[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1400-E1401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FUNDING OF THE NEA AND CENSORSHIP

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 23, 1998

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record 
statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who 
were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people 
today.

                   Funding of the NEA and Censorship

                           (By Daniel Luzer)

       There has been a great deal of controversy lately about the 
     National Endowment for the Arts. The Supreme Court is 
     expected to rule in July in the case of National Endowment 
     for the Arts versus Finley to decide if the federal law 
     requiring the head of the Endowment to consider general 
     standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and 
     views of the American public when considering whether or not 
     to award a grant. In Congress last month, Senator John 
     Ashcroft, together with Senator Jesse Helms, attempted, in an 
     appropriations bill, to kill the endowment program entirely.
       From the beginning, the National Endowment for the Arts has 
     been a controversial program. Certainly the endowment is a 
     valuable program. Before 1965, when the endowment was 
     instituted, the arts were, to a great extent, still on the 
     fringes of society and accessible only to the cultural elite. 
     Since then, the arts have expanded greatly, and are now 
     accessible to the masses and have thus begun to educate the 
     majority, which was the point.
       In the words of Maryanne Peters, the President of the Board 
     of Directors of the National Campaign for Freedom of 
     Expression, ``In creating the NEA, Congress recognized that 
     the arts are integral to fostering imaginative thinking in 
     our culture.'' In the 33 years which the National Endowment 
     for the Arts has existed, the role of art in our culture has 
     greatly increased. One of the main contributions that the 
     Endowment has made to our culture is to expand the American 
     art world from a largely market-driven world to a system 
     which allows artists to explore and to expose communities to 
     new creative fields, without having to worry about how to 
     purchase materials, or even purchase food.
       It is important to remember, though, that money from the 
     National Endowment for the Arts is a prize, bestowed upon 
     artists whose work is either exceptionally good or greatly 
     needed in a given community. Artists who receive money from 
     the Endowment are singled out for the content of the work. 
     Organizations like National Campaign for Freedom of 
     Expression would like us to believe that the law requiring 
     the head of the Endowment to consider standards of decency 
     when awarding grants amounts to a violation of the rights to 
     free speech.
       This line of reasoning is flawed, however, in that The 
     First Amendment to the Constitution states that ``Congress 
     shall make no law restricting freedom of speech.'' The fact 
     of the matter is that the above-mentioned law is not a law 
     restricting freedom of speech. The National Endowment for the 
     Arts is not an organization which punishes artists for poor 
     quality work; it is an organization which awards prizes to 
     artists of first quality.
       The law simply requires potential grant-givers to consider 
     decency with respect to art. The law does not restrict the 
     freedom to speak in any way, since no artist is restricted 
     from anything; they will simply find it slightly more 
     difficult to receive federal money for offensive work, which 
     seems a logical and acceptable state for an artist to be in. 
     So the law is not unconstitutional.
       That being said, the other issue that artists and artists' 
     groups have brought up is the law's potentially harmful 
     vagueness, which could lead to arbitrary and dangerous 
     selection and rejection of an artist's work, which is absurd 
     in a federal program, where standards are needed in order to 
     determine an artistic piece's relevance in relation to the 
     policies and purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts.
       This is certainly a legitimate concern, and one which needs 
     to be addressed in order for the National Endowment for the 
     Arts to continue to function in a manner that benefits 
     society. What the National Endowment for the Arts needs to 
     continue in a way that benefits America are clearer laws and 
     a stricter codification of the grant system. In this way, 
     artists can be granted money based on whether and where their 
     work is needed. If a given community was seriously lacking 
     in, say, quality theater, then playwrights could be sent, 
     with NEA grants, to the said community.
       To a certain extent, the National Endowment for the Arts 
     already works in this manner. However, greater clarity on 
     this issue would lead to a better relationship between the 
     art and political communities, which would decrease artists' 
     frustration and improve the quality of the overall art 
     program in the United States.
       This plan does, to a certain extent, lead to discrimination 
     against certain forms of art. While that is unfortunate, 
     there is no way that the United States government could ever 
     equally support all forms of art. But that was never the 
     purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts. Another 
     objection that could be raised for this plan for greater 
     codification of the endowments program is that placing 
     restrictions would adversely affect the quality of art. 
     While that is a legitimate concern, as the arts are an 
     expression of emotion, it is important to realize that, in 
     order for the arts to flourish, they do not need to be 
     unrestricted. Some the greatest works of art were created 
     under severe restrictions. The entire Renaissance, which 
     for example, produced such masterpieces as Michelangelo's 
     Sistine Chapel, Donatello's Madonna and Child, and Dante's 
     Divine Comedy, was funded in large part by the Florentine 
     banking families, not to mention the Vatican.
       An additional argument against the idea of greater 
     codification for the National Endowment for the Arts might be 
     that the organization would therefore not be supporting the 
     artistic community at all, since the award of grants would be 
     based on the need for certain artists, rather than absolute 
     support for artistic expression. One needs to realize, 
     however, that the purpose of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts should not be to encourage artistic expression among the 
     artistic community. That would exist whether the National 
     Endowment for the Arts does or not.
       The purpose for the NEA ought to be to support the viewers 
     of art, extending their horizon so as to foster the greater 
     artistic understanding of the nation as a whole, not to 
     support the ever-expanding imagination of the elite artistic 
     community.

      Statement by Dan Welch Regarding Vermont Education Standards

       My name is Dan Welch, and two years ago--well, last year, 
     second semester, I was

[[Page E1401]]

     given the opportunity to work with the Vermont Institute for 
     Math, Science and Technology on developing a handbook for 
     understanding the Vermont framework of standards that is in 
     place in our education system right now. And I found, through 
     visiting other schools and talking to college-level people, 
     that the Vermont frameworks are not understood by anyone, and 
     they are the basis for our entire education system for the 
     next decade.
       I think that putting standards into education is asking a 
     lot of students for a lot of things, especially the standards 
     as high as these, and my concern is that, when students see 
     standards for the first time, which won't be for a couple 
     years, they are going to choke.
       I come from CVU, which is a school where you have to do a 
     standard-based project to graduate, and when this project 
     first started off--the number was 88 percent of kids, three 
     years ago, failed to meet the standards on their first time 
     around. Had there not been a second chance to meet that 
     standard, had it been like an exam for their final in the 
     course, 88 percent of those kids, of a class of 200, would 
     have stayed back and joined the class behind them.
       Putting standards into schools is a good thing, to level 
     the playing field and say, well, everyone's getting their 
     education based around this one concept or these ideas. But 
     putting it into such pass-fail stringencies and saying that 
     they are a standard is going far beyond what should be done. 
     And the setup for Vermont's framework of standards is based 
     on a program that was started in Essex, I believe, and they 
     want to work like a rubric for point systems, where it is not 
     necessarily pass-fail.
       The Vermont framework for standards is an excellent idea, 
     it is a little vague in the English area, but I would like to 
     see programs like it going up nationwide, because it would 
     really make a difference in the education system as soon as 
     it is fully implemented.
       My biggest concern is that, once it is implemented, at what 
     point do students find out about the standards that are 
     expected to be met? I found out my junior year. I would have 
     liked to have known my freshman year, and maybe earlier. This 
     is one of the issues I brought up when I was working with 
     VISMT on rewriting the handbook for understanding the 
     standards, is that the students should know what is expected 
     of them from day one, and the handbooks that I was given 
     should be made available to everyone from, probably, 7th 
     grade, or earlier, on. And parents should be kept informed of 
     what the standards are from the time their child enters the 
     school system until long after, because they should continue 
     their role as an active member of the community to know what 
     is being expected of their local students and how they can 
     get involved to change that.

   Statement by Rhys Marsh Regarding Act 60/Federal Education Funding

       Act 60 is one of the most controversial and monumental 
     bills to pass the Vermont legislature in recent years. It 
     comes in response to a 1996 decision by the Vermont Supreme 
     Court which declared Vermont's system of education funding 
     illegal according to the Vermont constitution.
       The main purpose of Act 60 is therefore to equalize public 
     school funding opportunities in the State of Vermont. Act 60 
     accomplishes this by introducing a statewide property tax of 
     $1.10 per $100 of property value, which funds block grants of 
     approximately $5,000 per student for each local school 
     district.
       As all but 13 of Vermont's 252 towns are currently spending 
     more than the $5,000 block grant per student, towns are given 
     the option of raising additional money for their schools 
     through a local property tax. Under Act 60, the distribution 
     of moneys raised through local taxes has been equalized as 
     well. A tax increase of one cent per $100 of property value 
     in Vernon, which has a fair market property value of about $9 
     million would obviously not yield as much money as a one cent 
     increase would in Stowe, which has a fair market property 
     value of $769 million. Because of this discrepancy, so-called 
     gold towns such as Stowe and Stratton must give some of their 
     money raised through local taxes to the state. This has the 
     effect of making a one cent tax increase in Stowe produce as 
     much money for the school system as a one cent tax increase 
     would produce in Vernon.
       Opponents of the bill say Act 60 has put an unfair tax 
     burden on the more wealthy towns, as they must now share 
     their property tax dollars with other, poorer towns. Some 
     also complain that less affluent families who own property in 
     gold towns will be hurt by the tax increase those towns are 
     likely to face.
       However, Act 60 has, in reality, only given all Vermont 
     students equal chance for education funding, regardless of 
     geographical location. Before Act 60 was passed, property 
     taxes varied immensely within the State of Vermont. For 
     example, Stratton provided lavish funds to its schools with a 
     tax rate of only 42 cents per $100. However, in Standard, a 
     grueling tax rate of $4.39 per $100 was necessary to provide 
     adequate school funding. This means that property valued at 
     $100,000 in Stratton would be taxed only $420, while, in 
     Standard, the same property would be taxed $4,390. Under Act 
     60, both properties will be taxed $1,100, unless their towns 
     decide to spend more than the $5,000 per pupil block grants 
     the state provides.
       This means that the property-rich towns will now get the 
     same bang for the buck as property-poor towns. Even if the 
     gold towns continue to fund their schools at the current high 
     levels, the property taxes will not increase the levels any 
     greater than the rates some towns currently pay to send 
     moderate moneys to their schools.
       In addition, families with incomes of less than $75,000 
     have been protected from the possible tax increases 
     associated with Act 60, by capping their property taxes at 
     between 3 and 5 percent of the household income. Act 60 has 
     provided an effective and equitable solution to the problems 
     of Vermont's property taxes and education funding.
       However, the property tax is still a regressive tax, and 
     there are still enough inequalities in the state and local 
     taxes within the nation. While there is no stipulation in the 
     Federal Constitution that requires equal education funding 
     from state to state, increased equalized federal aid to 
     states could help to ease the downfalls of the property tax 
     and the funding inequities nationally.
       Therefore, I believe the Federal Government should write 
     new legislation based on the ideas behind Act 60 and increase 
     the contributions to public education. This would help to 
     distribute the wealth of the United States more homogeneously 
     and improve school quality, especially in the nation's poorer 
     school districts. It also would move more of the tax burden 
     on Americans from the regressive and volatile local property 
     tax to the progressive income tax of the Federal Government.
       Act 60 has done wonders for Vermont. The United States of 
     America could utilize the benefits of legislation similar to 
     Act 60 on a national level, to reduce our reliance on 
     regressive taxes and provide more equal funding for our 
     nation's schools.
       Thank you.

       

                          ____________________