[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9532-S9536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 2107, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Hutchinson amendment No. 1196, to authorize the President
to implement the recently announced American Heritage Rivers
Initiative subject to designation of qualified rivers by Act
of Congress.
Amendment No. 1186 to the Committee Amendment on Page 96, line 12,
through page 97, line 8
(Purpose: To provide for funding of the National Endowment for the
Arts)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 20
minutes debate on the Hutchison amendment No. 1186, the time to be
equally divided.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment to the NEA
bill, which is the appropriate order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 1186 to the committee reported amendment
beginning on page 96, line 12, through page 97, line 8.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 96, strike line 14 and all that follows
through line 8 on page 97, and insert the following:
(a) Funding.--For necessary expenses of the National
Endowment for the Arts, $100,060,000 to be used in accordance
with this section.
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated under
subsection (a), the Chairman of the National Endowment for
the Arts shall use--
(A) not less than 75 percent of such amount to make block
grants to States under subsection (c);
(B) not less than 20 percent of such amount to make grants
to national groups or institutions under subsection (d); and
(C) not more than 5 percent for the administrative costs of
carrying out this section, including any costs associated
with the reduction in the operations of the National
Endowment for the Arts.
(2) Limitation on administrative costs.--With respect to
the budget authority provided for in this section, not more
than $1,525,915 shall be available for obligation with
respect to the administrative costs described in paragraph
(1)(C) prior to September 30, 1998.
(c) Block Grants to States or Territories.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award block grants to
States under this subsection to support the arts.
(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, a State or Territory shall prepare and
submit to the Chairman an application, at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Chairman may
require, including an assurance that no funds received under
the grant will be used to fund programs that are determined
to be obscene.
(3) Amount of grant.--
(A) In general.--Of the amount available for grants under
this subsection, the Chairman shall allot to each State
(including the District of Columbia) or Territory an amount
equal to--
(i) with respect to a State, the amount under subparagraph
(B); and
(ii) with respect to a territory, the amount determined
under subparagraph (C).
(B) Formula.--The amount determined under this subparagraph
with respect to a State (or the District of Columbia) shall
be equal to--
(i) subject to subparagraph (D), the aggregate of the
amounts provided by the National Endowment for the Arts to
the State (or District), and the groups and institutions in
the State (or District), in fiscal year 1997; and
(ii) an amount that bears the same relationship to the
amounts remaining available for allotment for the fiscal year
involved after the amounts are determined under clause (i),
as the percentage of the population of the State (or
District) bears to the total population of all States and the
District.
(C) Territories.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph with respect to a territory shall be equal to
the aggregate of the amounts provided by the National
Endowment for the Arts to the territory, in fiscal year 1997.
(D) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the formula described in
subparagraph (B), the allotment for a State (or the district
of Columbia) under clause (i) of such subparagraph shall not
exceed an amount equal to 6.6 percent of the total amount
provided by the National Endowment for the Arts to States and
the District of Columbia in fiscal year 1997.
(4) Limitation on obligation of funds.--With respect to the
budget authority provided for in this section, not more than
$22,888,725 shall be available for obligation with respect
to block grants under this subsection prior to September
30, 1998.
(5) Use of Funds.--
(A) In general.--A State or territory shall use funds
provided under a grant under this subsection to carry out
activities to support the arts in the State or territory.
(B) Endowment incentive.--A State or territory may use not
to exceed 25 percent of the funds provided under a grant
under this subsection to establish a permanent arts endowment
in the State or territory. A State or territory that uses
funds under this subparagraph to establish a State endowment
shall contribute non-Federal funds to such endowment in an
amount equal to not less than the amount of Federal funds
provided to the endowment.
(C) Limitation.--A State (or territory) may not use in
excess of 15 percent of the amount received under this
section in any fiscal year for administrative purposes.
(d) National Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to
nationally prominent groups or institutions under this
subsection to support the arts.
(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, an entity shall prepare and submit to the
Chairman an application, at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Chairman may require,
including an assurance that no funds received under this
subsection will be used--
(A) to fund programs that are determined to be obscene;
(B) for seasonal grants; or
(C) for subgrants.
(3) Limitation on amount of grant.--The amount of a grant
awarded to any group or institution to carry out a project
under this section shall not exceed--
(A) with respect to a group or institution with an annual
budget of not to exceed $3,000,000, an amount equal to not
more than 33.5 percent of the total project cost; and
(B) with respect to a group or institution with an annual
budget of not less than $3,000,000, an amount equal to not
more than 20 percent of the total project cost.
(4) Limitation on obligation of funds.--With respect to the
budget authority provided for in this section, not more than
$6,103,660 shall be available for obligation with respect to
grants under this subsection prior to September 30, 1998.
(e) Application of Section.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, this section shall apply with respect to
grants and contracts awarded by the National Endowment for
the Arts in lieu of the provisions of sections 5 and 5A of
the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 954 and 954a).
(f) Offset.--Each amount of budget authority for the fiscal
year ending September 39, 1998, provided in this Act, for
payments not required by law is hereby reduced by .11
percent. Such reductions shall be applied ratably to each
account, program, activity, and project provided for in this
Act.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just briefly describe
my amendment, and then it is my intention to yield 2 minutes to Senator
DeWine. And then of course I know Senator Harkin is here to speak on
the other side.
My amendment leaves the amount for the commitment to the arts at the
same level as the committee bill does. It does, however, make some
reforms that I think will improve the NEA and most certainly will
improve the commitment to the arts and reconfirm the commitment to arts
that we have. It cuts the administrative costs of the NEA to 5 percent.
I think, since the large part of the bill will require block granting
to the States, that the administration does not need to be $17 million.
I think $5 million then would be quite adequate to administer the
national part of the bill.
The Federal grants to national groups would be 20 percent of the
total grant. In the Federal grants, we have a requirement for State
matching funds, which I think is a healthy thing for us to require, so
that any project that is funded with national dollars will also
[[Page S9533]]
have a State commitment. Grants may not be used for obscene works, and
they will go for groups and institutions.
The rest of the money, the 75 percent, would be grants to the States
so that the each State or territory is guaranteed at least what they
had in 1997. And, in fact, every State, except California and New York,
would get more funding for their arts commissions than they had last
year. Each State except California and New York will get more money
than they got in 1997, and they will be able to spend it according to
the wishes of their own arts commissions. I think it is very important
that this happen.
With the 20 percent Federal grants to the national groups, I think
California and New York will be able to make up some of the loss that
they will receive because they have had the highest number of dollars
that have gone to the national arts.
In this, I think we have a good way to keep our commitment to the
arts to increase the access to the arts by children and people in all
the States of our great country. And I think it also will give the
leeway for the national groups that deserve the support of the National
Government, because we do want to keep the very top, top quality in our
arts so we can be proud, as a Nation, that we do have the world class
opera, the world class ballet, the world class art museums that would
actually be worthy of the civilization that our country has formed in
its 221 years of democracy.
Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Hutchison amendment recognizes that
there are arts programs, arts projects, that are of national
significance and that they should be supported. The amendment does this
while at the same time addressing the huge geographic disparity in
funding that the NEA elite, the NEA bureaucracy, has consistently and
arrogantly refused to address or, for that matter, even to acknowledge.
This inequality in funding is unconscionable. When you have States
such as New York getting $21 million from the NEA, California, $8
million, while States such as Ohio with our 11 million citizens
receiving only $1.6 million, clearly something is horribly wrong.
Ohio comes in 46th in per capita NEA funding. New York gets $1.18 per
person; Wyoming, $1.24, Alaska, $1.21. Ohio gets 14 cents per person.
Again and again, the NEA has failed to address this problem. Let me
say this failure on the NEA's part points to broader problems at the
NEA. For years now, Congress has been trying to set priorities for the
NEA but nothing really has changed. I have grown increasingly
frustrated because of the seeming ease with which the NEA flouts
congressionally enacted policies. It sometimes seems as if the NEA uses
as much, or maybe more, creativity in skirting our guidelines as NEA-
funded artists do in creating their works.
The NEA funds do support a number of worthwhile projects. However, I
believe that NEA funding should really be targeted for programs for
children and for underserved populations. Our scarce Federal dollars
should be used to bring the arts to our children and to the poor. I
congratulate my colleague, Senator Gorton, for including language in
the underlying bill to indicate this priority, and also to Senator
Jeffords for including it in the authorizing bill.
I certainly hope the NEA takes today's debate seriously. If, however,
the NEA continues to remain unresponsive to legitimate concerns,
concerns voiced by the people who are paying the bills, we can
certainly expect even more support for moves to abolish the endowment
outright. That, Mr. President, would be a great shame--for everyone who
loves the arts, and indeed for all Americans. It would be a shame that
the greatest country in the world, with some of the most talented and
creative artists in the world, could not intelligently and responsibly
run a national arts agency.
Mr. President, we can--and must--do better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is now my intention to yield 2
minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Texas.
I rise today to support the amendment submitted by my distinguished
colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison. I think her amendment
represents a reasonable compromise to what has become a very divisive
issue.
I think every Member of this Chamber would agree that some of the
works the NEA has funded in the past have been offensive. They call
into question the appropriateness of the Federal Government being
involved in the promotion of the arts. Several years ago we had an
exhibit here--and it had to be covered. We couldn't allow the Senate
pages to see it. It was absolutely unsuitable for public view--
certainly for young people. I personally was offended, and I think we
all learned something from that.
Art works funded by a Federal agency should be those you take your
children to see and, in the case of NEA-sponsored works, this has not
always been the case. But, certainly the arts, overall, have a
legitimate voice in our society. I think the amendment of Senator
Hutchison that would take 20 percent of the NEA budget and keep it here
in Washington, DC to be distributed to works of national prominence is
satisfactory. It also addresses the concerns of those who do not
believe it is in the Federal Government's jurisdiction to fund the
arts. She has an answer to that--send 75 percent of the money to the
States. This amendment will allow each of our States to develop the
arts locally, hopefully reflecting the true role of the arts and the
role they play in each of our communities.
I think this is a good amendment and merits the overwhelming support
of this Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself--do I have 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 8 of the 10 minutes. If the chair will
interrupt me, I will appreciate it.
This amendment all but eliminates the National Endowment for the
Arts. In other words, it eliminates a Federal role.
I believe the Senator from Texas is well-intentioned. However, the
result would be disastrous for the arts. NEA national leadership grants
have supported a number of very worthy projects that would not have
been supported by a State. For example, the design competition in 1981
that led to the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. What State
would have funded that if it was not going to be in the State, but was
going to be located in the District of Columbia?
The Senator from Ohio made mention of all the money that goes to New
York. Let's look at some of that money. Through the national leadership
grants, the NEA provided a grant to Chamber Music of America in New
York, but this grant sponsored chamber music rural residencies, which
brought professional musicians to small towns, such as Jesup and
Decorah and Fayette and Mount Vernon, IA. Artists lived and worked in
these small towns for up to 2 years. They taught in the schools. They
performed concerts for citizens in the communities all over the State
of Iowa. Thousands of Iowans benefited from this. But, if you look at
the grant, it went to New York. But the artists performed in Iowa, for
up to 2 years.
If we take all of this money, as the Senator from Texas wants, and
give it just to the States, will, then, the State of New York fund a
program that goes to Iowa? I rather doubt it. They will keep the money
there. But because we have the NEA making these grants, giving them
out, then they can direct and guide those to go out to States like Iowa
and Nebraska and Missouri, and States where we don't get a lot of money
for arts.
So, what State would fund a program like that? What State? Would
Texas? Would Texas fund a program that would send artists to Iowa for 2
years? I doubt that.
The NEA has also supported dance touring programs. The Alvin Ailey
dance group traveled to Atlanta, GA;
[[Page S9534]]
Redding, OR; Tuscon, AR; Iowa City, IA; Milwaukee, WI. Would Texas fund
something like that? I doubt it. Would New York fund something like
that? I doubt it. Would California fund something like that? I doubt
it. But, because we have a National Endowment for the Arts, we are able
to get this out.
A grant to the American Library Association sponsored the ``Writers
Live At The Library.'' This program went all over America, to places
like Rapid City, SD; Medina, OH; Buchanan, MI; Muncie, IN. Would Texas
have sponsored that? I doubt it. Would New York alone have sponsored
that? I don't think so. But the National Endowment for the Arts did.
That is my point. You could look at a lot of these grants. They may
go to a State. But they seep out and go around the United States. If we
adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, that will end.
We will not have a National Endowment for the Arts. We will simply have
a bunch of States out there. I rather doubt that States will fund
programs that will go to another State.
Mr. President, this amendment has never been reviewed or discussed in
any format before. Present law provides 35 percent to the States. Under
the bill, under the leadership of Senator Jeffords, that goes to 40
percent. It was adopted by a 14-to-4 bipartisan vote in committee.
I might also point out that Federal funds are matched by the States
on a 1-to-1 basis. If you increase this amount of money to the States,
they will have to go to their State legislatures to get the amount of
money up. Will that happen? Well, in some States it might, in some
States it might not.
I also will point out that the Hutchison amendment imposes a cap on
administrative costs of 5 percent. Right now the President's budget
calls for a cap of 14 percent. Here is the problem. Many of the State
agencies are quite small, so State support varies from State to State.
If you put a cap on like that and you have low spending, that just
destroys the program. Obviously, as you know, the more money you have
in the program the less the amount of administrative costs there are
for administering that program.
So the 5-percent cap would also not only hurt many of the State
agencies, but would be disastrous for the National Endowment for the
Arts.
Mr. President, the Hutchison amendment is a severe and undeserved
rebuke to the arts endowment. It may be well-intentioned, but I also
point out that if this is so good, why is this opposed by the very
agencies that would supposedly benefit from this? The National Assembly
of State Arts Agencies is opposed to this amendment. That organization
believes that the current distribution between Federal and State is
appropriate.
So, again, while it may sound good to give all this money to the
States, the fact is, the Chamber Music of America in New York came to
Iowa and lived there for 2 years in our small towns and communities. It
may have looked like a grant to New York, but it was run by the
National Endowment for the Arts. If you give all this money to the
States, if New York got all this money, would they then of their own
volition fund the chamber music program that we had in Iowa for 2
years? As I said before, I doubt it, and I don't think Texas would
either.
For those reasons, this amendment should be defeated. I am told also,
and I have a letter from the White House--I will just read it:
The administration understands that an amendment may be
offered to increase significantly block grants to the States,
thus severely diminishing the Federal leadership role of the
NEA. In addition, the administration understands that an
amendment may be offered making it administratively
impossible for NEA to carry out its function.
That's the 5-percent cap.
If such amendments were adopted, the President's senior
advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.
I believe this bill is too important to be vetoed. I believe the NEA
is too important to be cut up, segmented and destroyed by this
amendment.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 50 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the last
minute of the debate, so I will take my time up until the last minute
and then yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I would like to respond to the remarks of the Senator
from Iowa and say that it is most certainly not my intention to do away
with our national commitment to the arts. In fact, the opposite is
true. That is why I keep the funding level because I do believe that
all of our children will gain from having more access to and
appreciation of the arts in our country. I want the budding artists of
Iowa to have equal access to the education that budding artists in New
York have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me just say that we have a lot of
budding artists in Iowa, a lot of them musicians. I can tell you, when
the Chamber Music of America came out and spent 2 years in our small
towns, it was wonderful. These wonderful artists went to these small
towns. They got these kids excited about music and about chamber music.
I can't tell you how many hundreds of Iowa kids, I say to the Senator
from Texas, were enthused and got involved in music and are progressing
now because of that.
That would not have happened without the National Endowment for the
Arts. It just simply could not have been funded by the State and
wouldn't have been, and I don't think the State of Texas would have
funded it either.
Yes, there are a lot of budding artists out there, and that is why we
need a national program to reach out to these budding artists.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Jonathan
Katz, CEO of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, be printed
in the Record, in which he says they are opposed to this amendment and
that they are endorsing the current distribution of agency funds.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Assembly of
State Arts Agencies,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
Hon. Ralph Regula,
Chairman, Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Regula: As you consider the resources
available to the National Endowment for the Arts, I thought
it might be helpful for you to have at hand the principles
advocated by the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
(NASAA) on behalf of the state and special jurisdiction arts
agencies of the United States. These are attached.
Consistent with these principles, at the current funding
level of $99.5 million, the state arts agencies endorse the
current distribution of agency funds that enables the NEA to
demonstrate appropriate national leadership and also enables
it to support the leadership roles that state arts agencies
play. As the principles note, the state arts agencies do
support a higher level of funding for the agency overall
because that would enable more Americans in more communities
to enjoy the arts in more meaningful ways.
Please feel free to contact me if additional information
would be helpful to your office. Your support of public
funding for the arts and humanities is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Katz,
Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities be printed in the
Record. They also say they endorse the present distribution of moneys.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Americans United To Save
the Arts and Humanities,
Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: Americans United to Save the Arts and
Humanities is a 501(c)(3) bi-partisan advocacy organization.
Our mission is to preserve federal funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Americans United represents over 100 U.S.
business leaders from across the country who strongly support
federal funding for the arts and humanities Endowments.
[[Page S9535]]
As you know, these agencies, particularly the National
Endowment for the Arts, have recently come under heavy
attack. The House has proposed eliminating the NEA entirely.
Imagine how such a loss would impact the economic activity
currently stimulated by the non-profit arts industry. As it
is, the non-profit arts industry generates $36.8 billion
annually in economic activity; supports 1.3 million jobs; and
produces $790 million in local government revenue and $1.2
billion in state revenue. For every dollar the NEA invests in
communities, there is a twenty-fold return in jobs, services
and contracts. That is wise federal investing of taxpayer
dollars.
The members of Americans United feel strongly that the NEA
and NEH are agencies well worth continued federal funding.
Recently, Americans United business leaders sent the attached
letter to Senator Lott urging him to preserve federal funding
for our nation's cultural Endowments.
We hope that when the issue of funding for the NEA and NEH
comes to the Senate Floor for a vote, and subsequently goes
to Conference Committee, you will support our nation's
culture and heritage and ask your colleagues to preserve
current levels of federal funding for the Endowments without
crippling block grants.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Franke,
Chairman.
____
American United to Save
the Arts and Humanities,
Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: As business executives, we want you to
know how strongly we support continued federal funding of the
NEA and the NEH. While we recognize the tight constraints of
the federal budget, it is evident that there is a clear
connection between the federal investment in culture and the
willingness of corporations, foundations and individuals to
support cultural activity. Grants from the NEA and NEH are
required to be matched with private money. A ``seal of
approval'' from the Endowments demonstrates that a proposal
has passed a rigorous evaluation--a review that many
corporations and foundations do not have the expertise to
make themselves, and one which they take into serious
consideration as they make their own funding decisions.
Business supports the arts and the humanities for many
important reasons. A vigorous cultural life enhances our
communities, improves the imaginative and creative ability of
our employees, and spurs economic activity. The strength of
the cultural sector of our economy, generating $36.8 billion
annually in economic activity, supporting 1.3 million jobs,
producing $790 million in local taxes and $1.2 billion in
state taxes, is a direct result of the successful role of the
Endowments in fostering a broad range of cultural initiatives
over the last 30 years. As much as business values and
supports the arts and the humanities, the unfortunate reality
is that the corporate world can not replace the critical role
of the NEA and the NEH in evaluating and fostering cultural
initiatives. However, as business leaders we are very much
aware that the explosion of interest in American culture
worldwide is a key element of our competitive position in the
new global economy.
From the beginning, it has been the role of the Endowments
to encourage cultural programs of both local and national
importance. The proposal to fund the arts and humanities
through block grants to the states would severely limit the
cultural impact of federal dollars dedicated to cultural
projects. For example, performances and exhibits which travel
widely across state boundaries, often to rural areas and
small cities, would be that much more difficult to develop
and coordinate.
As the issue of federal funding for the NEA and NEH
progresses to the Senate Floor and the Conference Committee,
we urge you to recognize the enormous good accomplished by
relatively few, yet vital dollars by protecting federal
funding and a strong federal role for the National Endowment
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Sincerely,
Members of Americans United to Save the Arts and
Humanities.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S.
Conference of Mayors be printed in the Record. I won't read it all, but
it says:
We need to maintain our federal commitment to preserve this
country's rich cultural heritage and traditions and to
nurture imagination and creatively to strengthen the future
of this country.
Again, in support of the distribution of funds that are in the bill,
from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, March 11, 1997.
President William Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader:
The United States Conference of Mayors joins leaders
throughout this country on Arts Advocacy Day to urge you to
support public funding for the arts and humanities at a level
that fulfills the federal government's responsibility to help
make the arts accessible to all Americans for the social,
economic and cultural well-being of the American public.
As we prepare to enter the new Millennium, we see the arts
and humanities serve as an essential and forceful vehicle to
educate our citizens, help our struggling youth, spur
economic growth in our communities, and bring us together as
a nation. We need to maintain our federal commitment to
preserve this country's rich cultural heritage and traditions
and to nurture imagination and creativity to strengthen the
future of this country. As mayors of communities of every
size and in every corner of America, we can tell you first
hand that the arts are critical to the quality of life and
livability of our cities.
In partnership with the $99.5 million federal investment
that the NEA made in our nation's cultural initiatives this
year (representing a 40% cut), the mayors invested $650
million in local government funds and the governors invested
$275.4 million in state government funds for the arts through
our local and state arts agencies. However, this delicate
balance in shared responsibility of public support for the
arts is in serious jeopardy now. Congress cannot expect state
and local governments or the private sector to make up for
the cuts in the federal government's share.
Therefore, we call upon you to oppose the elimination or
phase-out of our federal cultural agencies and to oppose any
further reductions of their budgets. We further urge you to
maintain your federal longterm commitment to our nation's
cultural resources in communities large and small.
Sincerely yours,
Richard M. Daley, Mayor, Chicago, USCM President; Paul
Helmke, Mayor, Fort Wayne, USCM Vice Pres.; Deedee
Corradinl, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Chair, Advisory Bd.,
Marc H. Morial, Mayor, New Orleans, Chair, Arts
Committee.
Unanimously Adopted Policy Resolution at the 65th Annual Conference of
Mayors, San Francisco, CA, June 24, 1997
federal funding for the arts, humanities, and museums
(1) Whereas, the arts, humanities and museums are critical
to the quality of life and livability of America's cities;
and
(2) Whereas, the National Endowment for the Arts' and the
National Endowment for the Humanities' thirty plus years of
promoting cultural heritage and vitality throughout the
nation has built a cultural infrastructure in this nation of
arts and humanities agencies in every state and 3,800 local
arts agencies in cities throughout the country; and
(3) Whereas, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA),
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Office
of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) are the primary federal agencies that
provide federal funding for the arts, humanities and museum
programs, activities, and efforts in the cities and states of
America; and
(4) Whereas, federal funding serves as a catalyst to
leverage additional dollars for cultural activity--the annual
federal investment made to these three agencies (NEA @ $99.5
million; NEH @ $110 million; and OMS @ $22 million) leverages
up to 12 times that amount from state and local governments,
private foundations, corporations and individuals in
communities across the nation to support the highest quality
cultural programs in the world; and
(5) Whereas, federal funding for cultural activities
stimulates local economies and improves the quality of civic
life throughout the country--the NEA, NEH and IMLS support
programs that enhance community development, promote cultural
planning, stimulate business development, spur urban renewal,
attract new businesses, draw significant cultural tourism
dollars, and improve the overall quality of life in our
cities and towns; and
(6) Whereas, the nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8
billion annually in economic activity and supports 1.3
million jobs--from large urban to small rural communities,
the nonprofit arts industry annually returns $3.4 billion in
federal income taxes, $1.2 billion in state government
revenue and $790 million in local government revenue; and
(7) Whereas, federal arts funding to cities, towns and
states has helped stimulate the growth of 3,800 local arts
agencies in America's cities and counties and $650 million
annually in local government funding to the arts and
humanities; and
(8) Whereas, federal funding for cultural activities is
essential to promote full access to and participation in
exhibits, performances, arts education and other cultural
events regardless of geography and family income; and
(9) Whereas, the NEA is in a highly precarious position
since this agency has been unduly politicized and has
incurred a disproportionate 39 percent cut in federal funding
in fiscal year 1996--bringing its budget down to 1977
levels--and Congress has targeted this
[[Page S9536]]
agency for complete elimination this year; and
(10) Whereas, last year's draconian cuts to the NEA's and
NEH's budget are beginning to have a serious negative effect
on the cultural infrastructure and survival of arts and
humanities institutions, arts organizations, artists, and
cultural programming at the national, state and local level;
and
(11) Whereas, the delicate balance in shared responsibility
and partnership for public funding of the arts and humanities
at the federal, state and local government levels is now in
serious jeopardy since local governments cannot make up for
the current and future funding cuts in the federal
government's share, now, therefore, be it,
(12) Resolved, That the United States Conference of Mayors
reaffirms its support of the National Endowment for the Arts,
National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Office of
Museum Services within the Institute of Museum and Library
Services and calls upon Congress to fund these agencies at
the President's FY '98 request level in order to fulfill the
federal government's responsibility to help make the arts
accessible to all Americans for the social, economic and
cultural well-being of the American public, as well as to
help sustain this nation's cultural infrastructure for public
support of the arts and humanities at the federal, state and
local levels, be it further
(13) Resolved, That the United States Conference of Mayors
calls upon the President and Congress to reauthorize the NEA
and NEH and to oppose any attempts to eliminate or phase-out
our federal cultural agencies; to oppose reducing their
budgets; to oppose mandating that all funds be blockgranted
to the states; and to allow local arts agencies to subgrant
federal grants.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas may say she wants
to preserve and keep the National Endowment for the Arts, but this
really is a stealth amendment. This is the stealth amendment that will
kill the NEA. It will do great damage to a lot of our small States like
Iowa, States that may not have a lot of money. We have a lot of budding
artists, and we need the national commitment to the arts program to
ensure that these young poets and these young writers and these young
musicians and these young painters and these young artisans know that
there is a national commitment and they have the kind of support and
the kind of encouragement and the kind of role models that they need to
encourage them in their efforts.
No, Mr. President, this stealth amendment would do drastic damage to
the NEA. It would kill the NEA, and we cannot afford to do that. I urge
its rejection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Has all time expired other than my 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That's correct.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, America's strength comes from its grassroots. It isn't
Government that provides the spirit of America; it is the grassroots.
Government policy should strengthen the people to establish their
priorities, and that's what my amendment does. It strengthens the
States to create more access and more appreciation and more education
in the arts for all the children of America. I believe that our local
control of education allows reading through phonics. I believe in old
math so that we learn our multiplication tables in addition to how to
work a computer and a calculator. I also think as basic to that is to
let our children have access to the arts so that they can produce
world-class art and arts appreciation. It shows that it is part of our
basic education that we would have a national priority.
Mr. President, my amendment keeps the national commitment to the
arts, and it keeps the control in the grassroots and the heartland of
America. I think it is the best balance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1186 offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1186) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________