[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9486-S9501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


    Committee Amendment On Page 96, Line 12 Through Page 97, Line 8

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the committee amendment on page 96, line 12.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized to offer a second-degree 
amendment, on which there shall be 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


 Amendment No. 1206 to Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 
                              96, Line 12

                 (Purpose: To decrease funding for NEA)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment at 
this time, amendment No. 1206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1206 to excepted committee amendment 
     beginning on page 96, line 12.

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

       On page 96, line 16, strike ``$83,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$55,533,000''.
       On page 96, line 25, strike ``$16,760,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,173,000''.
       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     more than $10,044,000 of the funds appropriated for the 
     National Endowment for the Arts under this Act may be 
     available for private fundraising activities for the 
     endowment.
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     an additional $32,000,000 is appropriated to remain available 
     until expended for construction under the National Park 
     Service, of which $8,000,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Smithsonian Institution and made available for restoration of 
     the Star Spangled Banner, $8,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the National Endowment for the Humanities and made available 
     for the preservation of papers of former Presidents of the 
     United States, of which $9,000,000 shall be available for the 
     replacement of the wastewater treatment system at Mount 
     Rushmore National Memorial, of which $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for the stabilization of the hospital wards, 
     crematorium, and immigrant housing on islands 2 and 3 of 
     Ellis Island, and of which $5,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Smithsonian Institution and made available for the 
     preservation of manuscripts and original works of great 
     American composers''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I just would state at the outset it is 
not my intention, given the lateness of the day and the other 
amendments still to come, to necessarily use all of the time on this 
issue. In fact, I intend to make a brief statement. I will stay here to 
discuss it at greater length if opponents of this amendment want to 
engage in more discussion, although I know today most people have 
expressed themselves already on these issues pertaining to the National 
Endowment for the Arts. So I am going to make a brief statement and I 
will then wait to see whether others wish to speak. If not, I am 
prepared at a certain point to yield back the remainder of the time.
  This amendment seeks to accomplish several key objectives.

[[Page S9487]]

  First and foremost, it has been my goal since arriving in the Senate 
to move the NEA in a direction of being a private national entity 
supporting the arts. I believe that is in the long-term best interests 
of the taxpayers and of the arts. Since arriving here and well before 
my arrival, it has been obvious to me that these discussions about the 
NEA too often turn on questions of accusations from one side that we 
are spending tax dollars to basically promote things that are 
unacceptable or even obscene, and on the other side arguments from 
those who are part of the arts community that we in the Congress are 
trying to somehow censor the creative activities of people in our 
country. This will continue, Madam President, as long as taxpayer money 
is involved.
  What I worry about as a supporter of the arts is that we will 
continue to see the NEA reduced in size and scope, both in terms of its 
budget, as well as in terms of its flexibility, because each time a new 
issue arises, Congress' response has been to reduce funding and to add 
more strings and more handcuffs to the Endowment.
  The best way to address it, I think, is to move in the direction of 
privatization, move this out of the Government, and allow it to be as 
large as support for it can be. That is what my amendment seeks to set 
in motion by reducing for the upcoming year by approximately one-third 
the size of the Endowment but allowing the Endowment to spend a 
percentage of its revenues for the beginning of a fundraising program 
designed to ultimately produce adequate funds to sustain itself as an 
independently chartered entity.
  I believe that will be a long-term approach. As I laid out in 
previous debates, I think there are a variety of indicators that 
suggest support for the Endowment would be existent, that there would 
be the kind of private support, given the magnitude of national support 
already for arts activities in our country of $9 billion per year, 
given the fact that numerous private institutions are larger than the 
National Endowment for the Arts, even today. I believe such support 
would be existent. And so this would be the first step in that 
direction toward privatization.
  If my amendment is adopted, I will have sense-of-the-Senate and other 
amendments that I will bring at appropriate times to buttress this plan 
of action.
  The other goal of this amendment is to direct additional Federal 
dollars in support of other national treasures, some of them arch-
related, that I think deserve our commitment: the Star-Spangled Banner, 
Ellis Island, the papers of our Presidents and Founders, the works of 
our great composers, Mount Rushmore. All five of these entities or 
institutions or documents, or in the case of the Star-Spangled Banner, 
the flag itself, are in various states of deterioration and lack of 
support.
  My amendment would divert $30 million from the NEA to the support of 
these entities at the amounts that have been requested by the people 
involved with them in order to facilitate restoration where that is 
appropriate, in order to facilitate maintenance where that is 
appropriate, in order to supply additional dollars to ongoing 
restoration projects, and so on.
  I believe all of us should be able to agree that these five national 
treasures that I have outlined in this amendment deserve the support of 
the Congress. By moving in this direction, we can accomplish two very 
noble objectives, I think: On the one hand, the privatization and 
liberation of the National Endowment for the Arts, and on the other 
hand the preservation, restoration, and protection of great national 
treasures.

  For those reasons, I call upon my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I think it is perfectly consistent with those who have 
argued for a national entity to support the arts. I think it is 
consistent with those who have argued that we shouldn't have taxpayer 
dollars engaged in that entity. I believe that it is the right way to 
strike a balance between the rival positions on this and at the same 
time do great good in preservation of very important national 
treasures.
  At this point, Madam President, I yield the floor and see if anyone 
else wishes to speak on this amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield--how much time does the Senator from Arkansas 
desire?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining on his 
time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I inquire, do you have other Senators wishing to 
speak on behalf of your amendment?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. What I was hoping for, if I can just indicate, was to 
determine if there was any further discussion or interest on the 
opposing side of this amendment. If there is, then I would want to 
speak about my amendment more. If not, I will be prepared to yield the 
remainder of my time to the Senator from Arkansas to speak on whatever 
matter he wants.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I only anticipate perhaps 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That will be great. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Arkansas to speak on whatever issue he might wish, with respect to 
this amendment or upcoming amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, and I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
yielding.
  Madam President, I commend the Senator from Michigan for his 
outstanding leadership on the issue of the National Endowment for the 
Arts, for his very constructive role that he has played over recent 
years since his entry in the Senate. I know this is an issue he has 
felt very strongly about, that he has looked for creative and 
innovative ways in which we can continue to fund arts in this country, 
in which we can continue to emphasize that arts are a priority and, at 
the same time, address many of the concerns that the American people 
have addressed concerning the National Endowment for the Arts, its 
administration and its elitist attitude.
  I would just like to say in reference to that attitude, which has 
caused such consternation among those who sincerely believe that arts 
are important in America but are greatly troubled by what they see in 
the National Endowment for the Arts, a statement that was made by Jane 
Alexander, the Chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Arts, when 
she testified before the Labor and Human Resources Committee this past 
April.
  In a dialog with myself and in response to the questions I posed to 
her, Ms. Alexander said:

       Let me suggest an analogy here with regard to the arts.

  Her response was in direct answer to my question concerning the 
situation in Arkansas in which, out of 12 grant applications, only one 
was granted. A little over $400,000 went to the whole State of 
Arkansas, while single exhibits around this country received more. In 
response to that she said:

       Let me suggest an analogy here with regard to the arts . . 
     . There are apples grown in practically every State of the 
     United States, but there are few States that have the right 
     conditions for nurturing and developing apple trees; and 
     then, they are distributed all throughout the Nation.

  The implication being that arts are like apples, that there are only 
a few places they are really going to flourish, and that Arkansas was 
not one of them. I hope my constituents understand and I hope that my 
colleagues understand why that was so offensive to me. She went on:

       The same is true of the arts. The talent pools, the areas 
     of nurturing and development of artists tend to be located in 
     a few States.

  Perhaps that explains why one-third of all of the direct grants of 
the National Endowment go to six cities. Perhaps this attitude, 
revealed in an unguarded moment, explains why one-third of the 
congressional districts in this country receive nothing from the 
National Endowment for the Arts. This is an agency whose original 
mission was to broaden access to the arts. Broaden access to the arts--
I ask, is that going to be the result of the attitude that development 
of artists tend to be located in a few States, that the talent pool is 
only located in a few States? I take great, great exception to that, 
and that is why I believe the Senator from Michigan--I have my own 
amendment I will be talking on later--but I commend the Senator from

[[Page S9488]]

Michigan for the good job he has done in addressing these kind of 
abuses and this kind of attitude.
  I have pointed out that the administrative costs for the National 
Endowment are well above most other Federal agencies--almost 20 
percent. Almost a penny out of every nickel that the NEA has is spent 
on administration overhead.
  So I believe the votes that we are going to cast this evening on the 
Abraham amendment, on the Hutchinson-Sessions amendment, and on the 
Hutchison of Texas amendment will be, to a great extent, a vote on 
whether we want the Washington bureaucracy or whether we want more 
local control on funding for the arts.
  So I ask support for the Abraham amendment. I also ask support for 
other amendments that will be offered concerning the National 
Endowment. We must not obfuscate, we must not confuse what this issue 
is. It is not are you proarts or against arts. So often I have heard 
proponents of the NEA come down and say, ``Well, arts are good.'' Of 
course, arts are good. They are beneficial, uplifting and they are 
inspiring and ennobling. They are all of those things, but you cannot 
equate the NEA with arts. In fact, the NEA funds less than 5 percent of 
the Federal contribution to arts in this country. So it is time that we 
reform. It is time we made a change in the status quo.
  I commend the Senator from Michigan. I thank him for yielding.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged to anyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, it is my intention to offer a unanimous 
consent request which I think has now been cleared on both sides. I ask 
unanimous consent that the votes ordered with respect to the NEA issue 
be stacked to occur at 7:30 p.m., with 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to the votes on those issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I now ask unanimous consent to have the time remaining 
on both sides of the debate on the Abraham amendment be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Abraham amendment No. 1206 is set 
aside, and the Senator from Arkansas is recognized to offer a second-
degree amendment to the committee amendment on page 96, line 12 through 
page 97, line 8. There will be 30 minutes of debate on the amendment 
equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Was the unanimous consent request agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request has been agreed 
to.
  Mr. GORTON. So there will be votes at 7:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, we will try to find some other business 
to occupy the Senate until that time.
  Does the Senator from Arkansas wish to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arkansas is recognized to offer his amendment.


 Amendment No. 1187 To Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 
                              96, Line 12

  (Purpose: To provide financial assistance to States to support the 
                                 arts)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. HUTCHINSON] for himself, Mr. 
     Sessions, Mr. Abraham and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1187 to excepted committee amendment beginning on 
     page 96, line 12.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, we have 30 minutes equally divided; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, over and over during the debate on 
the National Endowment for the Arts we have heard the proponents come 
to the floor and say how good and beneficial the arts are. Who can 
argue with that? The argument they seem to make is, we ought to 
automatically reauthorize, that we ought to automatically appropriate 
$100 million for the National Endowment for the Arts because art is 
good, without any scrutiny, without any close examination of how the 
National Endowment is operating, how they are working today.
  The debate has in fact deteriorated into kind of a syllogism. The 
syllogism goes like this: Art is good. The National Endowment for the 
Arts is art; and, therefore, the NEA is good.
  Obviously, art is good. It is inspiring. It is uplifting. We have 
heard anecdote after anecdote of the benefits of art in our lives. But 
the NEA is not the equivalent of art.
  In fact, as we see on this chart, the NEA is less than 5 percent of 
the total Federal support for the arts and the humanities. You can look 
at the Smithsonian, the military bands, the Fulbright International 
Exchange, the National Endowment of the Humanities, the National 
Gallery of Art, the Holocaust Memorial Council. On and on we find the 
Federal role in arts is not limited to the National Endowment at all.
  Only 5 percent, in fact, of all of the Federal involvement, involves 
the NEA. That 5 percent though, as we have seen, has been eroded by 
extravagant overhead, over 18 percent administrative costs that are 
immediately taken off because of the bureaucracy here in Washington. 
And that small 5 percent is absorbed by six cities--six cities. And 
one-third of all of the congressional districts in the United States 
receive nothing from the National Endowment of the Arts.
  So in all of this debate, the problems in the NEA have gone 
unanswered. I heard the proponents of the NEA come to the floor, and 
over and over again they laud how wonderful art is--Who can object to 
that?--how great literature is. Who can complain about that? But they 
never respond to the objections that have been raised concerning the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  Their mission is broader public access to the arts. Yet, as we saw 
just a few moments ago in a statement by Chairwoman Jane Alexander, she 
says that there are only a few States that have the proper nurturing 
and development to produce artists. That, to me, will never fulfill 
their mission of broadening public access to the arts.
  Fully 85 percent of the 1997 grantees were past recipients of NEA 
largess-- 85 percent. That is not going out and fostering new artists, 
new writers, new sculptors.

  Here are the issues before the Senate. No. 1, accountability. As the 
proponents of the NEA come down, they have not responded to the NEA's 
own IG report which listed the abuses, things like 63 percent of the 
grantees that had project costs that were not reconcilable to 
accounting records, 79 percent with inadequate documentation of 
personal costs charged to the grant, 53 percent failed to engage 
independent auditors to conduct grant audits as required by the OMB.
  No one responded to that. I listened and listened. No one would 
respond to the inspector general's report or the General Accounting 
Office's evaluation of the NEA and how it operates. So accountability 
is an issue.
  Local control is an issue. Do we want to continue to say yes to 
Washington bureaucrats, or do we want to say yes to local control of 
how these dollars are spent?
  Third, the issue is fairness and funding. Under the proposal of 
Senator Sessions and myself we have offered an amendment that will 
allow 45 States to receive more for arts. I hope that all of my 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate will

[[Page S9489]]

pick up the ``Dear Colleague'' on their desk that we so often overlook. 
If Members look up your State, you will see exactly how much more will 
be available for arts education or available for the local artists 
under our amendment as opposed to the status quo.
  Say no to Washington. Say yes to local control. Say yes to the 
Hutchinson-Sessions amendment.
  If there are no opponents here to speak I yield to the cosponsor of 
this amendment, Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am honored to have the opportunity 
to join Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas in support of this bill which 
I believe certainly answers all the objections of those who are 
concerned that somehow we would be cutting support for arts in America.
  It answers the concerns of those who believe that the National 
Endowment for the Arts, as shown by its own inspector general's office, 
has mismanaged itself, has not managed the taxpayers' money--money 
taken from working citizens all over America--who have entrusted it to 
their Government in hopes that Members of this body will appropriate it 
wisely and effectively to further national goals.
  Our bill says, all right, we can fund arts, but we want to do it a 
different way. We are tired of trusting that inside group, the elite 
corps, that has been distributing moneys, in my opinion, unfairly, for 
quite a number of years.
  It is quite an interesting fact that six cities in this Nation 
receive one-third of the moneys from the entire National Endowment for 
the Arts. This chart will reflect that and give some appreciation for 
this fact. The big cities, the wealthiest cities in the world, really, 
are the ones receiving the most money. That is because the distribution 
of that money is being decided by a group in Washington that is not 
connected to the arts communities in places all over America--whether 
it is Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Alabama or Arkansas. They are not 
connected with those communities. So they tend to further the people 
they are dealing with. It has been going in drastically unfair 
proportions to cities that are wealthier than any cities in the world. 
We think that is a major factor that we ought to think about today.

  New York City itself received more money than 29 different States, 
including my State of Alabama. Madam President, 75 percent of the 
money, as Senator Hutchinson has pointed out, 75 percent of these 
moneys have gone in what may be considered a political direction. 
Seventy-five percent has gone to the districts of Democratic 
Congressmen. That, I think, should concern people, because a majority 
of the citizens of this country have elected their representatives to 
be Republicans. It is not fair that the money be distributed just to 
the Democrats.
  They made very, very poor funding decisions. They funded programs 
that are arcane, bureaucratic, bizarre, and often just plain silly, and 
not supporting funding for programs that are worthy and needy.
  In my hometown of Mobile, AL, we have an opera that celebrated its 
fiftieth anniversary a few years ago. A group of citizens who love the 
music and fine arts came together and formed that organization. It 
received a paltry $4,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts, 
whereas, as Senator Ashcroft so eloquently talked about yesterday, this 
organization gave $1,500 to a poem consisting of one word--L-I-G-H-G-H-
T. I don't know what it says or what language it is but they spent that 
much, and we only got $4,000 for an opera that does outstanding work in 
our community.
  The opera in Mobile performs works that I think anyone can support, 
``La Boheme,'' and ``Pirates of Penzance,'' one of my favorites, just 
last year. In ``Pirates'' I recall the great phrase, he is the very 
model of a modern major general, he knows all things, agricultural, 
chemical and mineral, but he didn't know how to fight a war. That was a 
good lesson. Arts do teach us. We learn from those kind of things.
  I am not against art. I think we can do a better job of supporting. I 
am willing to support arts funding. This bill represents a huge 
infusion of money into the arts community all over America in virtually 
every State.
  Look at this: Alabama goes from $750,000 to $1.6 million, a $900,000 
increase; Alaska shows a $50,000 increase; Arizona, a $600,000 
increase; Arkansas, a $770,000 increase; California, a $1 million 
increase; Colorado, a $97,000 increase; Connecticut, a $127,000 
increase; Delaware, a $152,000 increase; Washington, DC, $1.8 million 
reduction. Washington, DC, has money already funded for the National 
Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, and many other activities in this 
community by this body.
  Madam President, I say that art is valuable. Good art does uplift. 
All of us who care about a greater America should support the arts. We 
should support fine arts. But just as good art uplifts, poor art can 
demean and undermine the qualities of a great Nation.
  Too often, this organization has supported art that is not healthy, 
``art from the gutter,'' as has been said. Just this past year, as was 
demonstrated on ``Dateline'' with Jane Pauley this summer, a special on 
the National Endowment for the Arts showed explicit homosexual 
activities on the screen using a $31,000 grant by the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  One of the reasons they say they want to remain in existence is 
because they helped set the standard, they are the Good Housekeeping 
Seal of Approval. What kind of approval is that, for this Government to 
fund obscene and pornographic material with taxpayers' money, against 
and contrary to the basic and deepest decent views of the average 
citizen in our Nation?
  Madam President, 45 States will get more. Our orchestras in virtually 
every State will get more. Our museums will get more. Our theaters will 
get more. Our folk art will have more opportunities for additional 
funding.
  I submit this proposal answers all of the objections of the critics 
who say that we should continue to fund arts. It continues to fund arts 
at a greater degree than we have done before and eliminates the 
mismanagement that we have seen in Washington.
  This is a good bill. I urge all my colleagues to support it. It is 
time to bring to an end an agency that has abused its power, who for 
year after year after year has come before this body and promised to do 
better but does not do so. It is time to bring that agency to an end 
and take the taxpayers' money and spend it wisely in real support of 
real art all over America.

  Madam President, that concludes my remarks. I note that Senator Jesse 
Helms, who voted to end all funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts, also has expressed a wish to join in as a cosponsor to this 
amendment. I think that should be noted for the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes remaining in opposition 
to the amendment. Senator Hutchinson has 3 minutes 33 seconds remaining 
on his side.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield myself 7 minutes. If I need an 
additional minute or so, I may ask unanimous consent for that. Will the 
Chair notify me when 7 minutes have expired and maybe we can work 
something out here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
to our colleagues who rejected the proposal to eliminate the National 
Endowment for the Arts in its entirety by a vote of 23 to 77. I think 
it was a good vote and a strong vote, one in which the Senate can take 
legitimate pride. I think that vote expresses the feelings of most of 
us here that the National Endowment for the Arts has been a very 
successful agency that has made a significant contribution, and 
continues to do so, to the vitality, health, well-being, and cultural 
heritage of our country.
  I know it has been said that there have been examples cited of where 
NEA grants or subgrants or subcontracts over the years, from time to 
time have been given that have supported or produced or been involved 
with some productions of art that have been distasteful to many people 
in this country. I

[[Page S9490]]

am not here to argue the merits or demerits of those particular cases. 
In fact, in several instances, I, too, was sort of stunned that certain 
productions were provided with that kind of financing and backing.
  But I think it is important for everybody to understand and to put 
this into context, if we can. As I understand it now, since the 
creation of the National Endowment for the Arts, going back more than a 
quarter of a century ago, there have been over 100,000 grants that have 
been extended by the NEA. Of that 100,000, I am told, if you take all 
the controversial grants that have been given, the number is around 40 
or 45 maybe. That, many would argue, goes beyond the ones that were the 
most controversial, which number in the single digits. I wanted to put 
that into perspective.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. If I can just finish my remarks, I will be glad to yield at 
that time.
  The reason I cite those statistics is I think it is important, as we 
look at these agencies, that we keep this in context. No agency is 
perfect. There have been questionable grants given by the Housing 
Administration, by the Defense Department, and by the Commerce 
Department. In fact, I would match up the total amount of grants given 
by the NEA, those that are controversial or distasteful, and compare 
that with almost any other agency of the Federal Government and compare 
their track record in terms of cases where there has been fraud, abuse, 
or waste of millions of dollars.
  So nobody is standing here suggesting perfection at all. What we are 
arguing about is whether or not there is a legitimate purpose in having 
a National Endowment for the Arts, a federally chartered agency that 
tries to express the importance of the cultural contribution of the 
arts. I have often said to students in my State, or elsewhere, when 
this issue comes up--I think almost every grade school student can tell 
you the name of the artist who painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel. 
But I defy anybody to tell you who the Pope was at that time, or to 
name the Emperor of Rome. We don't remember the political figures 
throughout history, but artists have given us a definition, a 
signature, in many cases, of a generation or a time. Certainly, we have 
seen that in our country.

  We define our own heritage by literature, art, and music. To have our 
Government, in a sense, speak to that and try to provide guidance, 
assistance, and support for areas of the country that would not 
otherwise get that assistance, I think is something we ought to build 
upon and perpetuate. We build stadiums for sports with taxpayers' 
money. These stadiums today can cost $100 or $115 million to house 
30,000 or 40,000 people to watch a sporting event. The entire budget we 
are talking about here for the National Endowment for the Arts is $100 
million for all 50 States, to support our cultural activities.
  There has been a tremendous burst and blossoming of activities in the 
last 30 years in this country in the arts area. The number of nonprofit 
theaters has grown from fifty-six 30 years ago to over 400 in the 
country today. Orchestras have quadrupled in number, to over 200 in our 
Nation. Public arts agencies in small towns and cities have climbed to 
over 3,000 in the last 30 years.
  Yet, today, we see another attempt here to try, in one way or 
another, to get rid of the agency, to either vote it out of existence 
or, with all due respect, to block grant the money to eliminate it. We 
also know that this very agency has been the one which has served as 
the impetus, the spark, if you will, that has aided in the flourishing 
of the arts we have seen over these past three decades.
  With a deep commitment and a meager beget, the NEA has provided vital 
support to States, local communities, schools, artistic and cultural 
institutions, artists, and others for over 30 years.
  While always limited, these dollars do make a difference. It is hard 
to leverage out of a block grant, if you will, the kind of private 
contributions NEA has been able to generate. So by removing the kind of 
programs that we have seen here and leaving things up to sort of the 
political vagaries, we leave this commitment that we have made over the 
years in great, great jeopardy.
  Currently, 35 percent of the NEA's budget flows directly to the 
States--in effect, a block grant, if you will. I understand that the 
States deserve a role, but it needs to be a partnership with the 
Federal Government. The success of the NEA is rooted, obviously, in its 
national presence--once that is lost, I think we all lose in this 
country.
  Why is the Federal leadership role important? First, I happen to 
believe that Federal leadership allows better access to the arts for 
all Americans. It assures all Americans, regardless of income or 
geography, that they will have access to the arts. Grants allow quality 
orchestras and theater groups to travel throughout the country. The NEA 
helps communities with few resources to develop local talent through 
exposure to operas, theaters, and orchestra groups.
  Second, the NEA develops public-private partnerships that work. NEA 
grants, as I said a moment ago, help raise and leverage private 
dollars. Also, it is the prestige of an NEA grant that, on average, 
attracts money from other public and private funding sources. There is 
no guarantee that these same sources will risk supporting a festival or 
exhibit sponsored by an unknown State art council with no track record 
and without the stature of the NEA. In essence, NEA grants raise money; 
block grants do not.
  Third, support for programs with a national impact is a goal and 
commitment of the NEA and can only be forwarded by an organization with 
resources and the kind of clout and prestige of a Federal agency. It 
puts us on record, as a nation, that we stand and support these 
efforts.

  The NEA supports such nationally important work as the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial, or public television shows; these are national in 
scope not State by State, or community by community. We lose that if we 
don't have a national focus and direction.
  National studies into the importance of arts education can be lost. 
Supporting American artists that represent the United States as a 
nation in cultural festivals overseas are supported by the NEA. Who is 
going to do this if we, in fact, distribute the resources around the 
country and lose the national presence of the National Endowment for 
the Arts?
  The National Endowment for the Arts dollars go to regional projects--
not just State and local ones--such as exhibiting the traditional folk 
arts of the Delaware Valley. Only the NEA, as a fully funded Federal 
agency, can garner the resources and provide the leadership for such 
nationally important work.
  Fourth, NEA dollars receive economic returns. These dollars create 
$37 billion in national economic activity, and $1 billion alone in my 
home State of Connecticut. Grants spur economic activity throughout the 
country. NEA grants generate tourism, stimulate business development, 
drive urban renewal and contribute to our Nation's economic vitality. 
Over 1.3 million jobs are supported by the arts.
  Finally, the NEA is a leader. The NEA provides cultural leadership 
for the Nation in such areas as education, crime prevention 
initiatives, city design, public arts, and preservation of the Nation's 
cultural heritage.
  By giving the majority of funds to the States, by cutting out the so-
called middleman here in Washington, you are not helping, necessarily, 
the local artist, the local orchestra, or the local theater. In many 
cases, I suggest that you are actually hurting them.
  The NEA is the keystone here. Once removed, I think we all lose.
  Mr. President, the arts adds to our culture, to our Nation and our 
economy. I believe it is time that we look for a source of funding, in 
addition to Federal funds, to maintain the NEA's vital role.
  Our colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, has a proposal--a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution--that we conduct some extensive hearings in 
the coming Congress to look at ways in which we might supplement the 
Federal funding for the NEA. It is time we do more to ensure the future 
viability of the NEA and the NEH.
  I am looking at a way in which we might get beyond the debate, and 
create a true endowment to supplement

[[Page S9491]]

federal funds. I suggest looking into an innovative way to create this 
true endowment. I propose tapping revenue from a copyright extension to 
fund this true endowment. My idea is to extend, or rather to terminate 
the copyright period--whatever it may be, 50 70, or 90 years--that 
there be a period of say 20 years after that period in which the 
Government would auction off these copyrights. Individuals would bid on 
the copyrights. And the resources that came in from the bids would 
support a national arts endowment, a true endowment. But this would 
allow one generation of artists supporting future generations; in a 
sense, a true endowment.
  This is no endowment. I don't know why we call this a National 
Endowment for the Arts. It is not an endowment. It is an appropriations 
that we have year in and year out. The idea of a true endowment is not 
a perfect one at all. But it would be a way of us getting away, if you 
will, from the constant battle of appropriations to a way of having the 
arts in effect generate revenues.
  You may not get much immediately. But I suspect with all the 
technology that is being developed--the preservation, the ability to 
preserve works of art and many art forms emerging--that in the 21st 
century, long after all of us are gone, there might be a substantial 
amount of revenues that would be generated to support arts activities 
in the country.
  I raise the idea of a true endowment as a mere suggestion and I hope 
the Senate will look into the suggestion. It is time to endow the NEA 
and the NEH with a future and secure a national cultural endowment for 
generations to come.
  With that, I thank my colleagues for their patience in listening. But 
I know my colleague from Arkansas wanted to raise a question. I would 
be glad to at least try to respond.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. First, I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his 
creative and innovative ideas on how we might truly have endowment of 
the arts. I hope that everyone understands on both sides of this debate 
that there is support for funding for the arts. The issue is the 
National Endowment--the so-called National Endowment for the Arts.
  As I have listened to the proponents of the NEA, I have heard glowing 
commendations and glowing reports about arts in America. But what I 
have failed to hear anyone respond to--and the question I would pose to 
the Senator from Connecticut--is the very I think deplorable record 
that the NEA has established, both in its administrative costs and over 
18 cents on the dollar, by a nickel more per dollar, than the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, or other Federal agencies.
  The inspector general, who, in conducting his grantee audits from 
1991 to 1996, found that absolutely deplorable record of audits, a lack 
of accountability without knowledge of where the money was going, who 
was spending it, who was receiving it. It is that kind of slipshod 
management that has put a question mark over I think the future of the 
NEA. And when we talk about funding for the arts, only 5 percent of the 
Federal involvement in the arts at the Federal level is the NEA. There 
are literally hundreds of billions of dollars being spent at the 
Federal level in support of various arts programs and other agencies 
and departments. It is not a matter of pulling out the Federal role in 
arts.
  I would welcome the response.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would give me a chance to respond to the 
question, he raises the issue in the committees. He is not just raising 
it here on the floor.

  First, let me--I should have mentioned these in my remarks--comment 
here. I happen to believe that Jane Alexander has done a brilliant job 
at NEA--a remarkable individual, truly a national treasure. I recall 
the specific questions being raised about these issues. Certainly 
legitimate questions should be raised about how well an agency 
functions, whether or not we are getting much for the dollar for the 
purposes intended, or how much gets consumed by administrative costs. I 
think that is a legitimate question raised in ways in which we make an 
agency function better. Certainly we have seen this administration 
focus a great deal of its attention on so-called ``reinvention of 
Government''--trying to streamline 180,000 fewer jobs at the Federal 
level, and fewer pages of Federal regulations. I think we all applaud 
that.
  I think it is a legitimate issue to look to see how we can make this 
agency perform better so that the American people will be the greater 
beneficiary, if you will, of the role of and the purpose of the NEA. 
But I would respectfully say to my colleague from Arkansas, as 
legitimate as those questions are, it seems to me that we ought not to 
try to eliminate in effect, through either block grant or total 
elimination, a Federal agency that has played such a critical role in 
giving national voice, as I said earlier, to the arts efforts, not to 
mention regional aspects, and the like. My fear is that, of course, by 
doing this through a block grant we would achieve just that--rather 
than an appropriate examination of how we can make the NEA work better, 
respond better, reduce its overhead costs so that more of those dollars 
will actually reach the artists, the communities, and the artistic 
efforts that we all would like to see happen. That is my concern here. 
We seem to be saying that no matter what you try to do, there is 
nothing that could be done here--that there is no way whatsoever to 
make this agency work better. I believe there are ways. I think Jane 
Alexander has certainly demonstrated that over the last several years 
under her leadership.
  So, I urge that, rather than discarding in a sense de facto--that 
would be the result here--with all due respect the NEA, we ought to 
look at ways in which the Senator might suggest how we can improve the 
NEA's performance rather than certainly suggesting its elimination.
  My colleague I see may have another question.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. No. I was going to inquire of the Chair the amount of 
time left in this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas controls 2 minutes. 
The Senator from Connecticut controls 15 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may, I still have the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield? I would like for Members to have 
more time, if I may.
  Mr. DODD. I yield for the purposes of making a request.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, we have until 7:30 before the vote. I 
think it would be appropriate to ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 7:30 be evenly divided between the two sides with the 
last 4 minutes devoted to the opponents and proponents using 2 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I want to inquire of the 
leadership.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by 
Lewis Hyde that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, a MacArthur Fellow 
and Professor of Art and Politics at Kenyon College, that talks about 
concept and idea, that I mentioned in terms of establishing a true 
endowment, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Use Copyright Extension to Endow Creativity

                            (By Lewis Hyde)

       The mother lode of creative work from the early days of 
     film and sound recording will soon begin to enter the public 
     domain. This potentially enormous wealth could be used to 
     support the community of artists and scholars from which it 
     ultimately derives. But Congress is considering a bill that 
     would essentially transfer the wealth from the public domain 
     to the pockets of private corporations and individuals. It 
     would be a serious loss if the decision to give the money 
     away were not joined to the debate about how we support 
     creativity.
       A 1994 proposal from Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) 
     lays out an ingenious way to use the value of past 
     intellectual property to support artists and scholars working 
     today. The ``Arts Endowing the Arts Act'' would add 20 years 
     to the term of copyright protection and use the income from 
     those extra years to underwrite current creative work.
       At present, U.S. copyright protects an individual's work 
     for his or her lifetime, plus 50 years; corporations with 
     works ``made for hire'' hold rights for 75 years. Under 
     Dodd's proposal, at the end of each of these terms, the 
     rights to an additional 20 years would be publicly auctioned, 
     the proceeds going to

[[Page S9492]]

     build an endowment dedicated to the arts and humanities.
       Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is sponsoring a bill that would 
     similarly extend the term of copyright for 10 years, but the 
     proceeds of this windfall would go to current rights holders. 
     Supporters of Hatch's bill point out that the European Union 
     has directed its member states to unify their terms of 
     copyright at ``life plus 70 years,'' and they contend that 
     many benefits would follow if we did the same, chief among 
     them an increase in the U.S. balance of trade. They also 
     contend that many countries follow ``the rule of the shorter 
     term'' when foreign and local laws differ; thus, if the U.S. 
     term is shorter, Americans would forfeit income they might 
     otherwise have earned abroad.
       None of these arguments holds up under scrutiny. The 
     arithmetic doesn't make sense, for one thing. Corporations 
     owning made-for-hire works currently hold copyrights for 75 
     years; under Hatch's bill, the term would run 95 years, a 
     welcome change for ASCAP and the Motion Picture Assn, but not 
     one that brings U.S. law into harmony with European law. To 
     do that would mean reducing the work-for-hire term by five 
     years, not adding 20 to it.
       As for gains in the balance of payments or losses under the 
     ``rule of the shorter term,'' we should remember that 
     Europeans are not the only consumers who would pay for this 
     change. The bulk of the cost of this corporate handout would 
     be borne by U.S. citizens, who would be obliged to continue 
     paying royalties for works that would have otherwise become 
     common property.
       Since its beginnings in the 18th century, U.S. copyright 
     law has sought to balance private gain and public good. If 
     Congress now wants to change the terms of copyright, the 
     crucial question to ask is not whether it would be harmonious 
     with Europe's, but whether the constitutional mandate to 
     balance private and public good would be upheld. The beauty 
     of the Dodd proposal is that it not only addresses issues set 
     in motion by Europe's longer term, but it does so without any 
     theft from the public side of the scale. It adds a middle 
     term between public and private, a transition period during 
     which we designate as ``the public'' that community of 
     artists and scholars whose calling already makes them the 
     initial heirs of our cultural patrimony.
       It would be best if the income from such a plan went to 
     build endowments for the National Endowment for the Arts and 
     the National Endowment for the Humanities so they might 
     eventually be free of their reliance on congressional 
     funding. For many years, supporters of the arts have sought 
     some way in which the arts and humanities might benefit from 
     their own streams of wealth, rather than having to go begging 
     for tax dollars. The American creative community already has 
     riches and income. It needs only institutions designed to 
     translate some of that wealth into support for those who 
     labor today to create the cultural riches that will be passed 
     on tomorrow.
       By extending copyright to help build the endowments, 
     Congress can create such an institution. If, on the other 
     hand, it extends copyright with no regard for the public 
     domain, it will have done little more than sponsor a 
     remarkable theft.

  Mr. DODD. Second, I will conclude my remarks so others may have a 
chance to speak on this issue. In the reauthorization bill, which 
passed 14 to 4 by the Labor and Human Resources Committee, we adopted 
an amendment by our colleague that codifies the inspector general's 
recommendations that the Senator from Arkansas has identified before 
the committee today.
  So that the suggestions that are being made are ones that we think 
ought to be made a part of making NEA perform better. That is a 
legitimate function of a congressional committee--to examine all of our 
agencies to determine how they can function better. We did that pretty 
overwhelmingly in the committee.
  I commend my colleague for the amendment and the suggestion that 
codified those ideas.
  Second, Mr. President, administrative costs were lower at the agency 
when, frankly, the appropriations were higher. You shrink a budget down 
and, of course, if you are trying to maintain a programmatic level, 
what can happen is you find your percentage costs rise with the 
shrinkage of dollars, so that more and more of it gets eaten up in 
administration. When we actually appropriated more for the NEA, those 
administrative costs were a lower percentage of the overall budget. 
Audit findings were from a group of grants recommended by the staff of 
the NEA for audit because of concerns about the grant administration, 
and they were not randomly selected, I might point out as well.
  At any rate, Mr. President, just to make the final point on this from 
my perspective here, I think we ought to be celebrating the success of 
the agency. To have had 100,000 grants in 30 years with 40 
controversial ones, I defy any other Federal agency to have a track 
record even remotely close to that record. Any other agency that 
provides grants to anyone, where they have had only 40 that fall into 
the category of controversial, that is a remarkable record and one I 
think we ought to applaud. We ought to be celebrating the National 
Endowment for the Arts and its contribution to our country and what it 
has stimulated, what it has brought to enrich our heritage, our 
culture, our time.
  Someone was pointing out to me earlier today there was a great debate 
in the Congress over whether or not we ought to accept the library of 
Thomas Jefferson when he offered it to the United States. Of course, 
the successor of that it is the Library of Congress, but it was the 
Jefferson library that was offered. The debate was a raging debate, and 
some suggested we only ought to accept the Jefferson library if we 
extracted from it any books which spoke about atheism or other 
questions which were not mainstream or popular or certainly rejected 
the values of our society as a whole. It was a relatively close vote, 
but that idea was rejected and we bought the entire Jefferson library. 
Today, I think our Library of Congress and the contribution that Thomas 
Jefferson made is something all of us applaud.
  We might find it even somewhat amusing today to have heard there was 
that kind of debate. I would suggest today that even with these highly 
controversial performances that people do not like, that offend them, 
we can focus on that if we want, but why not focus as well on the over 
100,000 grants that have enriched our society, have brought a great 
wealth to this Nation, opportunities to people in areas of this Nation 
that never would have had that benefit.
  My hope is that when our colleagues vote on this particular 
amendment, they will be mindful of that contribution, of this great 
success and of the great fortune we have as a Nation to have someone of 
Jane Alexander's abilities and background and qualities to help lead 
this agency, as sensitive as she is, listening to the concerns of any 
Member who cares to have her time in how to make this agency work 
better. I hope we would keep that in mind as we cast our votes, so 
future generations look back on this time and say that in this Congress 
at the close of the 20th century the Senate insisted, a majority of us 
here, to keep the National Endowment for the Arts, to prepare for the 
21st century and to leave a legacy of riches, of cultural riches. We 
lose that, Mr. President, if we abandon this agency and turn this into 
a block grant.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Who yields time to the Senator 
from Alabama?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield such time as he might consume to the Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized. The 
Senator from Arkansas controls 8 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to the eloquent Senator from Connecticut, to talk 
about retreating from the arts, this is not the appropriate argument 
here. We are talking about spending more money directly for the arts.
  As he was talking, I did a quick look at how the State of Connecticut 
would fair under a block grant program, and they would go from 
$1,265,000 to $1,392,000, actually increase $128,000 in real moneys 
they can use for arts in the State of Connecticut. But I would also 
add, Connecticut is one of the wealthiest States, I think perhaps the 
wealthiest State in America. It is a State with a great tradition of 
arts, but I notice they received 28 grants last year totaling 
$1,059,000--28 grants, $1,059,000. Under our plan they would receive 
more money than that.
  But let me tell you, I represent the people of the State of Alabama, 
and I have had three groups representing orchestras in my State in my 
office. I know of the great Shakespeare theater in Montgomery. I am 
aware of the opera and museums in Mobile. We have a great history of 
arts, too, but we received only 11--not 28. We received 11

[[Page S9493]]

grants at only $540,000, even though we have more people in the State 
of Alabama paying taxes to this country than they do in the State of 
Connecticut.
  One of the real problems with this program is it has not allocated 
the money fairly. How can I support a program that takes money from 
taxpayers in Alabama to support the wealthiest States in art endeavors 
when we have art endeavors we are striving every day to enhance and 
improve?
  Bureaucracies have never created art. Nothing of beauty has come out 
of a committee. It takes the intelligence and genius of individual 
citizens to do it. So I say it is the wrong approach to think that we 
can send money to Washington, DC, and that they can somehow decide how 
to nourish art. That is not the way it is going to happen. Let us put 
that money out into the States, to the arts councils of the States, and 
let them look at how they can contribute the money to those budding 
artists who need money, to those orchestras that need just that extra 
amount to keep their doors open, to assist those communities that are 
working hard to raise money to preserve folk art.
  That is what we ought to be doing. I do not think there is any doubt 
about it. This is as clear a vote as I have ever seen in this Senate. 
The choice is clear. Do we send money to Washington to allow them to 
mismanage it and a bureaucracy to use almost 20 percent or do we send 
this money out to the arts councils around this Nation so they can use 
it to improve the operas and orchestras and museums of our States 
throughout our Nation? That is what we ought to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the National Endowment for the Arts has 
been accused of elistism. But the true record of the Endowment is far 
different. It is a record of diversity, excellence, and outreach.
  The Endowment has been supportive of national efforts of the Country 
Music Foundation. The Endowment supported their commission of the 
Thomas Hart Benton famous last painting ``Sources of Country Music'' 
through its Art in Public Places Program. The painting is on display, 
it has traveled the Southeast, and has been exhibited in a vast array 
of venues from the Hirshhorn Museum to the cafeteria of the Nissan 
Plant in Nashville, TN.
  Another grant in the late 1970's catalyzed fundraising for a major 
country music discography of the early 78 rpm recordings from 1922 
through the 1940's. The project is just being completed today.
  Again, in the 1980's, the NEA supported an educational kit entitled 
``Tennessee Traditions'' distributed to every public school in 
Tennessee. One of the components of the kit was a folk music tape.
  Each year the Arts Endowment honors National Heritage Fellows. The 
fellows are from a wide variety of disciplines of the folk and 
traditional arts. Among the honorees this year are bluegrass musicians 
Jim and Jesse McReynolds of Tennessee; Gladys LeBlanc Clark who is a 
Cajun weaver from Louisiana; blacksmith Francis Whitaker from 
Carbondale, CO; Hystercine Rankin, a quilter from Lorman, MS; and Ramon 
Jose Lopex, a metalsmith from Santa Fe, NM.
  These honorees will be honored next week at a White House ceremony 
and will perform and celebrate their work. The National Heritage 
Fellowships are the Nation's most prestigious recognition of 
accomplishment in the folk and traditional arts. And it is an NEA 
program.
  Another traditional program that owes early and critical support to 
the NEA is the Cowboy Poets Festival. In the early 1980's Elko, NV, was 
chosen as the site for the Western Folklife Center. It was established 
in the center of the ranching community to celebrate its culture and 
folk traditions.
  They approached the NEA for support when corporate sponsors and other 
funders were hard to come by. With NEA support in 1985, the first 
cowboys festival got underway, with about 60 poets and approximately 
1,000 audience members.
  Today, corporate supporters join the NEA to support the festival and 
the center and this year's festival welcomed 8,000 attendees.
  Support for the folk and traditional arts continues at the Arts 
Endowment. This year the Endowment has funded the Southern Arts 
Federation's ``Southern Connections,'' which is a 2-year training and 
touring program to support indigenous southern artists.
  The Endowment also supported the West Virginia Folk Arts 
Apprenticeship program; the Creative Arts Guild of Dalton, GA; and the 
Alabama Folklife Association. The grant to Alabama will support the 
publication of documentation of primitive Baptist hymn singing through 
a publication, cassette recordings, and compact discs.
  The Endowment also funded Appalshop, Inc., Roadside Theater in 
Whitesburg, KY. This grant will work with the theater and a consortium 
of the Performing Arts League/Prairie Mountain Players of Choteau, MT, 
and Community Connection of Austin, TX, to develop, test, and document 
a nationally applicable model for the creation of rural drama.
  I hope that, as we debate the appropriate funding level for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, we can be fair about its record, and 
responsive to the overwhelming need across America for the programs 
that the Endowment supports.
  In many ways, in so many communities, the NEA is a lifeline of 
financial stability.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the seemingly relentless attacks of 
the critics and support the record of the Endowment. Let's support full 
funding for this small, but worthy, Federal program.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the following is an article written by 
Metropolitan King County Councilman Larry Philips of the fourth 
district and Metropolitan King County Councilwoman Louise Miller of the 
third district. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Congress Should Embrace Investment in Arts, Culture

                 (By Louise Miller and Larry Phillips)

       ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens and * 
     * * must therefore foster and support a form of education, 
     and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make 
     people of all backgrounds * * * masters of their technology 
     and not its unthinking servant.''--The Declaration of Purpose 
     for the National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities Act of 
     1965.
       With the establishment of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts (NEA) in 1965, our country has come a long way in 
     achieving the ideal of access to and participation in the 
     arts for all Americans. Today, that ideal is under attack.
       There has been a movement in Congress to eliminate all 
     public investment in the cultural activities of our nation, 
     specifically, by targeting the NEA. Although funding for the 
     NEA was recently restored by a Senate subcommittee after it 
     had been eliminated by the House, the agency's future remains 
     uncertain. In September, a joint committee of House and 
     Senate members will negotiate the fate of the NEA and the 
     investment we make in our arts and cultural heritage. Is the 
     U.S. to be the only Western nation on earth not to fund its 
     cultural legacy?
       As elected leaders in King County, we firmly believe that 
     the NEA is a critical investment that helps keep the arts 
     alive and accessible for all residents in our nation and, 
     closer to home, in King County. Why is the NEA so important? 
     With the NEA's support, the King County Arts Commission 
     (KCAC) was created in 1967--the nation's first county arts 
     commission. Since then, an entire ``cultural sector'' has 
     burgeoned in our region, stimulating a stronger economy, 
     enriching our quality of life and enhancing education in the 
     arts.
       Vital arts organizations and active participation in the 
     arts are increasingly essential to our regional economy. Not 
     only do the arts contribute to our quality of life in the 
     Northwest, but they also generate over $180 million annually 
     to our economy, according to a Corporate Council on the Arts 
     1992 economic impact study. In addition, cultural tourism 
     means big business to our area. When the Seattle Opera 
     presents Wagner's Ring Cycle, it attracts an audience from 
     all 50 states and 18 countries.
       Opponents of the NEA state that the arts should be funded 
     exclusively through private contributions. This demonstrates 
     a lack of understanding about arts funding. Many private 
     organizations will not make a financial donation to an artist 
     or arts organization unless they have also received grant 
     funding from the NEA or their state or local arts agency. 
     Donations by private corporations, foundations and 
     individuals cannot fill the financial gap that would be 
     created if the NEA were eliminated. In other words, the small 
     percentage of funds contributed by the NEA and public 
     agencies is essential in order for nonprofit arts 
     organizations to leverage donations from private sources.

[[Page S9494]]

       Critics of the NEA have questioned the value of the artwork 
     that has received NEA funds. Let's look at the real picture. 
     In the last three years, over 40 local and regional arts 
     organizations have received $3.1 million in direct NEA grants 
     (equal to about 1 percent of their combined operating 
     budgets). Who are these organizations? They range from major 
     ones like the Seattle Symphony, the Seattle Opera and the 
     Seattle Repertory Theater, so suburban groups like the 
     Village Theater in Issaquah and the Vashon Allied Arts, to 
     youth-centered organizations including the Seattle Youth 
     Symphony Orchestra, the Northwest Girlchoir and Seattle 
     Children's Theater.
       These organizations reflect the rich diversity of our 
     community and the best work of our finest artists. More 
     importantly, the grant funding helps ensure that the arts--
     and all the enrichment and joy that they bring--are 
     affordable for the families and young people of our region. A 
     requirement for an arts organization that receives grant 
     funding is to broaden public access to the arts. That may be 
     in the form of reduced ticket prices or special performances 
     for school groups.
       Another good example of local NEA support is this year's 
     inaugural season of the King County Performance Network, a 
     collaboration between the KCAC and 14 suburban arts agencies. 
     A $60,000 grant from the NEA to the KCAC will help bring 
     outstanding dance ensembles to under-served suburban 
     communities from Redmond to Federal Way beginning Sept. 6. 
     The Performance Network is a good example of the vast 
     majority of projects supported by the NEA: It brings art into 
     the lives of those who may not otherwise have the 
     opportunity.
       The success of the arts in our region is the result of a 
     strong partnership among the NEA, more than two dozen local 
     governments and nonprofit arts agencies, hundreds of 
     businesses and foundations, and thousands of private 
     citizens. Thanks to this partnership, King County residents 
     enjoy one of the highest cultural participation rates per 
     capita in the nation. With the full participation of the NEA, 
     that partnership is threatened, and the rich cultural 
     environment of our nation and King County will be severely 
     undermined.
       As we celebrate 30 years of public support of the arts, we 
     strongly believe that public investment for culture and the 
     arts should be strengthened and valued. The partnership we 
     have enjoyed for nearly a generation should be preserved so 
     that today's and tomorrow's citizens may enjoy the cultural 
     heritage and traditions of our region and our nation. As we 
     look toward the future, the county pledges to continue its 
     mission to raise the standard of artistic accomplishment in 
     King County and to broaden cultural opportunities for all our 
     citizens, not merely those who can afford it. Congress should 
     do the same.

  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as is 
controlled by the opponents of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes and 40 seconds controlled 
by those in opposition. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 
such time.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  I rise in strong support of the arts. Earlier this afternoon, we were 
able to fend off a frontal asault on the National Endowment by the 
Ashcroft amendment. Today we are debating two amendments that would 
also do great damage to the National Endowment for the Arts.
  I come to this position with I think a very special standing because 
I have succeeded Senator Claiborne Pell, who was one of the architects 
of the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Pell recognized that 
centuries from now this Nation would be recognized far more for its 
contribution to the human spirit than perhaps anything else. And 
through his efforts, the National Endowment was created and through the 
efforts of the National Endowment theater, ballet, and opera has spread 
throughout this country.
  One of the fallacies I think that is found in the argument of my 
colleagues is that the States are quite capable of doing this, they are 
ready to do this. But the reality is that before the National Endowment 
for the Arts there was not much art throughout many parts of this 
country, that there were not as there is today opera companies 
throughout America and theater companies. In fact, if the National 
Endowment for the Arts is eliminated, if this is put into a block 
grant, I fear, and I think I fear with very, very good evidence, that 
what will happen is a shriveling of the arts in America.
  Many of us have been in State government. We know that there is no 
monopoly on great wisdom or aesthetic sensibility at the State level, 
no more so than at the Federal level. We know that this money might be 
ill used. But we also know that it will be subject to a much more 
narrower and parochial focus. We have within the National Endowment a 
national vision, a national vision, though, that acts through local 
individuals, and that is what is critical also.
  The National Endowment is not running a great national theater here 
in Washington exclusively. But what it is doing is reaching into every 
corner of America and giving people an opportunity to appreciate and 
participate in the arts. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have 
theater companies that are supported by the NEA. We have educational 
programs that allow young children to witness the arts. Indeed, the 
first time I ever saw a play was as a grammar school student in 
Cranston, RI, when I went to see the Trinity Repertory Company, 
supported by the National Endowment, by Federal support, put on ``Saint 
Joan'' by George Bernard Shaw. That was a moving experience. And that 
experience is replicated every day throughout this country because of 
the National Endowment.
  In addition to contributing to the artistic quality of America, this 
agency has generated tremendous economic development and progress 
throughout the country. In my own State, its contribution to the arts 
has been multiplied in terms of the economic effect. Providence, 
particularly, has become a city that is proud of our arts, that has 
thriving companies that need the National Endowment, not just for 
aesthetic reasons but for good, solid economic reasons. And by 
eliminating the National Endowment, or by block granting its funds, we 
will, I think, dissipate that energy, that enthusiasm, and that 
achievement we have seen today.
  The arts are not only a source of pleasure, but in many cases a 
source of great economic progress, particularly in my home State of 
Rhode Island. So, for many, many reasons, I believe that these 
amendments, while well intentioned, will undercut what is a strong 
national policy to support the arts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. May I inquire how much time opponents of the 
amendment have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opponents has expired. The 
proponents control 4 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes that we 
have remaining to respond to some of the statements made by the 
opponents of the amendment. I remind Senator Reed, incidentally, the 
State of Rhode Island would gain $123,000 in additional funds for arts 
spending in Rhode Island under the block grant amendment that Senator 
Sessions and myself have offered. I remind each Senator that they can 
check on their desks here in the Senate Chamber exactly how much, but 
45 States will receive more funds under this amendment to support the 
arts within their own States.
  I was interested that Senator Reed spoke of the shriveling of the 
arts. If we take this pittance, this relative pittance, in view of the 
Federal budget, of $100 million and we remove that National Endowment 
funding, that national entity, that somehow the arts in this country 
would begin to shrivel. I think, in all due respect, the Senator from 
Rhode Island underestimates the American people, underestimates the 
arts community in the United States, and underestimates how much the 
arts flourish today without a huge injection of Federal funds.
  As an example, the Metropolitan Opera, which has a total income of 
$133 million, the Lyric Opera, which has an annual income of $37 
million, the Boston Symphony, which has an annual income of $43 
million, and the Art Institute of Chicago, which has an annual income 
of $96 million--all of them receiving NEA grants. Most of these wealthy 
organizations experienced significant cuts in NEA funding in the last 2 
years. Yet, in spite of those cuts in NEA funding, each one reported 
dramatic increases in total income in 1996. The point being that even 
as funding cuts in the NEA have occurred, arts in this country have 
continued to flourish.
  But I will tell you what is offensive to me. What is offensive to me 
is that the Metropolitan Opera is getting an NEA grant. What is 
offensive to me is

[[Page S9495]]

the Boston Symphony, with a $43 million income, is getting an NEA 
grant, while the Opera Theater in Wildwood, in Little Rock, AR, got 
$4,000. The mission of the NEA was to broadly increase access to the 
arts. That is not what is happening. Mr. President, 85 percent of the 
grantees in the last fiscal year have been previous recipients of NEA 
funds. That is not increasing access to the arts.

  So I suggest that, if we really care about the arts, removing the 
Washington bureaucracy, sending the money to the States, allowing those 
closest to the people to make those decisions, will be far wiser and 
far more productive for arts in this country.
  I have raised great issues as to the priorities of the National 
Endowment, the decisions they are making. The State of Arkansas--you 
know, I heard Senator Dodd. I have the greatest respect for him.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield, but let me finish my point. 
I have the greatest respect for Senator Dodd, but he spoke of, ``Let's 
not concentrate on the few bad grants, let's concentrate on the 100,000 
good grants.'' When he said that, I thought about Arkansas, because we 
got one last year. We made 12 applications and we received 1, for the 
Arts Council in Arkansas.
  So I have great questions about the priorities. In Arkansas, the NEA 
spent 17 cents for every man, woman and child in Arkansas; 17 cents. In 
New York State the NEA spent $1 for every man, woman and child in New 
York State.
  I'm sorry, everybody says, ``Give the NEA a chance.'' We have given 
them chance after chance after chance. Year after year these objections 
and these concerns have been raised. We see no reform. We see no 
change. Instead we see arrogant elitism. And I say it is time to end 
the NEA. Don't end support for the arts--no. But end this Washington 
bureaucracy, send that money back so Rhode Island will have another 
$123,000, so Arkansas will have another $700,000, so Alabama him have 
another half-million dollars, so the States all over this country can 
do more for those artists, for those schoolchildren who, too often, 
fall through the cracks.
  I believe that the amendment that we have offered makes eminent 
common sense.
  I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I would say you have trotted out some impressive statistics 
about income as a measure of the wealth of these artistic enterprises 
like the Metropolitan, but the other side of the equation is their 
cost. Many of these institutions, even the famous ones, find it very 
difficult to make ends meet.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I will just say, if you check 
each one of these institutions, they are well endowed, they have good 
support and good sources of income and the dependence upon any kind of 
NEA grant, I think, is simply not justifiable. If you are looking at 
the Boston Symphony, the Art Institute of Chicago, with the kind of 
support base that they have, and compare them--


                           Amendment No. 1206

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on this amendment.
  We will now proceed with amendment No. 1206, the Abraham amendment. 
By previous agreed-upon order, there will be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the sides. Who seeks recognition? The Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will quickly summarize. My amendment is 
designed to accomplish two things: To begin an effort to privatize the 
NEA so it can be as large as it wants to be and as liberated from the 
strings which Congress has attached to it as it wants to be. I believe 
this is feasible and I think it would take away from us, finally and 
once and for all, this ongoing debate between obscenity and censorship. 
Let the arts be free and creative and at the discretion of an 
independent entity. At the same time, my amendment would provide new 
funding to try to maintain and restore such treasures as the Star 
Spangled Banner, the works of our great composers, Presidential papers, 
Ellis Island, and Mount Rushmore.
  By moving in this direction, if my amendment passes, I will be 
offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which would incorporate the 
privatization concept, and then begin working on a variety of 
mechanisms by which I believe we in Congress can legislatively assist a 
private entity to thrive and be successful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the National Endowment for the Arts has 
served this Nation well for many, many years. There are things that we 
can do to improve its performance, but the wholesale scuttling of the 
National Endowment would, I think, be a mistake. I believe that we can 
make improvements but we cannot give up the vision of a national agency 
which reaches into every corner of this country to encourage and 
inspire the artistic excellence of the American people. By supporting 
the NEA, we can accomplish that. I believe these amendments would 
disrupt that support, and, therefore, I oppose them and request that my 
colleagues oppose them.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 1206. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--73

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1206) was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. In just a few minutes I will propound a unanimous-consent 
request. I had hoped we would be able to finish the interior 
appropriations bill by tonight. We have not been able to do so because 
of a number of conflicts and amendments that have been offered.
  Senator Daschle and I have tried to move it along and we have not 
been able to do so yet. I understand that Senators still have some 
amendments they would like to offer. We have one more vote pending 
tonight which has already been called for.
  I believe the next amendment then would be the Hutchinson amendment. 
I will ask unanimous consent that we have a time limit of about 20 
minutes,

[[Page S9496]]

and that we do that vote at 9:30 in the morning. I will also ask that 
we get a list of amendments tonight to see what we are dealing with, to 
begin to close this out. I don't think we have that many problems, but 
because of the length of time that we have put into the amendments we 
have already voted on, a number of Senators would like to see this list 
and work through it in the morning.
  Again, I hope we can work together to get it done. We could have as 
many as five votes tonight--could have. You know, one of these days we 
may have to do that. But in view of the circumstances, since we seem to 
be contributing to some of the problems, and everybody has tried to 
work in good faith, I think the better part of valor tonight would be 
to have this one last vote and get the UC, and we would begin votes 
again in the morning. Is there any comment on that from the minority 
leader?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's 
consideration of schedules. I do hope that all Senators will cooperate. 
We have had good debate on the NEA and I hope we can get it behind us. 
We have a lot of other issues and they all deserve some consideration.
  I hope we can create a finite list tonight and reach some agreement 
about what that list is so that we can complete our work, hopefully, 
tomorrow. So I ask for the cooperation of all of our colleagues on my 
side of the aisle in an effort to get that finite list so we can 
continue our work and, hopefully, complete it by the end of the day 
tomorrow.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following the 
amendment remaining to be voted on, the next amendment in order to the 
Interior appropriations bill be the Hutchinson amendment, and that the 
vote on that would occur at--we would begin debate at 9:30 in the 
morning with 20 minutes, equally divided, before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that, following the 
amendments, we have a list that would be the only remaining amendments 
in order to the Interior appropriations bill, and that they be offered 
in the first or second degree on this list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of that somewhat haphazard 
unanimous consent request, there will be no further votes tonight. 
Members are urged to get their amendments offered. We will begin voting 
at 9:30 a.m.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1187

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1187, the 
Hutchinson amendment, which had been previously agreed to.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions, Senator 
Ashcroft, and Senator Abraham for their work on behalf of this 
amendment. It does not change the appropriations for the arts; it is 
$100 million, block granted to the States. There is a chart down in the 
well. Everybody has seen what their State will do. Forty-five States 
will have more resources for arts funding under this amendment.
  The National Endowment has simply failed on their mission to broaden 
public access to the arts. One-third of the congressional districts in 
this country get zero from the National Endowment for the Arts. One-
third of the funding of the NEA goes to six cities. This is unfair.
  The issue is simply local control. The issue is more resources for 
art. I ask my fellow Senators to say ``yes'' to more resources for art 
and to say ``no'' to Washington bureaucrats and support this amendment. 
It means more money for your States to help on those local arts 
projects.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second?
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? Is all time 
yielded back?
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1187) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1204

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1204 is before the Senate.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically 
seeks to preserve tribal Indian land as a cemetery and burial ground in 
Kansas City, KA. It is a very contentious issue there. But this is and 
has been an Indian burial ground since 1855. There are plans to put a 
casino on it now. This is being contested. But clearly the land should 
remain a tribal ancestral land. We put forth this amendment to do that.
  I believe we have consent from all sides and all parties for this 
amendment to be agreed to.
  I would like to yield to the Senator from Colorado for a brief 
statement in that regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time, and my colleague from Kansas 
allowing me to speak to this a little bit today.
  Yesterday, we had a very extended debate here on the floor of the 
Senate, and several of us took the opportunity to address this Nation's 
shameful history in its dealings with American Indians. One of the 
areas that is the most shameful is the history of failing to abide by 
its treaties and agreements with native tribes.
  This country, as you know, Mr. President, coming from a State that 
has so many Indian tribes, has had very little respect for the lands 
and rights of aboriginal people, including the rights of the Wyandotte 
Tribe in question today.
  For example, in 1966 the Congress enacted a law requiring the 
Wyandotte cemetery be transferred and sold. That law is still on the 
books, fortunately. The tribe, however, opposed the action and the 
cemetery was not sold. In this respect, the tribe was seeking to 
preserve its burial site, culture, and history at a time when the 
United States was ignoring the tribe's rights.
  Frankly, Mr. President, being the chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, I find nothing more distasteful to me than to referee 
intertribal fights. Those disagreements often pit family against 
family, brother against brother, sister against sister. But I feel 
compelled to speak out in support of the Brownback amendment today.
  Let me try and ferret through this as I understand it. We have two 
tribes linked by culture, linked by history, linked genetically, 
probably linguistically, too. The Oklahoma Wyandottes have trust title, 
although this is being

[[Page S9497]]

contested as I understand in Federal court and also being dealt with in 
the Department of the Interior.
  The focal point is a cemetery. The Indians that have control of the 
cemetery, i.e., they have kept it up and taken care of it, are the 
Kansas Wyandottes. This cemetery, as Senator Brownback has said, has 
been a burial place for predominantly Indians ever since 1855, 140 
years.
  Now, the Oklahoma Wyandottes want to build a casino on this cemetery. 
That in itself is very interesting to me, Mr. President, because those 
of us who live on reservations, who come from Indian country, we have 
known literally since childhood the reverence, the feeling that Indians 
have about burial places. Most of the time, regardless of years, they 
don't call them cemeteries. They call them holy places or burial 
places. They consider them places that should be undisturbed, treated 
with reverence, and very seriously. I pity the construction company 
that would ever try to build a high rise or a roadway or something of 
that nature through an Indian burial ground because they do have laws 
on the books, we have laws on the books right now dealing with Indian 
burial places that prevent construction in those areas.
  Well, very simply, Mr. President, just because they are Indian, they 
can't have it both ways, and it would seem to me there are many 
questions that are left unanswered if we try to make a policy change on 
an appropriations bill. For instance, we have not, to my knowledge, 
heard from the State of Kansas. Under the 1988 IGRA any tribe that 
wants to build a casino or open a casino within a State has to reach 
some kind of understanding with the State, not to exceed the State law 
in non-Indian owned casinos. To my knowledge, they have not done this. 
We have not heard, to my knowledge, from anybody at Huron who would be 
affected. We have haven't heard from people in the local communities, 
the citizens who are going to be affected or the mayor of Kansas City. 
We simply do not know, if we do pass this into law, how it would affect 
the ongoing litigation. I simply think it is the wrong vehicle.
  Now, I am not familiar beyond that with the circumstances of this 
case, but I think that we could be doing ourselves a disservice by not 
having the supporters of this, that is, the opponents of the Brownback 
amendment, bring it forward as a legislative piece of paper where we 
can deal with it in legislative committees. I am not aware of any bill 
being introduced to that effect either.
  So I would go on record, Mr. President, as saying that my feeling 
from a historical and cultural standpoint is this should continue to be 
used what it was originally used for, and that's basically what the 
Brownback amendment does. But no Congress is bound by the action of a 
previous Congress. We all know that. So if at later date a future 
Congress, whether it is the 106th, the 108th or whatever, feels it 
should reverse that because of something we don't know and do it by 
legislative action, then that's the way it should be done.
  Now, they tell me that the Wyandottes of Oklahoma were only informed 
as late as last week of the Brownback amendment, but by the same token 
many supporters of the Brownback amendment didn't know of the original 
language in this bill until the last couple of days. So I think they 
are on a level playing field from that standpoint.
  With that, Mr. President, I simply say I hope my colleagues would 
support the Brownback amendment. I yield the floor. I thank you.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the vice chairman of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, I feel that I must object to this amendment.
  However meritorious its intent may be, it seems to me that there are 
serious legal ramifications to the proposal that we have not had an 
opportunity to evaluate.
  As Americans, we have come to rely on the constitutional protections 
that are accorded to property rights under the law.
  One of those rights is to be free in the use and enjoyment of our 
property--provided of course that our uses of property do not present 
any danger to the health or safety of the public.
  Even when land is held in trust by the United States for an Indian 
tribe, the principal restriction on the use of trust property is a 
restriction against alienation.
  In the modern era of self-governance and self-determination, this 
Government has long since abandoned the paternalistic stance of 
dictating to the tribes the details of everyday life on reservations.
  The principle which informs the fifth amendment to our Constitution--
that there will be no taking of property without just compensation--is 
precisely why we have spent so much time debating the issue of 
federally imposed land restrictions in the Congress.
  The Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma has owned the Huron Cemetery--held 
beneficial title to the Huron cemetery as a function of an 1867 
treaty--for 130 years.
  And yet today, without the benefit of a hearing or any public 
consideration--and importantly--without the benefit of any consultation 
with the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, we are being asked to impose a 
restriction on the tribe's use of its own land.
  Mr. President, I am not aware that there is any emergency at stake 
here.
  I know of no reason why we must take this precipitous action on an 
appropriations bill.
  I believe if the good gentleman from Kansas were to introduce his 
amendment as authorizing legislation, we could all have the benefit of 
the kind of information that can be gathered in a formal hearing.
  We could be apprised of what legal liabilities may flow from the 
proposed amendment.
  The Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma can be afforded the due process of 
law which our Constitution guarantees to all Americans, before the 
Senate of the United States decides to dictate to this tribe, the 
manner in which it can use its property.
  Mr. President, I would be remiss if I were to fail to seize this 
opportunity to suggest that were we to adopt this amendment without the 
benefit of any hearings or any assessment of its impact--both as a 
legal matter and as a matter of policy--we will be establishing a 
precedent that we ought to think very carefully about.
  Are we going to vest ourselves with the responsibility of micro-
managing the use of tribal lands across this Nation--50 million acres 
of land?
  Are we going to return to the days when this Government told the 
Indians that we were the ``Great White Father''--and we would decide 
what was best for them?
  I, for one, will not go down that road, and I hope that my colleagues 
will not do so either, until and unless, there is some overwhelming and 
compelling reason for doing do.
  Personally, I don't believe that the use of the Huron cemetery by the 
Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma presents that compelling a case--nor do I 
know why we would or should address this matter today.
  Mr. President, let us proceed cautiously and deliberately, as the 
American public desires us to do--let us examine carefully what is at 
issue, and take action, only after we have done so, and only after we 
are informed of all of the facts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Kansas.
  The amendment (No. 1204) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Indian Provisions

  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted that a compromise was reached yesterday on 
Sections 118 and 120 to the Interior Appropriations bill. As a Senator 
for California and as a citizen, I am greatly relieved that these two 
provisions will no longer endanger the rights of our Nation's Indian 
tribes.
  Sections 118 and 120 would have directly violated the bargain struck 
between the United States and Indian tribes over a century ago. In 
hundreds of treaties, the United States agreed to make payments to 
Indian tribes in exchange for nearly 100 million acres of

[[Page S9498]]

tribal lands. Section 118, which would have imposed a means test on 
these payments, violates both the letter and the spirit of these 
contracts. The result would have been to impose a penalty against 
tribal governments for improving services for their citizens and trying 
to achieve self-sufficiency.
  Section 120 would have gone even further in violating the promises 
the United States made to the tribes. It would have required tribes to 
choose between the payments promised to them and their inherent right 
to sovereign immunity, a right acknowledged in the United States 
Constitution.
  The United States has a long history of recognizing tribes as 
sovereign entities. As early as 1895, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that tribal sovereign immunity from 
lawsuit is analogous to state sovereign immunity, which is protected by 
the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 120 would have ignored 
this history and stripped tribes of their Constitutional right to 
sovereign immunity without due process.
  Sections 118 and 120 would have also significantly undermined the 
efforts of our Indian tribes to improve the quality of life for their 
people. Tribal Priority Allocations are funds targeted at addressing 
the most critical areas of need among our Nation's Native Americans. 
Without these funds, many tribes would be unable to pay for essential 
services, such as public schools, health care, social services, law 
enforcement, and road maintenance.
  Ironically, Section 120 would not have affected the few tribes that 
are economically able to forgo federal funding. Only the most dependent 
tribes, those suffering most from poverty, would have been forced to 
trade their sovereign status for Federal support they desperately need 
to survive. The effect would have been the creation of two disparate 
classes of tribes, those who could afford to be sovereign and those who 
could not.
  Sections 118 and 120 would have had a particularly harmful effect in 
my State. In California, there are 104 federally recognized tribes, and 
over 250,000 Native Americans, who would be financially and emotionally 
devastated had this provision become law. The vast majority of tribes 
desperately need Federal funds for daily survival. One third of all 
Native Americans live below the poverty level. Nearly half of all 
Native Americans living on reservations are unemployed. Of those who do 
work, almost a third earn less than $7,000 per year. Those Indian 
businesses that are experiencing any measure of success are just now 
beginning to create jobs and economic opportunity. To take away funding 
now for essential services like public schools and health care would 
have destroyed any chance for self-sufficiency for many tribes.
  We must also keep in mind the potentially devastating effect Section 
120 would have had on our Federal courts. Our Federal court system is 
already severely overburdened, a situation magnified by the 97 
vacancies that plague our Federal judiciary. Chief Judge Proctor Hug of 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reported that he was forced 
to cancel more than 600 civil cases due to the shortage of judges. This 
already overburdened system could not absorb the thousands of cases 
that would have potentially flooded our Federal courts had tribes been 
stripped of their sovereign immunity. At a minimum, such a far-reaching 
proposal should be subject to the careful, deliberative process of the 
proper authorizing committees.
  For all of these reasons, I was, and continue to be, strongly opposed 
to Sections 118 and 120 and I am happy to see them removed from the 
bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interior 
appropriations bill. I commend the chairman and ranking member for 
developing a bill that provides a number of benefits to the people of 
the Nation and, particularly, the people of the Pacific Northwest. I 
want to highlight some of the bill's strengths and weaknesses.


                           forest road policy

  I voted in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator 
Bryan, on forest road funding and purchaser road credits. I did so in 
response to the enormous outpouring of public opposition to the current 
road-building policies of the Forest Service. Everyplace I've gone in 
recent months, I have been approached by average citizens--not just 
environmental activists--and urged to slow new road construction and 
stop subsidies to timber companies. Editorial boards across my State 
and the Nation have said now is the time for a change in the road 
building policies of the Forest Service. I agree.
  However, this has been a difficult decision for me. My top forest 
priority is full implementation of the President's forest plan, 
including meeting timber production goals. A severe cut in road 
construction and reconstruction might have impacted the Forest 
Service's ability to meet all of the plan's objectives. However, I have 
been assured by the administration that the Northwest forest plan 
remains a top priority and it will not be affected by the $10 million 
cut in road construction proposed by the Bryan amendment. The 
administration believes it can minimize the impact of these cuts on the 
timber program throughout the country, but will make the scientifically 
validated Northwest forest plan a priority.
  Despite my strong and continuing support for the Northwest forest 
plan, I am concerned about the Forest Service's policies on roadless 
areas. The scientific assessment recently completed for the Interior 
Columbia Basin ecosystem management project demonstrates the importance 
of roadless areas for fish, wildlife, water quality, and ecosystem 
health. Thus, I believe we should only build news roads into large 
roadless areas infrequently and with great care and full environmental 
analysis.
  That said, I continue to be a strong supporter of multiple use, 
including timber harvest, on our Nation's national forests. I cannot 
fathom why some want to prohibit harvest of second growth timber of 
Forest Service land. Timber harvest not only provides needed jobs and 
wood products, but in some cases it can improve the health of timber 
stands and reduce the risk of devastating wildfire.
  I intend to work with the administration to improve our road-building 
policies, reduce subsidies, protect vital watersheds, and ensure 
ecologically healthy systems remain strong. I do not support 
elimination of all new roads, because roads are necessary for timber 
harvest. But we must stop subsidies and/or the appearance of subsidies 
by revamping the agency's accounting systems and ensuring our Nation's 
public lands are managed as economically viably as possible.


                              log exports

  I want to explain why I believe the provisions in this bill regarding 
log export restrictions make good environmental and economic policy. As 
many of my colleagues know, the issue of log exports is very 
contentious. The battle over log export policy has raged in the Pacific 
Northwest for years. We first passed a comprehensive log export bill in 
1990. Since then Congress has revisited that law in 1992, briefly in 
1996, and again this year. The USDA Forest Service issued regulations 
in 1995 that would have seriously impacted the entire timber economy of 
the Northwest. Those regulations precipitated a demand by Senator 
Gorton for those Washington State entities impacted by log export 
policy to develop legislation they could all support. That was a tall 
order, but this legislation embodies the best compromise that could 
be developed. Let met explain what these provisions do.

  First, this bill imposes a permanent ban on the export of all logs 
cut from State lands. My home State of Washington has been the biggest 
exporter of public timber in the Nation. However, under the compromise 
law Congress passed in 1990, no timber from State land could be 
exported for the first 5 years of the law. Those 5 years have passed, 
so the State ban on log export will--on October 1--be lifted and the 
existing law will prohibit the export of only 400 million board feet, 
of a total sale program of 650 million board feet. That means without 
this bill, 250 million board feet will go overseas without domestic 
processing. That means jobs would be lost in rural America and our 
region's forests would be cut without gaining their highest economic 
value.
  Second, this bill also protects the private property rights and 
values of both industrial and family tree farmers. Without these 
provisions, a timber grower whose land was located next to a sawmill 
that uses Federal timber could not sell his or her trees to that 
sawmill if that sawmill also used Federal timber. That limitation does 
not

[[Page S9499]]

encourage domestic processing of timber--one of the original goals of 
the 1990, and this, legislation. In addition, the proposed agency 
regulations that this legislation will correct would have required all 
private timber owners to brand each and every tree cut on his or her 
land. It is simply bad policy and does not encourage landowners to keep 
their lands in timber production instead of selling them off for 
development.
  Third, some have objected to the so-called buyer-broker provision 
saying its guts existing log export law. This provision allows a third 
party sawmill owner that uses Federal timber also to purchase private 
timber from another company or individual and export a portion and 
process a portion of that timber. This allows a timber purchaser both 
to supply an American sawmill and pay the landowner the highest price 
for the trees. Currently, the State of Washington has very similar 
policy instituted in its log export regulations--and the ban on State 
log export has worked, by all accounts, very well. This provision 
provides necessary flexibility and will likely lead to more private 
timber being processed domestically than would otherwise occur. And, 
let me be clear, under this bill, a private company that grows timber 
on its own land still cannot export that timber from the same area in 
which it purchases Federal timber.
  Finally, this provision will hopefully bring closure to log export 
policy. I--and the vast majority of the public--support a permanent ban 
on the export of unprocessed timber from public lands. Most of us would 
also like to encourage greater processing of private timber. This 
provision provides the tools to accomplish these goals. It is the right 
economic and the right environmental policy.


               export of forest service alaska red cedar

  I have offered an amendment that I hope will be accepted under 
unanimous consent regarding the domestic processing of Alaska red cedar 
from National Forests in Alaska. Alaska is a unique place. When most of 
us think of exporting a product, we think of exporting it out of the 
United States. In Alaska, a product is exported if it leaves Alaska--
even if that product goes to the lower 48 States.
  Thus, on the Tongass National Forest, Western red cedar is first 
offered to Alaska timber purchasers. However, there is no market or no 
capacity to manufacture this species in Alaska, so it has been declared 
a ``surplus species.'' As a surplus species, these fine, scarce logs 
can be sold on the long export market to Asian buyers. While American 
companies are certainly free to purchase these public logs, they must 
pay the significantly higher prices offered on the export market. In 
the lower 48 States, Western red cedar is very much in demand.
  Under my amendment, these national logs must be offered at domestic 
prices to mills in the lower 48 States. My amendment requires the 
Forest Service to establish a three-tiered policy giving Alaskans first 
priority, other American companies next priority, and only if no one 
wants these logs--which is highly unlikely--may they be exported.
  The current policy must be remedied. I hope my amendment will be 
accepted.


                    land and water conservation fund

  This bill provides critical funding for important land acquisition 
within the Pacific Northwest. The Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area 
will receive $8 million to purchase land to protect the ecological and 
scenic values in the gorge. It includes funds to acquire land and 
develop a trail along Cape Horn, one of the most beautiful areas on the 
Washington side of the gorge. Outside of the gorge, we appropriated 
$1.5 million for vital wetlands along the Black River in Thurston 
County. This unique, spring-fed river contains lands threatened by the 
growing population around Olympia and Tacoma.
  I am very excited by the commitment Chairman Gorton has made to help 
secure funding to purchase the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams with land 
and water conservation funds. The acquisition and removal of the Glines 
Canyon and Elwha dams have been a priority of mine since I was elected 
in 1992. So far, we have $8 million authorized to purchase both dams 
from Diashowa Co. for a total of $29.5 million. It appears we can tap 
some of the $700 million allocated for LWCF purchases this year to 
acquire both dams and begin the process of removing one dam and 
restoring the outstanding salmon fisheries in this Olympic National 
Park River.


                      recreational trails funding

  I also support the increased funding for trails contained in this 
bill. Recreational use of our national forests has increased almost 
every year since the 1950's. This year, we added $3.5 million to the 
President's already high budget request for Forest Service trails 
maintenance in Washington and Oregon. These dollars desperately needed 
to keep our beautiful forests accessible, disperse forest users, and 
protect the forest system.


                                title vi

  Mr. CRAIG. I rise for a brief colloquy with the manager of the bill. 
First, I would like to commend the Senator from Washington for his hard 
work on title VI of this bill. Title VI, which includes the forest 
resources conservation and shortage relief provisions, represents a 
considerable amount of effort. The title is a thoughtful attempt to 
resolve a very complex issue in an equitable fashion. The title is 
necessary because of difficulties caused by the administration 
regulations restricting the movement of logs across different 
jurisdictions. However, because the provisions of the title are so 
complex and involve so many intensely disputed issues, I would hope we 
would use the next year as a time for testing the provisions in the 
title and securing additional comments from all interested parties. We 
can evaluate how successful the provisions are, and develop any 
necessary changes together with other interested Senators over the 
course of the next year. I ask my colleague from Washington whether he 
agrees that we should look at the following year as a test period for 
this measure so that we can together evaluate any needed changes.
  Mr. GORTON. I fully understand the concerns that have been raised 
about these provisions. As is the case with any measure developed over 
a long process, there are parts of this title which will not please 
everyone. I believe my proposal represents the most comprehensive 
solution possible given this issue's complexity. While I sincerely hope 
that we do not have to revisit this issue again next year, it is 
certainly appropriate to look at the next year as a test period, to 
evaluate how well the provision works, and to assess what changes, if 
any, are necessary. I commit to my colleague from Idaho that I will 
work with him and other interested Senators and parties to this end.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I also would like to commend the Senator from 
Washington for his diligence in pursuing a solution to this issue. I 
would be pleased to work with the Senators from Washington and Idaho on 
this effort to evaluate how well this provision works, and to consider 
the need for any changes.


        FUNDING FOR RENOVATION OF MONTEZUMA CREEK HEALTH CLINIC

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Interior 
appropriations bill, H.R. 2107, I want to comment briefly about a small 
but very important provision in the bill that will provide $100,000 in 
Federal money to renovate the Montezuma Creek Health Clinic in 
Montezuma Creek, Ut.
  The Montezuma Creek Clinic is located in the rural community of 
Montezuma Creek in the southeastern part of Utah in San Juan County. 
This community serves as the population center for the eastern portion 
of the Utah Navajo region which is home to more than 6,000 Navajos who 
live on and around the Navajo Reservation.
  This area also has one of the most critical health care shortages in 
Utah and, in fact, in the entire region of the western United States.
  Located in the heart of this community is the Montezuma Creek Health 
Clinic which was initially operated by the Indian Health Service [IHS] 
to serve the Navajo population.
  Today, the clinic principally serves the 6,000 Navajos as well as the 
non-Indian population who live in southeast Utah and northeast Arizona. 
The clinic is presently operated in a cooperative effort between the 
Utah Navajo trust fund as the owners of the clinic facility, the San 
Juan County Health Care Services as the county provider of

[[Page S9500]]

health services, and the IHS which provides contract support services.
  It is ironic that there is only one IHS facility located in the 
entire State of Utah when neighboring States have as many as a dozen or 
more facilities each. The only IHS facility in Utah is an outpatient 
facility at Fort Duchesne which is located over 350 miles away.
  It is obvious that the health care needs for this segment of the Utah 
Native American population are greatly under-served.
  For over 3 years, I have worked with the IHS, the Utah Navajo trust 
fund, the State of Utah, the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation, San 
Juan County and many other concerned parties in an effort to improve 
the delivery of health care for the residents of this community.
  Unfortunately, it has not been an easy task.
  The Federal budgetary pressures on facility construction projects 
within the IHS budget have prevented federal dollars for the 
construction of a new Facility at Montezuma Creek.
  Moreover, the current IHS facility's priority list--which includes 
construction funding for projects on the priority list--has as a 
practical matter precluded the addition of new facilities for Utah. 
This is very unfortunate for the community of Montezuma Creek. It seems 
that Utah has always been short-changed when it comes to IHS and IHS-
related health care services in our State.
  And, I would remind my colleagues that the health status of Utah 
Navajos living in San Juan County is lower than the Utah Native 
American population in general which, overall, is even lower than the 
Native American population as a whole.
  In spite of the difficulties, the Montezuma Creek Clinic continues to 
operate and provide life saving health care services to the community 
albeit in the facility that is clearly outdated and in need of 
renovation.
  Although the facility is functional, it is in poor condition and 
inadequate for the provision of needed services to the 65 to 110 
patients served on a daily basis. In addition, there is a need to bring 
the facility into compliance with modern building codes for medical 
facilities.
  Accordingly, I am delighted that the Interior bill contains Federal 
funds in the amount of $100,000 for design and construction purposes in 
renovating the existing facility.
  Moreover, these funds will be matched dollar for dollar by the State 
of Utah and the Utah Navajo trust fund to collectively bring the total 
to $300,000. It is my hope that the Federal commitment of $100,000 will 
also prompt private contributions from those national corporations 
operating in San Juan County. I believe with the collective support and 
backing of all parties we will be able to set in motion much needed 
improvements in health care for the residents of Montezuma Creek.
  I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator 
Bennett who, as a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, 
was extremely helpful in securing these funds for this project.
  Moreover, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, for agreeing to this modest request and 
including it in the bill.
  I must say that I am delighted we are finally able to help this 
clinic.
  A great deal of time and effort has been devoted by many people in 
securing both the needed money and the cooperative arrangements for 
carrying-out this project.
  In addition to Senator Bennett and Senator Gorton, I want to thank 
Judy Edwards with the Utah Department of Health, Ed Alter who serves as 
Chairman of the Utah Navajo trust fund in which the combined funding 
will be deposited, Mark Maryboy with the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo 
Nation--Utah--and Donna Singer with the Montezuma Creek Clinic.
  I look forward to working with these individuals and others in the 
months ahead on the long needed renovation of Montezuma Creek Clinic.


                  AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative [AHRI] was first announced by President Clinton in his State 
of the Union address to provide federal support to communities 
undertaking river restoration projects through improved access to 
federal resources and by encouraging private sector support for local 
efforts.
  An interagency team led by the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] 
was established. The CEQ formally announced the program in the May 19, 
1997, Federal Register. The Federal Register announcement stated that 
the goal of the AHRI was to address a ``need for concerted, long-term 
efforts in water quality improvement, river restoration, and economic 
revitalization within and along the river.'' Under the proposed rule, 
any person or community may nominate a river or entire watershed for 
designation by the Administration.
  I, like many of my Colleagues, have concerns about this initiative. 
For one thing, those who could be affected by such a proposal have not 
had sufficient time or opportunity to comment. Second, Members of 
Congress have not received a detailed briefing from the administration 
on how this plan is to be carried out. It appears that the 
administration has completely circumvented the affected public and 
Congress in an effort to implement the AHRI.
  I have concerns about where the funding and staff necessary to run 
this program will come from. In a time where budgets are constrained 
and the Federal Government is required to do more with less, it is 
difficult to support increased funding for a proposal initiated by the 
administration and where Congress has been left out of the 
implementation strategy.
  A while back I co-signed a letter to the administration outlining our 
concerns with this proposal, and to request an extension of the public 
comment period for an additional 120 days which was granted, and 
expired on August 20. I signed a second letter from the Idaho 
delegation to Ms. Katy McGinty, CEQ Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1997.
     Hon. Kathleen A. McGinty,
     Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, The White House, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. McGinty: We are writing on behalf of numerous 
     constituents who have an interest in the newly announced 
     American Heritage Rivers Program, which involves thirteen 
     executive departments and agencies. We are requesting an 
     extension in the public comment period of 120 days.
       According to the May 19, 1997 Federal Register 
     announcement, under this program rivers across the country 
     will be designated as ``American Heritage Rivers.'' A 
     designation is intended to address a ``need for concerted, 
     long-term efforts in water quality improvement, river 
     restoration, and economic revitalization within and along the 
     river.'' Any person can nominate a river or entire watershed 
     for designation by the administration, which is intended to 
     preserve the natural, historic, cultural, social, economic 
     and ecological diversity of the nation's rivers.
       This program was first announced by President Clinton on 
     February 4, 1997. Several public hearings were apparently 
     held during April and May, although the hearings were not 
     noticed in the Federal Register, nor were Congressional 
     offices uniformly notified of the hearings. On May 19, 1997 
     this program was announced in the Federal Register for the 
     first time. The comment period closes June 9, 1997, allowing 
     only three weeks for public comment.
       Given the vast scope of the goals of this proposed program 
     and the magnitude of possible designations, this program will 
     potentially implicate a vast range of interests. We believe 
     that three weeks is clearly an insufficient amount of time to 
     permit all interested parties to submit meaningful comment on 
     the proposal.
       Under the circumstances, and with the large impact this may 
     have on the citizens of our states, we urge you to extend the 
     comment period for an additional 120 days. This would ensure 
     the submission of thoughtful comment representative of all 
     interested parties and organizations. Surely you agree that 
     the success of the proposed program hinges on addressing the 
     concerns of the widest cross-section possible of affected 
     parties. To adequately inform all parties, we also urge you 
     to schedule public hearings on this program, after first 
     notifying all congressional offices and noticing the hearings 
     in the Federal Register of the scheduled hearings.
       Thank you for your most expeditious response to these 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
         Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Ted Stevens, 
           Larry E. Craig, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Robert T.

[[Page S9501]]

           Bennett, Tim Hutchinson, Craig Thomas, Richard Shelby, 
           Slade Gorton, -- -- --, Trent Lott, Dirk Kempthorne, 
           Pete Domenici, and Don Nickles.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                         The Idaho Delegation,

                                  Washington, DC, August 14, 1997.
     Hon. Kathleen A. McGinty,
     Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, Old Executive Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McGinty: The following are comments from 
     Idaho's united Congressional delegation on the American 
     Heritage Rivers Initiative as described in the Federal 
     Register, Volume 62, No. 96, Monday, May 19, 1997.
       Let us be clear--we have serious concerns with the 
     initiative. We are not only concerned about the initiative 
     itself, but the manner in which it was advanced. It is a 
     clear effort on the part of the Administration to bypass the 
     Constitutionally directed lawmaking power of Congress and our 
     system of checks and balances. Congress has not authorized 
     this initiative and has not appropriated money for this 
     program. Additionally, the Council on Environmental Quality 
     (CEQ) is not granted the power to govern or regulate rivers 
     or watersheds within sovereign states. As such, this 
     initiative represents a challenge of Congress' power and the 
     rights of states, in line with the protections guaranteed in 
     the Fourteenth Amendment.
       We have other objections beyond this fundamental concern. 
     For example, this initiative actually works against its 
     stated goals: to streamline the federal process dealing with 
     river protection. There are existing federal and state 
     authorities that are charged with the mission of regulating 
     water resource planning and allocation. In addition, there 
     are nearly a hundred grass roots watershed councils across 
     the nation that are accomplishing the same objectives as the 
     initiative, but they have local input as opposed to federal 
     control. The initiative creates an unnecessary, additional 
     layer of bureaucracy that will make it more difficult for 
     private individuals to continue to develop and use water 
     resources that have in the past been controlled by state and 
     local government entities.
       Another concern relates to the effort to obtain local input 
     regarding the designation of rivers as an American Heritage 
     River. While we support obtaining local input, we question 
     whether the initiative is designed to achieve a truly 
     representative sampler. This is because the local input is 
     based upon what is referred to as ``river communities.'' Any 
     small group, environmental organization or local civic club 
     could be defined as a ``community.'' The initiative redefines 
     communities, watersheds, and jurisdictional boundaries to 
     create this governing entity, which will then have the power 
     to decide the ``length of the area'' to be designated 
     ``whether it be an entire watershed, the length of an entire 
     river, or a short stretch of a river, and may cross 
     jurisdictional boundaries.''
       Because these communities have no set definition and 
     because of the diverse, and often conflicting set of options, 
     this may cause real communities to become fragmented. Worse, 
     there is no guarantee that private property owners will be 
     included in any decisions made by this river community. In 
     fact, a river could be designated over the specific protests 
     of local private property owners whose land would be most 
     affected.
       This potential threat to property rights is a serious one. 
     There are no safeguards written into the initiative to 
     protect the rights of property owners. On the contrary, it 
     appears the initiative could result in rezoning properties, 
     thereby disallowing legitimate uses or development. It's also 
     feared that property values will decline because of the 
     designation.
       Another major concern with this initiative is that the 
     designation of a river is essentially permanent. Wile CEQ may 
     claim that a river can be undesignated at any time, according 
     to the wishes of the local community, there is no defined 
     process for undesignation. And you are aware, the needs and 
     wishes of communities change and a community may decide it no 
     longer wants to have that section of river designated.
       The process by which this initiative was proposed is 
     flawed, as well. It is in violation of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires an 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be filed for any 
     federal action which would significantly impact our 
     environment. No EIS was filed. Furthermore, NEPA requires a 
     ninety-day public comment period for any EIS. A mere three 
     weeks was originally provided for public comment. While we 
     appreciate the extension of the comment period to sixty days, 
     it was only after extensive public outcry.
       Despite all of these significant problems with the 
     initiative, there is still one more that cannot be ignored. 
     If this initiative were to be enacted, it would conflict with 
     the Idaho Constitution. Article XV, Section 1 of the 
     Constitution of the State of Idaho, as approved by the U.S. 
     Congress states: ``The use of all waters . . . [is] subject 
     to the regulations and control of the state. . . .'' 
     Additionally, Idaho Code 42-101 states: ``All the waters of 
     the state, when flowing in their natural channels, including 
     the waters of all natural springs and lakes within the 
     boundaries of the state are declared to be the property of 
     the state, whose duty it shall be to supervise their 
     appropriation and allotment to those diverting the same 
     therefrom for any beneficial purpose.'' Idaho clearly has 
     jurisdiction, control, and sovereignty over water within her 
     own borders and any federal attempt to usurp or interfere 
     with that authority will be aggressively resisted.
       As you can see, we have some serious reservations about 
     your American Heritage Rivers initiative. Our concerns can be 
     summed up into three basic areas: the lack of Congressional 
     approval, the vague language and absence of definitions and 
     the excess federal control over private property and state 
     water rights.
       We thank you for extending the comment period to sixty 
     days, but we request you withdraw this initiative and allow 
     the local stakeholders and the state to use their current 
     laws to govern their water.
           Sincerely,
     Helen Chenoweth,
       Member of Congress.
     Larry E. Craig,
       United States Senator.
     Mike Crapo,
       Member of Congress.
     Dirk Kempthorne,
       United States Senator.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, Idahoans are quite opposed to the 
AHRI. They see it as a further encroachment of the Federal Government 
not only into their lives but onto their lands. Even though the 
administration insists the initiative would be locally driven and 
administered, the average Idahoan strongly disagrees with this notion 
and simply wants the Federal Government's role to decrease in every 
possible aspect.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment to H.R. 2107 submitted by the 
Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________