[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5972-H5980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4193, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the last year in which debate on 
the Federal support for the arts will be led by the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. Renowned 
as the champion of the NEA and credited for keeping it alive by the 
sheer force of his will, the gentleman from Illinois is retiring at the 
end of the year.
  Under the usual procedures of the House, the gentleman would have the 
honor of offering amendments to strengthen the arts. But this rule 
takes that honor away from him. Of course, this disappointment can 
never obscure the debt that artists, art educators, and art 
institutions across the Nation owe to their long-time champion. History 
will record Sid Yates' legacy, the vitality of the arts across our 
Nation.
  This rule cannot tarnish Sid Yates' leadership on the issue, but it 
does demonstrate the nature of the leadership so caught up in its power 
that it has the audacity to deny the foremost supporter of the arts one 
last chance to lead the battle for the NEA survival.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the 
National Endowment for the Arts. It has been 32 years since President 
Johnson signed into law the bill legislation that would create the 
National Endowment for the Arts. He, along with most Americans, 
believed that the Federal Government must have a role in supporting 
arts.
  Since then we have seen a profound impact on the nonprofit arts 
community in this country. The number of arts agencies has risen from 
five in 1965 to 56 today. Local arts agencies have grown from 400 to 
4,000. Nonprofit theaters from 56 to 425. Orchestras from 1,000 to 
1,800, and opera companies from 27 to 120.
  From an economic perspective, the benefits of the NEA are 
unmistakable. Last year, the $98 million allocated to the NEA provided 
the cornerstone for a $37 billion industry. For the price of one 
hundredth of one percent of the Federal budget, we helped create 1.3 
million full-time jobs in States, cities, towns, and villages across 
the country, generating $3.4 billion for the Federal Treasury in income 
taxes.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and more than 100 CEOs of major 
corporations, all support the NEA because they recognize the 
contribution of the arts to our economy and to our culture.
  Most importantly, we must not forget the impact of the arts on our 
Nation's most precious resource, our children. Providing students 
access to art has a significant impact on their overall development, 
including academic achievement and behavior. In fact, a study conducted 
by the College Entrance Examination Board showed that students with 4 
or more years of arts classes raised their SAT scores by 53 points on 
the verbal and 35 points on the math portions of the test. For 36 cents 
per capita, how can we not even consider making this investment?
  The NEA is also instrumental in making sure all Americans have access 
to the arts. Through its innovative new program, ArtsREACH, the agency 
is working to stimulate participation in areas that are often 
underserved by the arts grants. This program, which will be announcing 
its first set of grants later this year, provides funding directly to 
communities and States that receive fewer than five grants during the 
preceding year. With help from the NEA, communities develop a cultural 
plan with input from the local Chamber of Commerce, social service 
agencies, police departments, mayors, local artists and other community 
leaders. Outreach grants will enable communities to undertake such 
endeavors as building performance and exhibit spaces, enhancing 
opportunities in arts education, and developing arts alternatives for 
youth at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, we may hear opponents of the NEA argue that the agency 
is no longer needed, that the private sector is fully capable of 
supporting the arts in America. I respectfully beg to differ.
  Every Federal dollar spent by the National Endowment for the Arts 
leverages many additional public dollars at the State and local levels, 
as well as multiple private donations. Funding for the arts rests on a 
delicate balance of Federal, State, and local government funding, 
ticket sales, other earned income, as well as corporate and individual 
philanthropic giving. No arts organization can survive on earned income 
alone. In fiscal year 1997, the $99.5 million contributed by the 
Federal Government helped leverage $280 million in State funding and 
more than $675 million from local governments. The Federal Government 
needs to continue to do its share.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop holding the NEA a political hostage. 
We owe this to the agency, to the artists, and most importantly to our 
constituents.
  In the 1996 Louis Harris poll, a majority of all Americans supported 
a Federal role in funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts has 
been and will continue to be a hallmark of civilized societies around 
the world. The benefits that we receive for our economy, for our 
children, and for our communities far outweigh our small financial 
investment. I urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to shrink this 
important responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
recognized the benefits of the arts by providing $98 million, nearly 
level funding. That funding should have remained in the bill, making an 
amendment to restore it unnecessary.

[[Page H5973]]

  However, this rule allows the funding to be struck and then allows an 
amendment to restore it. If the rule passes, I ask my colleagues to 
vote for the amendment to restore the NEA funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Committee on Rules chose this 
procedure; however, in the end, the rule does allow a straight up-or-
down vote to provide funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was upstairs in my office up in the Committee on Rules 
preparing for some Rules meetings so that the House can expedite all of 
these appropriation bills that keep coming down here on us, and I heard 
the word ``partisanship'' mentioned several times.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to retire from this body come December 31, 
and the one thing I guess I will not miss about this body is when 
people stand up any time there is a disagreement and they start yelling 
partisanship. It should not be that way.
  We can disagree. Reasonable people can disagree. But we ought to come 
down here and we ought to argue it out on a friendly basis. I say that 
with all due respect to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
who represents one of the nicest places in New York State, as I do. She 
represents Rochester, New York.
  But let me explain why we are here in the first place. And I do so 
because there are not many Members, like the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) and myself and many others, who have been around here 
for a period of time. Two-thirds of the House is new in the last couple 
of elections, and maybe they do not understand. But, Mr. Speaker, we 
have rules in this House. And when we have appropriation bills, we 
generally bring those appropriation bills right to the floor and we let 
the House work its will.
  Now, there is a problem with that because if we do that, then there 
are many items in these bills that are subject to points of order. That 
means they can be stricken out without any debate whatsoever. We have 
two Members of this body, one is departed, deceased now, and the other 
is about to leave with me in December. And his name is Sid Yates, and 
the other was a man named Bill Natcher of Kentucky. They used to bring 
these bills right to the floor and let the House work their will.
  If we did that we, of course, would not have a debate on an issue 
that is terribly important to many Members of the House on both sides 
of the aisle, and especially to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) 
who is without a question the personification of the word ``gentleman'' 
in this body.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) very, very much, both for his very kind words and for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York is incorrect in asserting 
that, like Bill Natcher, my good friend and his as well, I brought the 
Interior bill when I was chairman, to the floor, the Interior bill when 
I was chairman, without a rule. That is not correct.
  I brought the bill to the floor asking for waivers of the 
unauthorized programs that were in the bill, including the National 
Endowment for the Arts. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
who was then in the position now occupied by the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, gave us a waiver on all of those. The 
gentleman differs in that respect by refusing to grant that waiver to 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Illinois for his clarification. Let me just point out the 
difference now between the current majority and the old Democratic 
majority.
  In the past, the Committee on Appropriations would overrule the 
standing committees, the authorizing committees, of which there are 13 
in this body. They would legislate in their appropriation bills. This 
would create a lot of animosity on both sides of the aisle.
  We now have a protocol where if an issue appears in an appropriation 
bill, and it has not been authorized by the authorizing committee 
which, under the rules of this House, has the obligation to deal with 
these authorization programs, then we just do not protect them unless 
we do have the support of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the letter from the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. The gentleman points out that his committee has not 
authorized the National Endowment for the Arts, nor do they intend to 
this year. That means, under normal protocol then, we would simply 
leave this issue unprotected and that would be the end of it because 
some Member, like myself who opposes Federal funding of the National 
Endowment for the Arts, and we can differ on that whether that is right 
or wrong, but I or any other Member should stand up and strike it. 
There would be no debate on this issue.
  Now, instead of that, in trying to be fair to Members on both sides 
of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats both divided on this issue, we 
issued a rule and we lived up to the protocol, our obligation to the 
authorizing committees and we left the NEA funding exposed.
  Now, we also wrote into the rule, and I have the language right here, 
that if someone, myself or anyone else, should strike the funding for 
the NEA because it had not been authorized, we would then make in order 
an amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson), 
wherever she is here, that would restore $98 million, the entire 
funding match from last year, to this issue, and we would have a 
debate, up or down, on this bill.
  Now, we did something else earlier on, because in the Committee on 
Appropriations I think our good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), who is also one of the highly respected Members of this 
body, saw fit to offer an amendment where he placed in the 
appropriation bill money for this unauthorized program, and he took it 
out of the account which funds fire fighting on Federal lands in this 
country. Now, that to me is a high priority. We know the heat wave that 
is striking this country. We need those funds in the bill.
  We have self-executed into this bill the funds that were taken out of 
it for fire fighting, at the request of the gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Helen Chenoweth). It is her amendment. And I want to commend her 
highly, because if it were not for her, right now these funds would not 
be in this bill. So I highly commend the gentlewoman for what she has 
done.
  Now, her amendment, once this rule passes, is in the bill. It 
restores the $67 million. Now, then, the House is going to have the 
opportunity, whether Members are for or against the NEA, to work its 
will on an up or down vote. We cannot be any more fair than that. And 
we have attempted to be as fair as we possibly could.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Could the gentleman claim some time from the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter)?
  Mr. OBEY. Since the gentleman used my name, I want the gentleman to 
yield to me.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, I am cutting into other Members' time, but I will 
yield for 30 seconds.
  Mr. OBEY. Thirty seconds is all I need.
  I would simply point out that money was taken from the fire fighting 
account because that was where money was intentionally parked by the 
committee, which they knew was above the amount that they were going to 
be asked to be spent on that item anyway. So we took the money from the 
account that the gentleman's own committee leadership planned to take 
it from to do the very thing that we did. I do not know how we can be 
blamed for that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not think the 
gentleman can explain that to the 21

[[Page H5974]]

fire fighters from my district that went out to fight fires and were 
gone for 3 months in this country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the House of 
Representatives.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the 
Republican rule on the National Endowment for the Arts and in support 
of full funding for the NEA. We must make this commitment not only to 
fulfill our Nation's cultural life but also to nourish the local 
economic development efforts which rise from our investments in the 
arts.
  I hope that the majority of the House will eventually support funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, but we can only get there by 
crossing an obstacle course put in place by the Republican leadership. 
Their Byzantine maneuvering on this rule is a waste of the House's 
precious time.
  Support for NEA is more than just about the love of art or high-
minded support of cultural endeavors. It is about supporting the 
efforts of State and local governments to create economic growth. The 
NEA's funding goes to projects which increase economic opportunity by 
promoting the cultural and artistic activities of local citizens. The 
arts enhance a community's quality of life, thereby attracting 
industry, jobs, and increasing the tax base. Investment in the arts is 
both economically prudent and wise.
  Federal funds are leveraged by localities to bring about a bigger 
bang for the NEA buck. The $98 million invested in the NEA by the 
Federal Government stimulated State and local governments to provide 
more than $975 million to the arts. This is big business: The nonprofit 
arts industry generates $36 billion of business annually and supports 
1.3 million full-time jobs.
  And the NEA benefits rural as well as urban areas. The NEA's 
partnerships foster rural community revitalization, downtown 
development, and historic revitalization. The cultural traditions of 
local communities can serve as a strategy for economic development of 
economically depressed rural communities.
  Also, funding for the NEA is about supporting a full and rich 
education for our children. In 1997, 10 percent of its annual grant 
dollars were spent in support of pre-K through 12 arts education 
programs. NEA grants are used to provide educational opportunities for 
millions of children to learn and be enriched by the arts, 
opportunities that would not exist without the NEA.
  So we need to fund the NEA to make sure that we nurture the artistic 
capabilities of all Americans. Funding for the NEA is a small 
investment in the spiritual and intellectual health of our country. It 
has and will continue to pay great dividends for our Nation, far beyond 
its modest cost.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and support full funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Both sides have 19 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jerry Solomon), and I will miss him terribly. The gentleman 
from New York worked tirelessly to guarantee that my amendment to 
increase wild land fire fighting capabilities is considered as adopted, 
and I thank the chairman for recognizing the importance of the funding 
of this account and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 
Health of the Committee on Resources, it is easy to understand my 
elation when I learned that the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations increased the wild land fire management 
account. With roughly a half million acres burned and burning in 
Florida, and I guess just the recent rains have just finally put those 
fires out, and with one and a half million acres burned so far this 
year nationwide, the subcommittee properly funded the fire fighting 
account and they funded it at a higher level.
  This should be a national priority, to make sure that our national 
resources do not burn. We very well may have a record fire year this 
year, even exceeding the fire year of 1910. I would not be surprised to 
see more acres burn this year than in 1910. The subcommittee's response 
was very proper. So, Mr. Speaker, when the full appropriations 
legislation left the fire fighting budget seriously underfunded, my 
disappointment and distress should come as no surprise.
  Now, let me say that I appreciate the arts. Let me also say that I 
declared a major in music. Let me also say I received a scholarship in 
music. My whole family is very, very musical. I appreciate the arts. 
But this is a Nation that must have its funds in order and its 
priorities in order as to how we expend these funds.
  When we are a Nation that can meet the necessary services, like a 
national defense, fire fighting for our public lands, and take good 
care of the resources that we already have, such as our forests, then, 
absent pornographic arts, maybe there is a case that can be made for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, but only after we have taken care 
of all the necessary services.
  I am not sure that this should ever be a function of the Federal 
Government. The ultimate irony is that funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts came from the fire fighting account. Now, that 
is a misprioritization of our funds. It would be especially odd 
considering that the NEA is an organization this body has elected to 
terminate. But to fund the NEA at the cost of the wild land fire 
fighting capabilities is unacceptable.
  I appreciate the Committee on Rules accepting my amendment to 
reconfirm our priorities. I do not intend to engage in a debate in the 
validity of using taxpayers' monies at this point in time for the arts. 
Suffice it to say that I do not support the NEA in its present form. I 
will say, though, that when the Federal Government controls vast 
amounts of land and absolutely refuses to take steps to prevent and 
control wildfires, steps such as thinning or harvesting dead and dying 
timber, and steps such as providing roads, like they admit now they 
needed in Florida in order to prevent the wildfires from spreading, the 
Federal Government must pay for fire suppression and protect 
communities, forests, wildlife habitat and the State and private 
forests and private property.
  The Clinton Administration's hands-off approach to forest management 
is coming back to haunt us. The administration's poor management has 
resulted in some very serious fires. In 1996 we burned 3 million acres. 
How many more acres will it take for them to wake up and change their 
management priorities? We are, at the beginning of this summer, at 1.5 
million acres already and counting, and it is only mid-July. Their 
attitude has been let it burn, but just be sure and get a good picture.
  I am pleased again, Mr. Speaker, that our chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), worked so hard to 
help me in restoring funding.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, this is a strange rule. In almost 50 years in 
the House, I have seen a lot of strange rules, but I think this is 
probably the strangest and probably the most political.
  The Committee on Appropriations had gone out of its way to approve 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to re-
fund the National Endowment for the Arts. This rule kills the action of 
the subcommittee.
  And, incidentally, that vote was a bipartisan one. Not only the 
Democrats, but five Republicans helped pass the Obey amendment. This 
rule kills the action of the Committee by denying a waiver that would 
bar a point of order for lack of authorization of the program.
  Then the rule turns around, having taken the money away from NEA, and

[[Page H5975]]

tries to put it back by giving the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) the opportunity to offer an amendment to restore it.
  My good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says ``What 
could be fairer than that?'' I will tell the gentleman that, in my 
opinion, what could be fairer than that would be if he had provided the 
waiver for NEA that he gave to about 30 other unauthorized programs in 
the bill. NEA was unfairly singled out for the denial of a waiver.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. The gentleman yielded to me. I will be very glad to yield 
to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the respected 
gentleman that no other authorizing committee had asked to leave a 
point of order stand except this one.
  Let me say to the gentleman, the only fair thing was to do it the way 
we did it. The other alternative, and I will say this to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), wherever he may be, because he argued to 
defeat the rule: If we defeat the rule, the bill comes on the floor 
without a rule; under regular order of the House, someone stands up and 
strikes the funding for the NEA, and then there is no debate and there 
is no funding.
  I do not think the gentleman wants that, and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) should reconsider.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that does not 
vitiate the error that took place in not having waived the rule of the 
House for NEA, as was done for the other programs.
  For 10 years we have brought our bill to the Committee on Rules 
asking for a waiver of all the unauthorized programs. When the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) occupied the Chairman's seat 
now claimed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), he gave this 
waiver to NEA and we brought it to the floor and we handled it 
successfully.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The time of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates) has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank both him and the chairman of the committee as well for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted the additional time so I could advise the 
House that I intend to fight the previous question when the rule comes 
up for a vote. We have prepared an amended rule with a waiver for NEA 
that will be presented to the House, to place it in the same equal 
status as the other unauthorized programs, and I would hope that the 
House would approve that amended rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and for 
this legislation, the FY 1999 Interior appropriations bill.
  I also want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the ranking 
member, for their bipartisan support of the Midewin National Tallgrass 
Prairie at the former Joliet Arsenal in Illinois, what we call the Land 
of Lincoln.
  The former Joliet Arsenal in my congressional district was converted 
to peacetime uses by way of legislation passed by this House and signed 
into law by the President in 1996. Out of this legislation came the 
Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the largest conservation area of 
its kind, 19,000 acres, which will be available for generations to 
come.
  The Midewin Prairie was established to conserve and enhance native 
populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; to provide 
opportunities for environmental education and scientific research; and 
to provide recreational opportunities for the millions of people in the 
Chicago Midwest and throughout our Nation.
  This committee has been very helpful in support of the development of 
the Midewin. The Midewin is now on its way to becoming what some have 
called the Yellowstone of the Midwest. This legislation contains $2.7 
million for operations, planning and design and for development so that 
visitors can be coming in the coming year.
  As my colleagues know, this is a high priority environmental 
initiative. This project has long had bipartisan support, including 
support from the entire Illinois delegation. My friend and colleague 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a great advocate and 
supporter of the Midewin, and I salute him for that.
  Creation of the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie was widely supported by 
business, labor, veterans, the environmental community, local elected 
officials, and our outgoing Governor Jim Edgar. The U.S. Forest 
Service, in partnership with the Illinois Department of Natural 
Resources, has been working with various agencies, organizations and 
individuals, including to the point where ``Team Midewin'' has obtained 
$2.3 million in private sector support for the development of the 
Midewin Prairie.
  This is an excellent example of a public-private partnership. I again 
want to thank the Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Yates), for funding this project. It is important to Illinois. It 
is important to our Nation. It is a top environmental priority. I thank 
them for supporting the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie. I urge support of 
this legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today not so much in anger as 
in bemusement. This rule is the most blatantly partisan manipulation of 
the House rules that I have seen in my 29 years' service here. And I 
guess what I feel more than anything else is simply sorrow for those 
who feel that they have to engage in such manipulations in order to 
claim political victories.
  I think we ought to take a look at the history of the arts to 
understand what is being done here today and why. The history is that, 
for the last 2 years and really for a number of years before that, a 
large segment of the Republican Caucus in this House has had as its 
number one mission the elimination of all Federal funding for the arts. 
Last year no money was provided for funding for the arts in this bill 
by the majority party, and it took a clear veto threat from the 
President and a clear bipartisan resistance to their position by the 
Senate and an insistence by House Democrats that funding be restored 
before the conference committee on this bill last year did in fact 
restore the money.
  This year, the Republican majority gave zero dollars for the arts in 
the original bill that came before our committee. In committee, I 
offered the amendment to restore funding. It was adopted by a virtually 
unanimous Democratic vote with, I believe, 5 additional Republican 
friends supporting us to create a bipartisan majority for funding the 
arts.
  This rule under which the bill will now be debated simply allows a 
single Member to eliminate the funding for the arts under the excuse 
that they are not technically authorized. And then it makes it in order 
to restore the very money which they will have just stricken, but only 
if that amendment is offered by a Republican.
  Is there anyone on the House floor who does not see through that 
charade? Is there anyone who does not understand that what this 
indicates more than anything else is that this House, in the closing 
days before the election, is being turned by the majority leadership 
from a legislative body into a reelection machine? Does anybody really 
believe there is any other game but that going on?
  It is really, in my view, this kind of manipulation that makes so 
many people back home think that politics in this Congress has become 
more a question of what politicians do to each other rather than what 
we are supposed to be doing for the people we represent. And in my 
view, it is a regrettable chapter in the history of the House.
  The rule has only one purpose. It knocks out funding put in the bill 
on a Democratic motion for the purpose of giving a Republican Member a 
chance to claim credit for putting it back, and it also has the 
parliamentary effect of raising the number of votes required to

[[Page H5976]]

preserve the arts because we have to have a majority to put the money 
back in rather than a majority to take it out. That is all it does.
  And all I would say to my friends on the Republican side is that if 
that is what it takes to make them feel good, if that is what it takes 
to make them feel a little bit more secure from public opinion, by all 
means, go ahead. But it is not going to fool anybody, not on this floor 
and not anybody watching.
  So go ahead, play the partisan games. It is amazing to me to see what 
some people will do in order to try to claim a political victory. But 
in the end, what counts is not these partisan manipulations; it is 
whether or not the arts are funded. That is a grace note this society 
needs.
  And so, regardless of the ludicrousness of the rule, I expect to 
support the amendment when the time comes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is also a rule 
that keeps our word to those who desired an up or down vote on the 
controversial subject of the NEA.
  I know that the NEA supporters are upset that the burden has shifted. 
I have been a supporter of the NEA in the past. I know it is well-
championed. But I happen to believe under this rule we are going to end 
up in the right place, if we do it even a different way, and I think we 
are going to have a good debate.
  I am also pleased that the rule self-executes an amendment to fully 
fund the wild land fire suppression operation, which is of course a 
critical issue for the folks in my home State of Florida, given the 
horrible experience we have just had there.
  As usual, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has done an 
extraordinarily good job of balancing very difficult issues, and I want 
to publicly thank him. This year's bill provides much needed funding 
increases for the national parks, the national forest system, and the 
national wildlife refuges.
  I am especially appreciative of the committee's attention to a number 
of initiatives important to my home State of Florida, not only the 
fires, but the Everglades, the OCS Moratorium, and the Coastal Barrier 
Resources system. These are all things that are vital to our quality of 
life, and they are all truly national assets.
  While we have an opportunity to discuss the Coastal Barrier Resources 
issue in more detail later on if my colleague the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) offers an amendment, I hope that people will 
reject the Gilchrest amendment if it is offered.
  I generally support the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) to promote our barrier islands. He is a true champion in 
that respect. But the particular amendment that he is proposing today, 
or may propose today, strips out a provision in the bill that ensures 
that a law that has already been signed by the President, 2 years ago 
in fact, making technical corrections to the Coastal Barrier system 
maps goes forward. It seems to me that we have already fixed that 
problem and we do not need to go back.
  I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is 
saying prospectively, but I hope that his amendment today will not pass 
because it unties the fixes that we have made to settle the maps 
correctly and get them done properly in a fair interest between 
private-property rights' interests and the public's interest.
  I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not start off by 
congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his over 30 
years of leadership in funding for the arts and on many other subjects.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there is a great deal of controversy surrounding 
this rule, but rise today because I think it is necessary to restate 
the vital importance of the National Endowment of for the Arts.
  Thanks in part to the NEA, the non-profit arts industry now generates 
more than $36 billion of business annually, supports 1.3 million full-
time jobs, and returns $3.4 billion in federal taxes every year.
  Many local agencies have formed partnerships with local school 
districts, law enforcement, parks and recreation departments, chambers 
of commerce, libraries, and neighborhood organizations. Together they 
have used the arts to address local community development issues.
  The NEA, however, does much more than just fund local arts agencies. 
The NEA supports nationally important work like the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial, public television programs, and numerous touring artist 
groups that bring excellent art to local communities all across the 
nation. What state arts agency would spend its limited funds on touring 
dance or theater groups outside of their state? Only the NEA would 
support these types of touring arts groups who travel across the 
country bringing the arts to the American people.
  The NEA also supports arts education, which is essential in 
developing critical thinking skills such as reading, math and science. 
Last year, the NEA invested $8.2 million, 10% of its annual grants, in 
kindergarten through grade 12 arts programs. The U.S. Labor Department 
report of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills 
cites the important role of arts education in achieving many ``core 
competencies'' for the workplace, including creative problem solving, 
allocating resources, team building and exercising individual 
responsibility.
  In short, the NEA is good for education and good for our children. 
NEA funds help every State in the country. The NEA is a sound economic 
investment by the federal government, and it plays a critical role in 
improving our everyday loves and promoting the general welfare. I 
personally feel that one thing that has been proven by its 
distinguished history is that, when it comes to fostering the arts, the 
NEA is the best option there is, the best there was, and the best 
that--for the foreseeable future--there ever will be.
  Mr. Speaker, the arts are vital in American life, and the NEA is 
vital to promote the arts. It has contributed to the tremendous growth 
of professional orchestras, nonprofit theaters, dance companies and 
opera companies throughout the country. Before the NEA, there were 58 
orchestras in the country. Today there are more than 1,000. Before the 
NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies. Now there are 300. 
Before the NEA, only 1 million people attended theater each year. Today 
more than 55 million attend a year.
  The NEA also stimulates the growth of local arts agencies and 
investment in the arts by State and local government. Before the NEA, 
only 5 States had State-funded arts councils. Today all 50 States do.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not only continue funding the NEA; we ought to 
increase its funding substantially. That is why it is unfortunate we 
are considering this vital program under this silly rule. The Committee 
has already voted to restore the NEA's funding, and now we are here 
playing games with the rule that takes out this funding precisely so 
that we can debate putting it back in. What is most important today is 
that we live up to our constitutional obligation to promote the general 
welfare, and that means protecting and promoting the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule; and I 
do so with the greatest respect for my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Sid Yates) who, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) said earlier, is going to be retiring.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has over the last several 
weeks been insisting that the genes that have come from my late father 
will continue, because it is no secret that my father, who was very 
active as the head of the Lyric Opera Company in Kansas City, Missouri 
and several other organizations, was a strong supporter of the National 
Endowment of the Arts and encouraged me to do that.
  But let me just talk for a moment about this rule. I have heard words 
like ``Byzantine'' and ``extreme partisanship'' used to describe this 
rule, and I

[[Page H5977]]

think it is important for us to note that there is a great deal of 
controversy about the National Endowment for the Arts.

                              {time}  1145

  I am on record in the past saying while I am a very strong supporter 
of the arts, I make personal contributions to different efforts around 
the country, I do believe that when we look at the limited resources 
that we have here in Washington, D.C. and the fact that priorities need 
to be established, I think it is a very justifiable debate to say that 
expending hard-working taxpayer dollars on the arts is in fact not the 
most responsible use of those dollars when we have a very strong 
economy and voluntary contributions, with tax deductibility, can in 
fact be expanded.
  But as far as this rule is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me 
that with this controversy we have without an authorization run by this 
structure that we have put into place saying that we should not have 
this measure protected in the appropriations bill but we will still, 
when it is struck out, have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote to 
be made with the Johnson amendment that will be made in order. So I 
think that the rhetoric is what has troubled me in saying that this is 
somehow Byzantine and extremely partisan when we are giving the debate 
an opportunity to be heard in the House. I do support this rule and the 
final bill as it comes forward.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for what they 
have done with the underlying bill. But I want to talk about a matter 
that involves part of our district in Tennessee, the Land Between the 
Lakes, because there is a legislative provision protected in the rule 
that makes little economic sense, is unfair to the people of the 
country and is punitive toward the Tennessee valley.
  LBL, Land Between the Lakes, is currently managed by the Tennessee 
Valley Authority with an annual budget of about $11 million, $4.5 
million of that coming from user fees. It draws more than 2 million 
visitors each year and is the hub of our local economy.
  TVA's management, policies and employees' performance at LBL has been 
under a thinly disguised attack by the House leadership for more than 2 
years, notwithstanding the fact that virtually every objective person 
who has an interest in its future agrees that TVA is doing a good job 
of stewardship. The TVA Caucus, the National Wild Turkey Federation, 
the Tennessee Conservation League, and the Land Between the Lakes 
Association all say so.
  This record of sound management now depends on the outcome of a 
House-Senate conference reconciling fiscal year 1999 energy and water 
appropriations.
  What is protected in this rule is the backup plan, what they 
characterize as a backup plan. It is part of the continued attack on 
TVA in general and in my judgement will ultimately imperil LBL's future 
as the national treasure as a wilderness area in the eastern United 
States it is. It sets in motion a transfer of LBL's management to the 
National Forest Service.
  Given the budget considerations that the Forest Service has in 
respect to the problems it has budgetarily outlined in the Public Lands 
Funding Initiative, I would hate to see LBL get lost in the Forest 
Service backlog.
  Let me just say this. Transferring LBL to the Forest Service or 
perhaps other Federal agencies in my judgment will not save the 
taxpayers of this country one single dime. This is not the way to go on 
LBL.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman that is responsible for this legislation.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. First of all I want to say I have been pleased with the debate we 
have had on this rule. I think we have had many different points of 
view expressed. I hope that the entire bill will be treated with the 
same courtesy and respect for the opinions of others.
  It is clear that one of the major issues in the bill is the National 
Endowment for the Arts. We have wrestled with this issue, the gentleman 
from Illinois and myself, for several years. Last year we went through 
a rather convoluted procedure to get to a final disposition.
  So I started out 6 months ago doing some missionary work to reach a 
solution on the NEA. I talked to those on our side who would like to 
abolish it, I talked to the leadership on the other side and to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). We finally reached an agreement 
that we would come to the floor with a zero funding for the NEA. There 
was an agreement that we would get a waiver on an amendment so to put 
the funding in and the Members of the House could have an up or down 
vote.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Ohio and I came to 
that agreement, I had the impression that the effort for the vote would 
be led by the Democrats, as it has been over the last several years, 
and I was unaware of the convoluted structure that the rule was going 
to take.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand. I think he has some legitimate concerns, 
and I had not really said particularly who should offer the amendment. 
My mission was to get a clean vote so we would know where 435 Members 
of this House stood on the basic issue, and, that is, Is it the 
government's role to fund the NEA? With all the restrictions, we have 
put on the NEA, most recently the original Senate amendment on 
obscenity upheld by the Supreme Court last month, plus the fact that we 
have three Members of the House and three of the Senate sitting on the 
National Council. I know that a couple of these Members are not very 
big fans of the arts, to say the least.
  So we have worked out the arrangement to come to the floor with zero 
funding, and I think in good faith the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) offered the amendment in the full committee, not being sure that 
this agreement would stick in the House. That is what brought us to 
where we are today. We are going to have the clean vote on the NEA.
  Let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there is a 
difference. Had the gentleman from Wisconsin's language been given a 
waiver, we would have had a series of amendments from this side, to cut 
the NEA by 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent. The gentleman from Illinois 
and I went through that before, with attempts made to cuts it, and then 
obviously an amendment to take it out completely.
  What the Committee on Rules has done here is something unique, to 
give us that clean vote that the gentleman from Illinois and I had 
agreed was an important element of all this, and, the rule provides for 
this vote. This makes it different than the Obey amendment, since there 
can be no amendments to the amendment putting the money back in. That 
is a different dynamic than would have been the case had there been a 
waiver on the Obey language. So I think this is an important 
difference.
  I think given all those circumstances, I hope my friends will not 
push the issue on the previous question, that they will support the 
rule. Other than that issue and it is clear from the discussion this 
morning, that is the issue in many respects because most of the 
statements here have been directed to the NEA rather than the merits or 
demerits, of the rule itself. We are going to have that opportunity.
  There are a lot of other good things in this bill. It is a very 
balanced bill, it is very fair, it is totally nonpartisan as I think 
the gentleman from Illinois would agree. We did not ask on projects or 
programs, ``Is this a Democratic or Republican program?'', we asked, 
``Does it have merit?'' Because we had a limited amount of money. We 
had $200 million less this year than last year to meet the needs of 
what probably are the most popular programs in our government, parks, 
forests, fish and wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management.
  I hope Members will read the report. We have a section on the 
recreation on

[[Page H5978]]

all of our land agencies plus the cultural agencies, the Smithsonian, 
the National Gallery, the Holocaust Memorial Council, the Kennedy 
Center, and others.
  So it is a very good bill. It is very reasonable in the way we have 
approached things. I think we have been fair in the allocation of the 
resources and fair to the Members. Most importantly we have been fair 
to the people of this Nation, because we have tried to preserve the 
jewels of our cultural heritage, as well as our ecological, our natural 
heritage.
  I would urge all the Members to support the previous question and 
support the rule. Let us have a debate on the merits of NEA. Let us 
have a debate on the merits of other programs and the way in which we 
have allocated the funds available to us.
  I urge both sides to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and 
``yes'' on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I support funding for the Endowment for the 
Arts.
  On the central coast of California, thousands of people of all ages 
have been thrilled and inspired by a variety of programs, exhibits and 
performances made possible by NEA funding. For example, the Children's 
Creative Project, the Cal Poly Arts Program, the Cuesta College Public 
Events Program and the Santa Barbara Museum of Arts all have benefited 
from NEA seed money.
  I have worked in schools for over 20 years and I have also seen 
firsthand the advantages of our education. Art opportunities teach our 
children rhythm and design. But they also teach critical thinking 
skills and portable creativity. My State, a leader in computer 
technology and programming, demands a workforce that can think and work 
innovatively. These skills do not begin in college with an engineering 
class but in a child's elementary art class or a class trip to the 
museum.
  I urge my colleagues to restore funding for the NEA. It is matching 
funds but it allows private dollars to grow.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what an embarrassment. Once again NEA is 
under attack here in the House of Representatives. Opponents of NEA cry 
fiscal discipline. The majority party employs procedural wizardry, as 
if the richest Nation in the world needs to be the most culturally 
impoverished. We know that the dollars we invest in the NEA multiply 
many times over.
  So what are we really witnessing here? We are witnessing an assault 
on free expression, a war on culture, a rule that denies the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Yates) his earned right. This is a battle as old as 
the stockades in puritan times and just as wrongheaded.
  I urge my colleagues, oppose this rule, support a bipartisan effort 
to fully fund the NEA. It is a small investment with a return as vast 
as your imagination.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge that this 
appropriations issue is probably led in this House by two of the finest 
gentlemen in here, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from 
Illinois. It is indeed a beautiful relationship between two senior men 
in this legislature who have done such an outstanding job in this 
appropriation, one of the most important for our country because it is 
really about our soul, about the land and the culture.

                              {time}  1200

  What I am concerned about is that we again have to bring to the floor 
and go through a very difficult debate on funding the NEA. The National 
Endowment for the Arts is not a debate just about arts. It is a debate 
about whether we are willing to be creative in America. If we are not 
creative, we are going to lose the competitive advantage.
  There is not an industry in the United States that does not depend on 
the arts, does not depend on the imagination, does not depend on the 
ability to look at things, as they say, outside the box.
  The people with that creativity come through the art world. It is as 
the same fingers that operate the computers that operate the piano 
keys. We have to realize in this country that, if we forgo support for 
the arts, we forgo our culture.
  Look at this room and this building. Is this not about art and 
history of our country? So the National Endowment should not be coming 
to the floor struggling. We are appropriating $98 million.
  A few weeks ago, we had a debate which I supported on giving support 
for marketing our agricultural crops abroad. We are appropriating more 
money to sell oranges than we appropriate for the National Endowment 
for the Arts. I think that is a pity in a country that is probably the 
most creative country in the world.
  So when we talk about the arts, let us talk about business. Let us 
talk about why all of Wall Street supports the National Endowment for 
the Arts. Anything less hurts America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my 
colleagues in expressing my disagreement with the proposed rule. But 
first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois who, for 
48 years, has consistently fought for citizens' access to the arts. His 
dedication and assistance have been essential to the preservation of 
the NEA.
  I have heard many miscalculated and illusory statements from those 
who want to destroy the National Endowment for the Arts. The arts and 
humanities are an important component to American life. The NEA brings 
the arts to communities all across America regardless of geographic 
location.
  The arts and humanities can speak of things that cannot be spoken of 
in any other way. They foster a sense of community by advancing an 
understanding of history, culture, and ideas. It instills social values 
by helping people identify common bonds and connections.
  While not large in terms of budget, these programs serve as an 
important catalyst and source of recognition for artists and programs 
throughout the country. Back in my own community, they are many: The 
West Side Cultural Arts Council, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, 
Chicago Black Ensemble Theater Corporation, the School of the Art 
Institute of Chicago, the Black Ensemble's Little City Program, the 
Museum of Contemporary Art, Illinois Arts Alliance, and Field Museum.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote for the 
preservation of, not just the arts, but the preservation of a way of 
life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, why would we target a program like the NEA 
when it costs so little for our country but provides such a great 
benefit across this wide country?
  We engage in a continual debate about cutting funding to this agency 
that increases citizens' access to the arts, helps us preserve our 
diverse cultural heritage, and stimulates private and local funding for 
the arts.
  In many States, like Colorado, NEA funding provides the necessary 
funds for small museums in tiny towns, for school programs, for 
children who would never have any arts education, and for a variety of 
arts programs across the country.
  This is an incredibly beneficial program. We should not be talking 
about cutting it. We should be talking about finding increased funding 
to provide this necessary public benefit across the country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I propose to have a 
vote on the previous question as I indicated when I addressed the House 
formerly. I would hope that, with the favorable

[[Page H5979]]

vote on the previous question, I will then offer an amendment to 
provide the waiver for NEA that it deserves.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make four points after hearing the debate here 
on the rule.
  First of all, most of the debate here has been regarding NEA, which 
is only a small part of this bill. This is an open rule in all other 
areas. Members that have disagreements with what the committee has come 
up with will have an opportunity on the floor following this to perfect 
the bill as they see fit.
  The second point is that we have protected the protocol of not 
authorizing on an appropriation bill without leave of the authorizers. 
We have tried to maintain that. We think that is good policy in the 
Committee on Rules under Chairman Solomon, and we have protected that. 
That is why the NEA is not protected.
  Third, in the short time that I have been in this Congress, there has 
been a great deal of debate, I will not say dissension, but maybe that 
is a proper word, regarding NEA.
  If I heard it once, I heard it a number of times, why do we not just 
have an up or down vote on this issue and be done with it. At the end 
of the day, that is precisely what we are going to have is an up or 
down vote on NEA.
  Finally, I would like to make this observation. It was said in debate 
that the gentleman from Illinois who is retiring at the end of this 
year has worked very hard on this question. I do not think his work on 
this question will be forgotten because of the way this rule is 
structured at all. In fact, I think he will probably be remembered.
  I might say that I happen to be one that disagrees with his position 
as far as Federal funding, but the gentleman's work will certainly be 
remembered; and I think that is important. Certainly when he leaves 
here, he can have some solace in that.
  So I think this is a good rule. It provides an open rule. Mr. 
Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes 
on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following explanation of ordering the 
previous question:

               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that: ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, 
     which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if 
     a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.''
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule 
because it does not protect the NEA funding included in the bill 
against points of order. Republicans will argue that the NEA should not 
be protected against a point of order because it is not currently 
authorized. That is utterly disingenuous and they know it. There are 
eight other unauthorized programs with funding totaling nearly $2 
billion contained in this bill that are protected from points of order 
by this rule. The NEA is the only unauthorized program not protected by 
the rule. The fact of the matter is that if the rules committee was 
truly concerned about unauthorized programs, it wouldn't have allowed 
$2 billion in funds to be protected from a point of order, while 
singling out the $100 million included for the NEA.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows funding for the NEA to be stripped from 
the bill because the Republicans want to cut the NEA. It's that simple. 
Every year since the Republicans gained the majority in Congress, we 
have had a divisive fight over arts funding, and every year the NEA has 
managed to survive those battles. This year, proponents of the arts 
were promised a clean vote on NEA funding, but it they became concerned 
about that promise when the full committee voted to include funding for 
the arts in the bill. The Republicans know that if a bill came to the 
floor that included funding for the arts, it would put proponents of 
arts funding in a stronger position than if the bill did not include 
funding. So, instead of allowing the funding to be included in the 
bill, as it was reported out of full committee, the Republicans have 
put forth a rule that allows funding to be stripped, putting supporters 
of arts funding in the weaker position of putting arts funding back in 
the bill. This is a truly cynical procedure that this House should 
reject.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, 
I have learned a great deal about the NEA in the last few years. I know 
that the NEA would admit it has made mistakes in the past, but it has 
instituted a series of management reforms to ensure that those types of 
problems will not recur. Even given those problems, opponents of the 
NEA can point to only a handful of questionable grants out of hundreds 
of thousands that have been awarded during the 32-year history of the 
NEA. After hearing real people and real artists discuss what the NEA 
has brought to them and to their communities, I know that the NEA is an 
incredible catalyst for bringing people together and expressing, in a 
creative fashion, the full range of the human experience. The National 
Endowment for the Arts is successfully working to bring arts to 
underserved communities, through after school youth programs that are 
introducing our young people to the power of creative expression as an 
alternative to violence, and through folk and traditional arts they 
remind us of our common bond and what it means to be an American.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can hav a 
fair debate on the NEA and honor the views of the full committee, which 
voted to report a bill to this House that included $98 million in 
funding for the NEA. A vote against this rule is a vote for the arts.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 196, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema

[[Page H5980]]


     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baker
     Bilirakis
     Canady
     Dixon
     Ford
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Hinojosa
     John
     Kennelly
     McDade
     McNulty
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1227

  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KILDEE and Mr. TURNER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 191, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefner
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baker
     Bilirakis
     Dixon
     Ford
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     John
     Kennelly
     Livingston
     McDade
     McNulty
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Rodriguez

                              {time}  1234

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________