[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2880-H2887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1600
REMOVAL OF DAVID PULPHUS' PAINTING FROM THE CANNON TUNNEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include
any extraneous material on the subject of my special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago, I was pleased to welcome David
Pulphus, a very talented young constituent of mine from St. Louis, to
the U.S. Capitol complex, as we unveiled his painting entitled,
Untitled #1, which you see here tonight.
David's work was a unanimous first-place winner in the annual
Congressional Art Competition in Missouri's First Congressional
District. I have been pleased to sponsor this competition in St. Louis
for the last 16 years without interruption and incident.
For those of you who may not know, many other Members of Congress
conduct this contest in their districts as well. In fact, this painting
was one of more than 400 student entries from across the Nation that
were reviewed, accepted, and approved last June for public display in
the Cannon tunnel by the Architect of the Capitol. Members of Congress
do not select the artists. We do not approve or disapprove of any of
the artistic concepts, and we have no role in judging the competition.
We simply provide a public forum for the most talented young artists
in our districts to display their winning artwork in the U.S. Capitol
complex. Yet, without cause or reasonable process and after being
viewed repeatedly by Members of Congress, congressional staffers, and
thousands of visitors without incident or concern, my constituent's
winning entry was removed in an act of politically motivated,
unconstitutional, retroactive censorship.
That injustice was initiated by pressure from certain alternative-
right bloggers and Mr. Eric Bolling, a host on FOX News channel, who
created a mean-spirited and factually inaccurate media campaign to
improve his ratings on the back of a young man, and to ultimately force
the painting to be removed by the Architect of the Capitol.
After repeated acts of petty theft by renegade Members of Congress
who removed the painting without any authorization and after a storm of
rightwing media pressure, the Speaker of the House forced the Architect
of the Capitol to trample on the rights of my constituent by ruling
that this painting, which he had already approved 10 months ago, was
retroactively disqualified.
This unwarranted, arbitrary, and unconstitutional act of censorship
will not stand. Now, let me be clear: I do not approve or disapprove of
this painting. I did not approve or disapprove the concept of the
artwork. I did not judge the competition, but the Architect of the
Capitol reviewed, approved, and accepted this student's artwork for
public display without incident, comment, or concern, just like every
other entry that is displayed in this public exhibition.
Only after the most hateful, intolerant, and reckless media campaign,
combined with enormous political pressure from the Speaker and other
Members, the Architect of the Capitol miraculously traveled back in
time to disqualify the very same painting that he had approved 10
months ago.
Perhaps we should advise the National Academy of Sciences of the
Architect of the Capitol's newfound ability to bend the space-time
continuum in order to retroactively respond to the most extreme voices
in the majority so that they could more easily suppress the rights of
my young constituent. It did great harm to an innocent young man who
tried to do the right thing.
Because of this outrageous act of censorship, David Pulphus has been
subjected to the most vile, racist, and hateful attacks on social media
and on talk radio. He has also been deprived of the honor of listing
his first place victory in the Congressional Art Competition on his
resume. He has even been attacked by the Speaker of the House who
called his award winning work ``disgusting.''
So on top of depriving David of his First Amendment rights, the
majority and the Architect of the Capitol have placed a terrible
personal burden on this bright, talented young man. David does not
deserve that. That is wrong. That is totally unacceptable, and the
Speaker and the Architect of the Capitol should be ashamed of
themselves.
This shameful decision also sent a chilling message to young
Americans. It told young Americans that their views are not valued.
Their voices are not respected. Their creativity and passions are not
welcome, and that is, sadly, here, in the people's House, their First
Amendment rights are no longer protected. That is a terrible precedent
to set for future generations who look to us to defend their freedoms.
So my friends, this is really not about a student art competition
anymore. It is about defending the Constitution. It is just pathetic
that some Republican Members and rightwing media types who constantly
refer to
[[Page H2881]]
themselves as constitutional conservatives don't think that that same
document protects the fundamental free speech rights of my young
constituent.
You can be certain that I will fight to defend this young man's right
to express himself because his artwork is true for him, and he is
entitled to that protection under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Clay for his discussion
here. I think it is courageous and necessary. To begin with, the
painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol was an infringement
on the free speech rights of the artist and on the Congressman,
yourself, Mr. Clay, from Missouri.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that:
``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .
. '' And it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech
guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual arts. This
is true even when such expression may be offensive to many people or to
some people.
While Members who removed the artist's painting may have acted based
on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that belief
cannot trump the free-speech rights of the artist and of you, yourself,
Congressman Clay. I congratulate you for putting this discussion into
the Record.
Mr. Speaker. This past January within the very confines of the
Capitol complex, we witnessed a direct assault against the First
Amendment when several Republican Members of Congress unilaterally
removed a painting by high school senior David Pulphus from the 2016.
Congressional Art Competition display in the Cannon Tunnel.
The painting, sponsored by our colleague--Representative William Lacy
Clay--had been displayed in the Cannon Tunnel along with more than 400
winners of the Art Competition for nearly 7 months without incident or
comment.
And, rather than upholding the artist's right to free expression and
Representative Clay's prerogative to sponsor student artwork from his
district, the Architect of the Capitol capitulated to political
pressure generated by the right-wing media outlets and ratified these
Members' acts of vigilante censorship by having the painting
permanently removed from the Congressional Art Competition display in
the Cannon Tunnel.
This artwork, seemingly inspired by the events in Ferguson, Missouri
in 2014 and other incidents that sparked tension between police and
minority communities, depicts a protest, with two police officers and a
young man facing each other in a standoff, all of three which have
animalistic features.
In the background, protesters look on and a young man of color
appears to be depicted in a crucifixion tableau.
Whatever message one draws from this painting, several things are
quite clear.
To begin with, the painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol
was an infringement on the free speech rights of Mr. Pulphus and
Representative Clay.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that
``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.''
And, it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech
guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual art.
This is true even when such expression may be deeply offensive to
many people.
As the Supreme Court recognized in F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, the
``fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient
reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that
gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it
constitutional protection.''
While the Members who removed Mr. Pulphus's painting may have acted
based on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that
belief cannot trump the free speech rights of the artist and
Representative Clay.
Nor does it justify the Architect's removal of the painting in
response to pressure from these and other Members who found the
painting offensive.
Once the House established the Congressional Art Competition and
opened the Cannon Tunnel to display artwork sponsored by each
individual Member office, it created a limited public forum.
Having created such a forum, individual House Members and the
Architect cannot then constitutionally discriminate against expression
within that forum based on the viewpoint expressed.
Yet, that is precisely what happened here.
Unfortunately, the painting's removal was part of a broader pattern
of behavior by the Majority to undermine the fundamental right of free
expression in the House.
For instance, in January the House adopted an unconstitutional gag
rule that would allow the imposition of fines of up to $2,500 on a
Member for using an electronic device to record, post, or live-stream
activity on the House floor.
This rule was a thinly-veiled response to the protest undertaken last
year by Democratic Members on the House floor with regard to the
Majority's failure to consider comprehensive gun reform.
The rule is a direct attack against the Minority's right to political
expression and it is clearly intended to stifle the American public's
ability to access that expression.
While it is easy to think that these matters concern only one young
artist or a group of House Members, every American should be deeply
concerned about such kinds of censorship.
Tyranny starts in small ways. Censor a painting here, a poem there.
Ban photos in some instances, videos in others.
When such seemingly minor acts go unanswered, it invites more
oppressive conduct in the future.
Ensuring freedom requires vigilance and a willingness to push back
vigorously against every instance of censorship.
This is why I applaud the federal lawsuit filed by Mr. Pulphus and
Representative Clay seeking to vindicate their free speech rights
though it is shameful that they were forced to go to court at all.
And, while the trial court incorrectly concluded that the First
Amendment does not protect Mr. Pulphus and Representative Clay, I am
confident this conclusion will be overturned on appeal.
All Americans must be free to speak truth to power.
Therefore, it is imperative that we draw a line in the sand now, lest
we encourage further and even more troubling acts of censorship in the
future.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan, the ranking
member of the House Judiciary Committee.
At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Adams), my friend, an art education Ph.D., a gallery owner and artist,
and member of the Congressional Arts Caucus.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank my colleague
from Missouri, Representative Clay, for his concern, for his courage,
for standing up and speaking up to ensure that his constituents' and
others' First Amendment rights are protected by this Congress, and for
organizing this Special Order hour this evening.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to join Representative Clay,
and I proudly stand with him and my other colleagues to speak in
defense of the First Amendment rights afforded to citizens of the
Constitution of the United States.
As the 12th District Representative from North Carolina, as a
practicing professional artist and art educator, as a curator, as a
retired 40-year college arts professor, I am pleased to join with
Representative Clay in expressing my support for freedom of visual
expression and creativity, especially when it comes to supporting
talented young students.
I have learned through my professional arts education and management
careers that, yes, the arts are nice, but, beyond being nice, they are
absolutely necessary and essential in helping enrich our lives. The
arts are unique to our being, and they are what make us human.
Artists connect the past to the present, they convey our unique
experiences, and they are presented in many forms--sometimes familiar,
other times unfamiliar. The arts are a universal language that speak to
people everywhere to help them to understand diversity, cultures, and
some of the most complicated of issues. Therefore, having the freedom
to make art is essential to creative expression.
Freedom of expression is everyone's freedom. And our Founding Fathers
enshrined the expressions of freedom of speech in all forms--in music,
in written and spoken word, in theater, and through visual imagery and
composition--in the Bill of Rights.
Under the First Amendment, all art forms and all artistic expressions
are constitutionally protected. Our Founding Fathers who created our
country and launched our Nation as the world's role model in democracy
believed that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were important
enough to guarantee protection in our country's
[[Page H2882]]
founding documents. If our Founding Fathers, the brightest minds of
that generation, thought that artistic expression was important enough
to protect in our Bill of Rights, then what right do we have to take
this away and censor the artistic community?
The ACLU said: ``. . . a free society is based on the principle that
each and every individual has the right to decide what art or
entertainment he or she wants--or does not want--to receive or create.
Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it
the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like
poison gas: A powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.''
As a nation, we face many threats, both internally and externally. We
are a Nation of diverse thought, diverse people, and strong diverse
principles. However, when we stand by and allow our artistic community
to be censored or allow threats to silence our press, we become our own
greatest threat. And when we reject facts and censor artistic
expression just because it makes us uncomfortable or because we don't
like it, we are becoming the tyrants that our Founding Fathers risked
their lives to protect and escape from.
So the question of what is appropriate art is not a new question.
Since the beginning of our country, our citizens have wrestled with
what to do when they are offended by a work or art in any form. Court
case after court case has tested governmental censorship of artistic
expression, and the Supreme Court has continued to uphold our founding
principles of freedom of expression and speech.
In the 1931 case, Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court ruled
that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. The ruling
ensured that all art forms, music, paintings, plays, and other artistic
expressions are protected by the First Amendment.
In the 1982 decision, the Board of Education v. Pico, the Supreme
Court ruled that local school boards may not remove books from school
library shelves simply because they disliked the ideas contained in
those books. Like the removal of the books from libraries, the removal
of Mr. Pulphus' painting was a blatant violation of his First Amendment
rights.
The First Amendment guarantees that our government cannot make
substantive decisions about the content of a work of art. Expression
can only be limited if, and only if, that expression will cause direct
and imminent harm such as yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater.
{time} 1615
Our government's role is not to censor but to ensure that artists are
able to freely express themselves without fear of censorship. Our
government did not protect this young man's First Amendment rights.
Instead, it acted as a retroactive censor on his work.
Here is an example of our government making a decision based on
content they disapproved of and preventing this work because of its
subject and because some legislators weren't knowledgeable enough about
it to understand it from being displayed in a public place.
Justice Louis Brandeis, in his defense of free speech, wrote:
It is hazardous to discourage thought and hope and
imagination; that fear breeds repression, and that repression
breeds hate, and that hate menaces stable government. The
path to safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely
supposed grievances and proposed remedies.
Justice Brandeis' words were written in 1927, 90 years ago, almost a
century, but they still echo true today. Censorship out of fear, out of
misunderstanding or pain or dislike of a work is fundamentally anti-
American and unconstitutional.
For more than 4 decades as a visual arts professor, I taught my
students that you are going to see a lot of art throughout your
lifetime. Some images you will like and some you won't especially like.
And some will be disturbing and some confusing. But I reminded my
students that their responsibility as viewers was to make every attempt
to be able to say that you don't like it because you at least
understand it.
Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power. Mr. Pulphus' work did not create
direct or imminent harm, but his work did depict an uncomfortable
reality that is pervasive across our country.
Unfortunately, violence is a way of life in many communities
throughout America. As a matter of fact, it is too prevalent. But for
this young man, violence in his community was a life that he knew most
of his life. It was a life he was intrinsically as an artist compelled
to visually talk about on his canvas.
As a matter of fact, he had a right to talk about it, and, in
reality, he needed to talk about it. I admire him for his courage. As a
teacher, I can tell you that, visually, his utilization of
compositional elements and principles and forms showed an extraordinary
talent.
In my estimation, we failed as viewers to do our part, and we didn't
make an effort to really see, but we just merely looked at the work.
But most especially, we didn't seize the opportunity to learn so that
we could enhance our capacity to build and reinforce positive
relationships in our community.
This painting offered us a chance to have a real conversation about
race and police and community violence and institutional racism. But
instead of seizing this opportunity, we have to continue to fight to
protect this young artist's First Amendment rights.
Heated debate and discussion is the hallmark of our democracy.
However, when arguments are censored, when the artists are told what
they are able to produce, when expression is silenced, our democracy is
then threatened.
And since this incident, as you have heard, the Congressional
Institute has changed the rules for the Congressional Art Competition.
Work submitted to the competition depicting contemporary political
controversy or sensationalist or gruesome nature are not allowed.
But I am not here to criticize the work of the Congressional
Institute, but as a professional artist myself, only to ask this
question: What benefit can come from limiting our young artists from
creating?
A democracy works when people stay engaged, when people participate.
But by censoring what is in our public spaces, we are creating barriers
for political discourse and we are creating fear of retaliation.
Artists are visual storytellers and we are entrusted with a unique
responsibility to use the power of the arts to inform, to educate, and
to empower our communities.
Noted African-American artist and scholar Dr. Samella Lewis of
California said that ``African-American artists have a primary
obligation to community, to understand, and to use the elements of
their cultural heritage to produce an art that is diverse, reflecting
our diverse interests, materials techniques, and to communicate those
messages to the audiences we want to reach.''
Removing this young man's work was a degrading and insensitive
action, which signaled to this young, aspiring, gifted student that his
work is valueless, that his story is not worthy to be told. But most
especially, it put into question the right and the responsibility that
he has as an artist to express himself in visual imagery and symbolic
competition.
It is not up to the government to decide what work has value or whose
story should be told. The removal of Mr. Pulphus' work sets a dangerous
precedent. Congress is now making content decisions on works displayed
in the U.S. Capitol and is limiting what types of art will be
exhibited. To some, this issue may not seem important, but the scope of
the actions that have taken place in the U.S. Capitol is tremendous.
Just because somebody's sensibility is offended doesn't give that
person the right to ban or censor a work. In fact, the First Amendment
prevents that.
However, as this gross overreach of power in removing his work
proves, just because the Constitution prevents something doesn't always
mean that it won't happen. But it is our duty to hold our government
responsible for protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
That is why I am honored, as a 40-year arts educator, as a member of
the Congressional Art Caucus, and as a professional artist to join
Representative Clay and all of my colleagues in speaking today about
the importance of the First Amendment as it relates to the creative and
the professional obligations and rights of the visual artist.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for
[[Page H2883]]
her thoughts, her words, as well as her expertise in the field of art.
She is probably the only qualified art critic serving in Congress
today. So thank I thank her so much.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen), my friend, an attorney and former legal adviser to the
Memphis Police Department.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I, indeed, also enjoyed the remarks that just
preceded me and that Mr. Conyers made and Mr. Clay made concerning this
issue.
I rise today in support of art, freedom of expression, freedom of
speech, but also Black Lives Matter and police officers who follow the
rules, which 98 percent or more do, who treat citizens appropriately
and risk their lives to keep us safe. And I mourn each officer that
loses their life or is injured in protecting us and having ordered
liberty.
But I rise in opposition to censorship, which is anathema to me, and
police officers who go beyond the law--that percentage that do--and
soil the badge they wear and use deadly force inappropriately, which
has occurred too many times sometimes because they just don't react
properly in the heat of battle, sometimes for other reasons, too often
upon Black people, which does tend to indicate a prejudice that exists
in certain people's minds. Black lives do matter, and people haven't
recognized that, and we need to.
The removal of David Pulphus' painting from the Cannon tunnel is
troubling on many levels. It raises serious questions about Congress'
commitment to the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of
expression. We take an oath to support the Constitution and should do
so in our actions as well as our words, as well as in our oath.
Benjamin Franklin warned us that freedom of speech is a principal
pillar of a free government. When this support is taken away, the
constitution of a free society is dissolved.
Secondly, it raises serious questions about censorship.
Unfortunately, in my hometown of Memphis, we have a history that is
sometimes not so good on particular cases of race and free expression.
That long history of artistic censorship oftentimes related to race
as well as sex, and for nearly 3 decades, in the early part of the 20th
century, Memphis had a censor, a public censor, appointed by the
government named Lloyd T. Binford. He served as the chairman of the
Memphis Board of Censors. They banned movies. They banned movies like
``Curley'' in the 1940s because it showed White and Black children in
school together.
He prevented Memphians from seeing major celebrities like Lena Horne,
Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole, Cab Calloway in our local movie
theaters. He was a racist. ``Binfordizing'' became a word. Artistic
words that were wrong and Congress must be ever mindful of the slippery
slope of censorship.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, this painting raises serious
questions about public policy. Congress should be debating questions of
public policy, not banning expressions of them.
The events that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, which are well
expressed by this painting, were a wake-up call to many in our Nation
about police use of deadly force, injustice in our inner cities, and
turmoil rising in our inner cities.
Sobering questions about the fairness of our criminal justice system
and about race were raised. And a painting such as this that reflects
those issues is most appropriate for display in the hallway where these
paintings and artworks are shown because it is representative of a
major slice of America in that year.
That, more than most other paintings and artworks there, show
something that is relevant to what is happening today and has occupied
the news in a major way.
For too long, justice has seemed too lacking, and we saw it in
Ferguson. Mr. Clay and I have worked together for display of this
artwork. I questioned some professors on another issue, lawyers that
specialize in First Amendment issues, speech issues in the Judiciary
Committee, and to a one they said it appeared to be censorship and was
wrong and was violative.
Of course there is some talk that, well, it is government speech and
maybe that is different. But you know some of the same people that have
opposed this painting are the same people that say the rules should
apply to Congress. Whatever laws we pass should apply to Congressmen
the same as they apply to other people, and we shouldn't have special
privileges. But those people decided on their own to exempt a painting
they found distasteful which wouldn't have been prohibited anyplace
else because of free speech. They violated their own precepts; the same
precepts they may be violating today in other rooms where they are
discussing a health bill that will exempt them from the health bill
sanctions or requirements and not require them, if they live in a
State, to not have the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
So I rise today to commend Congressman Clay for his work, to thank
him for his work with me and Senator Duckworth on the Police Training
and Independent Review Act, which the need for is expressed here in
this artwork. That is why it is so important.
This communicates a story. Beauty is wonderful, and a lot of the
artwork is photographs and beauty. Nice. Fine. Places, fine. Content
and ideas are more important. It is always more important to have
artwork that challenges your mind and makes you think: What is this
about?
As I look at this painting and I think about it, sure, there are a
couple of police officers--two police officers in particular--in a
certain manner of being displayed. But there is a third police officer
on the right that is not shown this same way. And if you look at this
painting, you can see this painting says: not all police officers are
the same. Some are questionable, some aren't. It revolved around a
major incident in our city, St. Louis, Ferguson, but the arch is in
there and expresses that well.
This painting should not have been removed. Congressman Clay is right
to stand up for the First Amendment and for his constituent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help restore this painting to
its rightful place in the Cannon tunnel and to allow people to see it
and make their own decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and appreciate being a part of this.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, let me also thank my friend from Tennessee who
happens to be a member of the House Judiciary Committee. As he stated,
we are working together on police reform legislation. I appreciate his
services.
Mr. COHEN. And I am an art critic.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, he is an art critic.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), my friend, a Constitutional scholar and professor.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Clay for convening us this
evening to discuss this very important matter.
Why is it so important?
Well, we live in a time of rampant official lawlessness and
disrespect for the Constitution of the United States.
But I am not here to talk about the Emoluments Clause or the power of
Congress to declare war, or about equal protection. I am here to join
my colleagues in talking about an incident of artistic discrimination
committed by this institution, an assault on the First Amendment.
Why is it so important?
I was thinking about a professor I had who wrote a book about broken
windows. The thesis of the book basically was that if windows are
broken in the neighborhood and nothing is done about it, it sends the
message that you can go on to bigger and better things. In other words,
petty crimes and misdemeanors unaddressed go on to become high crimes
and misdemeanors.
When we started the 115th Congress, unfortunately, within the first
week or two, we started with a broken Constitutional window, Mr. Clay,
because we allowed, we tolerated, and we countenanced an act of
vigilante discrimination and censorship by certain Members against
speech by the constituents of other Members.
So I want to tell the story to the people of America, especially the
young people of America, who have open minds and open hearts, and I am
delighted that so many young people are in the chamber tonight to hear
about what happened here because this is a very important moment in the
history of this institution.
[[Page H2884]]
{time} 1630
Now, I am a professor of constitutional law by training. I did that
for 25 years before I came to Congress, and I teach, also, the First
Amendment.
There are six rights contained in the First Amendment, and I hope all
of you learn the six rights. They are: the right to petition for a
redress of grievances; the free exercise of religion; the right of
assembly; the right of free press; the right of no establishment of
religion; and then, last but certainly not least, the right of freedom
of speech.
Here in Congress, since 1982, we have had a Congressional Arts
Competition. It is a magnificent statement of American values. We
invite Members from every district in America--there are 435 districts
here, plus five Delegates who come from territories or the District of
Columbia--so there are a total of 440 that are eligible.
Each one impanels a group of artists. They have a whole process, and
the best artwork is adjudicated and then brought to Washington. You can
find them in the tunnel connecting the Cannon House Office Building to
the Capitol Building, to the Chamber where we are right now. There are
hundreds of beautiful, extraordinary, interesting, vivacious,
controversial paintings done by the young people of America.
So what is the issue? Well, we are living in a time of political
correctness. Let's say it plain. Sometimes the political correctness
comes from the left. It happened recently at Berkeley in California,
where the college canceled a planned appearance by Ann Coulter, a
rightwing commentator whose views are totally anathema to me, but they
canceled her speech.
Now, in fairness to Berkeley, they said there had been violence there
and they thought there might be violence again. But there was such a
storm of outrage about this example of a kind of leftwing political
correctness, they reversed the decision and they said she could come.
They understood it was their responsibility to make sure that her
speech could proceed without being disrupted and broken up, so they did
the right thing.
What are we experiencing here right where you sit in the Congress of
the United States, in the House of Representatives? We are experiencing
an example of a rightwing political correctness run amok. It is
rightwing political censorship because some people didn't like somebody
else's expression. Instead of walking on to the next painting, they
decided to take it down, remove it, and return it to the office of
Congressman Clay. Not once, not twice, not three times, not four times,
but five times they took this painting down.
Congressman Clay and I wrote a letter to Speaker Ryan protesting this
act of vigilante censorship right here in the Congress of the United
States. Speaker Ryan, instead of standing up for the First Amendment,
instead of standing up for the Speech and Debate Clause, instead of
standing up for artistic expression, instead of standing up for freedom
and teaching a lesson to the young people of America, he called the
painting disgusting and then initiated an official process whereby they
censored it. For the first time in the history of this competition
going back to 1982, 35 years, they censored a painting.
Now, luckily they have made this young artist one of the most famous
artists in America now, and we can all wish him nothing but magnificent
fortune as he goes ahead to develop his skills and his artistic voice.
They were not able, I hope, to crush the spirit of this young man, but
they did something really deeply injurious to the Republic of the
United States. They engaged in an act of naked viewpoint discrimination
against a work of art.
Now, what are the constitutional values here that need to be
vindicated for artists like David Pulphus or the winner from my
district last year, Alannah Van Horn, who did a self-portrait?
Let's just be clear about one thing: these paintings hung for 6
months before the vigilante censors in the House of Representatives
decided to come and take them down. For 6 months, they didn't harm
anybody, they didn't hurt anybody, they didn't cause a riot, they
didn't cause a ruckus, nothing--until they decided somehow that this
painting ran afoul of their political correctness litmus test for what
is acceptable in Congress.
So what is really at stake here? Well, first of all, it is the rights
of the Member who sponsored this painting.
I want to say I am so impressed by the courage and the strength and
the determination of Representative Clay to stand with his constituent
and his constituency as well as with the Constitution here.
He brought a First Amendment lawsuit with Mr. Pulphus not for money,
not for damages, but for a preliminary and permanent injunction against
congressional censorship of this painting. So they went to court.
They had a very simple argument. The First Amendment says Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That is it. That is
one of the six rights that I referenced when I opened my speech.
Congress can't sensor speech.
Congress just censored speech.
The judge in the case, Judge Bates of the United States District
Court, rendered a fascinating opinion. He found that this was indeed a
clear case of viewpoint discrimination. It was censorship based on the
views or the perspective of the artist. There was little doubt, he
said, the government was engaged in a blatant act of viewpoint
discrimination.
There are lots of cases that make clear that viewpoint discrimination
is unacceptable in the United States, like Rosenberger v. University of
Virginia, which said that UVA could not set up a program for young
journalists and newspapers and magazines at UVA and exclude those from
a religious point of view. The Court said, if you are going to set up a
forum for speech like that, you can't single out one point of view and
then suppress it.
It was the same idea in Texas v. Johnson in 1995, when the Supreme
Court said that the right to burn a flag as a political protest is
constitutionally protected. You don't have to agree with it, but other
people have the right to burn the flag if it is their flag. That is
their property.
The Court pointed out also that, in America, flag burning is the
proper mode of flag disposal. If you look at the flag treatment
protocol, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts burn flags all the time. So, if
you punish someone for burning a flag, you are punishing them for a
thought crime; you are not punishing them for an action which is done
all the time in the United States.
In any event, the Court says viewpoint discrimination is
unacceptable. Nonetheless, Judge Bates said that Congressman Clay
doesn't win. Why? It is because of where it took place. He said that
the hallway in the Cannon House Office Building leading to the Capitol
is not a public forum of any kind. It is not a traditional public forum
like a street or park. It is not a limited public forum, something that
is set up for the expression of speech, which is precisely what you
would think it is. It is not even a nonpublic forum, Judge Bates says.
Judge Bates says that the 440 paintings down there are government
speech.
Now, that doesn't make any sense. We have lots of people who are in
the gallery tonight, and I assume you passed by these paintings on the
way over. If you didn't, check them out.
I challenge anybody in America to go down to the tunnel and look at
the paintings and regard the magnificent diversity of views and
perspectives embodied in this one painting, for example, and say that
it is government speech. In fact, the reason it was censored is because
it wasn't government speech.
Yet, the court got it wrong. Now, I am not going to say really nasty
things about him. I am not President of the United States. I am not
going to say that he is a nonjudge or a so-called judger. I think that
he made a serious mistake. I think the D.C. Circuit will reverse it. I
think the U.S. Supreme Court would reverse it.
You know what? It doesn't make any difference, because everyone who
has the honor of serving in this Chamber takes an oath to the
Constitution of the United States. We have got to uphold the First
Amendment. That is a responsibility that we have got. And we can't just
say, ``Oh, we will let a court deal with it.'' We have got to deal with
the First Amendment.
And it is very clear--the court said it itself--this was viewpoint
discrimination. That is unacceptable. And we
[[Page H2885]]
should say that, yes, the Constitution applies in the Congress of the
United States. We don't hold ourselves exempt from it. We don't say, if
we set up a forum for young artists to bring their paintings in, that
we are speaking. That doesn't make any sense. They are the ones
speaking.
So where do we go from here?
Well, we are appealing to Speaker Ryan and to our friends in the
majority to back off of the regime of rightwing political correctness.
Just like it was wrong for Berkeley to try to sensor Ann Coulter, as
much as many of us abhor everything she says and stands for, it is
equally wrong for the Republican majority here to sensor Mr. Pulphus
for your subjective interpretation of what his painting means.
One of the reasons why the Supreme Court has always said you can't
sensor art is because art is polysemous. What does that mean? It means
it is open to multiple possible significances. Who is to say what this
painting means or what Guernica means?
Guernica, by the way, would certainly be censored under the
principles that are being advanced here because it is sensationalistic
or it deals with contemporary controversy. I mean, what art doesn't
deal with contemporary controversy? I mean, it just doesn't make any
sense what they are saying.
So I think that the majority should really rethink whether it wants
to be in the business of censorship. This is not Russia. This is not
Azerbaijan. This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. This is the
United States of America.
People have a right to paint the painting that they want. If you
don't like the painting, you go to the next painting. You don't take it
down, especially in the Congress of the United States where we should
be setting an example. Justice Brandeis said government is the
omnipresent teacher to the people of the constitutional values of the
whole society.
Now, we have got one other serious problem I want to mention before I
go because, you see, before they engaged in this act of censorship
against this young artist who was from St. Louis who was obviously
upset about what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, and painted this
painting which I think is actually a very interesting, captivating
painting that reminds me of Picasso's Guernica and clearly evokes
themes from George Orwell's ``Animal Farm,'' before they did that, you
didn't have to agree with any particular painting or sculpture or
artwork in the Capitol complex, right?
We have great champions of freedom and justice in the Republic who
are portrayed all over the Capitol complex, like Abraham Lincoln, for
example, like Rosa Parks, like Martin Luther King, like Lyndon Johnson,
like Sojourner Truth.
You know what? We also have people who are traitors to the country,
people who were Confederate conspirators against the United States,
like John Breckinridge, a guy who served as a U.S. Senator and as Vice
President of the United States and then defected from the Union, took
up arms against the United States of America, and was declared a
traitor and stripped of his titles as a former Vice President and a
former Senator.
There is Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. There is
a statue of him up. Robert E. Lee, obviously the general for the
Confederacy during the Civil War. There is John C. Calhoun, who
defected from the Union and took up arms against us.
So we have these portraits, statues, and busts of great Americans who
stood for freedom, justice, and equality in America and the
Constitution. And we have people who got themselves into trouble and, I
think, brought disgrace to themselves with what they did. But they were
all up together.
Now that we are entering into a new area of authoritarian thought
control and censorship and political correctness in Congress, how can
we have a statue of John Breckinridge up in the Capitol complex? How
can we have Jefferson Davis up in the Capitol complex?
If this is government speech, now we are going to have to litigate
each one of these artistic displays to see whether or not they are
actually consistent with the values of the United States Congress and
consistent with the values of the U.S. Constitution. Is that where we
want to go?
I invite my colleagues--I beseech my colleagues--don't take us there.
Reverse this act of censorship against this young man. Don't set out to
crush his spirit. Don't step on the First Amendment. Show America that
we believe in the Constitution. Otherwise, we are going to be engaged
in some very interesting discussions about the kinds of artwork that
are found all over the Capitol campus.
I just want to salute, again, Congressman Clay for bringing us
together and all of my colleagues who have come forward to stand up for
the First Amendment tonight.
{time} 1645
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Maryland who, as
we heard, his 25 years of knowledge on the U.S. Constitution bodes well
for this entire body, and I appreciate his friendship and his support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office watching this
debate, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come down. I ran
down the stairs because I wanted to speak to this issue.
Now, it really doesn't matter what anybody in here thinks about what
I think is a pretty amazing piece of art. Under the banner of artistic
discovery--that is the competition that we have, artistic discovery--we
are inviting young people, high school students, to express themselves,
sometimes to find themselves in the artwork that they do, to clarify
ideals for themselves and to challenge people. What is art about, if
not that?
So, in my office right now, we are putting together the artwork that
has been submitted from the high schools in our district. We take very
great pride in our artistic discovery contests, and so we are
collecting that artwork.
But as we looked at the instructions before we did it, we saw this
new addition that just came up, first time. How long is this? Thirty-
two years we have been doing this? This is the first year that it
includes suitability guidelines, and it makes very clear that subjects
of contemporary political controversy are not allowed.
Then we have to sign, each Member of Congress will be required to
submit a letter of support for their work of art. This letter is to
ensure that the Member has seen the artwork before it is submitted, has
taken responsibility for the content, and has certified that the
artwork, in the Member's opinion, adheres to the suitability
guidelines.
Now, of course it says: ``While it is not the intent to censor any
artwork, we do wish to avoid artwork that is potentially inappropriate
for display in this highly traveled area leading to the Capitol.''
What the heck does that really mean? Does that mean that people are
not--you know, we have to worry about is somebody going to take offense
at something or say, ``Ooh, I don't like that picture''? They are
entitled to do it, and the artist is entitled to put it out here.
Now, it so happens that none of the pieces that were submitted, I
think, were unsuitable, but who the heck knows anymore? Who makes the
decision about what is unsuitable? I don't know.
Some of the--if you look down the hall and look at some of them, some
of those self-portraits, I don't know, these kids look troubled to me.
Is that something that ought to be taken down? No. Absolutely no.
This young person lived through a traumatic incident in his community
and I think, quite artistically, decided to express his feelings about
it. I think it is absolutely an outrage. We already heard about the
violation of the Constitution, but each and every American should be
offended by that and about these suitable guidelines. I am sorry. I
object. I hope you do too.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), my friend and dean of the Ohio delegation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Clay for organizing this
Special Order, and the people of Ohio in my district stand with him and
with the young artist I will discuss in a moment.
The United States of America and this Capitol stand as a symbol of
American values and our freedoms. It just so
[[Page H2886]]
happens I represent a district that contains 2 of the 10 finest museums
in America, at Cleveland and Toledo. We know a little bit about
artistic expression.
Here in the Capitol, we have created a place to gather and celebrate
our Nation's highest ideals, and first and foremost among these is the
right of every citizen to freely express themselves as equal citizens.
A recent act of censorship here at the Capitol placed this American
right under threat, and it is important that all Americans think about
this and know about it. I speak to say this action cannot be tolerated.
I stand with my distinguished colleagues and with the American people
to speak out against the removal of David Pulphus' award-winning
painting from the United States Capitol.
There was a famous French artist named Edgar Degas, who said: ``Art
is not what you see, but what you make others see.'' Surely, surely,
David Pulphus' painting does this. And I support Mr. Pulphus' continued
efforts to appeal a preliminary decision by the District of Columbia
Federal Circuit Court that rejected his First Amendment legal claims,
and that case will move forward.
In May 2016, his extraordinary acrylic painting that reveals deep
meaning, which he named Untitled #1, was awarded the prestigious honor
to represent Missouri's First Congressional District in the
Congressional Arts Competition.
I have entered, for three decades, works from my district in this
competition; and just like the other 434 pieces selected to represent a
congressional district in the annual competition, Untitled #1 was
approved and accepted by the Architect of the Capitol for public
display inside our Capitol.
For over 26 weeks, Untitled #1 hung in the underground tunnel between
the Capitol and the Cannon House Office Building. For over 180 days
there was no controversy. And for more than half a year, citizens and
Members of Congress, congressional staff, thousands and thousands of
international and national visitors passed by and viewed it with no
concern.
But that changed abruptly when, in fact, a Member from the Republican
side of the aisle, I think, likely violated the law and pulled it off
the wall in the Capitol of the United States. It didn't belong to him,
but he did that. And, I dare say, that gentleman missed the deeper
meaning of what this young man has portrayed.
There was an added twist of irony in that the censorship moment
occurred 1 day after our national holiday honoring civil rights icon
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The censorship sent a woeful and chilling message to our Nation and
one that says that our young people's voices and their thoughts are not
respected. I say that is un-American. Their views and experiences and
perspectives must be valued.
When we look at what was done, his freedom of expression, even when
expressed through a juried competition, is not protected in the top
site of liberty's essence, the legislative branch inside the United
States Capitol Building.
So Members of Congress have to take a stand. We must demand that the
creative contributions of Americans, young and old, in the arts are
embraced, including inside this Capitol. We cannot tolerate actions
that directly and unjustly stifle or threaten an artist's artistic
point of view. That is what America is all about.
David Pulphus' painting won the honor to represent Missouri's First
Congressional District because it reflects an important, compelling
message. His work reminds us of the value of the arts in a free
society.
The painting was inspired by the civil unrest that occurred in
Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, and it depicts the racial confrontation
that ensued with police after that fatal shooting of the unarmed teen,
Michael Brown, Jr.
This is a complex work and it does not deserve anyone's rejection. It
tells us about ourselves and our society so that we face it fully. And
if you look at it, there are serious messages in here that say, ``Stop
Killing,'' ``Racism Kills.'' It talks about ``History.''
And if you really look at it, you see that some of those involved in
the killing, there is no right side. One of the perpetrators is
portrayed as a wolf. It is very interesting to study the deeper
meaning. This painting includes challenging images: a man being
crucified, wearing a graduation cap, holding the scales of justice.
This is a young man, he is not even 20 years old, thinking about
this.
There is a horned beast in a police uniform tangling with a devil
with a pointed tail--looks like a wolf--and demonstration signs that
read ``History'' and ``Stop Killing.''
Simply put, this commanding work of art from a teenager is a true
testament to the power and immeasurable significance of our Nation's
young artists who express us.
The debate sparked by its removal from the Capitol is about something
larger than the artwork itself. It is about defending our fundamental
First Amendment freedom. This right to artistic expression is
considered objectionable by a few and applauded by the vast majority of
Americans who understand what free expression in this society is about.
Neither the Architect of the Capitol nor a Member of Congress has the
right to censor, self-censor citizens based on their political points
of view, whether in the name of official decorum or because they find
it offensive or because they fail to grasp its deep meaning.
In America, if you do not like a painting you see in a display, you
simply move on to the next one. You don't take it down. It doesn't
belong to you.
Nevertheless, as a painter myself and citizen who deeply reveres our
constitutional rights, I am confident that in this case justice
ultimately will prevail and Untitled #1 will soon resume its rightful
place inside our Capitol because a young man with this depth of
expression is proudly an American. If it doesn't come back, I fear for
the slippery slope the Architect of the Capitol has begun, and it is
not worthy of us as Americans.
I want to thank Congressman Clay so very much for standing by this
young American who is not even 18 years old yet, I don't think, and who
managed to put this complex piece of art together. I am so proud of
him; I am so proud of our country; and I just know that, working
together, we are going to get it right for artistic expression here in
the House of Representatives.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. I certainly
appreciate her support.
In closing, let me say that the student artist in question, my
constituent, David Pulphus, is a great young man. He is academically
gifted, artistically talented, and is now a freshman in college. He is
doing everything that we encourage young Americans to do to become
successful citizens.
His winning entry is a colorful, symbolic representation of the great
anger, pain, frustration, and deep deficit in trust for local law
enforcement that many young African Americans feel in their hearts. The
painting also reflects generations of struggle, sacrifice, abuse of
power, and tenuous relationships between minorities and a system of
justice that still provides equal justice for some, but not for all.
{time} 1700
So the larger, much more fundamental question is: Why does this young
American feel that way, and what can we do as leaders of a
compassionate and just nation to finally remedy that?
I am so thankful for the remarkable public service of my exceptional
pro bono legal team who are guiding this case, including Dr. Laurence
Tribe of Harvard University School of Law, Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky of the
University of California, Irvine School of Law, and others. As a Member
of Congress who reveres the Constitution, I am confident that freedom
and justice will prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2887]]
____________________