[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9285-H9286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  LOCAL ACCESS TO SATELLITE RECEPTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, my district is a 
rural district in the State of Colorado, the Third Congressional 
District of Colorado. That congressional district actually is 
geographically larger than the State of Florida.
  I can tell my colleagues, it is very important out there in the rural 
areas of Colorado, as it is through most of the rural areas in the 
United States, that we have TV reception. We have become very dependent 
of late upon satellite reception. As many of my colleagues know, for 
the last 11 or so years, local access has been banned through 
satellite.
  Well, we are about to change that. We passed a bill out of the House. 
The Senate has passed a bill. I have good news tonight for those of my 
colleagues who have constituents who use satellite service for local 
access. Things are about to change.
  The conference committee I think is making good progress. I hope 
that, in the next 3 to 4 weeks, the satellite users, including many of 
my constituents in the State of Colorado, will once again have an 
opportunity for local access.


                   Exhibit at Brooklyn Museum of Art

  Mr. McINNIS. The second point I wish to address this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, is the art exhibit in New York City, the Brooklyn Art Museum. 
I made some comments about that last week. I am amazed how over the 
weekend the media has been very successful in tying the exhibit, and I 
will tell my colleagues exactly what it is, a portrait of the Virgin 
Mary with crap thrown all over it, to be quite blunt with you. They 
have made this controversy in New York City as if it is a controversy 
between the freedom of speech under the Constitutional amendment and 
people who were offended by the art.
  That is not the controversy at all. The controversy in New York City 
in that museum is that the taxpayers of the United States of America 
are being asked to pay for this art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum.

[[Page H9286]]

  Now, do my colleagues think it is appropriate for someone who is a 
taxpayer, who is a hard-working American, who is a Catholic to go out 
and take their taxpayer money to pay for a portrait to be exhibited of 
the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it? Of course it is not. It 
is as offensive to the Catholics as it is displaying a Nazi symbol by 
taxpayer dollars would be to the Jewish community, or as it would be of 
putting a portrait of Martin Luther King with crap thrown all over it 
to the black community.
  It is out of place. It is unjustified. And it is totally, totally 
inappropriate for the use of taxpayers' dollars for that kind of art.
  Now, that is not an issue of the first amendment. Nobody has said 
that they cannot display that type of art, although, frankly, I think 
they are somewhat sick in the mind when they do. But no one has said 
that they are banned from displaying that type of art.
  Instead, what we have said is they should not use taxpayers' dollars 
to fund that kind of art. This museum, with a great deal of pride, had 
their first showing this weekend; and today they announced with great 
excitement, and I hope it makes my liberal Democrats happy, they 
announced with great excitement how successful that show is.
  Well, in their hearts, they know it is wrong. They know it is wrong 
to do what they have done with taxpayer dollars. And in the end, we 
will win. We will keep the rights under the First Amendment and we will 
disallow taxpayer dollars from being used for that kind of art exhibit 
in New York City.
  I hope my colleagues reconsider, but I know that their egos probably 
will not. So I hope that all my colleagues and their constituents 
remember that they do not have to and they should not be forced to pay 
with taxpayer dollars an art exhibit such as the one displaying the 
Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it. Our country is greater than 
that, and our country stands for a lot more than that.

                          ____________________