Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we are saying now we have got 590 million barrels in this reserve.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. DICKS. I do not think he has yet asked for unanimous consent.

Mr. DICKS. Therefore, in order to do this, he would have to ask for unanimous consent?

Mr. DICKS. Is it not true that under the rule, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent in order to change the amendment that he had printed in the Record?

Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have to object to that. [[Page H 7061]]

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order because the amendment seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended. In the procedures of the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states the following: It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment previously agreed to * * *. Thus the text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended, and therefore is not in order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank all the Members who spoke tonight. This has been a very bipartisan debate. Our committee operates on a very bipartisan way. We have cut back the National Endowment for the Humanities much deeper than I would like to see by about $40 million. This amendment would eliminate it. The agreement here, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] pointed out, is to phase these things out over several years. To come in here tonight and offer this meat-ax approach to end this thing abruptly like this is unfair to the scholars all over this country who do so much for the humanities. This is an important program. It has been able to leverage all kinds of private investment in projects where scholars come from the public sector and work with people in the private sector. I urge Members to be almost unanimous, I hope, tonight in opposition to this ill-considered amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Ohio, to strike all funding in the bill for the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH]. I believe that this is a highly irresponsible amendment which goes against the national interest. The National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] is one of our most significant cultural institutions, and I believe has the strong support of the American people. Grants provided by the NEH greatly enhance scholarly research, education, and public programs in the Humanities. The NEH supports literature, history, preservation of the works of classic scholars, archaeology, philosophy, comparative religion, linguistics, and aspects of the social sciences with humanistic content. The Endowment helps ensure that we pass the cultural torch from generation to generation. In fiscal year 1994 alone, the NEH: Supported 70 hours of radio and television, reaching an audience of 244 million people; enabled 3,273 teachers from all over the country to participate in teacher institutes, summer seminars, and study grants, offering these teachers access to the best experts in their discipline; 500 scholars received scholarships or stipends to conduct research as a result of NEH efforts. In the course of its existence, the NEH has put forward a brittle books project, which has enabled over 628,000 volumes to be microfilmed so that their content was not forever lost, and its national heritage program has stabilized and preserved over 26 million archaeological, ethnographic, and historical objects of importance to our cultural heritage. The NEH is a strong investment in preserving our national heritage. By supporting such projects as the papers of George Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Mark Twain, the NEH helps keep our historical record intact for new generations of Americans. NEH is the primary funding source for these complex research undertakings, which often require a team of scholars. The NEH strengthens our communities. A strong community requires a sense of its history and traditions. The NEH and State humanities councils make grants that engage Americans where they live and work. In 1992, more than 6 million Americans participated in reading-and- discussion groups and other local educational programs through State councils alone. The evidence demonstrates that the NEH is a good economic investment. The cost for the [[Page H 7059]] endowment to each citizen is only 68 cents a year. It is one one- hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. The NEH also leverages private giving. Many NEH grants require from $1 to $4 in non-Federal money for every NEH dollar. Since the Agency's inception, these grants have attracted $1 billion in private funds in challenge grants alone, and $400 million in other matching programs. I believe that it is also important to point out that the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] also stimulates local economies. In the home State of the gentleman offering this amendment, ``The Age of Rubens'' exhibition in Toledo, OH, broke attendance records during 1994 and was credited with pumping $22.8 million into the local economy. Visits to Virginia's Civil War attractions jumped from 7,000 to 45,000 in the month following the airing of ``The Civil War.'' Let us continue the National Endowment for the Humanities. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. Could the Chair remind us who prevailed on this vote? Was it the ayes and the noes?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and say that I believe that we should continue to support the National Endowment for the Arts. If you go back as far as 1964, when the endowment was created, and you look at the private sector involvement since that time, the NEA's impact has been dramatic. Because we put in a few seed dollars into the Arts through the NEA, we have seen a dramatic increase in private funding for the Arts, and we have seen arts institutions spring up all over this country, and not just in the big eastern cities. I believe that if you look at the numbers, they will demonstrate that for every 1 Federal dollar we invest in the Arts, $11 are invested from the private sector. That is a dramatic indication of the success of this partnership between the public and private sector. Again, the subcommittee has already reduced funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by 40 percent, which is clearly too large a reduction. Therefore, I would strongly urge the House to vote against the Stearns amendment. I know that there are those who want to play politics with this issue. However, the endowment, if viewed in any objective way, has been an enormous success. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. This action would be highly irresponsible and I believe against the interests of the American people. For those in this body concerned and conscious of deficit reduction, let me point out that the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee has already drastically reduced funding for the Arts for fiscal year 1996, by 40 percent. The NEA's base funding has gone down from $171 million in fiscal year 1994, to a further reduced base of $162 million in fiscal year 1995, to only $99.4 million in the fiscal year 1996 bill that is being brought to the floor today. Let me also remind you that the funding level for the arts agency as reported out by the subcommittee is consistent with the level proposed for fiscal year 1996 in H.R. 1557, the reauthorization bill for the NEA that was prepared by Chairman Goodling and the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. So the NEA has given to deficit reduction. In fact, the NEA has given more than its share, and we have nearly crippled the agency's ability to be viable at the levels we have reported out in this bill. Those who believe the NEA funding should be reduced further or eliminated are saying to this Nation and their constituents that we should not invest in our culture and in creativity. To be against the arts agency's existence is to say that we should not support ballets, symphonies, or theatre performances. It's time to look at the real truth and the real value of the NEA, and move beyond the scapegoating for convenience of this important cultural institution for our Nation. Let's examine the real record, and stop viewing this agency through a prism of distortion. Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded over 100,000 grants and less than 40 have been considered to be very controversial. It is estimated that the Endowment costs each American just 64 cents a year. However, with this modest investment, the agency helps enhance the quality of life for our citizens, by supporting theatres, touring dance companies, folk festivals, arts education, orchestras, museums, and a wide variety of other programs. Many widely acclaimed programs began with the talent of individuals who had received seed money from the NEA, and many rural areas of our Nation would not be able to enjoy arts programs without outreach by the Endowment. We must recognize that the small investment made by the Federal Government in funding the NEA creates tremendous leverage in obtaining private investment. For every dollar spent by the Endowment, it attracts $11 in investment from the private sector. In fact, many private sector contributors rely heavily on the NEA's grant selection process as a guide to the kinds of programs that should be supported. Endowment support has helped to increase audience support for all art forms. For example, the annual audience for professional [[Page H 7035]] dance has grown from 1 million to more than 16 million over the past 28 years. Audiences for the work of professional opera companies have grown to over 7.6 million, compared to only 5 million a decade ago. Non-profit theaters serve an audience that has grown to over 20 million. Symphony performance attendance has risen to over 27 million annually. All of this has occurred with seed support from the NEA. Each year radio programs reach millions of Americans bringing the best of the arts to urban and rural communities through such Endowment- funded series as ``American Jazz Radio Festival'' and ``Mountain Stage.'' The NEA's Underserved Communities Initiative, created in 1990, has awarded grants in every State to broaden public access to art in rural, inner-city, and artistically underserved areas. Also, support for the arts is support for the economy. The NEA's modest budget has annual generated matching funds estimated at over $1.2 billion. These moneys permeate the economy. At least 1.3 million full time jobs are supported by the arts; $25.2 billion is earned through salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income; local governments receive $790 million in taxes and fees; State governments receive $1.2 billion; and the Federal Government receives $3.4 billion in income tax revenue. It is clear that the outreach and support granted by the NEA to the arts has an incredible ripple effect throughout our economy, and restricting or eliminating the NEA's ability to perform that outreach would be both economically and culturally devastating. In my home State of Washington, many arts and cultural institutions have benefitted from NEA grants, including: Tacoma's Broadway Theatre, the Tacoma Art Museum, the Centrum Foundation, the Washington State Arts Commission, the Before Columbus Foundation, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, the Bainbridge Island Arts Council, the Seattle Art Museum, the Spokane Symphony Society, the Washington State Historical Society, and the Seattle Children's Theatre Association. Not just in my district, but throughout the Nation, the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] is serving our Nation well. It is important for our future, and it should receive the support of this Congress because that is what the American people expect of us, and we should not let them down. Reject this amendment, and any other amendments offered today to cut or eliminate the arts. Let's do what's right for the Nation, let's support the NEA.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, I am, too. I would like to. I realize realities.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.