Floor Statement - National Endowment for the Arts

ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Ashcroft, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 94, strike lines 3 through 26.

On page 106, beginning with line 8, strike all through page 107, line 2.

On page 107, lines 3 and 4, strike 'National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are' and insert 'National Endowment for the Humanities is'.

On page 107, lines 8 and 9, strike 'for the Arts and the National Endowment'.

On page 107, lines 11 and 12, strike 'for the Arts or the National Endowment'.

On page 108, beginning with line 12, strike all through page 110, line 11.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my amendment to the Interior appropriations bill is a very simple one. It eliminates all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment has been considered by the Senate in the past, unfortunately unsuccessfully. I know where the votes are, but I believe it is important we make a statement about this because I do not believe the Federal Government should be spending money for this.

This amendment does not try to reform the agency. This amendment does not try to restructure the agency. It simply shuts it down in fiscal year 2000.

I want to take a little different tack on this. Many who have spoken in the past on the National Endowment for the Arts, as far as elimination of funding, have focused heavily on some of the reprehensible and repulsive, frankly, types of material that has been displayed and called 'art.' I am not going to do that this morning. Most Members are fully aware of the kinds of things that have been funded by this agency.

I remind every Member that we took an oath to support the Constitution. All of us at one point stood right where the pages are now sitting and said that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. I certainly believe that every Member took that oath seriously. That is why I am hopeful I might be able to persuade my colleagues to support this amendment because, frankly, whatever opinion you may have of it, is unconstitutional to have the National Endowment for the Arts funded by the Federal Government. I can prove that.

A constituent challenged me on this one time and wrote:

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

Let me repeat:

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

I challenge any of my colleagues to show me that in the Constitution, and I will reconsider my amendment.

I offer this amendment because I have not been able to find this in the Constitution. The authors of our Constitution envisioned a government of limited powers, and if it does not say you do it in the Constitution, then it is reserved to the people and the States. If the State or the people want to fund a State endowment for the arts, I would not have a problem with that. That is entirely within their parameters.

The framers made it clear—very clear—that unless the Constitution explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, that power would be reserved to the States, to the localities, to civil society, or to the people.

I know there are many—and this is the frustrating part for me—too many in this body who reject that vision. I have been here going on 9 years, and it is very frustrating for me to watch the Constitution of the United States being trampled time after time. Just a week or so ago, we passed more gun controls and sent it to conference. Gun control, however you may feel about the need for gun control, is unconstitutional because we have a second amendment that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever you may feel about that issue, we did not come here to pass laws about our personal beliefs. We came here to pass laws that support the Constitution of the United States of America.

When we swear to uphold that document, we agree to live by that vision whether we like it or not. Whether we disagree or agree, we should live with that vision. Regretfully, we do not always do that here.

This amendment is my effort—just a small effort—to move a little closer to the founders, move a little closer to that vision of limited constitutional government. It is interesting that I have to say move a little closer. Why do we have to move closer to the vision of the founders when we are supposed to uphold the Constitution and enforce that vision, not move a little closer to it. We should be there.

It is a bad idea. Whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, it is a bad idea to use taxpayers' funds to subsidize art. But it is unconstitutional. Whether it is a good idea or bad idea, it is unconstitutional, and that is the point I am making.

Most of my colleagues will recall the controversies in which this agency has been embroiled. I referenced them briefly in the beginning of my remarks. I am not going to get into all of it because we have heard it before. But funding the exhibition of sadomasochistic photographs, funding the exhibition of a photograph of a crucifix submerged in human waste, funding the exhibition of a performance 'artist' who smeared chocolate across her naked torso, or how about the other NEA funding artist who exposed his audience to HIV-infected blood—all of these things were funded by the taxpayers of the United States in the name of art.

Let me repeat that. Funding of sadomasochistic photographs, funding of a photograph of a crucifix submerged in human waste, funding of a so-called performance artist who smeared chocolate across her naked torso, and a man who exposed his audience to HIV-infected blood, all funded by the taxpayers of the United States of America.

I ask you to reflect, if you are a taxpayer, on the fact that you work pretty hard for those dollars, and when you pay those taxes every April 15 to Uncle Sam, you probably hope it is used to preserve and protect and defend the United States of America, perhaps to promote education or some positive thing. But do you really want your money to go to this kind of so-called art?

The question is, some people may say this is art, but there are people out there who will disagree. There are people who will say: If I want to put a crucifix in urine and call that art, I have a right to do that; it is a free country. You do. I will fight to my death to say you have a right to do that. I may not agree it is art, but that is your position and you have a right to it.

But the question is, Is it constitutional to fund art? Even more so, Is it constitutional to fund this kind of stuff? Do you want your taxpayer dollars being spent for this? The sad part about this—we have seen this in debate after debate, in amendment after amendment, year after year, as we tried to stop this. Senator Helms has been involved in this many times, to his credit, as a leader in trying to expose this agency. Senator Ashcroft, who is my original cosponsor, has also been involved in this and has been a leader on this.

But the defenders of the NEA, the National Endowment of the Arts, always tell you—you will hear it after the vote on this amendment, I am sure, if not before—that they believe these outrages are a thing of the past, that all of the things I just cited about the crucifix in human waste, and so forth, are all in the past: We have cleaned up the agency. It is not happening anymore. It is old news. We heard you. We listened, and we made the changes.

I am sorry to tell you, that is not true. I will prove that in a few moments. Once you really understand the NEA, you will not be surprised to learn that the outrages continue, and not only do they continue, they are all too common in this agency.

Let me illustrate the point about a grant that made news earlier this year. The events surrounding this grant were described in an article in the New York Times.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times article be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1999

[FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, MAR. 10, 1999]
U.S. Cancels Grant for Children's Book Written by Mexican Guerrilla
(BY JULIA PRESTON)

Mexico City: A macaw with scarlet and violent plumes soars across the cover of a book called 'The Story of Colors,' inviting children to read a folk tale about Mexican gods who took a gray world and filled it with brilliant hues.

There are a few surprises, though, in this eye-catching bilingual children's book just published by a small publisher in El Paso, Texas, which won a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Its author is Subcomandante Marcos, the political mastermind and military strategist of the Zapatista guerrillas of southern Mexico. On the inside flap, he appears in a photo with a black ski mask hiding his face and bullet-laden ammunition belts slung across his chest.

On Tuesday, the chairman of the Endowment, William J. Ivey—who is working to rebuild the agency after its recent reprieve from a death sentence issued by congressional Republicans—abruptly canceled the grant for the book. Ivey overruled a multilayered, year-long grant approval process, acting within hours after the book was brought to his attention by a reporter's phone call.
He said he was worried that some of the Endowment's funds might find their way to the Zapatista rebels, who led an armed uprising in 1994 against the government of Mexico.

Ivey's decision stunned the Cinco Puntos Press, a shoestring operation that had laid out $15,000 to print 5,000 copies of the book, half of which was to be paid by the Endowment grant. The books are ready to be distributed and carry the Endowment's logo on the last page, together with an acknowledgment of 'generous support' from the agency.

'This is spineless,' said Bobby Byrd, a poet and editor of books on border issues who runs the publishing company with his wife and daughter from their home in El Paso. 'This book is essentially about diversity and tolerance, everything the NEA is supposed to stand for, and they just don't have the courage to publish it.'

'The Story of Colors' reflects a literacy, sometimes whimsical side that has distinguished Subcomandante Marcos, the only non-Indian among the Zapatistas' highest leaders, from other steely Latin American guerrilla commanders. (His real name is Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente, and he is a former university graphics professor.)

In the text, the masked rebel leader describes himself as lighting up his pipe, one of his hallmarks, and sitting down on a jungle pathway to hear a tale from an Indian elder named Antonio. The old man recounts how mythical gods grew bored with the universe when it was tinted only in grey, and went about inventing colors one by one. In the end they pin all the colors on the tail feathers of the macaw.

The bird 'goes strutting about just in case men and women forget how many colors there are and how many ways of thinking, and that the world will be happy if all the colors and ways of thinking have their place,' the text concludes.

The illustrations are bright, broad-stroked paintings of gods with horns and bug-eyes done by Domitila Dominguez, a Mexican Indian artist.

Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latin storytelling, the tale includes elements that might be controversial in the mainstream American children's book market. As the story opens, the text reads, 'The men and women were sleeping or they were making love, which is a nice way to become tired and then go to sleep.'

The double-page illustration shows a reclining naked woman in a sexual embrace with a figure that appears to be a male god. There are no references to the Zapatistas' cause or their military tactics, but in a cover blurb, Amy Ray, a member of the Indigo Girls, a Grammy-winning American song duo, says, 'This beautiful book reminds us that the Zapatista movement is one of dignity that emanates from the grassroots of the indigenous people of Mexico.'

'The most important thing is that it is a beautiful book,' said Byrd, whose press specializes in bilingual children's books. 'A lot of our stories in the United States have been cleaned up with a politically correct sentiment, and so much detail has been washed away.'

He added, 'I can imagine how someone would rewrite this for an Anglo audience,' referring to non-Hispanic Americans. 'There wouldn't be anybody smoking or making love.'

'The Story of Colors' was originally published in Spanish in 1997 by a press in Guadalajara, Mexico called Colectivo Callejero, which supports the Zapatistas' cause.

Byrd said that he provided a copy of the original to the Endowment when he applied for the grant to translate it in March 1998. His first request, for $30,000 to translate a total of five books, passed two levels of review at the agency but the funds were cut back to $15,000. Byrd said he conferred repeatedly with literature experts at the Endowment when he chose to leave 'The Story of Colors' in a revised grant request he presented to translate only two books. Cinco Puntos Press (the name means Five Points in Spanish) received a written notice in February that the funds had been approved. The only step left was for the agency to send the money.

Ivey, the Endowment chairman, said that he was not concerned about the book's contents and had not seen the finished printed book. When he went over the grant records Money night, he said, he became worried about rights payments, which the El Paso press had contracted to make to the publishing group in Mexico.

'There was an uncertainty about the ultimate destination of some part of the funds,' Ivey said. 'I am very aware about disbursing taxpayer dollars for Americans' cultural life, and it became clear to me as chairman that this just wasn't right for the agency. It was an inappropriate use of government funds.'

An Endowment official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that it is very unusual for the chairman to step in at the last moment to override the work of several review committees, including the 26-member National Council on the Arts, which includes six federal lawmakers.

Byrd said he had made it clear in his grant proposal that no part of the grant would go to the author, Subcomandante Marcos, because the guerrilla leader has declared he does not believe in copyright and formally waived his rights in talks with the Mexican press. Byrd said that rights would be paid to the Guadalajara Press for the use of the artwork.

When Republicans gained control of the Congress in 1995, they were frustrated with the Endowment's support for art works they regarded as offensive and vowed to eliminate the agency. But the House moderated its views under election year pressures and voted overwhelmingly in July 1998 to keep the agency alive.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This grant had to do with a grant to a publisher for a children's book. Listen carefully, a children's book. This was a grant to a publisher for a children's book, paid for by the taxpayers under the National Endowment of the Arts, at a time—recently—when we had been told that the agency had cleaned up its act and that this was no longer prevalent; no longer do they do these terrible things I just mentioned.

The grant that I am referring to for this children's book had been approved at every level of the NEA's review process. It was canceled at the last minute by the agency's chairman.

Somebody might say: Well, there you go. It worked. They stopped this grant for a children's book; it wasn't appropriate for children. So what is your argument, Senator?

Let me finish. Why did they cancel at the last minute? Because the Chairman of the NEA found out that the book's author was a Mexican guerrilla leader. The chairman was afraid that the royalties would benefit the Mexican guerrillas. So the reason for the grant cancellation was because of the Mexican guerrilla group, not because of the content.

Let's take a look at the content. The New York Times reported that this children's book contained sexually explicit illustrations and text; in other words, this children's book, with sexual content, would have received the NEA support this year—not 10 years ago; this year—if there had not been the other issue about royalties going to Mexican guerrillas.

I submit there is an inherent flaw in the peer review process that led to this circumstance, and all the other outrages over the years. The peer review process does not reflect the values of the decent, hard-working, tax-paying Americans who fund this agency.

Let me just find the article from the New York Times, which I have entered into the Record.

I want to remind you, again, that this grant was canceled because the money would go to a Mexican guerrilla group, and there was no reference whatsoever to the content.

This is a children's book. I would ask my colleagues and the American people to ask yourselves whether you want your tax dollars to go for this kind of stuff for a children's book:

The illustrations are bright, broad-stroked paintings of gods with horns and bug-eyes done by [a man by the name of] Domitila Dominguez, a Mexican Indian artist.

Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latin storytelling, the tale includes elements that might be controversial in the mainstream American children's book market. As the story opens, the text reads, 'The men and women were sleeping or they were making love, which is a nice way to become tired and then go to sleep.'

The double-page illustration shows a reclining naked woman in a sexual embrace with [a] figure that appears to be a male god.

We could go on and on and on.

This is a children's book. It was canceled because the money went to Mexican guerrillas, not because of the content. So you see, the agency has not cleaned up its act. They have been getting away with this year after year after year. And why do they get away with it? They get away with it very simply because we won't stop the funding. We don't have the courage to stop the funding.

Again, the business about censorship—this is about the Constitution of the United States of America, which we are sworn to uphold and defend. Show me in the Constitution where the National Endowment of the Arts should be funded and why it should be funded. Show me.

When we try to say anything about it, we are always accused of censorship. The Smith amendment solves that problem by allowing the public to support the art works they wish voluntarily. You want to support a children's book that shows a naked woman and a naked man in a sexually explicit embrace? Go ahead. You want to show that to your children? Be my guest. You want to raise your children and teach them to read and show them the pictures? Be my guest. But it is not constitutional. And it ought not to happen in the Senate by funding this kind of stuff. We should not be funding art at all, let alone this kind of art.
So that is how it was done in America for the first 189 years of our history: Voluntarily you support the arts. Voluntarily you look at what you want to look at. You show your children what you want to show them. But you do not fund it by taking money from the rest of us to do it.

Let me just pause here for a moment to make a point. We could go through a litany of items that are unconstitutional that we pass on this floor almost literally every day—certainly every week.

I just ask the rhetorical question to the people of America: When are we going to wake up? We saw it time after time. We saw it with the Clinton impeachment: As long as my 401(k) and my retirement account is doing well, and as long as I am making money, as long as I have a job and 3 or 4 weeks of vacation, and everything is going fine, I don't care about the morality of this country. I don't care that the Commander in Chief did what he did. It is OK with me. Poll after poll after poll said just that.

Let me tell you. That is the same thing. Time after time after time, year after year after year, we vote to fund the National Endowment of the Arts. We are told every year that all this stuff that I just referred to has been cleaned up and it does not happen anymore. It does.

Yet why does it happen? Don't blame the National Endowment of the Arts. I don't blame them. I don't blame the Chairman. I don't blame the board. I don't blame any of them for this.

I blame the Senate, the House, and the President of the United States because we pass it and he signs it. We have been doing it year after year after year. They are going to keep right on spending your money as long as you keep giving it to them.

So don't blame them; don't direct your anger at them. You should direct it right here to the people who vote that money. Sooner or later, as the frog in the pot boils slowly and then is cooked before he realizes it, the Constitution of the United States is going to slip through the fingers of all of us.

It is happening. We are going to continue to let it happen by these kinds of votes. If we want to take seriously what we stood there and took the oath to do, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, we ought to vote against funding the National Endowment for the Arts.

So that everybody understands, there are essentially two major political parties in the United States right now, some smaller parties. Here is the Democratic Party on the NEA. This is a quote right out of their platform:

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

That is the 1996 Democrat platform; 'Responsible Entertainment.' It is an honest statement. They have made it very clear they support this. It doesn't necessarily mean they are implying that they support the kinds of things I have said, but it does mean that as long as you continue to fund it and you don't stop it, those kinds of things are going to continue to be funded.

What we have in the Democratic platform is a statement that is unconstitutional. It is totally unconstitutional. To support the arts, including the National Endowment for the Arts, with taxpayer dollars is unconstitutional. But I think Members will find, when they see the votes taken on my amendment in a few minutes, that most of the members of the Democratic Party will support their platform. They will vote, I think, probably overwhelmingly, probably 90-95 percent—maybe 100 percent, I am not sure—in favor of the National Endowment for the Arts and against my amendment. They will live up to their platform. I personally believe they are taking an unconstitutional vote, but that is their right. They can do it. They were elected just as I was, and they can vote any way they want to. I respect that right.

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

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

That is the 1996 Republican platform: 'Changing Washington from the Ground Up.' We are going to change Washington from the ground up. I support that statement because it is unconstitutional not to support it. The Government should not be funding, under the Constitution, the National Endowment for the Arts. If one sees that statement and realizes that is the position of the party, then one could logically conclude that 90-95 percent of Republicans will vote to support their platform and vote to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. We will see. Don't bet on it.

That is the platform. So when the votes come, it will be interesting for the public to look to see who supports their platform. Will the Democrats support their platform, albeit unconstitutional in my view, on this issue, or will the Republicans support their platform? Let us see where the votes fall.

Let me issue a challenge to anyone listening: Take a look at the votes after it is all over. See who the Republicans are, see who the Democrats are, and see who supports the Republican platform and see who supports the Democrat platform.

This amendment takes out the entire funding, which is about $99 million. People will say that is not a lot of money. I guess around Washington it is not. But it sure was a lot of money around a little town called Allentown, NJ, where I grew up before I moved to New Hampshire. That was a whole lot of money. I know a whole lot of people who worked real hard—farmers, merchants, teachers—for those dollars. For this kind of money to be spent from them, I think it is wrong. It is wrong morally, philosophically, and, as I said before, it is unconstitutional.

Mr. President, seeing no other speaker on my behalf at this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor and appreciate the chairman's consideration in offering the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I have just a few brief responses to my colleague.

I believe it would be a fallacy to equate Government funding, its own activities, legitimate functions of the Government, to fund those activities such as the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, which obviously are document preservation, artifacts, and historical matters—that is legitimate, in my view; but to equate that with the Government funding of private activities is where I have my differences. I think that is the difference—the Government funding its own activities versus the Government funding private activities.

I believe that art, in terms of the examples I gave, is and should be funded privately because there is a matter of what is art and what is not art, which is a matter of personal opinion. I don't believe taxpayers should fund somebody else's view of what art is or is not. I also think it is wrong for us to act without explicit constitutional authority, whether it is in the arts, or education, or anything else.

The Senator from Washington is correct. I misspoke when I said education. I should not have used that term because, also, the Federal Government, in my view, does not have a legitimate role in determining the education of our children. I believe that is a local matter that ought to be done by the States, the local communities, and parents.

Finally, to say it is a good thing for a Federal agency to provide a 'seal of approval' for the arts so that the private sector will know what to support, that is a threat to art.

I think that threatens the legitimate issue of art in that government has no business telling people what good art is or what bad art is. I don't think there is any room for the government in art.

Frankly, it is very interesting when you pick out the platform of the Republican Party and read it.

Some don't believe we should read our platforms. But I happen to believe we should.

In the 1996 Republican Platform, there is a quote of Senator Bob Dole of March 10, 1995, in which he said:

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

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

Furthermore, finally, what the Republican Platform said at that time was:

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

I am quoting out of the platform. Finally:

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

If you are going to offer something as an amendment or a bill which ultimately may become law, then cite constitutional authority for it because, after all, we are here to protect and defend the Constitution.

That is the only point I am trying to make. I understand that the votes have never been here to eliminate this agency. I don't expect them to be here this time.

I don't mean to argue, other than to say that I ask my colleagues to try to move back to the constitutionality issue because I believe that is what this is all about. If you make an exception, even if this was art that was pleasing to me, if it was art that I liked that I approved of, it would be the same argument—that it has no business being funded. It is not constitutional. I don't believe that we should be funding it.

I see my colleague from Missouri. I know he is an original sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.