T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, argues for his amendment striking the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts, as I have listened to him, on two grounds. The first ground is that the appropriation is unconstitutional. The second ground is that it is undesirable. I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that Members of the Senate of the United States have a responsibility, just as do sworn members of the judiciary of the United States, to consider carefully the constitutional implications of all of the work they do. I disagree with the Senator from New Hampshire, however, on what seems to me an easy question to answer: the constitutionality of an appropriation of this nature. In fact, I think the Senator from New Hampshire implied or illustrated the weakness of his own argument when he said, just a few moments ago, why should the people of the United States be paying for an activity of this sort as against paying for the education of our children, among other items that he listed. The education of our children is no more mentioned in the Constitution of the United States than are the arts or any other cultural activity. Yet it is clearly constitutional, as well as appropriate, for the Congress of the United States to support the education of our children and, for that matter, our young people through college and through graduate school, and we do so with increasing enthusiasm in each and every year. The same interpretation of the Constitution of the United States that allows and encourages us to do that for education allows us to do so for cultural activities, including the National Endowment for the Arts. If support for the National Endowment for the Arts is unconstitutional, so is support for the Library of Congress--I see nothing about a library in the Constitution of the United States--so is support for the National Gallery of Art, for the Smithsonian Institution, and for the Air and Space Museum, for all of the other cultural activities enthusiastically and, I may say, appropriately supported by the Congress of the United States. No, there is no precedent and no serious legal argument against the constitutionality of our support, modest as it is, for the National Endowment for the Arts. There has been, however, a considerable argument during the course of the last decade or perhaps two decades over the appropriateness of the support for the arts or, alternatively, over the way in which the National Endowment for the Arts spends its money. Again, I think a vast majority of the Members of both Houses of Congress think, in the abstract, that it is appropriate to spend a modest amount of money on the arts. From the very beginning of the Republic, we have decorated this building with all kinds of works of art that are not necessary for the functioning of the Congress of the United States. I don't think anyone has ever challenged either the appropriateness or the constitutionality of the use of Federal money for the arts in that respect. But climaxing in 1995, there was widespread criticism of a significant number of grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts--criticism that I think was totally valid--and some of those specifics the Senator from New Hampshire has illustrated here once again. In 1995, when this debate was at its height, the proponents of the arts severely restricted the ability of the National Endowment for the Arts to make individual grants, and many of these highly criticized expenditures were to individuals rather than to groups and organizations. Overwhelmingly, today, money for the National Endowment for the Arts goes to States' arts agencies and through grants to a wide range of cultural institutions, many of them, fortunately--more than was the case in the past, though perhaps not quite enough--to organizations in the smaller communities of the United States, outside of major metropolitan areas, either to bring various forms of music, dance, theater, the visual arts to those smaller communities, or to support the creation of such art in those communities in a way that I think is highly enthusiastic. And it becomes increasingly difficult for the critics of the Endowment to say that the moneys we appropriate here are used on matters that are not artistic or are totally and completely inappropriate. The present Chairman of the Endowment and the predecessor Chairman of the Endowment have worked diligently and, I think, quite successfully in seeing to it that that was not the case. We created congressional nonvoting members of the National Endowment. The Senator from Alabama, who is one of those members, is here on the floor. He has expressed to me his frustration frequently with the way in which some of his advice has been ignored. But I think his very presence has a salutary effect on the way in which the Endowment is managed. As a consequence, there was a bitter division between the Senate and the House of Representatives in which the House, on at least one occasion--and I think two--did defund the National Endowment and it was rejected by a substantial majority in the Senate. This year, it has disappeared. The House of Representatives has funded the Endowment. If my memory of the bill is correct, there is only a $1 million, or 1- percent, difference between this bill and the bill that passed the House of Representatives. For me, perhaps the most significant and weighty argument in favor of this appropriation is an argument I have made on behalf of a number of other programs that involve partnerships among the Congress of the United States, State governments, and the private sector. That is the fact that I do not believe there is a single arts group or institution in the United States of America that receives all of its funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. As a matter of fact, there may not be any that receives 10 percent of the amount of money that they spend from the National Endowment for the Arts. Overwhelmingly, its grants are modest in amount. They are sought eagerly by far more applicants than can possibly receive those grants, because the very fact that the National Endowment for the Arts has given $20,000, or $30,000, or $100,000 to a particular organization adds a degree of prestige and imprimatur to the activities of that organization that make its efforts to secure private funding--and in almost every case, the great majority of the funding of these organizations comes from the private sector--makes securing that funding easier. Whether it is right or not, contributors seem far more likely to contribute to an organization that has been recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts than they are willing to do so with respect to the thousands of other arts organizations and groups that don't receive such funding. So the appropriation here is considerably less than 1 percent of the money in this appropriations bill that goes to the National Endowment for the Arts and multiplied many times over by support from the private sector. This is true in other areas in my bill, and one I am very interested in, funding for the renewal of salmon runs in the State of Washington. We have money here that will go to a foundation that guarantees that it can double or triple the amount of money actually getting into the field for this purpose, instead of taking on something that would otherwise be wholly and completely a responsibility of the Government of the United States. So, Mr. President, I believe the serious debate over the future of the National Endowment for the Arts has passed. I think it has passed because the National Endowment is reformed. I think it has passed because they are now doing what I believe the Endowment was originally intended to do, and doing it in almost every case with a remarkable degree of thoughtfulness and good sense. What we come up with here, representing only a tiny percent of what goes in the arts activities in the States, is nevertheless very important in that support and vitally important in securing the private sector support for the arts, and that has been in the past and will be in the future a primary source of the money. Regrettably, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire in this connection. If he wishes to speak again, I am going to yield the floor now. I note the presence of the Senators from Florida and Wyoming, and I know the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, wants to speak on this issue. So we are not going to bring it to a vote now. When the Senator from New Hampshire has made his comments, I will ask unanimous consent to go on to the next amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, he is here on his own amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for just a moment?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont has a quick unanimous consent request. Change of Vote

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendments are these: Senator Burns: Transfers $700,000 to tribal colleges with an offset from a land acquisition in his State. Senator Campbell: $400,000 for a habitat conservation program with an offset in his State. Senator DeWine: Redirecting various projects within the State of Ohio. The two Senators from Indiana, Senators Lugar and Bayh: $700,000 for a land acquisition and a wildlife refuge offset by another land acquisition in that State. The two Senators from Florida, Senators Mack and Graham: A very similar land acquisition offset. And Senator Reid of Nevada: A shift of $150,000, again, within the State of Nevada. I ask unanimous consent that all six amendments be considered en bloc and accepted en bloc.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I compliment both the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from West Virginia on very thoughtful and fascinating statements on this matter. I move to table the Smith amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we consider six amendments en bloc which I send to the desk. I will explain each of these amendments, sponsored by a Senator and relating to projects within that Senator's State or the two Senators' State, and simply shifts money among projects within the States.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in just a moment I will have several agreed-upon amendments to propound and hopefully they will be agreed to very quickly. Then Mr. Smith of New Hampshire is here with the first contested amendment. I hope we can finish as many as three amendments that are likely to require rollcalls between now and 1 o'clock. After the Smith amendment that deals with the National Endowment for the Arts, I hope we will have an opportunity to go to an amendment by Mr. Graham of Florida and Mr. Enzi, relating to Indian gambling. While I have not found the Senator yet, I would like, after that, to go to an amendment by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, on forest roads. Others may intervene. We also have a number of amendments that will be agreed upon from time to time. My own reading of our list of amendments is that they are reasonably limited, even at this point. Several require votes. I hope none will require a long and extensive debate. The majority leader wants, as early as possible, to get an agreed-upon list of amendments. I suspect we will be asking for unanimous consent to say all amendments must be filed by, say, sometime this afternoon. So Members who have amendments about which they have not notified the managers are encouraged to do so as promptly as possible. I believe the majority leader wishes to finish this bill, as well as the reconciliation bill on taxes, before the recess begins sometime tomorrow. Amendment Nos. 1563 Through 1568, En Bloc

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee notes the commitment of partners like the state of Wisconsin to provide matching funds for the establishment of our national trails when we make our determinations for funding. The Committee urges partners to honor their commitments as the prospects for future appropriations may be looked upon more favorably.

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for bringing this matter to my attention. I will take a look at the funding levels for the Task Force as we proceed to Conference.

Mr. GORTON. Is the Interior bill the subject?

Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for their comments. Clearly the Everglades restoration effort is an important national priority. I can anticipate that funding for these accounts will likely be discussed further during the Conference with the House. I can assure my friends that I will take a close look at actions taken by the Department in response to the Committee's concerns and will work to ensure the funding levels are adequate to keep the restoration effort on track for the next fiscal year.

Mr. GORTON. That is correct. I point out that this project is not authorized as a federal acquisition project. In addition, stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund projects are determined at the State level, so if funds for state grants are included in the bill, it still will not be possible to secure dedicated funding for this project.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin raising this issue. Leaving the regional office in Milwaukee will save the Forest Service $4.5 million slated for future years spending to build a new facility in Madison. The Committee agrees that using the $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to improve the HVAC systems at the Forest Products Lab is a far better use of these funds.

Mr. GORTON. As the distinguished Chairman is aware, the bill before us does not include any language requiring a state match. I will certainly keep the objections of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition in mind as we move to conference.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I had expected that we would have a vote on a point of order with respect to the section of the bill to which he refers tonight. He prefers, as is his right, to introduce a motion to strike this particular provision. That is, of course, a debatable motion and a motion that would be debated with some seriousness. The majority leader has said the floor is available to debate amendments tonight with the exception of the Senator from Virginia. I don't see anyone here who I believe really wants to introduce and debate an amendment tonight. We will leave a resolution or any recorded vote until Wednesday, September 8. One Senator, Mr. Smith from Oregon, I know, wishes to debate the Senator from Virginia. If we can find him in the next 5 minutes or so, so that there could be a real debate, then I would be delighted to have the Senator from Virginia introduce his amendment. But I think we ought to have someone on both sides here in order to do it. In the meantime, for a few minutes at least, we are searching around to see if there are any agreed-upon amendments that I can simply introduce and have offered and passed. I also notice the presence of the Senator from Wyoming who waited patiently this morning with the Senator from Florida for a debate on a particular amendment which might possibly end up being determined by a voice vote. I ask the Senator from Wyoming whether his partner from Florida is available this evening.

Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's interest in this project and its importance to Nebraska's history and heritage. We were unable to include funding for one of the accounts where this project might be supported. However, I will work with the Senator to see if we can identify funds for this project in the future.

Mr. GORTON. I understand that the National Park Service has already targeted these funds for specific park sites.

Mr. GORTON. I am sympathetic to our colleague' request. I am also aware that language authorizing repayment of the fee charged to the City of Virginia Beach is included in this year's Water Resources Development Act. We are facing very tough funding constraints this year, but if the senior Senator from West Virginia agrees, we'll work together to help the city if possible.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his endorsement of this aspect of energy research. As the Senator mentioned, we have included a modest increase in materials research in the fossil energy budget for this bill above the enacted level. I am aware of the excellent research being done in the Senator's home state--at the Federal Energy Technology Center--as well as in other Energy Department laboratories. It is the intent of the Committee to continue to work with the Department of Energy to seek opportunities to enhance and strengthen this important area of research in balance with the other high-priority research. In this regard, the Committee would certainly give careful consideration to such a reprogramming request of the Department of Energy. Glen Echo Park construction funds

Mr. GORTON. I was pleased that the Georgia delegation, the Administration and a variety of local interests were able to reach agreement with regard to the preservation of lands and historic properties on Cumberland Island, and am pleased that we were able to provide a considerable amount of funds to implement the first phase of the agreement. Your leadership has been instrumental in this matter, and I appreciate your efforts to provide for the lands and management of the Cumberland Island National Seashore. I look forward to working with you to the extent additional funds are necessary to implement the agreement, recognizing the difficult fiscal limitations under which the Committee must operate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for its efforts to help resolve several very important and contentious issues affecting the Howard Hanson Dam project in Washington state. I applaud the Howard Hanson provision in the Managers Statement accompanying this legislation, which recognizes the ongoing negotiations between the Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to the Corps' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act for the protection of threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. These fish runs are directly impacted by the Corps of Engineers' operation of Howard Hanson Dam and, as a consequence, the Corps will be asked to bear responsibility for these impacts under the ESA. I appreciate the Committee's acknowledgment that the requirements of ESA might force a revision of the cost allocation for the Howard Hanson project. Given the urgent need to have mitigation measures in place as soon as possible to protect salmon runs in the Puget Sound region, is it the Committee's intent that the Corps provide a proposal for a cost reallocation to the Committee for consideration in the Water Resources Development Act for the year 2000?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chairman. american river watershed project