John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his comment. It is a chilling comment to think that the FEC, related to the Congress, could intervene to ask a court to stop someone from criticizing the Congress. It makes you wonder whether or not this is not a bill to transport us all to some regime in some other land. The soil of America would find such activity to be so repugnant that you would think it might cause an earthquake the dimensions of which have never before been understood. America stands for something profoundly different. America stands for something. And it says that when you vote for something here, you should have to stand and answer to the people and you shouldn't be protected by an election committee or some campaign finance reform which would keep you from being charged with having voted as you did, which would keep the people from holding you responsible. God forbid the day in America when someone is free to vote here and not be responsible for that vote and can call upon some part of Government to protect himself or herself from having to respond to the people and explain the vote. Such an endeavor, as pointed out by the Senator from Kentucky, is flatly unconstitutional, and it is a shocking outrage to the conscience of freedom-loving Americans. Incumbents enjoy the ability to trumpet the favorable aspects of their record through franked mail. They enjoy high name recognition. We get to stand on the floor of the Senate, and C-SPAN proclaims our message. We speak it ourselves. And so-called campaign finance reform, is to come in and deprive our competitors from the opportunity to speak their message. I can't believe that a nation based on competition would want to yield the potential for that competition. It certainly does not cure the bill's unconstitutionality that it restricts issue advocacy only during the weeks leading up to the election. Those happen to be the weeks that are relevant. The suggestion is that, well, we are going to allow people to do issue advocacy but not right before the election, so we will only forbid it when it really counts. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not something to be taken lightly. Free speech, political speech, is not something to be taken lightly, not something to be tampered with, not something to say, ``Well, we'll allow you to have free speech so long as it doesn't matter, but when it gets to be important, when it is time for that speech, you lose it.'' Well, I see the hands of time are running out and you all are being victimized again by another so-called short Senate speech which is going rather long. I want you to know that I do not believe this so-called campaign finance reform is real reform. I believe that this is the kind of thing that would impair our ability to have the kind of political dialog and debate that is fundamental and necessary, and I intend to propose as a substitute to this, term limits, which are a real reform. They have been tried and tested. They are no pig in a poke. Since 1961, the Presidency of the United States has been term limited; 41 States across America have term limits for Governors, for State legislators in a number of States, city councils, as I indicated, clubs, PTAs. People know what term limits can do. They know about the need to rotate fresh ideas and people close to the constituency through public office. Term limits provide true reform; campaign finance provides the illusion of reform. I plan to offer term limits as a substitute for the McCain-Feingold version of campaign finance reform. I want to force a vote on true political reform, not illusory reform that will be struck down by the courts. There is just one clear answer as far I am concerned. The answer is to limit the politicians, not to limit the citizens. Limit terms, not speech. A viable and vigorous political debate in this country is essential to the survival of this democracy. We know we can do with a new set of politicians in office. As a matter of fact, in many offices across this Nation, we have seen that when we rotate people through those offices, we get better service. No wonder people endorse term limits. We should limit politicians, not speech. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Commonsense product liability reform is vital to the global competitiveness of American manufacturers and workers. U.S. companies face product liability insurance costs that are 20 to 50 times greater than those of our foreign competitors. Due to these high costs, American many manufacturers spend more on litigation than on research and development and the American consumer is deprived of the highest quality and most innovative product. In addition, commonsense reform is vital to the health--in a very real sense--of millions of Americans. In 1993, Jim Vincent, the chairman and CEO of Biogen, indicated to this committee that his company decided not to pursue research into the development of an AIDS vaccine, because of the current U.S. product liability system. In addition, availability of many biomaterials such as silicone, polyester, dacron, and rubber that are used in lifesaving medical implant devices is being threatened by our current product liability system. Despite years of effort, the only Federal tort reform we have been able to accomplish has been in the areas of food donations, securities litigation, general aviation aircraft, and individual volunteer liability. The one area of reform that has been, in effect, long enough for us to measure its results is the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, which was signed by President Clinton on August 17, 1994. The aviation liability reform bill enacted a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. In 1994, proponents of the bill said that it would produce jobs. It has. To date, over 9,000 new jobs, good jobs, have been created. Single engine aircraft are being manufactured in American again, and an endangered industry has been revitalized. President Clinton was right to support that bill. Let us bring the results of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 to the broad segments of our country and industries. The principles which we begin this conversation should be based on making the product liability laws in this Nation fair for consumers who purchase defective products while placing the burden on those responsible for putting these products into the stream of commerce. We also should seek to ensure that those who misuse products, or use them while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not collect a windfall which becomes a burden for American consumers in the form of increased costs for products--useful products that are no longer available in the market, and the loss of jobs and greater opportunities. We should not affect the ability of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers or sellers of medical implants. Rather, we should allow raw materials suppliers to be dismissed from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterial supplier is not classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the implant. Strong product liability reform is good for America. It ensures that consumers, injured by a product, will be fairly compensated. It will enhance American innovation, which is the best in the world, by treating responsible entrepreneurs fairly while treating the bad actors harshly and to the full extent of the law. As chairman of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee I am committed and look forward to working with members of this committee, on both sides of the aisle, and with the administration toward ending the 20-year study and painstaking endeavor to provide our Nation with sound and fair Federal product liability law. It took the European community about 6 years to accomplish this goal and create the European Product Liability Directive. Japan enacted its first product liability reform law almost 2 years ago. Our Nation, this Congress, and this administration should pull together and meet the challenge of our foreign competitors and enact fair and balanced product liability law.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his having made it possible for me to stand and speak in favor of this very important opportunity to demonstrate what can happen when we offer individuals the chance to have competition, or the chance to have an influence on where our children are educated. It is one of the agreed upon successes of the United States of America that our university and college system is second to none. Students from all over the world stream into American colleges and universities, and they come here in spite of the fact that they test very, very well in elementary and secondary systems in their own lands. They come here because there is something special about the collegiate and university level in the United States. If I were asked why our collegiate system is tops, I would say, in my judgment, that it is because it is a pluralistic system; that it is diverse. There is no singularity with it. No one is scheduled to go to one school or another. Rather, people have an opportunity to make a selection. And students compete to get into the best schools and the best schools compete for faculty. There is lots of competition in the system. It drives the system forward. It provides a basis for not only education and learning on the part of students but it really develops the energy which provides the basis for research which is expanding the frontiers of knowledge all the time. This concept of diversity, this concept of pluralism, this concept of not being forced to be in one setting, this concept of the energy and creativity, spontaneity and quality that comes when an institution knows it has to do its best for its students because those students aren't forced to go there. They are not locked in. They have the opportunity to be involved in educational experiences elsewhere. That is what drives quality. It is what has carried American higher education to the very top of the educational mountain. There is no dispute. There is no challenger. Second place isn't even close. The United States of America is the clear dominant force in higher education because we are pluralistic, because we are diverse, and no one has a monopoly. On the contrary, if you are a student and you have one choice and one choice alone, the word ``one'' and the word ``choice'' Is an oxymoron; that phrase together. One choice isn't a choice. It is a direction. Students that are locked into a single school don't have the capacity to say I am going to do better, I will go elsewhere. They don't have the capacity to say if you do not shape this place up, I will go elsewhere. They don't have the capacity to energize the system. A parent doesn't have the ability to go into the school and say you must do better. The school says we are the only school. You have one choice. One choice is no choice. What we are really offering to individuals who have been locked into a school system which has failed--I think it is time for us to confess, the school system in Washington, DC, is a failure--is a plan to help energize this school system. It will help the public sector. It will help the private sector. But, most importantly, it will help students and parents. When I had the privilege of being the Governor of my State, I was chairman of the Education Commission of the States. I followed in that responsibility one William Jefferson Clinton, who presided over the Education Commission of the States 1 year; I the next. And one of the things that became apparent in studies conducted from sea to shining sea in this country is that the single most important thing about a student's performance is whether the parents are involved in the education process. How do you get parents involved? You make them meaningful. How can you make parents meaningful in Washington, DC? You can give them the opportunity together with the student to make a choice to go to a school where their needs can be met instead of locking them into a situation where their needs aren't being met and have not been met. And it is a demonstrated fact--the studies tell it, the audits tell it, the school facilities tell it--that the needs aren't being met. Unfortunately, our Secretary of Education has come out to oppose this program providing scholarships so that students could move from one school to another and get good training somewhere if they are not getting it where they are. And he indicated he was opposing it because he felt like it was reducing the funding. Let me just repeat. This particular measure reduces funding not 1 cent. It adds funding to just introduce the concept of scholarships and to put into the hands of parents and students the ability to say we will go where our needs are met. Will this help the District of Columbia schools? It definitely will because they will understand they are no longer the exclusive provider of whatever it is they want to provide. They will have to start becoming the creative supplier of what it is that students need. Will it help the students? Obviously, it will help the students. It will get their parents involved. It will get them involved. It will meet their needs. And we will establish a model here in the District of Columbia, in the Nation's Capital, which in my judgment would well serve the entire country. It is true that pluralism and diversity are the strength of this great land. They have carried our collegiate system and our research universities to the very top in education around the globe. It would be no accident if we were to allow this to happen at the elementary and secondary level. And it could happen if we were to simply embrace the opportunity of letting parents make meaningful choices. One choice is an oxymoron. One choice is no choice at all. It is a trap. It is time to free students and parents to have an opportunity to select schools that can meet their needs and do so without impairing the financial viability and capacity of the District of Columbia school system in the process. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from developing and/or imposing new national individualized tests on students across the country. During his State of the Union Address this year, President Clinton announced his intentions to establish national tests for students in fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics. Without waiting for congressional authority, the Department of Education surged ahead and began development of uniform national tests, with plans to administer them starting in 1999. In August, the Department announced the award of a $13 million contract for its national testing initiative, and plans to spend an estimated $50.6 million under the contract from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, including $12.3 million for fiscal year 1998. In response, Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, offered an amendment in the House which prohibits the expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds for a new national testing program. While the Senate failed to consider fully and vote on the Goodling approach during its debate of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the House embraced the Goodling amendment, approving it by a resounding vote of 295 to 125. The House vote sends a clear and strong signal that Congress should prohibit Federal funds for national testing in education. In fact, the alliance of members from both sides of the political spectrum demonstrates the universal concern that the administration's proposal is besieged by problems. Here are just a few of the many reasons why national tests should be opposed: First, education experts such as Dr. Donald J. Senese, former Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement during the Reagan administration, warn that national testing will lead to a national curriculum. Second, Lynne Cheney, former chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities, reminds us that Federal efforts to set standards and tests have been disastrous. She points to the politically correct Federal history standards and the English-language arts standards, which were such an ill-considered muddle that even the Clinton Department of Education cut off funding for them after having spent more than $1 million in taxpayer funds. Third, the proposed math test is steeped in the new, unproven whole math or fuzzy math philosophy, which encourages students to rely on calculators, discourages basic math skills, and has resulted in declines in math performance. For example, the median percentile computation scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills taken by more than 37,000 DODDS students one year after the Defense Department introduced whole math dropped 9 points for third graders, 12 for fourth graders, 11 for fifth graders, 10 for sixth graders, 10 for seventh graders, and 4 for eighth graders. Finally, Federal testing takes away local control and parental involvement. The Federal Government should not impose its will on school boards, parents, and teachers about the education of their children. Rather, education should be controlled by school boards in local communities, where parents have the greatest opportunity to be involved in the education of their child, by participating in the development of school curriculum and testing. After all, research confirms that parental involvement is the single most important element in educating our children. Mr. President, the big losers from national tests will be students, parents, teachers, and local school boards. Once Federal exams are in place, teachers and schools will teach the test. In other words, they will change their classes to fit the Federal tests, in order to get higher scores. Textbooks and instructional materials will follow suit, even in areas that attempt to avoid national tests. As a result, Washington bureaucrats who design the tests will shape local curriculum decisions. National control of curriculum is absolutely unacceptable to me. Once the Federal Government is using tests to shape curriculum, parental control through local school boards will be doomed. Who should control local education? I believe our schools should remain under the control of parents, teachers, and school boards, in cooperation with the States. The flawed whole math approach which brought major losses in computation test scores demonstrates the central threat in national control: When the bureaucrats make a mistake, everybody pays, from coast to coast. Parents are looking to Congress to protect their right and their ability to shape the education of their children. A national testing system would deprive parents of this vital opportunity. As Members of Congress, we can show our support for education by saying ``no'' to national testing and ``yes'' to parental control of their children's learning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from developing and/or imposing new national individualized tests on students across the country. During his State of the Union Address this year, President Clinton announced his intentions to establish national tests for students in fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics. Without waiting for congressional authority, the Department of Education surged ahead and began development of uniform national tests, with plans to administer them starting in 1999. In August, the Department announced the award of a $13 million contract for its national testing initiative, and plans to spend an estimated $50.6 million under the contract from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, including $12.3 million for fiscal year 1998. In response, Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, offered an amendment in the House which prohibits the expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds for a new national testing program. While the Senate failed to consider fully and vote on the Goodling approach during its debate of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the House embraced the Goodling amendment, approving it by a resounding vote of 295 to 125. The House vote sends a clear and strong signal that Congress should prohibit Federal funds for national testing in education. In fact, the alliance of members from both sides of the political spectrum demonstrates the universal concern that the administration's proposal is besieged by problems. Here are just a few of the many reasons why national tests should be opposed: First, education experts such as Dr. Donald J. Senese, former Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement during the Reagan administration, warn that national testing will lead to a national curriculum. Second, Lynne Cheney, former chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities, reminds us that Federal efforts to set standards and tests have been disastrous. She points to the politically correct Federal history standards and the English-language arts standards, which were such an ill-considered muddle that even the Clinton Department of Education cut off funding for them after having spent more than $1 million in taxpayer funds. Third, the proposed math test is steeped in the new, unproven whole math or fuzzy math philosophy, which encourages students to rely on calculators, discourages basic math skills, and has resulted in declines in math performance. For example, the median percentile computation scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills taken by more than 37,000 DODDS students one year after the Defense Department introduced whole math dropped 9 points for third graders, 12 for fourth graders, 11 for fifth graders, 10 for sixth graders, 10 for seventh graders, and 4 for eighth graders. Finally, Federal testing takes away local control and parental involvement. The Federal Government should not impose its will on school boards, parents, and teachers about the education of their children. Rather, education should be controlled by school boards in local communities, where parents have the greatest opportunity to be involved in the education of their child, by participating in the development of school curriculum and testing. After all, research confirms that parental involvement is the single most important element in educating our children. Mr. President, the big losers from national tests will be students, parents, teachers, and local school boards. Once Federal exams are in place, teachers and schools will teach the test. In other words, they will change their classes to fit the Federal tests, in order to get higher scores. Textbooks and instructional materials will follow suit, even in areas that attempt to avoid national tests. As a result, Washington bureaucrats who design the tests will shape local curriculum decisions. National control of curriculum is absolutely unacceptable to me. Once the Federal Government is using tests to shape curriculum, parental control through local school boards will be doomed. Who should control local education? I believe our schools should remain under the control of parents, teachers, and school boards, in cooperation with the States. The flawed whole math approach which brought major losses in computation test scores demonstrates the central threat in national control: When the bureaucrats make a mistake, everybody pays, from coast to coast. Parents are looking to Congress to protect their right and their ability to shape the education of their children. A national testing system would deprive parents of this vital opportunity. As Members of Congress, we can show our support for education by saying ``no'' to national testing and ``yes'' to parental control of their children's learning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Charley L. Byrd of Lentner, MO, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on October 23, 1997. Charley is a truly remarkable individual. He has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of Charley's life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the last 100 years. Charley's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join Charley's many friends and relatives in wishing him health and happiness in the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Lois and Delmer Johnson of St. Joseph, MO, who on October 12, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Johnsons' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I see. It seems to me, will the Senator concede we had a lot of great poets and a lot of great artists in America between the time of the founding of this culture and the time in the mid-1960's when we started NEA grants.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. May I inquire as to how much time is left for debate on this?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Did Kurt Vonnegut start out with an NEA grant?

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator has asked why I didn't cite all these others. Is it the Senator's position that none of these people would have been writers absent these grants? That absent the ability to have the Federal subsidies we could not have literature like this in the United States?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I can name----

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire as to the current state of business in the Senate then? What has been done? Has the Senator from Illinois been granted time to speak?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the situation is simply this. The publisher in the previous year was claiming that it was publishing with the grant the ``Blood of Mugwump.'' I think the record is clear. It may be that the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't want to say that the money, our money, your money, my money, taxpayers' money was being used for what was obviously revolting or repugnant literature. But the publisher knew what he was using it for and his request for reimbursement submitted to the agency well before, during the previous year indicated that the utilization of the resource was for ``Blood of Mugwump.'' Nevertheless, the National Endowment for the Arts says that its grant wasn't ``Blood of Mugwump.'' It was books like this one, ``S & M.'' Frankly, I could not read a page out of this book that I have seen to the Senate; I could not read it in my home, could not read it anywhere else. It says on the front, ``It's funny. It's smart.'' It is not, not at all. Fellow Members of the Senate, the United States of America has been a culture that's been rich in good art and has been rich in good culture and has attained a level of being a world leader not because of Government sponsorship, not because of Government telling people what's good and what's not good and awarding scholarships or grants to one group and not to another. We attained our level of greatness in the absence of those things and in the presence of a free marketplace, in the presence of freedom for art. Less than a month before John Kennedy was assassinated, less than a month before he died, he was asked to speak at Amherst College in Massachusetts to praise American poet Robert Frost. John Kennedy talked about art and about freedom and about how artists need to be free in order to express themselves with integrity and how Government might corrupt that process. Now, you have to understand that there was no such thing as the National Endowment for the Arts in the lifetime of John Kennedy, President of the United States, assassinated in 1963. This program, the National Endowment for the Arts, was part of Lyndon Johnson's discontent with America, thinking we could make it a great society by infusing Government money everywhere. And you know what he did to the family; you know what he did with the welfare system, and you are seeing what he did to the arts. Here are the words of John F. Kennedy. For art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgment. The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious State. Let me just say that again and see if I can say it more clearly. John Kennedy says that the artist becomes an individual who stands against the intrusive society and the officious State. He sees the artist as a line of defense against statism. He sees it as a bulwark of freedom-- John Kennedy. I wonder what he would have thought if the officious State was to be guarded by an artist paid by the State. He goes on to say: The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, ``a lover's quarrel with the world.'' Then John Kennedy is eloquent and insightful. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, the artist must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role. Well, against the currents of your time is not what we find is happening with the National Endowment for the Arts. They are directing the current. We have gone over and over the article by Jan Breslauer from the Los Angeles Times which reminds us that they are demanding that artists be politically correct in accordance with what the Government would dictate. That is really not rising to the challenge of being against the officious State. That is falling into the trap of being a participant of the officious State telling citizens what to believe and how to think. So when John Kennedy was praising Robert Frost, John Kennedy put it this way: In pursuing his perceptions of reality, the artist must often sail against the currents of his time. Perhaps he might even dare be politically incorrect, but were he to do so, woe be unto his chance of being identified for a grant from the NEA. Kennedy spoke in praise of Robert Frost who, without subsidy from the Government, wrote eloquently: Two roads diverged in a wood and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. America could have art that was subsidized, controlled by, directed by Government. It can happen. You can look at the art of the Soviet Union of the last 70 years. They had art. They took the artists that weren't acceptable and they banished them. Solzhenitsyn was one of them. We don't manage artists but we identify ones for approval and others for subsidy, and some of those that don't get the subsidy and don't get the approval are individuals that we ought to be looking carefully at and they should not be discriminated against. A Government which discriminates against artists by discriminating in favor of others violates our fundamental responsibility of free speech. And when it promotes morality, it undermines the very foundation and underpinnings of a culture. We should defund the National Endowment for the Arts. We should not spend this $100 million of taxpayer resources. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Washington. I believe the 8 minutes that I have remaining will be sufficient for me. I want to begin by thanking Senator Helms for his understanding of the fact that subsidized speech, the process of identifying for Americans what they should value and what they should not in terms of ideas, somehow selecting between one author and another, has been a bad concept. It has been a bad concept which turned into a horrible concept as we have literally wasted resources, and it has been a waste of resources from the inception. I provided examples from the 1960's, and I have examples from the 1990's. Now, part of the activity on the part of the group that would seek to praise the National Endowment and say that it is just fine is the suggestion that the NEA disavowed involvement in the publication of the ``Blood of Mugwump'' book. In March this year they said to the publisher: You shouldn't have used the money on ``Blood of Mugwump.'' And this was brought to the floor by the Senator from Iowa as testimony that the National Endowment had nothing to do with the scandalous and literally revolting attack on faith and on persons of spiritual values and upon morality that the ``Blood of Mugwump'' book represents. And obviously, the National Endowment, having been caught in this indiscretion, feels bad about it and seeks to repudiate it. But the Senator from Iowa did not provide the additional documentation showing that 5 months before that the publisher was submitting a reimbursement form that included ``Blood of Mugwump'' as part of what was being subsidized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this ``Request for Advance or Reimbursement'' form to which I am referring be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank you for raising the extent to which I have read Samuel Clemens' work, Mark Twain. I find him to be an interesting author, and I think some of his works are better than others and some of them are very helpful and some of them moved society in the right direction--I think move us all and inspire us all. The point is not whether or not a writer has the ability to write things that might be appropriate in one setting or not appropriate in another setting. The point is, what do you do by way of subsidy and whether the Government decides to endow any particular writer with a special stamp of approval and discriminate in favor of that writer and thereby discriminate against every other writer? Had Samuel Clemens been a writer 100 years ago and had there been the current NEA and had the fellow from down the river in St. Louis gotten the grant and Samuel Clemens been discriminated against and shunned by the arts community because the other guy had gotten the grant, we might never have known about Samuel Clemens. The point is, when you start with Government identifying and establishing the value for one artist over another, picking and choosing between the levels of free expression, free expression in the free society, pushing people toward politically correct expression, there are risks involved there that might result in stifling other people who are not favored by the Government. So, it seems to me there are equally--it's equally possible that there are great writers who are being stifled by the current system--there are art critics who say there are--just as much as there might have been people in previous years who didn't rise to the level of being able to write because they lacked the Federal subsidy.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Senator from California for correcting the fact that I am not from Ohio. I didn't want people from Ohio to be too upset. It reminds me of my having been introduced as having been an individual from Missouri but who was born in Illinois. I say, ``Yes, both States claim me. Missouri claims I am from Illinois, and Illinois claims I am from Missouri.'' The truth of the matter is that I would like to address some of the issues which the Senator from California has talked about. She mentions the fact of a poem--for which we paid $214 a letter-- which was paid for earlier in the history of the National Endowment. She is correct. But it is incorrect to suggest that there are not abuses now that are even more egregious. This is one of the more decent egregious abuses of National Endowment money. I have excerpts from a book in my hand which very proudly bears the imprint, the so-called good seal of approval, of the National Endowment for the Arts. This book was published in 1996 after all the supposed improvements, after all of these wonderful safeguards to make sure that our money is well spent. I think it is instructive to read just what the authors say about their own book. This isn't some attack upon the book. This is the bragging of the authors. I read: The blood of the Mugwump clan of Catholic gender-shifting vampires has become infected by decadent words and confused memories. It talks about a man trapped inside a body that is always changing from male to female, and dealing with his polysexual sister. I asked my staff to just take a couple of pages of the book. And this book was written because the National Endowment for the Arts felt that the American people needed to have this capacity to identify good art so they could invest in it under the ``Good Housekeeping'' or ``good art'' seal. I asked them just to get a couple of pages of the book and Xerox them. But I said, ``Be sure to mark out the things that would be not suitable to be shown on C-SPAN in the middle of the day.'' This is what a typical set of pages looks like. This is what the American people are paying for. This isn't something from 30 years ago. This is something from 30 minutes ago. This is something that is current. This is something from 1996. No. 1, the so-called reforms have been ineffective. And, if we had an abuse which was at least not obscene--our abuses have not gone uphill. They have gone downhill. I have a list of current abusive things funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. I could go through them time after time. I will not bother to give them to you. Hundreds of thousands--hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted in the current selection of grantees. They are not as easy to describe, and they are not as suitable for television as the 30-year-old abuses are. Unfortunately, they are not as easy to use on television. The Senator from California pled for honesty and integrity in talking about whether or not we would have any funding--that somehow there is a matching grant program. There is no matching program. We are not talking about matching funds here. We are just talking about other money spent on the arts--most of it in the private sector. And when they have that kind of an expenditure, sure enough, they could say, ``For every dollar we have in Federal money we have $12 in private money.'' That doesn't mean the private money wouldn't have been spent anyhow. After all, what happened before 1965 when Lyndon Johnson concluded in the Great Society that we had to have funding for the arts? For several hundred years America had great artists, and we weren't devoid of expenditure. We had great museums. We had tremendous collections. We had artists who thrived. We had novelists, and poets. So it is pretty clear to me that art is not dependent upon some matching fund system. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address an important issue before the American people. It is an issue about the nature of Government, the purpose for Government, what we have Government for and alternative uses of resources of the taxpayers in this country. Data this year announced, not by Government itself but by independent studies including the best of the business journals, that the American people this year are paying more in taxes than any other year in the history of this Republic. The gross tax load is gross. As a matter of fact, the Second World War, First World War, the Korean war, and the war in Vietnam did not cause us to have to pay the kind of elevated tax rates that we pay today, nor did previous wars of previous centuries. The average U.S. citizen now pays the highest tax load, the biggest portion of his or her income that we have ever paid. One of the questions that we must face, and which we must answer, is the question of whether or not we should take the hard-earned resources of American citizens, people who get up early, work hard all day, go home late seeking to help their families, whether we should take that resource to spend it on what the Government identifies as art or calls art or wants to encourage as art. There will be some who say that this will be a debate about whether or not we support art or do not support art. I think it is important to note that art as an aspect of our culture has flourished since the very beginning of the United States as a nation and prior to that time. Since the time we began our culture, from Plymouth Rock forward, we have had an expression of art in the United States--great literature, we have had great paintings, we have had tremendous capacity on the part of the American people to express themselves and to communicate noble ideas and high aspirations through our artistic devices. But the debate which we are about to embark upon is a debate about whether the Federal Government should subsidize art and should identify in the art community some things for subsidy and some things for special treatment and some things to be singled out for approval while other things have to survive or fall based on their quality in the marketplace. So it is with that in mind that I rise to say, in regard to the appropriations bill that is now before the Senate, that we should not spend the resources earned by taxpayers to encourage one artist over another artist, to say that some art is good and other art is bad, and particularly given the record of the National Endowment for the Arts. For the National Endowment for the Arts has a questionable record of fostering artistic expression which has countered the expression of values that most Americans cherish and the values which have provided the basis for the greatness and character of these United States of America. The first point that I make is that the arts have plenty of money without the National Endowment for the Arts. Let me just point to a set of statistics reflected in this particular chart. This compares NEA spending to private, State, and local arts funding. Here you have private funding, the orange portion of the chart; local contributions, the green portion; the State contributions is the purple portion; and the NEA as proposed is the yellow portion. It is pretty clear that that withdrawal of this very small portion of funding, 1 percent of the funding, is not going to cause a collapse in the arts. As a matter of fact, there are many individuals who are part of the arts community who feel this is an incentive to the wrong things in art. So, first of all, we need to understand that the arts will survive. This is not a death knell for the arts. It is, in some respects, a contaminant to the arts to the extent that we continue to fund artistic endeavors of specific kinds, especially those things which are concededly politically correct or drive the agenda of the National Endowment. That is where the small yellow wedge comes in. Just take a look again. Private giving to the arts and cultures and humanities is up. We have had some reduction. We have moved in the right direction. We used to give more to the arts through the National Endowment for the Arts than we do now. As we have had a reduction in the dollars that are spent by Government for art, we have had this substantial increase, especially recently, in private giving to the arts so that the private sector is totally capable of sustaining the arts. I just add at this point that the kind of art that sometimes gets funded here is not the art of the great masses. I tend not to be an individual who has invested a great deal of my life in the opera. Now, the opera gets a subsidy from the National Endowment for the Arts, but by and large, Willie Nelson and Garth Brooks don't. Those of us that drive our pickups to those concerts don't get a subsidy; but the people who drive their Mercedes to the opera get a subsidy. Now, it seems to me what is clear here is that the folks who patronize the opera don't deserve a subsidy any more than those of us who enjoy the Ozark opera instead of the other kind of opera--although I don't purport to say I couldn't enjoy both kinds. The first point I am making here is that the arts are not in trouble. Second, the arts funding from the Federal Government is 1 percent or so. Third, the private share of contribution to the arts is up dramatically. State and local governments dominate giving to the arts. The Federal Government contributes a low portion of that. Employment in the arts in the 1990's is up. So we have a vigorous arts community and it is an arts community which continues to grow. This has been an upward trend at a time when we had a decline in the amount of Federal funding for the arts. If people are interested in more people coming into the arts, they could say that as we have decreased the funding, we have had more people going in. We are not threatening the arts. Median household income for artists is up. It exceeds the income for the rest of the labor force. It seems to me we are not threatening the art community or questioning whether the United States is going to have art. Art attendance is up in every category, from jazz, classical music, opera, musicals, plays, ballet, art museums. We had more people participating in the arts in 1992 than in 1982. I don't believe that is a trend that will be reversed. These things are a function of the fact that people have leisure time and the people have disposable net income and are not dependent on whether or not we have a National Endowment for the Arts. Artists are increasingly college educated as well. Total receipts for performance arts events are up and are approaching the receipts for spectator sports. This gap is narrowing. The arts, indeed, are flourishing in the United States. They are getting closer and closer to matching the same kind of receipts as for spectator sports. The point I make is that the arts have an abundance of funding. They don't need to take the resources from families that the families need to spend on themselves. We are now taxed at the highest rate since the onset of this Republic, since we have been in existence. We frequently have both parents in the work force, one to pay for Government, the other to support the family. We have governmental programming that is taking resources, saying we can spend this money better on your family than you can spend it on yourself. My own view is that is not something that we need to support. The arts do not require it, and I believe people are entitled to additional tax relief. The second point is whether the arts and the NEA need the money. According to the sponsors, this kind of an appropriation is not an issue. The arts do not need the money. They say what is needed here is sort of--the Federal Government telling people what is good and what is not good in the arts community. They call this the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval argument. On several occasions individuals have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate here and said whenever the NEA comes in and puts its so-called stamp of approval on items that it somehow makes it possible for those artists to survive because people need the NEA to develop a way of helping people understand what is good art and what is bad art. I don't think the NEA has been very good at developing good art. They have some good art, they have some art that is atrocious. It is clear to me that whether it has the NEA stamp of approval on it does not make a difference. I go back to an earlier example. This is an item of art which the NEA has paid for in the past. It is a poem, or so we are told it is a poem. It was part of an anthology. This was an anthology for which money was paid, hundreds of dollars paid, to support this ``L-I-G-H-G-H-T'' as a poem in the anthology. Now I suppose you might say most people would not recognize this as great art just looking at these letters. I was not extremely well educated. I went to the public schools, and, frankly, I have to confess I did not see that this was great art when I first saw this. As a matter of fact, I thought it was a misspelling-- but it could be great art. The argument is if you put the seal of approval on it by the NEA, somehow it will make it possible for everyone to agree it is great art, so if you somehow tack the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on it--it has Good Housekeeping and here is the National Endowment for the Arts, a combination of what proponents of this legislation say--the National Endowment symbol becomes the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for this, I suppose folks around the country will now recognize this word as great art, that this is great poetry. I hardly think so. The truth of the matter is you do not convert art into great art by putting some governmental seal of approval on it. It doesn't change the character of it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't help us at all in many respects. One of the individuals that I talked to earlier pointed out to me that in regard to this poem a Congressman called the author of the anthology, the one who had developed the book that included this and for which the Government paid, and asked the developer of the anthology to explain it. The author of the anthology said, ``You are from the Midwest. You are culturally deprived, so you would not understand it, anyway,'' no use to explain to you why this misspelled word or apparently misspelled word is great art. Well, I suppose people could say that we need the NEA so this sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval could convert misspellings into great art and people would know how to invest their money. I hardly think so. I have to make that argument with my tongue in my cheek. I wonder how those who made the argument kept their tongue out of their cheek in that respect? The mere fact that something has the National Endowment for the Arts on it--and this particular stamp of approval is there--doesn't make it good art or doesn't make it bad art. The American people are still left to make their own judgments. The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval doesn't really tell us much, although it does tell us something about the theory of Government that people have. Some people think that the American people can't make good judgments about value themselves and they need Government to identify those things which are worthy of their support, and our Government's absence of an identifying seal would be something that is not worthy of your support. I think they have inverted what is important to understand about democracy in that the genius of democracy is not that the Government would identify the great values of the world and impose them on the people. That is the idea of the monarchy, where somebody up high in some remote place would tell everybody what to think and do. The genius of a democracy is just the opposite of that. It is not that someone up high in some remote place tells everybody what to do. It is that the people, together, have a set of values, and instead of having values imposed on them by the Government, the people impose their values on the system. That is the genius of a democracy. The idea that somehow we need the National Endowment for the Arts to impose values on this culture is a bankrupt idea, in my judgment. Of course part of the argument that says we need the National Endowment for the Arts is that it identifies where people should invest in the arts. You don't have to tell people what they should like and not like, but this helps artists who are fledgling going around and saying you should invest in me as an artist because I have the seal of approval from the National Endowment for the Arts--sort of the idea you could have a central planning agency for the allocation of artistic resources. Now, central planning for the allocation of resources is not a novel idea. As a matter of fact, some countries tried it, not just for art. Some countries have tried it for all of their economic endeavors. That is really the definition of communism or socialism, that you have some head of planning in the economy that tells you what is good, bad, where you should invest and where you shouldn't invest as a culture. So you decide to grow this many acres of potatoes, this many acres of corn, and you make this much steel, and it is all planned at the center of things. It is supposed to be a good system, in theory. It took about 80 years around the world to figure out what the theory was, but it was a theory of collapse. We only have two fully confessed Communist regimes left in the world now, North Korea--and most of the rest of the world is trying to send them aid so their children don't starve to death--and Cuba, which is teetering on the edge of its own demise. The truth of the matter is central government planning to allocate the resources in the arts community isn't any more effective or any more to be desired than central governmental planning and allocation of resources in the industrial communities, the manufacturing community or the agricultural communities. The genius of the marketplace is that it rewards those things which are valuable in the absence of planning in Government, not that it gets signals from Government or some planning agency or some guru in some bureaucracy that says, ``This is my beloved artist in whom I am well pleased, put all your money here.'' As a matter of fact, some of the things that have been designated as those things to be supported like this poem--this is not the title for the poem, Mr. President, this is the poem. This is it, the whole nine yards. This is it. There is a dispute about whether the actual payment was $1,500 or $750. You can do the quick math. It is $107 a letter if it was $750, and $214 a letter if it was $1,500. I make this copy as a bargain to you, and just give you the $107 rate if you think your marketplace would sustain it. Of course, I am not sure whether this is the French version of the poem, the English or the German version of the poem, because I have looked in the dictionaries and I don't find it in the English dictionary, the French dictionary or the German dictionary, but who knows. I know one thing, putting the seal of approval on this would not increase its value to me, and I don't think it does for the culture. The truth of the matter is there are other reasons why we shouldn't be wanting to subsidize speech. Those reasons include the fact that the subsidization of speech results in the corruption of the arts. Jan Breslauer of the Los Angeles Times wrote eloquently that the National Endowment for the Arts results in the corrosive effect on the arts, that as a matter of fact that effect on the arts was prompted by the fact that National Endowment rewards politically correct art and art expression. She says, ``The Endowment has quietly pursued policies rooted in identity politics.'' The National Endowment for the Arts is conducting a political effort, ``a kind of separatism that emphasizes racial, sexual and cultural differences above all else.'' This is art subsidized by Government and specifically designed to separate us one from another based on racial differences, sexual differences and cultural differences. She says these policies have not ``excited much controversy, but they have had a profoundly corrosive effect on the American arts.'' Here is a clear indication by an art critic that the subsidy of arts, based on political preference, based on subject matter that is designed to divide the American people based on sexual, cultural and racial lines, pulls us apart rather than unifies us, has a corrosive effect on the arts. Not only a corrosive effect on the arts, it has a corrosive effect on the culture. I wonder if we ought to spend our resources on something which produces that kind of an impact on the culture? Mr. President, there are a number of other reasons and things I would like to say about this. We will have debate on both sides. I know the Senator from California is eager to speak. I want to give her an opportunity. So I sum up by saying there is no crisis in funding for the arts. People of America are taxed at their highest rates in history. There is no reason to require that there be a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the Government to try to dignify art that is not art, or to make decent those things which are indecent and unacceptable. Good art will be good art whether or not you label it with an NEA seal. An artistic statement, as a matter of fact, that came before the onset of the NEA, and will survive long after it, is that ``A rose is nothing but a rose no matter what you call it, and by any other name, it is still a rose.'' With that in mind, I think it is time for us to say we have spent more than enough in subsidizing politically correct activities under the guise of promoting the arts. I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. In response to that question, I can name at least one who didn't have that kind of grant, who was a poor fellow from a small town in Missouri. His name was Samuel Clemens. He wrote under the name of Mark Twain. He seemed to do pretty well. In the name of artists whose works are arrayed in this Capitol, George Caleb Bingham, who is considered to be the American Rembrandt, who was a Missouri State treasurer, who did not have a public subsidy to do it. We could go through the list. Obviously you could always say there may have been lots more. There may have been some who would have been great artists in the last 25 years but, because they didn't get the seal of approval, weren't able to market as successfully their artwork, now that the arts community has been so oriented to the Federal approval or disapproval. It seems to me, how many would be here or how many would be there is not a question that would be very productive in leading us to good policy.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? The Senator asked me a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.