[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10274-S10286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                             2000--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Gorton Amendment No. 1359, of a technical nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is 
recognized.

[[Page S10275]]

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, I 
confirm again we are going back to the Interior appropriations bill. We 
hope to and plan to have debate on amendments beginning right away. We 
could have a recorded vote on one of the amendments within the next 15 
to 30 minutes. We will continue working on the Interior appropriations 
bill until we get an agreement as to exactly when to proceed to the 
reconciliation conference report.
  I will not propound a unanimous consent request at this time, but it 
is my hope we can get an agreement to begin at 1 o'clock on the 
consideration of a reconciliation conference report, and we debate it 
for 6 hours, of course, equally divided in the usual form, and the vote 
then would occur around 7 o'clock.
  We do not have that worked out yet. If we require more time, if we 
have to be in later, then of course the vote would go later in the 
night, perhaps 8 o'clock or, if we cannot get that worked out, we will 
go however long we need to go tonight and we would vote on Friday 
morning sometime. But we hope to get an agreement where we could 
complete that and have a vote around 7 o'clock tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in just a moment I will have several 
agreed-upon amendments to propound and hopefully they will be agreed to 
very quickly.
  Then Mr. Smith of New Hampshire is here with the first contested 
amendment. I hope we can finish as many as three amendments that are 
likely to require rollcalls between now and 1 o'clock. After the Smith 
amendment that deals with the National Endowment for the Arts, I hope 
we will have an opportunity to go to an amendment by Mr. Graham of 
Florida and Mr. Enzi, relating to Indian gambling. While I have not 
found the Senator yet, I would like, after that, to go to an amendment 
by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, on forest roads. Others may 
intervene.
  We also have a number of amendments that will be agreed upon from 
time to time. My own reading of our list of amendments is that they are 
reasonably limited, even at this point. Several require votes. I hope 
none will require a long and extensive debate. The majority leader 
wants, as early as possible, to get an agreed-upon list of amendments. 
I suspect we will be asking for unanimous consent to say all amendments 
must be filed by, say, sometime this afternoon. So Members who have 
amendments about which they have not notified the managers are 
encouraged to do so as promptly as possible.
  I believe the majority leader wishes to finish this bill, as well as 
the reconciliation bill on taxes, before the recess begins sometime 
tomorrow.


               Amendment Nos. 1563 Through 1568, En Bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that we consider six amendments en bloc 
which I send to the desk. I will explain each of these amendments, 
sponsored by a Senator and relating to projects within that Senator's 
State or the two Senators' State, and simply shifts money among 
projects within the States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1563 through 1568, en bloc.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1563

  (Purpose: To Increase Funds in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal 
   College account by $700,000 with offset from Forest Service land 
              acquisition on the San Juan National Forest)

       On page 27, line 22, strike ``$1,631,996,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,632,696,000''.
       On page 65, line 18, strike ``$37,170,000'' and insert 
     ``$36,470,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1564

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding to the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service for activities relating to the Preble's meadow jumping 
mouse, with an offset from Forest Service Land Acquisition (Continental 
                       Divide Trail) in Colorado)

       On page 10, line 15, strike ``$683,518,000'' and insert 
     ``$683,919,000''.
       On page 10, line 23, before the colon, insert the 
     following: '', and of which not less than $400,000 shall be 
     available to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for 
     use in reviewing applications from the State of Colorado 
     under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1536), and in assisting the State of Colorado by 
     providing resources to develop and administer components of 
     State habitat conservation plans relating to the Preble's 
     meadow jumping mouse.''.
       On page 65, line 18, strike ``$37,170,000'' and insert 
     ``$36,770,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1565

 (Purpose: To make unobligated funds available for the acquisition of 
 land in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, for the Dayton Aviation 
 Heritage Commission, and for the preservation and restoration of the 
  birthplace, boyhood home, and schoolhouse of Ulysses S. Grant, Ohio)

       On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . FUNDING FOR THE OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND 
                   CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF OHIO.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from the 
     unobligated balances appropriated for a grant to the State of 
     Ohio for the acquisition of the Howard Farm near Metzger 
     Marsh, Ohio--
       (1) $500,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for the acquisition of land in the Ottawa National 
     Wildlife Refuge;
       (2) $302,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, Ohio; 
     and
       (3) $198,000 shall be derived by transfer and made 
     available for a grant to the State of Ohio for the 
     preservation and restoration of the birthplace, boyhood home, 
     and schoolhouse of Ulysses S. Grant.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1566

 (Purpose: To transfer $700,000 in land acquisition funds from the San 
Juan National Forest (Silver Mountain) CO to the Patoka River National 
                          Wildlife Refuge, IN)

       On page 13, line 8: Strike ``$55,244,000'' and insert 
     ``$55,944,000''.
       On page 65, line 18: Strike ``$37,170,000'' and insert 
     ``$36,470,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1567

  (Purpose: To provide funding for construction of the Seminole Rest 
 facility at the Canaveral National Seashore, Florida, with an offset 
     from the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Florida)

       On page 13, line 8, strike ``55,244,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,744,000''.
       On page 17, line 19, strike ``$221,093,000'' and insert 
     ``$221,593,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1568

 (Purpose: To provide $150,000 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program within the Habitat Conservation Program. 
    This funding will support the Nevada Biodiversity Research and 
  Conservation Initiative for migratory bird studies at Walker Lake, 
 Nevada. The increase in $150,000 for the Nevada Biodiversity Research 
  and Conservation Initiative is offset by a $150,000 decrease in the 
 Water Resources Investigations Program of the U.S. Geological Service 
  of which $250,000 was directed for hydrologic monitoring to support 
implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Settlement Agreement 
                    (Senate Report 106-99, page 43))

       On page 10, line 15 strike the figure ``$683,519,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the figure ``$683,669,000'' and on 
     page 20, line 18 strike the figure ``$813,243,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the figure ``$813,093,000''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendments are these:
  Senator Burns: Transfers $700,000 to tribal colleges with an offset 
from a land acquisition in his State.
  Senator Campbell: $400,000 for a habitat conservation program with an 
offset in his State.
  Senator DeWine: Redirecting various projects within the State of 
Ohio.
  The two Senators from Indiana, Senators Lugar and Bayh: $700,000 for 
a land acquisition and a wildlife refuge offset by another land 
acquisition in that State.
  The two Senators from Florida, Senators Mack and Graham: A very 
similar land acquisition offset.
  And Senator Reid of Nevada: A shift of $150,000, again, within the 
State of Nevada.
  I ask unanimous consent that all six amendments be considered en bloc 
and accepted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1563 through 1568) were agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S10276]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1569

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Ashcroft, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself and 
     Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 1569.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 94, strike lines 3 through 26.
       On page 106, beginning with line 8, strike all through page 
     107, line 2.
       On page 107, lines 3 and 4, strike ``National Endowment for 
     the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are'' 
     and insert ``National Endowment for the Humanities is''.
       On page 107, lines 8 and 9, strike ``for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment''.
       On page 107, lines 11 and 12, strike ``for the Arts or the 
     National Endowment''.
       On page 108, beginning with line 12, strike all through 
     page 110, line 11.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my amendment to the 
Interior appropriations bill is a very simple one. It eliminates all 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment has 
been considered by the Senate in the past, unfortunately 
unsuccessfully. I know where the votes are, but I believe it is 
important we make a statement about this because I do not believe the 
Federal Government should be spending money for this.
  This amendment does not try to reform the agency. This amendment does 
not try to restructure the agency. It simply shuts it down in fiscal 
year 2000.
  I want to take a little different tack on this. Many who have spoken 
in the past on the National Endowment for the Arts, as far as 
elimination of funding, have focused heavily on some of the 
reprehensible and repulsive, frankly, types of material that has been 
displayed and called ``art.'' I am not going to do that this morning. 
Most Members are fully aware of the kinds of things that have been 
funded by this agency.
  I remind every Member that we took an oath to support the 
Constitution. All of us at one point stood right where the pages are 
now sitting and said that we would bear true faith and allegiance to 
the Constitution of the United States of America. I certainly believe 
that every Member took that oath seriously. That is why I am hopeful I 
might be able to persuade my colleagues to support this amendment 
because, frankly, whatever opinion you may have of it, is 
unconstitutional to have the National Endowment for the Arts funded by 
the Federal Government. I can prove that.
  A constituent challenged me on this one time and wrote:

       Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say 
     that the Federal Government is authorized to fund art?

  Let me repeat:

       Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say 
     that the Federal Government is authorized to fund art?

  I challenge any of my colleagues to show me that in the Constitution, 
and I will reconsider my amendment.
  I offer this amendment because I have not been able to find this in 
the Constitution. The authors of our Constitution envisioned a 
government of limited powers, and if it does not say you do it in the 
Constitution, then it is reserved to the people and the States. If the 
State or the people want to fund a State endowment for the arts, I 
would not have a problem with that. That is entirely within their 
parameters.
  The framers made it clear--very clear--that unless the Constitution 
explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, that power would 
be reserved to the States, to the localities, to civil society, or to 
the people.
  I know there are many--and this is the frustrating part for me--too 
many in this body who reject that vision. I have been here going on 9 
years, and it is very frustrating for me to watch the Constitution of 
the United States being trampled time after time. Just a week or so 
ago, we passed more gun controls and sent it to conference. Gun 
control, however you may feel about the need for gun control, is 
unconstitutional because we have a second amendment that says we have 
the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever you may feel about that 
issue, we did not come here to pass laws about our personal beliefs. We 
came here to pass laws that support the Constitution of the United 
States of America.
  When we swear to uphold that document, we agree to live by that 
vision whether we like it or not. Whether we disagree or agree, we 
should live with that vision. Regretfully, we do not always do that 
here.

  This amendment is my effort--just a small effort--to move a little 
closer to the founders, move a little closer to that vision of limited 
constitutional government. It is interesting that I have to say move a 
little closer. Why do we have to move closer to the vision of the 
founders when we are supposed to uphold the Constitution and enforce 
that vision, not move a little closer to it. We should be there.
  It is a bad idea. Whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, 
it is a bad idea to use taxpayers' funds to subsidize art. But it is 
unconstitutional. Whether it is a good idea or bad idea, it is 
unconstitutional, and that is the point I am making.
  Most of my colleagues will recall the controversies in which this 
agency has been embroiled. I referenced them briefly in the beginning 
of my remarks. I am not going to get into all of it because we have 
heard it before. But funding the exhibition of sadomasochistic 
photographs, funding the exhibition of a photograph of a crucifix 
submerged in human waste, funding the exhibition of a performance 
``artist'' who smeared chocolate across her naked torso, or how about 
the other NEA funding artist who exposed his audience to HIV-infected 
blood--all of these things were funded by the taxpayers of the United 
States in the name of art.
  Let me repeat that. Funding of sadomasochistic photographs, funding 
of a photograph of a crucifix submerged in human waste, funding of a 
so-called performance artist who smeared chocolate across her naked 
torso, and a man who exposed his audience to HIV-infected blood, all 
funded by the taxpayers of the United States of America.
  I ask you to reflect, if you are a taxpayer, on the fact that you 
work pretty hard for those dollars, and when you pay those taxes every 
April 15 to Uncle Sam, you probably hope it is used to preserve and 
protect and defend the United States of America, perhaps to promote 
education or some positive thing. But do you really want your money to 
go to this kind of so-called art?
  The question is, some people may say this is art, but there are 
people out there who will disagree. There are people who will say: If I 
want to put a crucifix in urine and call that art, I have a right to do 
that; it is a free country. You do. I will fight to my death to say you 
have a right to do that. I may not agree it is art, but that is your 
position and you have a right to it.
  But the question is, Is it constitutional to fund art? Even more so, 
Is it constitutional to fund this kind of stuff? Do you want your 
taxpayer dollars being spent for this? The sad part about this--we have 
seen this in debate after debate, in amendment after amendment, year 
after year, as we tried to stop this. Senator Helms has been involved 
in this many times, to his credit, as a leader in trying to expose this 
agency. Senator Ashcroft, who is my original cosponsor, has also been 
involved in this and has been a leader on this.
  But the defenders of the NEA, the National Endowment of the Arts, 
always tell you--you will hear it after the vote on this amendment, I 
am sure, if not before--that they believe these outrages are a thing of 
the past, that all of the things I just cited about the crucifix in 
human waste, and so forth, are all in the past: We have cleaned up the 
agency. It is not happening anymore. It is old news. We heard you. We 
listened, and we made the changes.

[[Page S10277]]

  I am sorry to tell you, that is not true. I will prove that in a few 
moments. Once you really understand the NEA, you will not be surprised 
to learn that the outrages continue, and not only do they continue, 
they are all too common in this agency.
  Let me illustrate the point about a grant that made news earlier this 
year. The events surrounding this grant were described in an article in 
the New York Times.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1999]

  U.S. Cancels Grant for Children's Book Written by Mexican Guerrilla

                           (By Julia Preston)

       Mexico City.--A macaw with scarlet and violent plumes soars 
     across the cover of a book called ``The Story of Colors,'' 
     inviting children to read a folk tale about Mexican gods who 
     took a gray world and filled it with brilliant hues.
       There are a few surprises, though, in this eye-catching 
     bilingual children's book just published by a small publisher 
     in El Paso, Texas, which won a grant from the National 
     Endowment for the Arts.
       Its author is Subcomandante Marcos, the political 
     mastermind and military strategist of the Zapatista 
     guerrillas of southern Mexico. On the inside flap, he appears 
     in a photo with a black ski mask hiding his face and bullet-
     laden ammunition belts slung across his chest.
       On Tuesday, the chairman of the Endowment, William J. 
     Ivey--who is working to rebuild the agency after its recent 
     reprieve from a death sentence issued by congressional 
     Republicans--abruptly canceled the grant for the book. Ivey 
     overruled a multilayered, year-long grant approval process, 
     acting within hours after the book was brought to his 
     attention by a reporter's phone call.
       He said he was worried that some of the Endowment's funds 
     might find their way to the Zapatista rebels, who led an 
     armed uprising in 1994 against the government of Mexico.
       Ivey's decision stunned the Cinco Puntos Press, a 
     shoestring operation that had laid out $15,000 to print 5,000 
     copies of the book, half of which was to be paid by the 
     Endowment grant. The books are ready to be distributed and 
     carry the Endowment's logo on the last page, together with an 
     acknowledgment of ``generous support'' from the agency.
       ``This is spineless,'' said Bobby Byrd, a poet and editor 
     of books on border issues who runs the publishing company 
     with his wife and daughter from their home in El Paso. ``This 
     book is essentially about diversity and tolerance, everything 
     the NEA is supposed to stand for, and they just don't have 
     the courage to publish it.''
       ``The Story of Colors'' reflects a literacy, sometimes 
     whimsical side that has distinguished Subcomandante Marcos, 
     the only non-Indian among the Zapatistas' highest leaders, 
     from other steely Latin American guerrilla commanders. (His 
     real name is Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente, and he is a 
     former university graphics professor.)
       In the text, the masked rebel leader describes himself as 
     lighting up his pipe, one of his hallmarks, and sitting down 
     on a jungle pathway to hear a tale from an Indian elder named 
     Antonio. The old man recounts how mythical gods grew bored 
     with the universe when it was tinted only in grey, and went 
     about inventing colors one by one. In the end they pin all 
     the colors on the tail feathers of the macaw.
       The bird ``goes strutting about just in case men and women 
     forget how many colors there are and how many ways of 
     thinking, and that the world will be happy if all the colors 
     and ways of thinking have their place,'' the text concludes.
       The illustrations are bright, broad-stroked paintings of 
     gods with horns and bug-eyes done by Domitila Dominguez, a 
     Mexican Indian artist.
       Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latin storytelling, the 
     tale includes elements that might be controversial in the 
     mainstream American children's book market. As the story 
     opens, the text reads, ``The men and women were sleeping or 
     they were making love, which is a nice way to become tired 
     and then go to sleep.''
       The double-page illustration shows a reclining naked woman 
     in a sexual embrace with a figure that appears to be a male 
     god.
       There are no references to the Zapatistas' cause or their 
     military tactics, but in a cover blurb, Amy Ray, a member of 
     the Indigo Girls, a Grammy-winning American song duo, says, 
     ``This beautiful book reminds us that the Zapatista movement 
     is one of dignity that emanates from the grassroots of the 
     indigenous people of Mexico.''
       ``The most important thing is that it is a beautiful 
     book,'' said Byrd, whose press specializes in bilingual 
     children's books. ``A lot of our stories in the United States 
     have been cleaned up with a politically correct sentiment, 
     and so much detail has been washed away.''
       He added, ``I can imagine how someone would rewrite this 
     for an Anglo audience,'' referring to non-Hispanic Americans. 
     ``There wouldn't be anybody smoking or making love.''
       ``The Story of Colors'' was originally published in Spanish 
     in 1997 by a press in Guadalajara, Mexico called Colectivo 
     Callejero, which supports the Zapatistas' cause.
       Byrd said that he provided a copy of the original to the 
     Endowment when he applied for the grant to translate it in 
     March 1998. His first request, for $30,000 to translate a 
     total of five books, passed two levels of review at the 
     agency but the funds were cut back to $15,000. Byrd said he 
     conferred repeatedly with literature experts at the Endowment 
     when he chose to leave ``The Story of Colors'' in a revised 
     grant request he presented to translate only two books. Cinco 
     Puntos Press (the name means Five Points in Spanish) 
     received a written notice in February that the funds had 
     been approved. The only step left was for the agency to 
     send the money.
       Ivey, the Endowment chairman, said that he was not 
     concerned about the book's contents and had not seen the 
     finished printed book. When he went over the grant records 
     Money night, he said, he became worried about rights 
     payments, which the El Paso press had contracted to make to 
     the publishing group in Mexico.
       ``There was an uncertainty about the ultimate destination 
     of some part of the funds,'' Ivey said. ``I am very aware 
     about disbursing taxpayer dollars for Americans' cultural 
     life, and it became clear to me as chairman that this just 
     wasn't right for the agency. It was an inappropriate use of 
     government funds.''
       An Endowment official, who spoke on the condition of 
     anonymity, said that it is very unusual for the chairman to 
     step in at the last moment to override the work of several 
     review committees, including the 26-member National Council 
     on the Arts, which includes six federal lawmakers.
       Byrd said he had made it clear in his grant proposal that 
     no part of the grant would go to the author, Subcomandante 
     Marcos, because the guerrilla leader has declared he does not 
     believe in copyright and formally waived his rights in talks 
     with the Mexican press. Byrd said that rights would be paid 
     to the Guadalajara Press for the use of the artwork.
       When Republicans gained control of the Congress in 1995, 
     they were frustrated with the Endowment's support for art 
     works they regarded as offensive and vowed to eliminate the 
     agency. But the House moderated its views under election year 
     pressures and voted overwhelmingly in July 1998 to keep the 
     agency alive.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This grant had to do with a grant to a 
publisher for a children's book. Listen carefully, a children's book. 
This was a grant to a publisher for a children's book, paid for by the 
taxpayers under the National Endowment of the Arts, at a time--
recently--when we had been told that the agency had cleaned up its act 
and that this was no longer prevalent; no longer do they do these 
terrible things I just mentioned.
  The grant that I am referring to for this children's book had been 
approved at every level of the NEA's review process. It was canceled at 
the last minute by the agency's chairman.
  Somebody might say: Well, there you go. It worked. They stopped this 
grant for a children's book; it wasn't appropriate for children. So 
what is your argument, Senator?
  Let me finish. Why did they cancel at the last minute? Because the 
Chairman of the NEA found out that the book's author was a Mexican 
guerrilla leader. The chairman was afraid that the royalties would 
benefit the Mexican guerrillas. So the reason for the grant 
cancellation was because of the Mexican guerrilla group, not because of 
the content.
  Let's take a look at the content. The New York Times reported that 
this children's book contained sexually explicit illustrations and 
text; in other words, this children's book, with sexual content, would 
have received the NEA support this year--not 10 years ago; this year--
if there had not been the other issue about royalties going to Mexican 
guerrillas.
  I submit there is an inherent flaw in the peer review process that 
led to this circumstance, and all the other outrages over the years. 
The peer review process does not reflect the values of the decent, 
hard-working, tax-paying Americans who fund this agency.
  Let me just find the article from the New York Times, which I have 
entered into the Record.
  I want to remind you, again, that this grant was canceled because the 
money would go to a Mexican guerrilla group, and there was no reference 
whatsoever to the content.
  This is a children's book. I would ask my colleagues and the American 
people to ask yourselves whether you want your tax dollars to go for 
this kind of stuff for a children's book:

       The illustrations are bright, broad-stroked paintings of 
     gods with horns and bug-eyes

[[Page S10278]]

     done by [a man by the name of] Domitila Dominguez, a Mexican 
     Indian artist.
       Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latin storytelling, the 
     tale includes elements that might be controversial in the 
     mainstream American children's book market. As the story 
     opens, the text reads, ``The men and women were sleeping or 
     they were making love, which is a nice way to become tired 
     and then go to sleep.''
       The double-page illustration shows a reclining naked woman 
     in a sexual embrace with [a] figure that appears to be a male 
     god.

  We could go on and on and on.
  This is a children's book. It was canceled because the money went to 
Mexican guerrillas, not because of the content. So you see, the agency 
has not cleaned up its act. They have been getting away with this year 
after year after year. And why do they get away with it? They get away 
with it very simply because we won't stop the funding. We don't have 
the courage to stop the funding.
  Again, the business about censorship--this is about the Constitution 
of the United States of America, which we are sworn to uphold and 
defend. Show me in the Constitution where the National Endowment of the 
Arts should be funded and why it should be funded. Show me.
  When we try to say anything about it, we are always accused of 
censorship. The Smith amendment solves that problem by allowing the 
public to support the art works they wish voluntarily. You want to 
support a children's book that shows a naked woman and a naked man in a 
sexually explicit embrace? Go ahead. You want to show that to your 
children? Be my guest. You want to raise your children and teach them 
to read and show them the pictures? Be my guest. But it is not 
constitutional. And it ought not to happen in the Senate by funding 
this kind of stuff. We should not be funding art at all, let alone this 
kind of art.
  So that is how it was done in America for the first 189 years of our 
history: Voluntarily you support the arts. Voluntarily you look at what 
you want to look at. You show your children what you want to show them. 
But you do not fund it by taking money from the rest of us to do it.
  Let me just pause here for a moment to make a point. We could go 
through a litany of items that are unconstitutional that we pass on 
this floor almost literally every day--certainly every week.
  I just ask the rhetorical question to the people of America: When are 
we going to wake up? We saw it time after time. We saw it with the 
Clinton impeachment: As long as my 401(k) and my retirement account is 
doing well, and as long as I am making money, as long as I have a job 
and 3 or 4 weeks of vacation, and everything is going fine, I don't 
care about the morality of this country. I don't care that the 
Commander in Chief did what he did. It is OK with me. Poll after poll 
after poll said just that.
  Let me tell you. That is the same thing. Time after time after time, 
year after year after year, we vote to fund the National Endowment of 
the Arts. We are told every year that all this stuff that I just 
referred to has been cleaned up and it does not happen anymore. It 
does.
  Yet why does it happen? Don't blame the National Endowment of the 
Arts. I don't blame them. I don't blame the Chairman. I don't blame the 
board. I don't blame any of them for this.
  I blame the Senate, the House, and the President of the United States 
because we pass it and he signs it. We have been doing it year after 
year after year. They are going to keep right on spending your money as 
long as you keep giving it to them.
  So don't blame them; don't direct your anger at them. You should 
direct it right here to the people who vote that money. Sooner or 
later, as the frog in the pot boils slowly and then is cooked before he 
realizes it, the Constitution of the United States is going to slip 
through the fingers of all of us.
  It is happening. We are going to continue to let it happen by these 
kinds of votes. If we want to take seriously what we stood there and 
took the oath to do, to protect and defend the Constitution of the 
United States of America, we ought to vote against funding the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  So that everybody understands, there are essentially two major 
political parties in the United States right now, some smaller parties. 
Here is the Democratic Party on the NEA. This is a quote right out of 
their platform:

       We believe in public support for the arts, including the 
     National Endowment for the Arts. . . .

  That is the 1996 Democrat platform; ``Responsible Entertainment.'' It 
is an honest statement. They have made it very clear they support this. 
It doesn't necessarily mean they are implying that they support the 
kinds of things I have said, but it does mean that as long as you 
continue to fund it and you don't stop it, those kinds of things are 
going to continue to be funded.
  What we have in the Democratic platform is a statement that is 
unconstitutional. It is totally unconstitutional. To support the arts, 
including the National Endowment for the Arts, with taxpayer dollars is 
unconstitutional. But I think Members will find, when they see the 
votes taken on my amendment in a few minutes, that most of the members 
of the Democratic Party will support their platform. They will vote, I 
think, probably overwhelmingly, probably 90-95 percent--maybe 100 
percent, I am not sure--in favor of the National Endowment for the Arts 
and against my amendment. They will live up to their platform. I 
personally believe they are taking an unconstitutional vote, but that 
is their right. They can do it. They were elected just as I was, and 
they can vote any way they want to. I respect that right.

  Let us look at the Republican Party platform. The Republican Party 
platform on the NEA, same issue:

       As a first step in reforming government, we support . . . 
     defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, 
     redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus . . . 
     [one of the] agencies we seek to defund or to privatize [is] 
     the National Endowment for the Arts.

  That is the 1996 Republican platform: ``Changing Washington from the 
Ground Up.'' We are going to change Washington from the ground up. I 
support that statement because it is unconstitutional not to support 
it. The Government should not be funding, under the Constitution, the 
National Endowment for the Arts. If one sees that statement and 
realizes that is the position of the party, then one could logically 
conclude that 90-95 percent of Republicans will vote to support their 
platform and vote to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. We 
will see. Don't bet on it.
  That is the platform. So when the votes come, it will be interesting 
for the public to look to see who supports their platform. Will the 
Democrats support their platform, albeit unconstitutional in my view, 
on this issue, or will the Republicans support their platform? Let us 
see where the votes fall.
  Let me issue a challenge to anyone listening: Take a look at the 
votes after it is all over. See who the Republicans are, see who the 
Democrats are, and see who supports the Republican platform and see who 
supports the Democrat platform.
  This amendment takes out the entire funding, which is about $99 
million. People will say that is not a lot of money. I guess around 
Washington it is not. But it sure was a lot of money around a little 
town called Allentown, NJ, where I grew up before I moved to New 
Hampshire. That was a whole lot of money. I know a whole lot of people 
who worked real hard--farmers, merchants, teachers--for those dollars. 
For this kind of money to be spent from them, I think it is wrong. It 
is wrong morally, philosophically, and, as I said before, it is 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. President, seeing no other speaker on my behalf at this time, I 
ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor and appreciate the 
chairman's consideration in offering the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire, argues for his amendment striking the appropriation for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, as I have listened to him, on two 
grounds. The first ground is that the appropriation is 
unconstitutional. The second ground is that it is undesirable.
  I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that Members of the 
Senate of the United States have a responsibility, just as do sworn 
members of the

[[Page S10279]]

judiciary of the United States, to consider carefully the 
constitutional implications of all of the work they do. I disagree with 
the Senator from New Hampshire, however, on what seems to me an easy 
question to answer: the constitutionality of an appropriation of this 
nature. In fact, I think the Senator from New Hampshire implied or 
illustrated the weakness of his own argument when he said, just a few 
moments ago, why should the people of the United States be paying for 
an activity of this sort as against paying for the education of our 
children, among other items that he listed.
  The education of our children is no more mentioned in the 
Constitution of the United States than are the arts or any other 
cultural activity. Yet it is clearly constitutional, as well as 
appropriate, for the Congress of the United States to support the 
education of our children and, for that matter, our young people 
through college and through graduate school, and we do so with 
increasing enthusiasm in each and every year.
  The same interpretation of the Constitution of the United States that 
allows and encourages us to do that for education allows us to do so 
for cultural activities, including the National Endowment for the Arts. 
If support for the National Endowment for the Arts is unconstitutional, 
so is support for the Library of Congress--I see nothing about a 
library in the Constitution of the United States--so is support for the 
National Gallery of Art, for the Smithsonian Institution, and for the 
Air and Space Museum, for all of the other cultural activities 
enthusiastically and, I may say, appropriately supported by the 
Congress of the United States.

  No, there is no precedent and no serious legal argument against the 
constitutionality of our support, modest as it is, for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. There has been, however, a considerable 
argument during the course of the last decade or perhaps two decades 
over the appropriateness of the support for the arts or, alternatively, 
over the way in which the National Endowment for the Arts spends its 
money. Again, I think a vast majority of the Members of both Houses of 
Congress think, in the abstract, that it is appropriate to spend a 
modest amount of money on the arts.
  From the very beginning of the Republic, we have decorated this 
building with all kinds of works of art that are not necessary for the 
functioning of the Congress of the United States. I don't think anyone 
has ever challenged either the appropriateness or the constitutionality 
of the use of Federal money for the arts in that respect.
  But climaxing in 1995, there was widespread criticism of a 
significant number of grants made by the National Endowment for the 
Arts--criticism that I think was totally valid--and some of those 
specifics the Senator from New Hampshire has illustrated here once 
again.
  In 1995, when this debate was at its height, the proponents of the 
arts severely restricted the ability of the National Endowment for the 
Arts to make individual grants, and many of these highly criticized 
expenditures were to individuals rather than to groups and 
organizations. Overwhelmingly, today, money for the National Endowment 
for the Arts goes to States' arts agencies and through grants to a wide 
range of cultural institutions, many of them, fortunately--more than 
was the case in the past, though perhaps not quite enough--to 
organizations in the smaller communities of the United States, outside 
of major metropolitan areas, either to bring various forms of music, 
dance, theater, the visual arts to those smaller communities, or to 
support the creation of such art in those communities in a way that I 
think is highly enthusiastic. And it becomes increasingly difficult for 
the critics of the Endowment to say that the moneys we appropriate here 
are used on matters that are not artistic or are totally and completely 
inappropriate.
  The present Chairman of the Endowment and the predecessor Chairman of 
the Endowment have worked diligently and, I think, quite successfully 
in seeing to it that that was not the case. We created congressional 
nonvoting members of the National Endowment. The Senator from Alabama, 
who is one of those members, is here on the floor. He has expressed to 
me his frustration frequently with the way in which some of his 
advice has been ignored. But I think his very presence has a salutary 
effect on the way in which the Endowment is managed.

  As a consequence, there was a bitter division between the Senate and 
the House of Representatives in which the House, on at least one 
occasion--and I think two--did defund the National Endowment and it was 
rejected by a substantial majority in the Senate. This year, it has 
disappeared. The House of Representatives has funded the Endowment. If 
my memory of the bill is correct, there is only a $1 million, or 1-
percent, difference between this bill and the bill that passed the 
House of Representatives.
  For me, perhaps the most significant and weighty argument in favor of 
this appropriation is an argument I have made on behalf of a number of 
other programs that involve partnerships among the Congress of the 
United States, State governments, and the private sector. That is the 
fact that I do not believe there is a single arts group or institution 
in the United States of America that receives all of its funding from 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  As a matter of fact, there may not be any that receives 10 percent of 
the amount of money that they spend from the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Overwhelmingly, its grants are modest in amount. They are sought 
eagerly by far more applicants than can possibly receive those grants, 
because the very fact that the National Endowment for the Arts has 
given $20,000, or $30,000, or $100,000 to a particular organization 
adds a degree of prestige and imprimatur to the activities of that 
organization that make its efforts to secure private funding--and in 
almost every case, the great majority of the funding of these 
organizations comes from the private sector--makes securing that 
funding easier. Whether it is right or not, contributors seem far more 
likely to contribute to an organization that has been recognized by the 
National Endowment for the Arts than they are willing to do so with 
respect to the thousands of other arts organizations and groups that 
don't receive such funding.
  So the appropriation here is considerably less than 1 percent of the 
money in this appropriations bill that goes to the National Endowment 
for the Arts and multiplied many times over by support from the private 
sector. This is true in other areas in my bill, and one I am very 
interested in, funding for the renewal of salmon runs in the State of 
Washington. We have money here that will go to a foundation that 
guarantees that it can double or triple the amount of money actually 
getting into the field for this purpose, instead of taking on something 
that would otherwise be wholly and completely a responsibility of the 
Government of the United States.
  So, Mr. President, I believe the serious debate over the future of 
the National Endowment for the Arts has passed. I think it has passed 
because the National Endowment is reformed. I think it has passed 
because they are now doing what I believe the Endowment was originally 
intended to do, and doing it in almost every case with a remarkable 
degree of thoughtfulness and good sense. What we come up with here, 
representing only a tiny percent of what goes in the arts activities in 
the States, is nevertheless very important in that support and vitally 
important in securing the private sector support for the arts, and that 
has been in the past and will be in the future a primary source of the 
money.
  Regrettably, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire 
in this connection. If he wishes to speak again, I am going to yield 
the floor now. I note the presence of the Senators from Florida and 
Wyoming, and I know the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, wants to 
speak on this issue. So we are not going to bring it to a vote now. 
When the Senator from New Hampshire has made his comments, I will ask 
unanimous consent to go on to the next amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Was the Senator from Florida seeking to 
respond to the amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, he is here on his own amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I have just a few brief 
responses to my colleague.

[[Page S10280]]

  I believe it would be a fallacy to equate Government funding, its own 
activities, legitimate functions of the Government, to fund those 
activities such as the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, which 
obviously are document preservation, artifacts, and historical 
matters--that is legitimate, in my view; but to equate that with the 
Government funding of private activities is where I have my 
differences. I think that is the difference--the Government funding its 
own activities versus the Government funding private activities.
  I believe that art, in terms of the examples I gave, is and should be 
funded privately because there is a matter of what is art and what is 
not art, which is a matter of personal opinion. I don't believe 
taxpayers should fund somebody else's view of what art is or is not. I 
also think it is wrong for us to act without explicit constitutional 
authority, whether it is in the arts, or education, or anything else.
  The Senator from Washington is correct. I misspoke when I said 
education. I should not have used that term because, also, the Federal 
Government, in my view, does not have a legitimate role in determining 
the education of our children. I believe that is a local matter that 
ought to be done by the States, the local communities, and parents.
  Finally, to say it is a good thing for a Federal agency to provide a 
``seal of approval'' for the arts so that the private sector will know 
what to support, that is a threat to art.
  I think that threatens the legitimate issue of art in that government 
has no business telling people what good art is or what bad art is. I 
don't think there is any room for the government in art.
  Frankly, it is very interesting when you pick out the platform of the 
Republican Party and read it. Some don't believe we should read our 
platforms. But I happen to believe we should.
  In the 1996 Republican Platform, there is a quote of Senator Bob Dole 
of March 10, 1995, in which he said:

       On November 8, 1994, the American people sent a message to 
     Washington. Their message is my mandate to rein in 
     government, reconnect it to the values of the American 
     people, and that means making government a whole lot smaller, 
     a lot less arrogant and getting it out of matters best left 
     to the States, cities, and families across America.

  That is all I am trying to do. What I am trying to say is if there is 
some family out there--I can't believe there would be, but there may 
be--who would like to have a children's book shown to their children 
showing a naked man and naked woman embracing in the act of sex, if 
they want to show that to their children, as I said before, I guess 
that is up to them, but I don't think we ought to be funding it.
  Furthermore, finally, what the Republican Platform said at that time 
was:

       As a first step in reforming government, we support the 
     elimination of the departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban 
     Development, Education, Energy, and the elimination, 
     defunding, or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, 
     redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. 
     Examples of agencies that we seek to defund or to privatize 
     are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National 
     Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.

  I am quoting out of the platform. Finally:

       In addition, we support Republican sponsored legislation 
     that would require the original sponsor of proposed 
     Federalization to cite specific constitutional authority for 
     the measure.

  If you are going to offer something as an amendment or a bill which 
ultimately may become law, then cite constitutional authority for it 
because, after all, we are here to protect and defend the Constitution.
  That is the only point I am trying to make. I understand that the 
votes have never been here to eliminate this agency. I don't expect 
them to be here this time.
  I don't mean to argue, other than to say that I ask my colleagues to 
try to move back to the constitutionality issue because I believe that 
is what this is all about. If you make an exception, even if this was 
art that was pleasing to me, if it was art that I liked, that I 
approved of, it would be the same argument--that it has no business 
being funded. It is not constitutional. I don't believe that we should 
be funding it.
  I see my colleague from Missouri. I know he is an original sponsor of 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this 
amendment offered by Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire.
  This amendment, which eliminates the $99 million appropriated to the 
NEA, gives Senators the opportunity to decide whether the Federal 
Government should be in the business of judging and funding art.
  There are only two ways a Federal government could be involved in 
funding art: either by judging it or by funding it randomly. I don't 
think either of those is a good alternative for the Federal Government.
  I hope a majority of my fellow Senators will agree with me that the 
Federal Government should resign from its role as a national art 
critic--telling us what to enjoy or what not to enjoy, and spending our 
money to tell us that this is good or that is bad.
  It seems to me that to have the Federal Government as an art critic 
to determine what type of art is superior to another type of art is not 
something that a free nation would want to encourage. Government should 
not be in the business of subsidizing free speech, putting its so-
called ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' on certain pieces of so-
called art.
  When the government funds art, it will always have to make value 
judgments on what is art and what it is not. I don't think that is an 
appropriate function of government. The only way to get out of this 
business is to stop government from funding art.
  I guess you could fund art randomly--spin the wheel, and whichever 
artist's name comes up, give them the money. But you would have to 
decide who got to be part of the lottery.
  For those who say this is an issue of free speech, my view is that 
speech is not free if government funds it. As a matter of fact, it is 
funded speech, and not free speech.
  When we tax people, we take their dollars coercively. We simply say 
that if you do not give us the money, you go to jail. Try not paying 
your taxes and find out whether it is enforced or not. You will find 
out that the IRS can be very convincing and very persuasive because 
they have this independent capacity to coerce the dollars.
  Government subsidies, even with the best intentions, are dangerous 
because they skew the market toward whatever the government grantmakers 
prefer. The National Endowment for the Arts grants place the stamp of 
official U.S. Government approval on funded art. This gives the 
endowment enormous power to dictate what is regarded as art and what is 
not.
  A number of art critics and people in the arts community, have 
observed this.
  Jan Breslauer, Los Angeles Times art critic said in 1997 that,

       [T]he endowment has quietly pursued policies rooted in 
     identity politics--a kind of separatism that emphasizes 
     racial, sexual and cultural differences above all else. The 
     art world's version of affirmative action, these policies . . 
     . have had a profoundly corrosive effect on the American 
     arts--pigeonholing artists and pressuring them to produce 
     work that satisfies a politically correct agenda rather than 
     their best creative instincts.--The Washington Post, March 
     16, 1997.

  I would like to call myself an artist because I like to engage in 
musical performances. I like to engage in the writing of music, and the 
writing of poetry. But I feel a little below par, so I can't really 
call myself an artist. There have been some who have said that some of 
my stuff might qualify for art. But I have never qualified for a grant, 
and I don't want a grant. My wife always teases me, saying: You can't 
sell it. You can't even give it away.
  But the idea of government funding art means that we would begin to 
bend the artist away from true expression towards something for which 
the government was providing a subsidy. That is the point that Jan 
Breslauer makes--that this subsidy has had ``a profoundly corrosive 
effect on the American arts''--taking people away from the true 
expression of art, ``pigeonholing artists and pressuring them.''

[[Page S10281]]

  The concept of pressure and art is a very difficult concept to 
reconcile. I think of Michelangelo painting on the Sistine Chapel and 
the Pope demanding one thing and another. I don't know if it is true, 
but it is said that in response to that pressure, Michelangelo painted 
certain people in hell as a way of indicating that he would resist the 
pressure.
  Joseph Parisi, editor of Poetry Magazine, the nation's oldest and 
most prestigious poetry magazine, has said that disconnecting 
``artificial support systems'' for the arts, such as cuts in NEA 
funding, has had some positive effects. Parisi has said that cuts in 
federal spending for the arts are causing ``a shake-out of the 
superficial. The market demands a wider range, an appeal to a broader 
base. Artists and writers are forced to get back to markets. What will 
people buy? If you're tenured, if the government buys, there's no 
response to irrelevance.''--Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 8, 1996.
  In short, the government should not pick and choose among different 
points of view and value systems, and continuing politicizing the arts. 
Garth Brooks fans pay their own way, while the NEA canvasses the nation 
for politically correct ``art'' that needs a transfusion from the 
Treasury. It is bad public policy to subsidize free speech.
  Why I should pay full freight to go see a country star, and the 
Mercedes limousine set should get a subsidy to go to the ballet, I 
don't know.
  On this point I refer Senators to section 316 on page 106 of the 
Senate bill, which makes a case for elimination of the funding of NEA. 
It says the NEA can only fund those individuals who have received a 
``literature fellowship, a National Heritage Fellowship or''--I am 
still quoting--an ``American Jazz Masters Fellowship.''
  I know very little about music, but I spend a lot of time in music. I 
know and appreciate that jazz is a great form of American music. But 
for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Federal Government 
believes it has the wisdom to use taxes paid by a hard-working plumber 
or a policeman or a painter to decide which jazz master should be 
subsidized and which jazz master should not be subsidized. Even if we 
could subsidize all jazz masters, is it fair to fund jazz masters and 
not pay stipends to a master classic pianist, a composer, a struggling 
rhythm and blues artist, or a rock-and-roller?
  The fact that the Federal Government does not have infallible wisdom 
to serve as the Nation's art critic underscores the brilliance of our 
Founding Fathers who, in writing the Constitution, specifically voted 
against provisions calling on the Federal Government to subsidize the 
arts. This is not a new request. The founders considered this and 
rejected it.
  Although funding for the NEA is small in comparison to the overall 
budget, elimination of this agency sends a message that Congress is 
taking seriously its obligation to restrict the Federal Government's 
actions to the limited role appropriately envisioned by the framers of 
the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a specific 
threat of authority that could reasonably be construed to include 
promotion of American jazz masters as compared to or in 
contradistinction to classical pianists or ordinary guitar pickers.
  During the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, 
Delegate Charles Pinckney introduced a motion calling for the Federal 
Government to subsidize the arts in the United States. Although the 
Founding Fathers were cultured individuals who knew firsthand of 
various European systems for public arts patronage, they overwhelmingly 
rejected Pinckney's suggestion because of their belief in limited 
constitutional government.
  Accordingly, nowhere in its list of powers enumerated and delegated 
to the Federal Government does the Constitution specify a power to pick 
jazz masters over guitar pickers.
  It is noteworthy what the Constitution does provide. Article I, 
section 8, states:

       The Congress [of the United States] shall have Power . . . 
     To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by 
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
     exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and 
     Discoveries;

  We can protect the work of artists from unlawful and inappropriate 
appropriation by those who would steal those works and profit from 
them. In other words, our Founding Fathers established the noble goal 
of protecting intellectual property of those who are involved in 
science or the arts. The Founding Fathers did not think the way to 
protect the rights was to subsidize them or contaminate them or to 
prefer one or another. Instead, they believe Government protection 
should extend to protecting their initiative, their creativity, and 
their discovery.

  Some have taken comfort in the recent Supreme Court decisions that 
have upheld the Federal statute directing the NEA to take into 
consideration ``general standards of decency and respect for the 
diverse beliefs and values of the American public'' in making grants.
  While some have said this ruling will appropriately address the 
concerns over the type of art the NEA will fund, I don't think that is 
the case. Moreover, in response to the Finley decision, Chairman Ivey 
said the ruling was a ``reaffirmation of the agency's discretion in 
funding the highest quality of art in America'' and that it would not 
affect his agency's day-to-day operations. That was a quote from the 
New York Times.
  These court cases do nothing to solve the underlying issue of whether 
Government should fund and decide what is art. Suffice it to say the 
time has come to end the Federal Government's role of paying for and 
thereby politicizing art. Art should be pure, not politics, and it 
shouldn't ever become pure politics; it can, when art is elicited, 
shaped, and coerced in order to comply with Federal guidelines.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for offering this amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In 
a way, I am grateful this amendment has come to the floor. I think this 
Senate should go on record: Will we decide to go on the course 
suggested by Senator Ashcroft of Missouri and Senator Smith of New 
Hampshire and say there will be no funding of the arts in America, that 
we have decided now at this moment in our history that we will walk 
away from governmental assistance to the artists across America who are 
starting out and trying to develop their own skills?
  I think that is an important question. I know as well as those 
listening to the debate that over the last 10 or 12 years there has 
been a lot of controversy about the National Endowment for the Arts. 
There have been some controversial grants, grants for art projects 
which I personally found reprehensible.
  The bottom line is, it is as wrong to condemn the National Endowment 
for the Arts because of one or two grants as it is to condemn any 
Member of the Senate for one or two votes. Each Member can make a 
mistake. Each Member can do something unpopular. Each Member can do the 
wrong thing in the eyes of the public. Yet to condemn Members as 
individuals is just not fair, just, or American. Nor is it fair for 
Members to condemn the National Endowment for the Arts for things that 
were done many years ago.
  Over the last several years, it has been my good fortune to be a 
nonvoting member of the National Council of the Arts, meeting every 6 
months to review the applications for assistance to the NEA. Several 
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives have shared in 
that responsibility. It has been an eye-opener to sit as I have with 
men and women from across America and to consider those who come to the 
National Endowment for the Arts asking for assistance.

  Listening to the speeches on the floor, one would think that these 
are people who come in with some grand political agenda or they are 
looking for some big government seal of approval. That is not the case 
at all. By and large, these are creative people looking for an 
opportunity. Some of the opportunities which they have presented as a 
result of the National Endowment for the Arts are amazing in their 
scope.
  Think of the impact if we eliminate the National Endowment for the 
Arts.

[[Page S10282]]

 Let me tell Members about one particular program. I am sorry the 
Senator from Missouri cannot hear this because I think he would 
appreciate it since he was born in the city of Chicago. I think he 
would understand the importance of this program.
  In my home State of Illinois there is a program called the Merit 
Music Program. The Merit Music Program is an exceptional effort 
inspired by one lady who decided that she would try to reach down to 
the poorest schools in the city of Chicago and find those kids who had 
music potential. What she has done over the years is to literally bring 
in hundreds of kids each year who learn how to play a musical 
instrument. These are kids who live in some of the poorest housing in 
Chicago, and their most prized possession will be a violin, a clarinet. 
They will develop musical skills.
  Each year, I try to attend their recital on Saturday while kids from 
kindergarten on up play their musical instruments. It is an amazing 
performance from kids who come from the poorest families. It is a 
performance that is made possible by the National Endowment for the 
Arts.
  These kids get a chance to learn to play a musical instrument. One 
might say, well, that is a nice hobby; what can it mean? When we follow 
these kids through their music education, what do we find? Every single 
one of these kids goes to college. These kids, given a chance at 
artistic expression, not only have wonderful fulfillment, they have 
ambition. They decide they can rise above what they have seen around 
them in their neighborhoods. That is what art and music can do.
  I am almost at a loss for words--which is something to say for a 
Senator--when I hear those on the other side of the aisle stand and 
say: Well, what good is this? Why would we do this? Why would we 
encourage this?
  In downtown Chicago we have a block that has become known as Gallery 
37. In the Loop in Chicago it stands out. It is ultimately going to be 
developed by some big company, I am sure. Over the last several years, 
we have decided that Gallery 37 will be an artistic opportunity for 
kids all across Chicago, kids who can show their artistic wares, who 
can learn skills in art, and perhaps even be trained for jobs in art. 
It really has become a magnificent undertaking of that community that 
reaches out all across Chicago. The rich, the poor, the black, the 
white, the brown, all come together--Gallery 37, National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  If you go home to your community in your State, whatever it might be, 
I guarantee you will find the recipients of the grants from the 
National Endowment for the Arts are not some people living in these 
ivory towers but, rather, the folks living in your community. Does your 
city have a local symphony orchestra? My guess is, if not this year, 
then at some year in the past, the National Endowment for the Arts has 
helped that symphony orchestra. Does your school system have an art 
program that encourages kids and moves them along? Many of those 
programs across America receive assistance from the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  The National Endowment for the Arts last year received $98 million 
out of a Federal budget of about $1.7 trillion. We took $98 million to 
give to the National Endowment for the Arts. That is a lot of money; I 
will concede that point. In the context of the big Federal budget, 
though, it is a very tiny piece. But it is a piece of Federal spending 
that is used to encourage artistic creation and expression.
  Of what value is that expression to those of us who are simply art 
consumers? Let me tell you a personal story. My mother was an immigrant 
to this country. She came at the age of 2 from Lithuania with her 
mother and grew up in East St. Louis, IL. She made it to the eighth 
grade, and that is when she had to stop and go to work as a switchboard 
operator at a telephone company. She raised me and my two brothers, and 
she was a woman who was always trying to learn and to appreciate 
things. I would like to tell the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, 
she used to put us in the family car on a Sunday afternoon and we would 
go across the bridge to the St. Louis Art Museum, and my mother and I 
would walk through there looking at paintings. Frankly, she had no 
knowledge of art, but she knew what she liked and appreciated. How many 
Sunday afternoons we walked through there and I looked at those 
paintings. As a kid, I was totally bored. As I got a little older, I 
came to appreciate them. But here she was, a simple woman, immigrant 
woman, a blue-collar worker, who thought it was important her son see 
art and what it stands for.

  So when I hear the arguments made that this is unfair to blue-collar 
workers across America, to ask them to take a tiny fraction of their 
Federal taxes and devote it to the arts, I think those critics miss the 
point. Visit museums on The Mall here in Washington or in any city 
across America, and I guarantee you will see a cross-section of 
American life, the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, 
all appreciating what art can bring to our lives. This is not something 
for which we should apologize. It is something we should be proud of. 
The legacy we will leave in America for future generations is not just 
a legacy of concrete and steel; it is a legacy of art as well.
  Those who visit countries around the world, wherever they may be, 
usually stop first at the art museums because they want to see the 
collections. It says something about the value of art when it comes to 
civilization. To think we would take a step backwards on the floor of 
the Senate today and decide we will no longer, after years and years, 
provide assistance and money for the arts is unthinkable. It is 
unthinkable. In a way, I appreciate the opportunity to have this 
amendment. Let's have a record vote. Let's see how many people here 
want to join a group which basically says that the United States of 
America, with all of its richness, with all of its diversity, cannot 
afford $98 million to encourage the arts.
  Let me tell you about another art project that received a decoration, 
an award from the National Endowment for the Arts. It is called Street 
Level Art, and it is an amazing thing. It is in the city of Chicago 
again. Two young men who worked for advertising agencies decided they 
just didn't quite like going to work 9 to 5 every day. They wanted to 
do something more. So they gathered together equipment from people who 
were getting new versions of computers and videotape machines and the 
like. They put it in a little storefront on Chicago Avenue, and they 
invited kids from junior high and high school across Chicago to come 
after school to learn how to make documentary films and to do animation 
for cartoons.
  I met a young lady there who lived on the south side of Chicago who 
literally had to take three buses after school to get to the Street 
Level Art Program, but she was so excited at the prospect of developing 
her skills, her creativity in art. This is another group that received 
an award from the National Endowment for the Arts. For Senators to come 
to the floor and say get Government out of this business is to 
basically say do not get the seed money to Street Level, don't give the 
seed money to Gallery 37, don't give the seed money to Merit music. If 
we did, if we said we are going to close the door and turn out the 
lights on Government involvement for the arts, would we be a better 
nation for that? I do not think so.

  I think, frankly, the National Endowment for the Arts has done an 
excellent job. It has learned some valuable political lessons over the 
last several years. It is unfortunate the sponsors of this amendment do 
not concede that point and they cannot join the other Members of the 
Senate to come with me to these meetings twice a year to see what is 
involved because not only education programs but children's festivals, 
literary programs, orchestras, museums, dance companies, all receive a 
helping hand from this National Endowment for the Arts.
  I see Senator Sessions from Alabama on the floor here. He has joined 
me at meetings of the National Endowment. The President has proposed a 
program. It is called ``Challenge America.'' A point made by Senator 
Sessions at one of our meetings, and a valid one, was that the National 
Endowment for the Arts should reach out into communities which have not 
traditionally been served and helped by the National Endowment, and 
they are doing that. I think that is the right thing to do because we 
can encourage artistic expression in the rural areas of Alabama and the 
rural areas of Illinois. I think we will be better for it.

[[Page S10283]]

  Unfortunately, this bill does not provide a great deal of funding for 
that, but the bottom line is that it is a concept we should pursue in 
this country. As it stands, this is still in the concept stage, but it 
is an important concept, particularly when it comes to educating and 
reaching out to young people at risk of dropping out of school or 
becoming delinquent or abusing drugs.
  We spend so much time here on the floor wrestling with problems that 
American families are worried over, not the least of which was the 
shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. We are trying to 
read and study and speak among ourselves and say: What is going on in 
the minds of these children that they would become so violent, grab a 
gun, and shoot at their classmates?
  Even though I am a parent and proud of the three children my wife and 
I raised, and our grandchild, I do not consider myself a specialist in 
this area. But I do remember from my own life experience, watching my 
kids grow up, if you give a young person a chance for fulfillment, that 
young person sometimes will show you that chance has not been 
squandered and will make something good of it. Some of them will be the 
best students in the class. Others may not be great when it comes to 
grades, but they may turn out to be excellent artists or excellent 
musicians.
  If we close down the NEA and turn out the lights, as this amendment 
suggests, we are turning out the lights on a lot of young children in 
America who just need an opportunity to express themselves, to prove 
themselves. Without that opportunity, they will certainly be 
frustrated; I hope not worse. But it really would be a loss for this 
Nation.
  I sincerely hope this amendment is defeated, and I hope it is 
defeated overwhelmingly because I believe, in defeating this amendment, 
we will make it clear that when it comes to freedom of expression and 
encouragement of arts, even though our investment is relatively small 
in terms of the larger Federal budget, it is still important because it 
says what we are about in America. We are about encouraging diversity 
of opinion, encouraging artistic expression, encouraging our young 
people to fulfill themselves.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating this amendment, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for just a moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not yield my place in the floor but----
  Mr. GORTON. No. But simply for the benefit of all Members, if the 
Senator from Minnesota could give us some kind of estimate as to how 
long he will speak? Because we are going to another matter soon. When 
his remarks are over, I will move to table the Smith amendment. We will 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  I misled my colleagues from Florida and Wyoming, who have an 
amendment that I think can be disposed of relatively quickly and I 
trust without a rollcall vote. But because of the lunch hour, I hope we 
can get to a vote on this amendment without disrupting everyone.
  Does the Senator from Virginia wish to speak on this amendment?
  Mr. ROBB. Not on this amendment, Mr. President, but I would like to 
make a statement at the appropriate time on this legislation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I will be 
relatively brief. I will try to keep my remarks under an hour.
  Did the Senator hear what I said? I was kidding. I said I would keep 
my remarks under an hour. Was that the Senator's approval? In 10 
minutes I will be able to say what I need to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, without his losing his right to the floor, I 
would like to make a few brief remarks on this amendment also.
  Mr. GORTON. Then I will certainly wait.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida says I cannot 
do it in 10 minutes, but I am going to prove him wrong.
  I do not know whether I can add that much to the remarks of Senator 
Durbin. I have heard the Senator speak quite often. I actually think 
that was one of the strongest statements. Really. I wish I were not 
following him.
  I say to all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, this 
will be a healthy vote because we ought to vote on how we view the 
National Endowment for the Arts. As a Senator from Minnesota, I think 
the most important thing we can do as Senators is to do our work every 
day in such a way that we can assure equal opportunity for every child. 
That is the way I approach this topic, I say to my friend from New 
Hampshire.
  Senator Durbin's point was well taken. What you want to do with 
children, starting at a very early age, is you want to take that spark 
of learning that all children have--they are so eager--and we need to 
ignite it. Different children are good at different things. Some are 
really good at academics, at least the way we define formal academics; 
some are athletes; some are musicians; some are artists.
  The National Endowment for the Arts has done an absolutely fabulous 
job of funding some of the most wonderful community arts partnerships 
you ever want to see in the State of Minnesota, by the way, rural as 
well as urban. There is some great work with at-risk kids, some great 
work with all the children in Minnesota--white us, black us, brown us--
all of us. It is united. It is wholesome.
  There have been mistakes made. I agree with Senator Durbin, Jane 
Alexander understood that and did a great deal to correct some of the 
mistakes that had been made. I do not think that has been properly 
acknowledged in this amendment that my colleagues bring to the floor.
  Overall, it is so enriching and it is so exciting to see what is done 
with these community arts partnerships.
  I did not get a chance to hear the remarks of my colleague from 
Missouri, so it would not be fair to him--he is not here--for me to 
even try to respond to what I think he may have said based upon what 
Senator Durbin said.
  I have had a chance to visit with the arts community. I have had a 
chance to see some of these projects take hold in Minnesota, in our 
neighborhoods, in our communities, urban, rural, and suburban, and I am 
especially focused on children and kids.
  This does not have a thing to do with blue collar, white collar, high 
income, low income, middle income. This has really been some wonderful, 
nurturing, enriching work with children in Minnesota, some of whom have 
really come into their own as a result of the way in which the NEA 
grants and good art work and artists have reached them. Some of the 
things that these kids do, some of the ways in which they are creative 
and express themselves, some of the ways in which they, in turn, 
contribute to community, based upon the nurturing and the support from 
the NEA grants--it is just a marvelous thing to see.
  Yes, mistakes have been made, but I call on Senators to be our own 
best selves. I do view this as a vote that has a whole lot to do with 
children, a whole lot to do with kids, a whole lot to do with the 
importance of community arts partnerships. I hope this amendment will 
be defeated with a resounding vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment that is being 
offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, my good friend Mr. Smith. He 
and I serve together on the Armed Services Committee. I have great 
respect for him and certainly for many of his viewpoints. But on this 
matter, I will oppose his amendment.
  I am a product of the Depression as well as the days and some of the 
years ante-Depression. When I graduated from high school in 1934, which 
was 65 years ago now, I was the valedictorian of the class. Of course, 
we only had 28 in the class. If there had been 29, I might not have 
been the valedictorian. But I was very fortunate in going to the Mark 
Twain High School and grade school in a coal mining community in 
southern West Virginia.
  Mark Twain High School had a faculty that probably would have matched 
the faculty of a junior college in these

[[Page S10284]]

days. Teachers did not get paid much, but they were highly dedicated 
teachers.
  The principal of the high school was a man by the name of William 
Jennings Bryan Cormany. And his wife, Marguerite Cormany, was an 
excellent music teacher. Mr. Cormany was a strict disciplinarian. He 
was the kind of high school principal we should have all across this 
country these days. We paid attention in his class. He taught physics. 
He was an excellent teacher.
  His wife organized a high school orchestra and a band. She wanted me 
to be in the band. I was the bass drummer. The bass drum was larger 
than I was, but I was the bass drummer. She also talked me into taking 
lessons on the violin. My foster father was a coal miner, and through 
the sweat of his brow, he bought me a violin. I can remember the 
Saturday afternoon when we piled into a large flat-bed truck and went 
from Stotesbury to Beckley, about 15 miles away.
  I went back home that night. I had a violin case tucked under my arm 
with a violin in it. My dad paid all of about $28 or $29 for this 
violin, violin bow, and violin case. I went home that night and had 
visions of becoming a Schubert or a Chopin. I could see myself being 
one of the great artists. Those were dreams.

       How great it is to believe the dream
       As we stand in youth at the starlit stream,
       But greater still to live life through
       And find at the end that the dream is true.

  I dreamed of being a great musician. My natural father was a 
musician. He was not an educated man. He never took a music lesson in 
his life. I never knew him very well. I only lived with him about a 
week in my life. He was my natural father.

  I lost my mother when I was less than a year old. She died with the 
influenza in 1918. But she wanted my father, if she died with the 
influenza, to give me to one of his sisters who had married a Byrd. She 
died the next day or so after she came down with the flu.
  My father just had a natural talent for many things. When he went out 
to pick the beans in the garden, he would be memorizing chapters from 
the Bible. He could play almost any instrument he ever put his hands 
on--the organ, the banjo, the guitar, the Autoharp, and so on. He had a 
natural talent for music.
  I inherited some of that talent for music. I loved it. And so my coal 
miner dad, who was my uncle, bought this violin for me. I started 
taking lessons when I was in the 7th grade in school. When I graduated, 
of course, I was still in the orchestra and in the band.
  By that time, I had also learned to play many of the old mountain 
tunes. My music teacher, Mrs. Cormany, did not take that very well. She 
was not very happy that I would go out behind the schoolhouse and play 
``Old Joe Clark'' on my fiddle or ``Arkansas Traveler'' or ``The 
Mississippi Sawyer'' or ``The Chicken Reel.'' She did not approve of 
that. But I did it nevertheless. So, I came to learn to play ``by 
ear,'' as they say.
  Well, now, my boyhood without that music would have been an empty 
boyhood. I started out in life where the bottom rungs in the ladder 
were not there. They were missing. There was not the first rung or the 
second rung. As I say, I grew up in the Depression, which was a hard, 
hard life at best.
  But the music did something for me. It did for me what David's music 
did for Saul when he appeared before King Saul. Music through the ages 
has come from the depths of the soul of man. It has been an inspiration 
to him Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel; Leonardo da Vinci and the 
Mona Lisa; Phidias, who was a great sculptor at the time of Pericles. 
Pericles lived in the latter half of the 5th century. I remember the 
Peloponnesian Wars lasted from 431 to about 404 BC. Phidias was a great 
sculptor at that time.
  All through the ages, men have had this desire to use their talents. 
We read about seeing the forms of animals or persons carved into the 
caves of ancient mankind and on the obelisks in Egypt. We know about 
the cuneiform writings, the Sumerians, the Hittites, the ancient 
Chinese. The ancient peoples drew word pictures before they learned to 
write.
  There is something about man that is above the animal. Do not tell me 
that man is an animal. I know they teach that in school, but they are 
all wrong. They are 100 percent wrong. Man is not an animal. An animal 
cannot draw a picture. An animal cannot paint a picture. An animal 
cannot play a violin. An animal cannot memorize the multiplication 
table. Man is not an animal.
  God created man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
nostrils the breath of life. There is a spark of the divinity in man. A 
man is a little above the beasts of the field, a little lower than the 
angels, but there is that spark of divinity. There is something in 
mankind that tends to lift his spirit in the lofty flights of song and 
poetry. Music is one of those talents that is ingrained in the genes of 
man.
  I can certainly understand the feelings of Senators with respect to 
some of the recipients of funds from the National Endowment of the Arts 
in years gone by. They were absolutely foolish, stupid to make those 
awards. It was colossal stupidity on the part of the Endowment to award 
grants to people who had such motives and objectives as a few of them 
had. But they were a tiny few. I think it would be a very serious 
mistake here to strike this from the bill.

  Who knows, there may be a little Michelangelo, there may be a little 
Benjamin West. Benjamin West said that one day he took to his mother 
some childish drawings of birds, and his mother took him up on her 
knee, kissed him, and said: ``Son, you will grow up to be a great 
painter.'' Benjamin West said that it was a mother's kiss that led him 
to become a great painter. The encouragement that his mother gave him 
after seeing the childish drawings and paintings that he had made 
caused him to aspire to do greater things.
  I can remember that my dad was very poor, the man who raised me. At 
Christmastime, he never gave me a cap buster or a cowboy suit. In 
saying this, I do not denigrate those things. But he gave me a 
watercolor set or a drawing tablet or a book. He did not want me to be 
a coal miner, as he had been.
  So here we are today. In a sense, we can feel that in passing this 
legislation, as we are passing it, and providing funds--and funds are 
hard to come by--but we are in a sense providing a little watercolor 
set or a drawing tablet--we can put it down to that level--to some 
talented, ambitious, deserving achieving person.
  I close with this poem, if I can recall it, which tells the story. 
Who knows, out of these funds there may not be just one, but there may 
be many masters--masters--as they develop the talents that are borne 
within their genes. Many people have those talents and never have the 
opportunity to develop them. So, where we can, I think, provide the 
opportunity and the encouragement, we ought to do it. That is a side of 
life--a side of our culture that is uplifting. We should not attempt to 
dampen it down, or discourage or put it beyond the reach of those who 
cannot otherwise afford it.

     'Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer
       Thought it scarcely worth his while
     To waste much time on the old violin,
       But held it up with a smile:
     ``What am I bidden, good folks,'' he cried,
       ``Who'll start the bidding for me?''
     ``A dollar, a dollar''; then, ``Two!'' ``Only two?
       Two dollars, and who'll make it three?
     Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice;
       Going for three----'' But no,
     From the room, far back, a gray-haired man
       Came forward and picked up the bow;
     Then, wiping the dust from the old violin,
       And tightening the loose strings,
     He played a melody pure and sweet
       As a caroling angel sings.

     The music ceased, and the auctioneer,
       With a voice that was quiet and low,
     Said: ``What am I bid for the old violin?''
       And he held it up with the bow.
     ``A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two?
       Two thousand! and who'll make it three?
     Three thousand, once, three thousand twice,
       And going, and gone,'' said he.
     The people cheered, but some of them cried,
       ``We do not quite understand
     What changed its worth.'' Swift came the reply:
       ``The touch of a master's hand.''

     And many a man with life out of tune,
       And battered and scarred with sin,
     Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd,
       Much like the old violin.
     A ``mess of pottage,'' a glass of wine;
       A game--and he travels on.
     He is ``going'' once, and ``going'' twice,
       He's ``going'' and almost ``gone.''
     But the Master comes, and the foolish crowd
       Never can quite understand
     The worth of a soul and the change that's wrought

[[Page S10285]]

       By the touch of the Master's hand.

  Let us defeat this amendment and reject it overwhelmingly let us 
continue to make it possible for some future masters to lay their 
talented hands upon the culture of our own civilization and thereby 
benefit all of posterity.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only reason I sought recognition is to 
speak before the motion to table is made. I apologize to my friend, the 
manager of the bill, recognizing how badly he wants to move on. I feel 
inclined to speak on this amendment.
  I say to the Senator from West Virginia, my friend, I have had many 
inspirational times on the Senate floor, and most of them have been 
directly attributable to the Senator from West Virginia. If what we 
just listened to, was not inspirational, then someone wasn't listening.
  I had the honor a week ago to participate in a parliamentary exchange 
with the British Parliament. I was able to meet with a small group of 
British parliamentarians, with a number of Senators in West Virginia. 
The hosts of that event were Senators Byrd and Stevens. It was a 
wonderful weekend where we talked issues.
  One evening we were able to meet and have a social event in a place 
called Kate's Mountain in West Virginia. I had been there only once 
before. I came to realize, on my first trip to West Virginia at Kate's 
Mountain, what that song, those West Virginia hills where I was born, 
means to someone from West Virginia because Kate's Mountain is part of 
those West Virginia hills. I appreciate those hills, even though I 
wasn't born in those West Virginia hills. Part of the entertainment 
that night, just a few days ago, was a blue grass band playing. Senator 
Byrd participated in the entertainment. He took the microphone and 
proceeded to sing. It was a wonderful, fun, entertaining evening.
  Well, Mr. President, I can't sing. I can't play a musical instrument. 
But there is no one in the world that enjoys music more than I enjoy 
music. I have tried to play music. I have tried to sing. I can remember 
as a young man in high school, I wanted to sing. I went to try out for 
the choir at Basic High School in Henderson, NV. I can still remember 
the choir director, Chapman Wooten, a wonderful man, but he could 
understand talent when he saw it. He didn't see it in me. He said I 
should continue playing football and baseball and pass on the choir.
  I didn't make the choir. In fact, I only was there a few minutes. But 
I still love music. I can't paint a picture. I have tried. My 
grandchildren paint better than I do. But I love to see people paint 
pictures, and I love to see the finished product. I have in my home 
paintings that may not be very valuable, but they are valuable to me. 
They are paintings I have bought because I loved those paintings. I can 
remember the first painting I ever bought. I was just out of law 
school. I went to the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas and a man by the 
name of McCarthy had an exhibit there. I don't know if he has ever made 
a living painting, but I gave him $75 for a painting that I still have. 
If you come in my home, there is the first painting that I ever bought. 
I bought that painting because it reminded me of my wife. It is a 
painting of a woman. I love that picture.
  I was born and raised, as most of you know, in a little place called 
Searchlight, NV. We had very little entertainment in Searchlight. There 
wasn't a church to go to. I never went to a church until I went to high 
school. There wasn't one to go to. In the whole town there was one 
person who played a piano. I don't know how well she played it, but she 
played the piano for Christmas programs. That is about all I can 
remember. She was a woman of some note. She was not noted for playing 
her piano. She had been married 14 times. I know that because she was 
married to a few of my uncles. But she played the piano. She was our 
music in Searchlight. Any program we had, she was part of it.

  I am sure in that little town of Searchlight there were people who 
could have played, if there had been someone there to give them a 
lesson, someone who could paint a picture, if there was someone who 
could teach them how to paint a picture. In the entire time that I was 
growing up in Searchlight, I don't remember a single person playing a 
musical instrument because they didn't play one. I don't remember a 
single person painting a picture because they didn't paint a picture. 
There was no one there to help us, to encourage us.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is a program that I envision as 
helping kids like Harry Reid growing up in rural America, rural Nevada. 
It also helps kids in urban America, but I think of it as to what I can 
relate to. The National Endowment for the Arts is a program that is 
important for people in this country.
  I can remember first becoming acquainted with the National Endowment 
for the Arts because Senator Byrd allowed me to conduct some of the 
hearings when he was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee. I conducted the hearings. I loved doing that. 
We conducted hearings relating to the National Endowment for the Arts. 
I became so impressed with the work that they do that I have been a fan 
ever since.
  In Elko, NV, we benefit from the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. There is a great program; it 
is world famous now. It is called the Cowboy Poetry Festival. It took 
years to get off the ground. A man by the name of Cannon got it 
started. He started off in Utah, and he did everything he could because 
he had this idea that there was cowboy poetry that should be preserved 
and perpetuated. He couldn't get it off the ground. He went to private 
foundations. He did everything he could. They didn't think his idea was 
very good. He went to Elko, NV, and luckily the National Endowment for 
the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts helped him get this 
program started. Now it is world famous. You can't find a motel or a 
hotel room when this festival is occuring. People recite poetry. There 
are books on western American history that are written and talked about 
and presentations made. It is because of these programs, the National 
Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities.
  In Nevada, we benefit all over. There are so many things. I have a 
spate of papers here talking about how great these programs are. One 
from Delores Nast. She doesn't teach art. She is not a teacher. She 
loves art, though. She writes: Many Nevadans believe strongly that part 
of our tax dollars should be directed towards support of our Nation's 
cultural and educational initiatives.
  What an understatement. The most powerful Nation in the entire world 
can't spend a few dollars on helping kids from Searchlight, NV, learn 
to paint a picture or play a musical instrument. Yes, we can do that. 
We must do that.
  I am not going to, as I say, hold up the manager of this bill. I only 
want to say that we in Nevada believe in the National Endowment for the 
Arts. There are some people who criticize it, but they criticize 
anything dealing with government. I am proud of supporting the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I am proud of supporting a motion to table this 
amendment. It should be tabled overwhelmingly because we, the most 
powerful Nation in the world, need to spend more, not less, on the 
arts.

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont has 
a quick unanimous consent request.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on roll call No. 258, I was recorded as 
voting ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to change my vote to ``yea.'' 
This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to voice my 
support for the Arts in general, and specifically for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I also want the Senate and my constituents to 
know that I would have demonstrated this support with my vote if I had 
not been engaged in an important meeting at the White House while the 
vote was taking place.

[[Page S10286]]

  This meeting today concerned the future of the steel industry and the 
Administration's commitment to work with Congress, the industry and 
labor to ensure that unfair and illegal imports are returned to pre-
crisis levels. As my colleagues and constituents know, my commitment to 
the future stability and viability of our domestic steel industry--
which is critical to the economic well-being of West Virginia--is 
unwavering, and for that reason I felt it necessary to remain at the 
White House for this important meeting.
  Unfortunately, the vote on the Smith Amendment was called earlier 
than anticipated, and I missed the vote. I would have voted against the 
Smith Amendment if I could have been in the chamber because I believe 
in funding for the arts, including the National Endowment for the Arts. 
I take comfort in the fact that the lopsided margin meant that my vote 
was not necessary to ensure funding for the NEA. I understand that some 
have challenged NEA's funding decisions in recent years, but I believe 
the agency has done an admirable job in modifying its policies and 
decision making process to respond to concerns. Thanks to these 
efforts, the NEA is a stronger organization. The arts and the NEA 
contribute greatly to our culture, and it is a valuable investment in 
my view.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I add my voice in support of the National 
Endowment of the Arts, and in opposition to Senator Smith's amendment. 
The NEA continues to provide valuable seed money to support a range of 
worthy endeavors, such as orchestras, inner-city arts outreach programs 
and efforts to preserve vanishing American cultural institutions. In 
addition, the NEA plays a strong role in promoting private investment 
in the arts and helps to bring culture to those Americans who are 
ordinarily unable to afford access to the arts. As a country, we ought 
to continue to support these efforts. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I compliment both the Senator from Nevada 
and the Senator from West Virginia on very thoughtful and fascinating 
statements on this matter.
  I move to table the Smith amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1569.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Allard
     Crapo
     Landrieu
     Rockefeller
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________