[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7651-H7653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2107, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the 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, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Yates
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferres.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves that the managers on the part of the House be
instructed to agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 120, 121,
and 122.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognized the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to instruct the conferees on the
Interior appropriations bill, to accept the provisions of the Senate
bill improving funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
The House, my colleagues will recall, provided no funds for the
National Endowment of the Arts because it was said it was unauthorized.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, 14 other agencies in the House bill which were
unauthorized received waivers from the Committee on Rules in order to
permit them to receive money for their operations.
NEA was the only unauthorized agency that did not receive a waiver of
the Committee on Rules. And therefore, it was subject to being stricken
by the bill on a point of order. That is why we attacked the rule, Mr.
Speaker. We sought to vote down the previous question to correct the
discriminatory treatment accorded to the NEA.
Mr. Speaker, we lost by one vote. One vote, Mr. Speaker. And NEA was
stricken from the bill on a point of order when the bill came to the
floor. That strong showing, Mr. Speaker, indicates to me that there is
strong support for the NEA in the House, and that is why I believe the
House is ready and willing to join the Senate in providing the fund for
NEA, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I have filed this motion to agree
with the Senate.
I urge support for my motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that I
may include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have not had any requests for time at this
point on this motion to instruct. I reserve the balance of my time if
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would go forward.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] for yielding me the time.
I rise in strong support of the motion of the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Yates]. I supported it in the House when we first brought this
issue up. But of course, it was eliminated, as the gentleman stated,
really on a parliamentary maneuver, not only the lack of a waiver but
the parliamentary maneuver to defeat the rule.
I am afraid that a lot of people were opposing it because they
thought it was reducing the budget deficit, and I do not believe that
had validity. But more importantly, there was a parliamentary maneuver
that denied us the vote, not only denied us the vote, but really gave
some people the opportunity to dodge the issue instead of confronting
it directly. I am afraid that it put the House on record as being part
of a dumbing down of America. I hate to say that, but I regretfully
must admit that is the way the people across the country interpreted
that vote. And in my opinion, it will be part of a ``dumbing down'' and
denying Americans and the children especially the benefits of cultural
and educational programming.
Fortunately, the Senate had the wisdom to include the funding. And
indeed, I want to remind my colleagues, as they are aware from their
own situations in their own communities, this is not just something
that is good for urban communities; it supplements in urban, suburban,
and rural areas alike improve the educational and the cultural
qualities, whether we are talking about community orchestras or dance
companies or the numbers of other children's programs that are
supported by the NEA.
I want to tell my colleagues also, from my own experience as a member
of the authorizing committee and for those that are fearful that there
are some violations of community ethical and cultural standards and
some that are still operating under the assumption that there is
somehow a pornographic or indecent material here, I want to speak now
as one of those who worked with our late departed colleague Paul Henry
in 1990 to put the reforms in place.
This statement and debate was not permitted because we were denied,
under the previous rule, the opportunity to debate this issue under the
rules. The law as it now exists as to how the community standards must
be met and it is precise as to how those selections are made. There is
no longer any reason to look askance at the NEA as violating community
standards of decency or projects that have questionable background.
So I guess in summary I want to say, for those who are concerned that
we are violating community standards under this proposal, that is a
thing of the past. Our committee put in good operational standards as
long ago as 1990. This is no longer valid as an argument against the
NEA. But to those who were taken in by the parliamentary maneuver so
that some dodged the issue as to whether they stood squarely for
continuing support for the National Endowment for the Arts, I want to
say, this is a straight up-or-down vote. We are agreeing or disagreeing
directly with the funding and authorization for the National Endowment
for the Arts and following the wisdom of the Senate.
I know that all those letters and telephone calls that my colleagues
had those editorials, commentary that was highly critical of us in the
House, we now have a way, a direct up-or-down vote, to correct that
problem that we created for ourselves under the parliamentary procedure
and to correct it
[[Page H7652]]
and follow the lead that the Senate has given us and bring all those
orchestras and those community activities and those children's
educational programs back to our communities across this Nation.
I urge support of the motion to instruct the conferees.
{time} 1800
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for the
House to do the right thing. I know in my heart that the chairman as
well as the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee know that the
National Endowment for the Arts deserves funding. I think that most
people that have looked into what the National Endowment for the Arts
has done over the last several years, particularly since Jane Alexander
took over, recognize that all the projects are scrutinized, that the
ones that have been used for rhetorical purposes are all past history.
They were marginal projects, anyway. They certainly do not define what
the National Endowment for the Arts is all about.
What defines what the National Endowment for the Arts is all about is
a young woman that grew up just a few blocks from the Kennedy Center
but never could afford to go to the Kennedy Center. When she was a
teenager, she attended a National Endowment for the Arts opera recital
and realized she wanted to sing opera. Now she is an internationally
acclaimed star because the National Endowment for the Arts gave the
kind of inspiration to Denyce Graves as it has to many thousands of
artists around the country and to communities that wanted their people
to be able to appreciate what this country's artists have to offer.
These are not grants that go to the well-funded cities. These are
grants that go out into communities that appreciate the arts but lack
the funding to offer them to their citizens.
We heard from the chairman of CBS last week. The gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Slaughter] sponsored the breakfast. He stood up, and said he
represented corporate America. He told us that when the NEA gives its
endorsement to a project, they know that it is worth investing in. They
want to invest in the arts. They know it is in the best interests of
their employees, that it is in the best interest of America.
But if we were to give it to the States or to otherwise eviscerate
what the NEA stands for, then we will not have that kind of
credibility, that the projects that need funding will not get funding.
It is only the projects who have the contacts, who know the wealthy
people, who know the right people who will get funded. Thousands of
other projects around the country will not get funded because they do
not have a National Endowment for the Arts ready, willing, and able to
fund the most meritorious artists.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this House to do the right thing,
support NEA, and follow the lead of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates], our ranking Democrat, in instructing the conferees to restore
its funding.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to support this motion very strongly to instruct
the conferees to include the Senate level of $100 million in this
conference report. This is absolutely essential for us, Mr. Speaker, as
part of the most important link that we have in the United States to
humanize and to give the opportunity for every child in this country to
participate in arts programs.
We hear all the time, the debate always centers around where all
these grants go. Oh, they say they go to New York City, to Chicago, and
to Los Angeles. Yes, a lot of them do. Why do they do that? What do
they do with the money in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles? They send
out troupes of artists, of dancers, of musicians, of teachers to every
nook and cranny of the United States.
That really is what our obligation is here. Those famous and
wonderful institutions that have art museums throughout the country
will probably survive without the NEA, but I can guarantee Members that
those programs that reach into the smallest of schools, to the most
deprived of areas in the United States, those will not survive, and
they will die.
Will it matter? You bet it matters. What do we do with children who
have arts programs in school? In the first place, they are going to
tell us that these are kids who never drop out, and on art day all
those children are going to be there. Absenteeism is cut down. But one
of the most important things is that, according to the college board in
the United States, students with 4 years of art, they score 59 points
higher on their verbal scores on the SAT's and 44 points higher on math
portions than kids with no arts classes. There is nothing else that we
do for education that gives us back that return.
Newsweek recently highlighted a school in Raleigh, NC, that used art
to transform what was a troubled elementary school with below-average
test scores to a school where the kids are excited about learning and
the scores have gone up. University of California at Irvine researchers
found that music training, specifically piano instruction, is far
superior to computer instruction, dramatically enhancing the children's
abstract reasoning skills necessary for learning math and science. A
study in Florida shows there is a connection between arts education and
dropout prevention. This is the best thing we do for children at risk.
Can we afford not to do that? Can we afford to not do these small
programs, the small investment that we make to make sure as we are here
on the cusp of the next century that every child in the public school
system in the United States has that opportunity to expand its
brainpower and its own ability, its verbal scores, and do better on the
SAT's? How foolish for us not to do that.
The NEA's budget is less than 0.01 percent of the Federal budget.
What does it do? It returns $3.4 billion to the Treasury. I promise my
colleagues that we make no other investment in the Congress of the
United States that brings that kind of return. It supports 1.3 million
jobs and generates $36.8 billion annually. In addition, the arts
produce $790 million in local government revenue and $1.2 billion in
State government revenue.
Let me just close with something that is very important. Recently the
New York Times ran the words of Harold Holzer, the Metropolitan Museum
of Art's vice president. He said that in the fiscal year which ended
June 30, the Metropolitan Museum of Art had greater attendance, 5.5
million persons, than the New York Mets, the Yankees, the Rangers, and
the Knicks combined. That certainly says to us that people in this
country are hungry to have art, hungry to hear music, anxious to dance,
want their children to have the opportunity to expand their brains, to
be everything they can be, to help us be ready to go into the next
century with our children prepared.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this motion to restore
funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. I am grateful that the
other body has more clearly understood the value of the NEA and has in
its wisdom not only rejected efforts to eliminate the agency, but has
also rejected efforts that would have dramatically altered the
fundamental structure and mission of the NEA.
The NEA has a proven track record of supporting the creation of
excellent art and facilitating Americans' access to it. For 30 years
the NEA has helped bring art and culture to those who otherwise would
be without it.
The NEA is sometimes accused of being elitist, but just the opposite
is the case. Before the NEA, there were 38 orchestras in the country
just 30 years ago. Today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA,
there were 37 professional dance companies. Now there are 300. Before
the NEA, 30 years ago, only 1 million people attended theater each
year. Today more than 55 million attend. All of this because of the
NEA.
The NEA plays a crucial role in the nonprofit arts industry, which
supports 1.3 million jobs and generates more than $3.4 billion in
Federal income taxes. We cannot afford either culturally or
economically to eliminate the NEA.
I am especially pleased that the House of Representatives will now
finally be allowed to vote on whether or
[[Page H7653]]
not to fund the NEA. Earlier this year the leadership of this House
took extraordinary steps to prevent the House from even considering
funding the NEA. On the controversial vote on the rule, several Members
of Congress who have supported the arts in the past and had pledged to
support the NEA failed to do so at that critical moment. I hope that
these Members in particular will seize this opportunity to demonstrate
their support for the NEA by voting for this motion to instruct
conferees. I urge all of my colleagues to support the National
Endowment for the Arts and to vote to accept the Senate funding level
of $100 million for the NEA.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a few persons in
politics who will use the fact that an occasional fool has misused NEA
funding to produce decadent and objectionable pieces of art under
endowment funding, but I would simply point out one thing. Even Babe
Ruth struck out 1,300 times, and no sane manager would have benched
Babe Ruth. I do not think we should bench the National Endowment for
the Arts.
I would say that for every occasional grant that any Member of this
body can find that has funded a piece of so-called art that we would
find objectionable or outrageous, there are literally tens of thousands
of grants that are provided that raise people's spirits, that open the
eyes of young people to their greater and finer possibilities. And I
would just suggest that it is not the urban centers of this country who
would be the great losers if the Endowment were to die, it would be the
thousands of small communities across this country who need the seed
money that the Endowment provides in order to enrich the cultural lives
of their children in many areas where they would otherwise not have the
opportunity to see some of the grand things that funding under the
Endowment can provide.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply urge that we support this motion of the
gentleman from Illinois. I also want to take this opportunity to say
about the gentleman that I do not think there is a finer human being
who has ever served in this House than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates]. He has devoted a great portion of his energies and his passions
to improving the lives of many people in material ways as well as
spiritual ways. I think this endowment is just one of the ways that he
has tried to do that. On behalf of every person who cares about this
program all across the country, I would like to personally thank him
for the efforts he has shown. I think he does the House proud when he
takes the positions that he has. We are, I think, all very happy to
stand with him today in this effort to make the Congress finally do
what is right on this issue.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his kind remarks.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Is it my understanding that this motion to instruct would
in no way bind the conferees in terms of conditions that would be put
on the grant? I know that the gentleman from Illinois has suggested we
have six Members, three from the House and three from the Senate, on
the NEA Board so that we have continuing input. There has been some
talk about limiting the percentage that any State could receive and
also no individual grants even for literature. Is my understanding
correct that those types of conditions could be imposed by the
conferees, and that this motion would in no way restrict our ability to
do so?
Mr. YATES. That was my understanding as well. I subscribe to that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gutknecht]. Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
Messrs. Regula,
McDade,
Kolbe,
Skeen,
Taylor of North Carolina,
Nethercutt,
Miller of Florida,
Wamp,
Livingston,
Yates,
Murtha,
Dicks,
Skaggs,
Moran of Virginia,
and Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________