[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9267-H9273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BROOKLYN MUSEUM OF ART 
            EXHIBIT FEATURING WORKS OF A SACRILEGIOUS NATURE

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal 
funds unless it cancels its upcoming exhibit feature works of a 
sacrilegious nature, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 191

       Whereas on October 2, 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art 
     opened an exhibit entitled ``Sensation: Young British Artists 
     from the Saatchi Collection'';
       Whereas this art exhibit features a desecrated image of the 
     Virgin Mary;
       Whereas the venerable John Cardinal O'Connor considers the 
     exhibit an attack on the Catholic faith, and is an affront to 
     more than a billion Catholics worldwide;
       Whereas the exhibit includes works which are grotesque, 
     immoral, and sacrilegious, such as one that glorifies 
     criminal behavior with a portrait of a convicted child 
     murderer fashioned from small hand prints;
       Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art's advertisement 
     acknowledges that the exhibit ``may cause shock, vomiting, 
     confusion, panic, euphoria, and anxiety'';
       Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art refuses to close the 
     exhibit, despite strong public opposition to the show from 
     religious leaders, government officials, and the general 
     population;
       Whereas the American taxpayer, through the National 
     Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, provides funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art; 
     and
       Whereas the American taxpayer should not be required to 
     subsidize art that desecrates religion and religious beliefs: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 
     Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds 
     unless it closes its exhibit featuring works of a 
     sacrilegious nature.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to bring House 
Concurrent Resolution 191 to the floor. This resolution was submitted 
by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney).
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened a 
controversial new art exhibit, despite strong objections from civic and 
religious leaders. As many know, the exhibit includes a desecrated 
portrait of the Virgin Mary, decaying animals, and a depiction of a 
child molester.
  These are just a few of the offensive items in an exhibit recognized 
and celebrated for its shock value, an ``over the edge'' flaunting of 
decay, defamation, and death.

[[Page H9268]]

  It is a show intended to ``cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, 
euphoria, and anxiety,'' and those are the words of the Brooklyn 
Museum.
  Mr. Speaker, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I believe 
most American taxpayers do not have the stomach to support the display 
of this type of exhibit. No matter what we think of this exhibit, we 
can all agree that the American taxpayers should not be forced to 
subsidize any exhibit that denigrates the beliefs and values that they 
hold most dear.
  Ten years ago, after the NEA funded Andres Serrano's defilement of 
the crucifix, Congress directed the chair of the National Endowment of 
the Arts to take into account ``general standards of decency and 
respect'' in awarding Federal grant money to artists. Many artists 
protested that this was a violation of free speech rights.
  In June of 1998, however, the Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the decency clause. It was upheld because the 
court recognized that the right of free expression does not include the 
right to force others to pay for your expression.
  Mr. Speaker, the Brooklyn Museum is a great institution celebrating 
and displaying great works of art for over 176 years. It has been a 
gift to our children, encouraging them to explore the depths of their 
own creativity and imagination. If there was ever a time when we needed 
to encourage our children to honor beauty, it is now. If there was ever 
a time to teach our children about great works of art, of great 
painters, sculptures, and designers, it is now. But the Brooklyn 
Museum's current exhibit is so extreme that children are not allowed to 
view it unless they are accompanied by a parent.
  It seems to me that our public art institutions should be a safe 
haven for our children, a place that honors the highest standards of 
beauty, not the lowest common denominator of human depravity.
  Hard working Americans help support the Brooklyn Museum of Art 
through the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment of 
the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. In 
the past 3 years, taxpayers have paid over $1 million to help fund the 
Brooklyn Museum.
  In a time when our communities are desperate for more art classes, 
local art museums, and children's workshops, the Brooklyn Museum 
exhibit seems inconsistent with our priorities to foster a greater 
appreciation of the arts. This debate is about whether or not taxpayers 
should subsidize the housing and promotion of objectionable exhibits. 
American taxpayers have paid for the brick and mortar of the Brooklyn 
Museum, a museum that should reflect the best of the American people.
  This exhibit, sponsored and hosted by the museum, clearly does not 
reflect the values we hold dear. This resolution will protect American 
taxpayers from funding the Brooklyn Museum showcase of a denigrating 
exhibit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 191, which 
expresses the sense of Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should 
not receive Federal funds unless it cancels its recently opened exhibit 
entitled ``Sensation.''
  First and foremost, I would like to express my utter disbelief that 
we are wasting valuable floor time on this resolution as the first 
session of the 106th Congress draws to a close, and we have not yet 
considered important issues such as healthcare reform, increasing the 
minimum wage, and preserving Social Security.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we are 4 days into fiscal year 2000, with 11 
of the 13 annual appropriations bills still not enacted. If the 
Republicans cause the Federal Government to shutdown in 2 weeks, the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art will not get any Federal funding anyway. But 
aside from the Republican leadership's complete disregard for effective 
time management, I am greatly concerned that this resolution condones 
and encourages censorship and sends a message that it is acceptable for 
city officials to make funding decisions based on their individual 
likes and dislikes.
  Hitler's dislike of avant-garde artists of his time, Picasso and 
Matisse, led to the banishment of their works from Germany for 8 long 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions 
that the government cannot penalize individual artists because their 
work is disagreeable. We know that this resolution is really about the 
Republican leadership's continued attack on all Federal funding of the 
arts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
my good friend and class president.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start and say I introduced this resolution at an 
important time in our Nation's history. We have, as we all know, 
violence pervasive throughout all sorts of elements in our society. We 
are in a period of great moral turmoil in many respects.
  Those who argue against the proposition that I propose today say that 
this is censorship, and they liken it to what Hitler did in Nazi 
Germany. We say that is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are talking 
about some fundamental questions centering around the role of the 
Federal Government in funding of works of art, or so-called works of 
art, that attack real core beliefs of the American people, many 
Americans, and beliefs that we hold near and dear to our hearts.
  The questions I asked in this resolution are simple: Should the 
American taxpayer be required to send their hard-earned tax dollars to 
a museum, or other institution, that exhibits works of art, the likes 
of which feature a portrait of the Virgin Mary desecrated with elephant 
dung? Should taxpayers' dollars be used to glorify a convicted child 
murderer? Should Americans that work 40, 50, 60 hours a week, be forced 
to turn over a portion of their paychecks so that individuals can 
express themselves in a manner that so offends so many?
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that I introduce today answers a 
resounding ``no'' to those questions.
  Just this past Saturday, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened that art 
show featuring the aforementioned exhibits; and, as a result, the 
museum has come under fire from many sources, many individuals, who 
share, as I do, the belief that this is just wrong.
  The venerable Cardinal O'Connor of New York City called the Exhibit 
``an attack on religion itself, and, in a special way, on the Catholic 
church.''
  Coinciding with the exhibit's opening, hundreds of people, with no 
other vehicle to express their frustration, took to the steps of the 
museum to say that public funding of such exhibits that promote hate, 
bigotry, and Catholic bashing is wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with 
them. That is why we have gone forward with this resolution.
  Since 1997, the Brooklyn Museum of Art has received nearly $1 million 
through the National Endowment of the Arts and the National/Endowment 
for Humanities. When taxpayers decide to support the arts, I doubt 
these are the kinds of exhibits they have in mind.
  Our resolution gives a voice to millions of Americans who are 
disgusted because they are being forced to fund this offensive exhibit. 
Furthermore, I believe that most of my constituents would join me in 
saying that this exhibit goes too far and is devoid of culturally 
redeeming value, by any standard.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, the proposition before us is quite simple. 
However, there is a vocal minority that wants to confuse the debate by 
suggesting our resolution is an attack on the First Amendment.
  The ``Sensation'' exhibit, as it is titled, does not belong in a 
publicly supported institution. That is the simple premise at work 
here. This is not to say it does not belong anywhere. If there is an 
audience for this type of exhibit, and I would suspect there is a 
substantial audience in some quarters for this, let them find a private 
outlet for which to express that sense.
  While these so-called artists have a right to create their art and 
galleries have a right to display it, the First Amendment does not 
guarantee that the American people must subsidize it.

[[Page H9269]]

 In the words of David A. Strauss, a specialist in constitutional law 
at the University of Chicago, ``it is clear the government is entitled 
to make some decisions on what it will fund and what it will not 
fund.''
  Not only are we entitled to do so, my constituents demand that I do 
so here today.
  I agree with Jonathan Yardley in today's edition of the Washington 
Post when he writes, ``the museum has a right to present such works as 
it cares to, but has a weighty responsibility, the handmaiden of public 
funding, to exercise that right with sobriety and care. The support of 
taxpayers is not license to thumb one's nose at taxpayers. The 
religious and moral sensibilities of ordinary people are not frivolous; 
they deserve, and should command, the respect and consideration of 
those who slop at the public trough.''
  Mr. Speaker, we know that Congress is not a body of art critics. 
However, ``Sensation'' is clearly an example of going too far. It does 
not take a Ph.D. in art history to know that a portrait of the Virgin 
Mary being desecrated upon is offensive to Catholics.
  Mr. Speaker, our Federal tax dollars should not be spent on images 
that glorify sacrilegious, immoral, and criminal behavior. They should 
be used to defend, not offend. Further, if we subsidize the expression 
of art, let that expression carry a message of education, not 
desecration.
  Last week, the Senate adopted a similar measure overwhelmingly, and I 
urge my colleagues in this body to follow the Senate's lead. Tell your 
constituents you will account for their tax dollars.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hope this issue does not come down to 
Republicans and Democrats, even though normally on things like that, 
that is the way the votes go.
  I just cannot believe that people can make a decision on what should 
be funded as art when they have never even seen what they are talking 
about. I just do not believe, just because it was a foreigner that did 
it and thought he was doing something correctly, that we would be so 
upset that we would attack an entire museum, with all of its exhibits 
in it, just because inadvertently someone was upset.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, I was raised as an altar boy, and I am familiar with the Blessed 
Trinity, and the fact that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph. While 
there was the immaculate conception, there were still pictures of the 
Virgin Mary, and of course, Jesus, in every church and cathedral that I 
have had a chance to attend.
  Now, from what I have seen on television, this was an abstract 
drawing of an overweight African-type cartoon that, with all of my 
catechism and training, it never would have entered my mind that this 
was supposed to be the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, 
notwithstanding what the artist had put on the bottom of it.
  It never seemed to me that my mayor would be embracing anything like 
this, with or without the dung, as being what we think the Virgin Mary 
would look like, since basically we are talking about what a European 
Virgin Mary would look like as opposed to what an African Virgin Mary 
would look like.
  I can understand how people of different cultures would clash, but 
are we suggesting that every time there is something that we find 
grotesque or different or odd, or something that we are ignorant about 
and we do not understand, that we come to the floor and say, cut the 
funding?
  Am I supposed to check every library that got a Federal dollar and 
find some book that I do not understand, Ph.D. or not, and come here 
and say, I am offended by this, and just because we do not understand 
it, cut it out?
  The city council of New York City has someone appointed from the city 
of New York sitting on this board. They are supposed to decide what 
exhibits they have and what exhibits they do not have. Clearly, if the 
mayor wanted to make the Brooklyn Museum a big hit, he sure did. There 
were lines out in the street. I could not find my way to the Brooklyn 
Museum of Art before the mayor announced what he did.
  So if we do not like this grotesque thing, we ought to charge it up 
to Mayor Giuliani for giving it all this free publicity. There are 
lines wrapped around the building. They have to get more private funds 
now because people know where it is.
  If the National Endowment has thought it was a pretty decent museum, 
for God's sakes, we do not want to say, because somebody may have made 
a mistake or someone did not understand what they were doing, that we 
in the Congress are so sophisticated, so smart, so creative, that we 
can say, hey, do not fund it.
  I do not think we would want to do that, and certainly the way the 
polls look, I do not think the mayor, well, whether he did it for 
political reasons or not is subjective, but I do not think that he will 
be the beneficiary of doing it for Catholics, because Catholics really 
do not believe that politicians set the criteria about what we like and 
what we do not like, certainly not from the mayor's point of view.
  So I hope we would reconsider this and not have a party vote on it. I 
think there are a lot of other things we do not understand that are 
worse than this.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I want to rise in strong support of what the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) are 
doing here.
  Someone mentioned their disbelief. My disbelief is that we even have 
to come here today to state the case. I say that as a member of the 
committee of jurisdiction who has fought long and hard, and my Democrat 
members will remember me as the Republican that worked long and hard to 
preserve the Federal funding for the Humanities and the National 
Endowment for the Arts and Public Broadcasting System. I did it 
gratefully and happily and persistently.
  But this is not the first time that we have had this particular 
discussion. I was also a member of the committee when we had this in 
the 1990s, as well as the Mapplethorpe and the Serrano situation, which 
has already been referenced here, and the obscene art controversy 
raised at that time.
  So in 1990, when we reauthorized the NEA to ensure, and I quote, this 
is the language of the statute, ``Artistic excellence and artistic 
merit are the criteria by which grant applications are judged, taking 
into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the 
diverse beliefs and values of the American public.''
  That is exactly what we put in place at the time, and there were 
cries that went up that, oh, no, this decency language, the decency 
clause, will not be constitutional. As Members may remember, Karen 
Findlay challenged and brought it as a First Amendment case before the 
Supreme Court.
  But in June of 1998, the Supreme Court upheld that in the Karen 
Findlay case, remember, she smeared chocolate on herself, her naked 
body, but in the Karen Findlay case, the Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the decency clause. So I do not want to hear 
anymore questions about whether or not it is constitutional for 
Congress to make a determination under the decency clause as to whether 
or not this money can be given in grants to artistic entities, such as 
a museum.
  I know what Members are going to say, well, this was not a precise 
grant, et cetera. But money is fungible. Everybody understands that 
money is fungible. But there is no way that we should be endorsing or 
having taxpayers pay for something that violates any religious beliefs 
or even aggrandizes pedophiles and child murderers.
  I thank the Members for this opportunity. The Congress must go on 
record in opposition to the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and stating that no 
funds should ever be used under these circumstances again.
  Mr. CLAY. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us clear the record. First of all, there are no funds from the 
National

[[Page H9270]]

Endowment for the Arts that are provided for this exhibition. We ought 
to stop talking about Federal funds supporting this exhibition.
  Secondly, we have people making the suggestion that this exhibition 
ought to be given someplace else other than in the art museum. Where 
should art be on display, other than in an art museum?
  Then we say this is not censorship. Censorship to me is what we 
decide is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of art, even 
with our limited, and some of us with unlimited or no knowledge of art, 
deciding what it is, what is art.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is 
censorship. The issue is whether or not the Members of the House of 
Representatives or the mayor of New York City is going to determine 
what passes for art, and what people can see and cannot see in the art 
museums of the city of New York or the United States of America. That 
is what it is about, clear and simple.
  Those people who are proponents of censorship, they do not want 
anyone to label them as would-be censors, so they couch their 
censorship in language of Federal funding or public funding or 
taxpayers' money, or words of that ilk. They seek to hide behind that, 
when really what they are trying to do is determine what people will 
see and will not see, and they want to make that determination in 
accordance with their own taste or lack of taste, their own knowledge 
or lack of knowledge, as the case may be.
  Yes, the Brooklyn Museum does benefit from some public funds under 
certain circumstances and at certain times. That is not unusual. Every 
art museum, every proponent of the arts, every culture throughout the 
history of civilization on this planet has had public subsidization of 
some kind. The arts do not flourish without public subsidies of some 
kind, so we, as an enlightened society, make measures whereby we 
provide for public subsidies of the arts.
  But we do not tell museums what they can display. We do not tell 
authors what they can write. We do not tell sculptors what they can 
sculpt. We leave that up to the artist, and we leave the success or 
failure of those works, whether they are written or on canvas or in 
some plastic medium, we leave the success or failure of those artistic 
works up to the final arbiters, the general public.
  Interestingly enough, in this particular case, the general public 
seems to be saying, we have an interest in seeing what is on display at 
the Brooklyn Museum. I think the mayor of New York City may have had 
something to do with that interest in giving this display all the 
publicity that he has.
  Whether he did or so intentionally or not, I don't know. Only he 
knows that. But whether he did so intentionally or not, he has provided 
this exhibit with more publicity than any art exhibit that the Brooklyn 
Museum of Art has had in recent memory. As a result of that, thousands 
of people are lined up in the streets around the Brooklyn Museum 
wanting to see this exhibit. That tells me that there is a great deal 
of public interest in this exhibit, and since there is a great deal of 
public interest, the public ought to determine whether or not it is 
there for people to see.
  Let us not think that we here in the Congress or any mayor of any 
city or anybody of any common council can determine what the public 
ought to see or ought to read or ought to believe. That is up to them 
in a democratic society, not up to the Members of this House.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella), a cosponsor of this resolution.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I want to get back to this question about whether or 
not we are subsidizing, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we are paying for 
this. This is being misrepresented in the debate.
  Money is fungible, and no, there is not a precise grant. But it is 
absolutely a subsidy, a subsidy last year that was more than $160,000, 
much more than that, to the Brooklyn Museum, and this year it is 
projected that it will be well over $250,000.
  Do not tell me, it stretches credibility, to think that that money 
has not subsidized this particular exhibit.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina for yielding time to me. I also thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
government for a redress of grievances.''
  Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that the United States 
taxpayer has to subsidize so-called art that desecrates one's religion. 
This is the issue.
  There are others who want to say it is censorship, others who want to 
say that we are determining what art is. That is not true. The issue 
is, how do we appropriately use taxpayer money?
  What we are saying, and I think we have the vast majority of support 
of the American people, both Democrats and Republicans in this body 
already sponsoring this resolution, we are saying that unless the 
Brooklyn Museum takes this exhibit away that desecrates an image that 
is sacred to a lot of Christians across the country, that glorifies a 
child molester, that they should not receive taxpayer money. It is very 
simple.
  If they want to take this exhibit and put it somewhere else, in 
somebody's house, in somebody's apartment, or so many of the other 
private museums around the country, then so be it, and there will not 
be a problem. But this museum receives public money from both the city 
of New York, the State of New York, and from the Federal Government.
  Do we not think there are more appropriate uses for taxpayer money 
than to desecrate religion? Is that such a stretch, that the NEA itself 
imposes standards on its exhibits, but we cannot; that the average 
American sitting at home who believes strongly in his faith or her 
faith says, wait a minute, I am working every single day, and the 
government is taking a little bit of my money and is going to fund 
this, are they not entitled to their opinion?
  For those who say, this is democracy, now, we are a Republic.

                              {time}  1630

  We are supposed to speak for those folks. But we are speaking for 
them. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people there on 
Saturday with me and so many others saying this is wrong. It is not a 
question of gray. Let us move on. Is this not over? It is wrong. It is 
wrong to use taxpayer money to fund this.
  The Brooklyn Museum Board of Directors had every opportunity before 
the exhibit opened to take some of the more offensive works out. They 
decided not to. Incensed and in reflection upon their arrogance, I do 
not believe they deserve another dime of taxpayer money. They want to 
stick it to so many people across this country, so many New Yorkers, so 
be it. Let them do it on their own dime, not ours.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many hundreds were there to say that 
it was wrong, but I know that 10,000 went and paid $9-and-something to 
go see if it was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion.'' The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
just quoted the First Amendment to us.
  What does this resolution do? It says that the sense of Congress is 
that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless 
it closes its exhibit featuring ``works of a sacrilegious nature.'' I 
repeat, ``sacrilegious nature.'' How do we determine what is 
sacrilegious except by determining what offends a religion?
  Remember, the First Amendment does not say there shall not be an 
establishment of religion. It says Congress shall make no law 
``respecting an

[[Page H9271]]

establishment of religion.'' Does this resolution respect an 
establishment of religion? Let us read some of the clauses:
  ``Whereas the American taxpayer should not be required to subsidize 
art that desecrates religion and religious beliefs.'' It says the 
reason for this resolution is because the Brooklyn Museum exhibit is a 
desecration of religion. It says that this art exhibit features a 
``desecrated image of the Virgin Mary''; ``desecrated'' is a religious-
content word. It says that John Cardinal O'Connor considers the exhibit 
an attack on the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is, indeed, one of 
several established religions.
  The point is that this is not really a debate on censorship. I agree 
with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the author that 
Congress has the right to choose whether to fund art or not. Indeed, I 
happen to have voted against funding the NEA every time it has come up. 
The reason is that, when we fund art, we immediately get into First 
Amendment problems because government is funding one position and not 
another.
  So I am not arguing that we do not have the right to stop funding. I 
entirely agree with the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. 
Fossella), that we should not be funding art that offends people. I do 
not think we should be funding art at all.
  We can stop funding all art. We can stop funding all art that offends 
people. The one thing we cannot do is make a distinction on whether 
that art offends religion or not. So I wish this had been written 
differently. I wish I had a chance to weigh in earlier on.
  I want to close with the recognition of the excellent good faith of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), my high regard for him, and 
my high regard of all my colleagues who have sponsored this resolution.
  But our oath of office is to uphold and defend the Constitution. That 
is the one thing we swear to do. We do not swear to be popular. Lord 
knows my position is not going to be popular in my district or in the 
State of California. But I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. 
The Constitution says we cannot pass any law respecting an 
establishment of religion. That is what this resolution does. I must 
vote no.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a storm brewing in Brooklyn right 
now, and at the heart of the matter is whether the Government should 
force taxpayers to fund a museum where art is or can be considered to 
be anything, from splattering elephant dung on the painting of the 
Virgin Mary to cutting a pig in half.
  Now I am not an art critic, and I may not know good art from bad, but 
I know when something is offensive when I see it. This Sensation 
Exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum of Art is the personification of 
offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a staunch advocate of protecting First Amendment 
rights, of freedom of expression. I believe the people in this country 
should be able to create art that depicts whatever they please. That is 
the American way; and we, as citizens, should respect that right. But I 
have got to ask, Mr. Speaker, where in the Constitution does it say 
that American taxpayers have to like it as well as pay for it?
  The answer to that question is quite simple. The Constitution does 
not say that. The Constitution makes no mention of the right to 
Government funding for anyone's artistic concepts. There is no right to 
Government funding for any offensive material or, for that fact, no 
material at all.
  If one wants to create a display of offensive art, fine, but pay for 
it oneself. Do not ask me and other taxpayers to fund it. It is not 
right. And it does not make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Mayor Giuliani for taking the stand that he 
has on the Sensation Exhibit, and I urge all my colleagues to take the 
same stand by passing this resolution today.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I like much of the art that is in the 
Saatchi collection in the Brooklyn Museum. The reviews I read I do not 
think were quite flattering. But this is, once again, the law of 
unintended consequences.
  A few years ago, one of our colleagues in the other body did not like 
a show that was going to be at the Corcoran Gallery not far from here, 
made a big deal about it, and made the show bigger than it ever would 
have been.
  Now people are lining up around the Brooklyn Museum of Art to get in. 
So what my colleagues are trying to accomplish they are actually 
enhancing, and I think they have failed at that.
  But the other problem is that my colleagues are heading down a road 
they do not want to go. Because surely somebody can go down the street 
to the National Gallery and find a Botticelli or something else they 
think is offensive and think we should not fund. But where do we stop 
from there?
  But what is even worse is, yet again, this House has found it upon 
itself to get involved in the politics of New York and New York City. 
Quite frankly, I do not care about the politics of New York. I do not 
know why the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) cares about the 
politics of New York. Let the people of New York do it.
  Why is the party of States rights, the party of returning power to 
the local governments and the States trying to decide whether the city 
of New York, this does not even have anything to do with the NEA, this 
show does not have anything to do with the NEA, it is whether the city 
of New York ought to fund the Brooklyn Museum of Art on this show.
  We really should not care, unless we want to become that 
paternalistic to tell the people what to do. I certainly do not want 
the people of New York telling the people of Houston, Texas, or 
Pasadena, Texas, what to do. But that is the next thing we will get. 
Some animal rights person will come up and say, The Pasadena rodeo is 
cruel to animals, and we should not allow any funding for it. It is a 
really dangerous path that my colleagues are heading down.
  There is so much other business the House should be involved in. We 
have not even passed our budget for this year, but we certainly have 
time to deal with whether the city of New York ought to fund a show at 
the Brooklyn Art Museum.
  Do we not have time to work on our budget instead of working on stuff 
like this?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Clay) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not from Brooklyn. I am from the Bronx, just a 
little bit away. But I am from New York City, and I know politics when 
I see it. This House has not done its business this year. We have not 
passed the budget. There are so many things that we have not done.
  What are we wasting our time on? We are wasting our time on politics. 
This is all about who will be the next Senator of the State of New 
York.
  The Republican leadership ought to get its act together. They ought 
to pass the budget. They ought to make sure there are votes to pass the 
budget instead of trying to vote on these knee-jerk issues so that they 
can play to their right wing base. That is what this is all about.
  Once we start going down this slippery slope of Government telling 
museums what they can or cannot do, where does it end? Sure this 
exhibit is offensive. Sure this exhibit is disgusting. But I do not 
think that we in Government ought to sit and judge as censors and say 
that we will not pay for this museum or that museum or whatever it is 
because we are offended. That is not what we should be doing.

[[Page H9272]]

  Let us do our business. The Republican leadership wants to put their 
smoke screen up because they have not done their job. The American 
people know that they have not done their job.
  So let us not talk about not giving Federal funds to the Brooklyn 
Museum. There are no Federal funds that go into this exhibit. There are 
Federal funds that go to the Brooklyn Museum for other things, targeted 
things, specific things. This is all about politics.
  Mayor Giuliani gets up, and he starts talking again and again. If he 
had kept his mouth quiet, nobody would even know about this exhibit. He 
has given it more publicity than it ever could have gotten. But, again, 
he wants to move to the right, play to the Republican base, maybe get 
the conservative party line in New York. That is what this is all 
about.
  So this Congress, again, should do the job that the American people 
elected us to do. We ought to pass the budget. We ought to do things on 
time. We ought not to talk about these knee-jerk base kind of gut 
reactions.
  The Republicans want to play to their corps. They want to get their 
members enthused. They want to show that one person can out-right wing 
the other person. That is really a disgrace. Let us pass the budget and 
not waste our time on this nonsense.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, that here we are talking 
about attacking the people who criticize this junk as if they 
contributed to this, as if they brought it about.
  It is not Mayor Giuliani. It is no one on this side of the aisle. It 
is no one who attacked this stuff that caused this to happen. It is the 
bizarre, idiotic attitude of people who believe that they want to push 
the envelope as far as they possibly can in order to prompt this kind 
of thing.
  No, it does not need to be here. It does not have to be on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. That is absolutely true. If no idiot 
would have brought this stuff forward in the first place and try to 
pass it off as art, we would not be here. But here we are because, of 
course, there is money that is going into this and because I have to 
tell taxpayers that they, in fact, must contribute to this kind of 
junk. It is nothing but junk.
  But it goes to show my colleagues how difficult it is to actually 
identify what is art and what is not. We should not be contributing 
anything to, quote, ``the arts'' because somebody will stand up at some 
point in time and say that this garbage is art; and, therefore, it 
should be funded. We should not be funding any of this, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to try and decide 
whether or not I agree with the last speaker. I guess if I could 
understand what he said, I might agree with him. Stuff? Idiots? Junk? 
Et cetera?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent Rochester, New York; and we have always 
known that people in New York City do strange things, but we have 
always tolerated them with some bemusement.
  The mayor of New York now has embarked on his 18th First Amendment 
case, having lost all of them; and Congress today is going to try to 
join him in that exercise, which is going to be found blatantly 
unconstitutional.
  I find more than a sense of irony that today we had H. Res. 57, where 
the House of Representatives expressed its great concern over 
interference with freedom of the press, but not in the United States, 
in Peru. So now we are all going to work this afternoon to see what we 
can do to interfere in Brooklyn.
  Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder. If the mayor does 
not want to go, he should not go. As a matter of fact, other people and 
the reviews of this show tell us that people are lining up around the 
building, standing in the rain to get in to see what has aggravated 
Giuliani so much this time.
  Nobody as far as I know has fainted, been nauseated, or had to be 
removed to the hospital, which were some of the things that we were 
told might happen with this show.
  My colleagues, I think a majority of Americans that we represent, God 
bless their judgment, think that it is time to really close the door on 
the tactics that make the arts and humanities political hostages every 
time we find something that we can pounce on.
  The benefits that we receive for our economy and for our children and 
for our communities by arts and humanities are indisputable and far 
outweigh the small financial investment that we are making; however, we 
make no investment in this show in Brooklyn.

                              {time}  1645

  Now, the sooner we get around to accepting that fact, maybe we can 
get around to passing a budget and do something to stop having to shut 
down the Federal Government. I think it is unthinkable that we can work 
at this ploy just to aim solely at influencing the New York State 
senatorial election.
  I want to say something for this museum. For more than a century, the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art has provided so many benefits, not only to the 
people of New York but to Americans all across the country. It strikes 
me as dreadful that the mayor not only wants to stop this show, he 
wants to evict this show, he wants to tear down the building and salt 
the ground. This Brooklyn Museum and what it has done for the 
Brooklyn's Children Museum through the Brooklyn Public Library is 
incalculable.
  For Heaven's sake, let us not mess with this thing and please get 
back to the business of the United States.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish 
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he 
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' I think it is 
something we should remember in this debate.
  I need to remind my colleagues on the other side that New York can do 
whatever it wants with its funds. We are trying to save Americans from 
using their money to pay for pornographic art.
  It is interesting that in the religious arguments we have heard about 
the laws we make in this room that we hear arguments from the other 
side of the aisle that there should be no religious displays in the 
public sector. We take away all mangers from the public square, any 
religious materials from government schools, yet it is okay to have 
religion displayed in public facilities as long as it is perverted and 
pornographic. I think we have a double standard.
  We talk about censorship. We try to censor all religious materials 
from our culture, yet we call it censorship if we try to take away 
pornographic and perverted art.
  To sit here and say this is not relevant at a time when we look 
across America and wonder about the loss of values, the loss of the 
value of life, the violence that we see and then say that the 
denigration of everything sacred is not important to this institution 
is forgetting a lot about what made this institution and this whole 
country. We see a total disregard for all that is sacred.
  I am thankful for the sponsors of this resolution and all who have 
spoken for it. It reminds us and all Americans that we do not need to 
sponsor from this organization this type of perversion.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is foolish both in substance 
and in principle. Foolish in substance because the Brooklyn Museum 
receives little federal money, just a few grants for educational 
projects and touring exhibitions. Foolish in principle because it is 
not the place of this Congress to bar a cultural institution from 
receiving federal money just because we may not like one exhibit it has 
chosen to display.
  First, let's take a look at the substance of this debate. The 
Brooklyn Museum of Art, a well-respected institution that serves about 
half a million people each year is presenting an exhibition that has 
received acclaim internationally. This exhibit features the works of 
some of Britain's most popular artists. In fact, this exhibition drew 
the highest attendance of any contemporary art exhibit in London in 50 
years. The most controversial pieces in the show are by Chris Ofili, a 
young British artist of Nigerian ancestry, who has won the Turner

[[Page H9273]]

Prize, a prestigious award given to the most talented young British 
artists, and whose pieces have sold for tens of thousands of dollars. 
Whatever you may think of the subject matter, this is a serious 
exhibition of work by serious artists, displayed in a respected museum.
  Supporters of this resolution will claim that they believe in the 
right of these artists to show their work, but that American taxpayers 
should not have to pay for an exhibit like this. Well, let me point out 
very clearly, that the taxpayers are not paying for this exhibition. No 
federal money went to show this exhibit. Not a dime. The Brooklyn 
Museum receives federal money, but the money it receives goes directly 
to pay for educational initiatives and touring exhibitions. Do we want 
to cut off these worthy programs because we don't like one piece of art 
that the Museum has chosen to display? That would make no sense.
  So this resolution is foolish in substance.
  But this resolution is foolish, and I would say dangerous, in 
principle. What have we come to when the United States Congress is 
condemning an individual for exercising his right to free expression? I 
thought our book burning days were over. What's next? Will we be 
closing down our public libraries because they contain books that we 
don't like? I don't like every book in the library, but I'm glad 
they're there. Will we attack the libraries for having a copy of Mein 
Kampf, Hitler's autobiography, which offends people's sensibilities? 
Where does it end?

  This exhibit is shocking. It's outrageous. Art has been called a lot 
worse since the beginning of time. But that's the point of art. It's 
meant to provoke debate and discussion. Good art makes us confront our 
own cultural norms. Does this exhibit fit my own artistic tastes? Maybe 
not. But will I defend the right of artists to express themselves and 
the right of the museum to bring various kinds of artistic expression 
to the public? You bet.
  But, this is not about one exhibit. This is about whether you support 
free expression and creativity or not. If you support the first 
amendment, you find yourself fighting to the end to defend the rights 
of people you find offensive. We would set a very dangerous precedent 
here if we vote for this resolution. For the United States Congress to 
single out one museum and one artist as sacrilegious and then to hold 
the museum hostage to the tastes of the Gentlemen from New York as a 
condition of receiving federal funds is outrageous. Politicians should 
not be deciding what is art. We've debated in this House many times 
whether the federal government should be subsidizing art. I believe we 
should, and there are many who disagree. But if we do decide to 
subsidize art, as we have for over 35 years, we must do so without 
interfering in the content. If every arts institution must suddenly 
worry that their exhibitions will not satisfy the 435 art critics in 
the House of Representatives, it will create a chilling effect in the 
cultural world.
  Frankly, I'm disappointed in my colleagues from New York who are 
supporting this resolution. New York is the capital of the art world, 
where we have a tradition of respecting the free expression of artists. 
If you don't like this exhibit, protest it, boycott the museum. Best of 
all, stay home and don't see it. But you don't need a Congressional 
Resolution to express personal outrage. It is improper and outrageous 
and it should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to strongly urge my colleagues 
to support the sense of Congress resolution which prohibits Federal 
funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless they discontinue the 
exhibit which features works of a sacrilegious nature. Thomas Jefferson 
once said, ``to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the 
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and 
tyrannical''.
  Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder. It is not the role of 
Congress to determine what is art, but it is the role of Congress to 
determine what taxpayer money will fund. The First Amendment protects 
the government from silencing voices that we may not agree with, but it 
does not require us to subsidize them.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing a 
sense of Congress that while we support everyone's right to express 
themselves artistically, we are not obligated to support them 
financially.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House 
Concurrent Resolution 191, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as 
amended, was agreed to.
  The title of the concurrent resolution was amended so as to read: 
``Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless it 
closes its exhibit featuring works of a sacrilegious nature.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________