[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.
____________________