[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23131-23132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR OFFENSIVE ART

  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, I do not know how many Members have been 
keeping track of what is going on in New York City, but I think the 
repercussions of what is going on in New York City really sweep across 
the entire country, especially when it pertains to two different 
groups, one, the taxpayers, and, two, the art community.
  Let me start at the beginning of my comments to let you know that I 
have supported the art community. I have in the past voted for the NEA 
to support their art with taxpayer dollars. I have, however, on a 
number of occasions cautioned the arts community, do not go spending 
this money on careless or offensive art. If you have careless or 
offensive art, what you need to do to fund that is to go out and raise 
the money privately or have the individuals do it on their own in a 
display somewhere else.
  That is not a violation of the Constitution or a violation of freedom 
of speech, to go to an individual who is an artist and say, look, your 
piece of work is too offensive. We are not going to pay for it with 
taxpayer dollars. That is not to say that you are banned in the United 
States from displaying your art. You do have freedom of speech; you may 
display your art. It is just that the taxpayers are not going to pay 
for it.
  So what happens in New York City? Do you think the art community, 
especially some of the prima donnas in the art community, listen to 
that kind of advice? Of course they do not. They decide to draw the 
line in the sand.
  Do you know what kind of line they are drawing? They say, look, we 
have a picture, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, and it has elephant 
dung, in my country it is known as crap, elephant crap,

[[Page 23132]]

thrown on the portrait of the Virgin Mary. That is where they decide 
they should draw the line. They want that to be continued to be funded 
by taxpayer dollars.
  Mayor Giuliani comes out and says this is offensive. Of course it is 
offensive. I wonder what the black community would do if Martin Luther 
King's portrait was there and had crap thrown on it. I wonder what 
those of us who are concerned about AIDS in this country would do if 
they put an AIDS blanket on there and threw crap on it.
  Of course it is offensive. Those communities would not tolerate it. 
They would probably take down the building. But I guess it is okay for 
the arts community in New York City, or at least the leadership of the 
prima donnas, to say it is all right to offend the Catholic religion 
and to offend Christians throughout the country.
  Let me tell you, the Jewish community could be next. For all I know, 
this museum might put on the swastika and say it is beautiful art and 
should be paid for by the taxpayer dollars.
  I am urging the art community, Mayor Giuliani is right in this case, 
and you know he is right. Those are taxpayer dollars. Do not offend the 
taxpayer, do not offend religions across this world, by allowing the 
Virgin Mary display in your museum at taxpayer expense.
  You have plenty of patrons, plenty of rich patrons that support the 
arts community. Go to your patrons and say look, will you fund this 
offensive display? By the way, I would be surprised if you have many 
that do. But will you fund this display of the Virgin Mary with crap 
thrown all over it? Will you fund it somewhere else, so we do not have 
to go to the taxpayer?
  It is amazing to me. Even the New York Times ran an editorial today, 
and they say what a courageous stand this art museum is taking by 
standing up and saying we have the right at taxpayers' expense to 
display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown on it.
  I wonder where the New York Times would be if that was an AIDS 
blanket. I wonder where the New York Times would be if that was a 
portrait of Martin Luther King or a symbol of the Jewish religion.
  It is amazing to me that the art community defies common sense every 
opportunity they seem to have. I am telling you in New York City and my 
colleagues that represent New York City, let me tell you, you are 
hurting the arts community across the United States.
  One other point I want to make, if you do think in New York City that 
this art and that what you have done here does not extend across the 
country, I am getting calls in my district, the 3rd Congressional 
District of Colorado. That is the mountains. It is a long ways away 
from New York City. But I have got constituents, rightfully so, very, 
very upset about the fact that you in New York City in that arts 
community, the prima donnas, are funding with taxpayer dollars that 
picture, that portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung thrown on it, and 
stand up and have the gall to defend it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Recently we have, of course, seen a terrible 
situation where young Christians were murdered and attacked by someone 
down in Texas. Does the gentleman believe that perhaps some of this 
vitriol he is talking about could have resulted in that type of 
violence against Christians? We will leave that for the public.

                          ____________________