[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.
____________________