of historic 
American treasures.
  The next proposal would be that of the Senators from Alabama and 
Arkansas who would essentially block grant the entire appropriation for 
the National Endowment to the States; following that the proposal by 
the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], that would have 25 percent, 
roughly, governed by the National Endowment for the Arts here and 75 
percent block granted for the States.
  Those are the proposals that have been discussed on the floor at some 
length yesterday afternoon and this morning. I hope that we can reach 
an orderly method for voting on each of those amendments so that the 
will of the Senate with respect to the National Endowment will be made 
known.
  I regret deeply to say that my partner on this bill, Senator Byrd, is 
indisposed today and will not be able to be here at all, something he 
regrets. He hopes that maybe at least some of these votes could be 
postponed until tomorrow. I will have to leave that up to the majority 
leader, who I think wants to move forward as quickly as we possibly 
can.
  It is appropriate now, however, I think, for me to state my own view 
at least on the four amendments that are in front of us. My views 
reflect those of the Appropriations Committee and, most particularly, 
my subcommittee. I believe the National Endowment for the Arts does in 
fact play a constructive role in culture in the United States. I 
believe that reforms in the last 2 or 3 years have cut down 
tremendously on some of the truly objectionable grants which were 
rightly objected to by the vast majority of the American people.
  So with respect to the first two amendments, I will vote no. I also 
am unable in my own mind to feel that we would somehow deal more 
sensitively if all of these grants were decentralized to State arts 
commissions.
  Finally, I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the proposal of the 
Senator from Texas. I believe that perhaps a greater focusing, but not 
a universal focusing, on State and regional arts organizations may well 
be appropriate but that there are also grants that are appropriately 
national in nature and that many of the institutional grantees, while 
they may be located in a particular city or a particular State, have an 
impact on the arts that goes far beyond the locale of their principal 
office, their museum, their symphony orchestra or their opera company.

  Because, however, the Ashcroft-Helms position has governed the House 
of Representatives, my inclination is to vote against all of these 
amendments that change the present system simply because we will have 
to take into account the views of the House of Representatives in a 
conference committee, a conference committee that I think is likely at 
least to come out with a proposal that is perhaps closer to that of the 
Senator from Texas than any other that I have heard at this point.
  So at the present time, unless I am persuaded to the contrary, Mr. 
President, I am going to suggest to the Members of this body that they 
leave the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts 
contained in the bill as it is before us now untouched and discuss the 
very important questions that all of them have raised with the House of 
Representatives that has taken a quite different view in a conference 
committee. With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 1188

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I rise to address the issue of the National Endowment for the Arts 
and some of the arguments that have been raised in this debate.
  I think it is important that we debate this issue thoroughly. I think 
it is important that we have the discussion of as many Members of this 
body on this issue made as explicitly as is possible for the American 
people.
  I am not in any rush to judgment or to election on this. To say 
because the House of Representatives has taken a position that here the 
Senate should not take a position or that it should merely endorse the 
position of the Committee on Appropriations I think is to do less than 
the American people expect of us.
  The American people understand that the issue before us is whether or 
not arts are to be funded by Government and whether that is a role for 
Government to play. We must look at the reason why we have Government, 
the reason why we take money from people that they have earned and they 
cannot spend on their own families. That is a major issue. And whether 
or not we are going to take it and then give some of it back to a State 
where we do not have the ability to control it, or whether we are going 
to give part of it to the State and we are going to control the rest of 
it, is another major issue.
  I think we ought to debate these things. So I, frankly, want the 
Senate to move forward, and I want us to move forward with dispatch and 
make sure that we do not unduly delay things. But this is an issue 
worthy of the American people, it is worthy of our understanding. I 
think there are substantially basic, philosophic items that are of 
importance here: Does the Government have a responsibility to shape the 
culture by paying for artistic expression, and by paying for some 
artistic expression and not paying for other artistic expression? I 
think that is a very important point.
  I say that it is important to understand that both artists and 
nonartists are on both sides of this issue. There are people who love 
the arts so much that they do not want the Government to contaminate 
the arts. They feel that when the Government gets in the position of 
starting to say that this art is good and is worthy of being subsidized 
and this other art over here is not good and is not worthy of being 
subsidized, they think that is likely to distort the arts and to leave 
the arts in a situation of impurity, with artists who are seeking not 
to express themselves but to express what the bureaucrats in Washington 
or in a State capital would want them to express.
  As a matter of fact, that is exactly the point that Jan Breslauer, 
the critic from the Los Angeles Times, has written about. Eloquently 
she states--and as a matter of fact, it is more than an eloquent 
statement. This is a rather embarrassing indictment of the National 
Endowment for the Arts. Let her words speak this position as I quote 
them. And she says--or he says. I do

[[Page S9374]]

not know whether Jan, J-a-n, is a ``he'' or ``she.'' I apologize if 
there would be any offense in what I have said.

       [T]he endowment has quietly pursued policies rooted in 
     identity politics--a kind of separatism that emphasizes 
     racial, sexual and cultural differences above all else. The 
     art world's version of affirmative action * * *.
  She is describing the way the bureaucracy, known as the National 
Endowment for the Arts, has operated, that it has emphasized 
separatism, emphasizing racial, sexual, and cultural differences above 
all else.
  I think we need to get to an America that emphasizes our identity, 
the common things we enjoy, the freedom we embrace, not the differences 
we have. I think the Statue of Liberty has stood there without wincing 
for a long time. She stood through hurricanes and the tests of time, 
storms, good times and bad, in war and in peace, but I think she winces 
a little bit when she thinks about all the people that have come here 
to pursue common goals of freedom being driven by Government to be 
separate, to be forced apart.
  Jan Breslauer says, ``The Endowment has quietly pursued policies 
rooted in identity politics,'' this idea of separating us into separate 
identities. I kind of like a single identity for the United States of 
America. What are the different identities, she says, that are being 
emphasized by the National Endowment for the Arts? She says that the 
National Endowment is pushing us into separate racial identities, that 
it is pushing us into separate sexual and cultural identities. These 
differences are being elevated, instead of minimized, in the way, she 
says, the funds are given out from the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Fundamentally, I do not believe that Government should be striving to 
drive wedges between Americans. Whether it is an arts program or 
anything else, I think we ought to come to the point where we realize 
there is only one word that ought to describe us in a way that unites 
us, and it is ``America.'' I don't need someone to try and push me into 
some politics of separatism or some identity politics and provide a 
basis for separating me from my fellow Americans. I think the great 
unity of America is so very important.
  I think of the millions of lives lost in the Civil War for unity, so 
that this would be one Nation united under God with liberty and justice 
for a few or for this group or that group, with preferences? No, for 
all.
  The National Endowment for the Arts ``has quietly pursued policies 
rooted in identity politics--a kind of separatism that emphasizes 
racial, sexual, and cultural differences, above all else.'' These are 
not my words. These are not the words of some individual who is against 
art. These are words from a critic from the Los Angeles Times. The art 
world's version of affirmative action, to prefer people on the basis of 
their group identity rather than to prefer people on the basis of their 
own merit. The United States of America is a place where individuals 
should have the ability to succeed or fail based on their own merit. 
She says the art world's version of affirmative action, and its 
policies have had a profoundly corrosive effect on American art.
  A corrosive effect--I don't know how you can define that as lifting 
up the arts or improving the arts. We have heard individuals come to 
the floor over the last several days and say the reason we need this is 
because it allows the arts that are sponsored to be shared with the 
entire culture. Do we want to corrode the arts before we share them?
  I want to mention I believe there are some artistic endeavors here 
that are supported that are good ones. Sure there are. You are spending 
$100 million, you will probably have some good ones. The question is, 
Is this what Government is for, to take the hard-earned money of 
individuals and say we can spend that money better on art than you can 
spend it on your family?
  At a time when real wages for individuals for over half the 
Americans, according to a recent national article in one of our 
business journals, are lower than they were in 1989, some 8 years ago, 
do we still believe that we want to take money that people could be 
spending on their own families and we want to spend it on art that 
separates us, that emphasizes racial differences, cultural differences, 
that has a corrosive effect on the arts itself? That is 
incomprehensible.
  Some people think it is great to have the symphony, it is great to 
have great art and they think about the great artists of the past, they 
think about artists from my State whose works are shown in art 
galleries of this country and have been for hundreds of years. But that 
is not all that we are talking about here.
  Here is a piece of art that is interesting to me. This art was funded 
by the National Endowment for the Arts. This is a poem. No, Senators, 
this is not the title of the poem, this is a poem. This poem, spelled 
L-I-G-H-G-H-T, I am not sure what it means--maybe light--this poem cost 
the taxpayers $1,500. This was the subject of a grant. Now, this is the 
English version of the poem, I have to tell you. This is not the French 
or the German version. Maybe it is the German version of the poem. 
Maybe it is not the English version. This is it. This is why we would 
tax individuals, take money that they earned, working hard on their 
jobs, and we want to say to the rest of the world, this is what you 
should be doing.
  I was stunned by the fact that my colleagues came to the floor and 
said we need this not because the arts need the money. They recognize 
it is 1 percent of the art funding in the country. As a matter of fact, 
less than that. But 1 percent of the art funding in the country comes 
from the Government. But we need it so we can have the Good 
Housekeeping Seal of Approval, that somehow when Government comes and 
puts its seal of approval on things like this, it signals to the 
country that this is what we are supposed to really look up to.
  I am sure getting this poem around to schoolchildren will inspire 
lots of them to be poets. I don't know whether this is a typographical 
error or whether this is profoundly insightful, but I don't think it is 
inspirational. I don't think we have to have the U.S. Government taking 
tax money from people who get up early and work hard all day and go 
home late, families with two parents working, one to pay the 
Government, the other to support the family. I don't think we do that 
in order to be able to put a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on 
this.
  I want to talk a little bit about this concept that you put a Good 
Housekeeping Seal of Approval on things by having Government tell 
people what is good and what is bad. Let me just indicate that one of 
my colleagues yesterday spoke, and I quote from the Congressional 
Record of September 15, 1997:

       The National Endowment for the Arts is something like a 
     Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval put on a local effort 
     which allows people who are running that local effort to then 
     go out and do their fundraising and say you see what we have 
     here is really a class operation. It is something worthy of 
     your support, worthy of your private contributions. Look, 
     it's good enough that the National Endowment for the Arts has 
     put their seal of approval on it.

  And the argument is that somehow the American people don't have the 
intelligence or the judgment or the capacity to know what values they 
want expressed in their culture. They need someone from the Federal 
Government to tell them that this is great poetry and that they should 
buy it or subsidize it.
  I don't believe the genius of a democracy is having the Government 
tell people what is good or bad. The genius of a democracy is not that 
the Government informs the people. The genius of a democracy is that 
the people inform the Government. The genius of a democracy is that the 
collective wisdom of the people is reflected in what is done in 
Washington. We have inverted the flow of information here. The people 
are supposed to be represented in Washington to do the will of the 
people. The Government is not supposed to be represented by a good seal 
of approval so that the people can then do the will of Government. The 
whole idea of a democracy is not that the Government puts its good seal 
of approval on anything and then the people do it. The ideal of a 
democracy is that the people express their wisdom to the Government, 
sending their representatives to achieve the will of the people, not 
the will of the Government.
  It is kind of amusing to me that we have this information flow. We 
are so conditioned to believing that Washington is the source of wisdom 
that now

[[Page S9375]]

we have to tell the people what good poetry is, and stuff like this is 
good enough for their support or something else is good enough for 
their support. You would think we would learn that the central 
government is not the place to direct investment, whether it be in art 
or whether it be in industry.

  There are different cultures, there are different ways to do 
government. There are different ways to allocate resources. One way is 
to have central planning, to have the Government make the decisions, 
encourage or allocate the resources on its own. That is a way which was 
tried for a long time.
  Communism was a system which said we will do central planning. We 
will not trust the marketplace. We will not trust the judgment that 
people will reach on their own. We will trust the central planners, the 
superior intellects of Government to make those decisions. We will ask 
them to decide how many potatoes are grown and how many cars are made 
and how many TV's are made, and with the superior wisdom of centralized 
government, we can tell the people how things are and it will all be 
better.
  I love the joke Ronald Reagan used to tell about the guy going to buy 
a car.
  The guy said, ``You have to wait 10 years for your car but on the 
12th day of February, 10 years from now, in the morning, we are going 
to deliver your car to you.''
  The guy said, ``Oh, no, you can't deliver the car on the 12th day of 
February 10 years from now.''
  The car salesman says, ``Why not?''
  He says, ``Well, the plumber is coming then.''
  The whole point is planned allocation of resources by central 
government is a failure, an abject failure.
  Yet we have people come to the floor of the Senate and say people 
really do not know the good art from the bad art, what to support, what 
not to support, and they need the Government to come look and be the 
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We cannot trust the private 
marketplace, the will of the people, the understanding of the people to 
allocate the resources that they ought to put or want to put into art. 
We have to confiscate resources from them and then we have to use those 
resources as some sort of gold stock. This is what you must support, 
you ought to support this, this is great.
  Well, if you put the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on material 
that emphasizes, above all else, racial, sexual, and cultural 
differences, in the words of Jan Breslauer, the art critic, what we 
have is the Government telling us what is good and telling us that all 
these things that divide us are good and the things that unite us are 
not worthy of funding.
  In my judgment, I think we should have learned something. We should 
have learned that when the Founders of this great country considered 
this question, they voted overwhelmingly not to have the Federal 
Government involved in subsidies for the arts. This is not new. This 
idea came into being in Lyndon Johnson's plan for a Great Society. We 
know how the governmentalism of the Great Society has been so eminently 
successful in other areas--such as attempting to deal with poverty. We 
see there are more children on poverty now than there were when the so-
called Great Society began. And in an attempt to deal with situations 
where there were children being born to parents who would not be 
parents--there were no families there, really--we have seen that 
problem exacerbated and intensified rather than assuaged or reduced. 
Here we have one of the Great Society programs and here is another one 
that says we know best from Government.
  In the area of the Great Society, as it relates to the welfare 
program, we have that figured out that the central government should 
not have a sort of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We have 
abandoned the old Federal approach that says there is a way you are 
going to do this and this is the way, the truth, and I guess it would 
not be the light, would it? The Federal Government's welfare program, 
we found out, was a failed program.
  I yield to the Chair, if there is an item that needs to be brought to 
my attention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the hour of 12:15 
having arrived, the Senate is to conduct a cloture vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute in which to 
conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. It is clear to me that the National 
Endowment for the Arts takes resources from taxpayers to spend in a way 
that the Government thinks it can spend better than taxpayers. Even art 
critics indicate that that taking has not only a bad effect on people, 
it divides them, seeks to separate them, but it has a corrosive effect 
on the arts. I believe that having the Government establish values that 
it tries to impose on people is a denial of the genius of America, 
which is when the American people impose their values on Government, 
not when the Government imposes its values on the people. The so-called 
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval theory of support for the National 
Endowment for the Arts reveals the bankruptcy of the concept of 
Government telling people what they should believe and what they should 
value.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Since the Senator from Missouri has taken all the time, I 
ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 60 seconds before 
the vote to make some comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senators for their indulgence. I do not have the 
time to lay out all the reforms that we have made in the National 
Endowment for the Arts, nor to give you the details on how every single 
dollar that my colleague talked about is leveraged by $12 in every 
community across this great country of ours, because the arts, just as 
they are in the military, preserve our culture. We spend twice as much 
on military bands as we do on the National Endowment for the Arts. If 
the military bands make a mistake and play a song that we don't think 
is appropriate, we don't stop funding the military bands, because they 
are a very important part of our culture. If a postman acts wrong and 
is obnoxious, we don't stop delivering the mail.
  So I think it is very important that when we go back to this debate--
and I think right now it won't be for a couple of days--that we lay out 
all of the reforms that have been made and all of the wonderful 
programs, such as the Youth Symphony, the ballet, and all the things we 
do with the arts, and have a fair debate.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________