Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added to the amendment as cosponsors: Senator Shelby, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Allard, and Senator Kempthorne.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that I think supports one of our most fundamental rights, the right of property ownership. The fundamental right, I believe, is at least eroded, threatened, by the Executive order signed by the President on September 11. I am sure it is a well-intended Executive order, designating the American heritage rivers initiative. The initiative is intended, in the words of the President in his Executive order ``to help communities protect their river resources in a way that integrates natural resource protection, economic development and the preservation of historic and cultural values, things that we all support.'' The difficulty is that we have an Executive order that, originating from the executive branch, has not gone through the committee process. It has not received any congressional authorization, has not received any appropriation, but simply is something that has been ordered by the President. The funding for this initiative comes from eight Cabinet departments including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Interior, and the Department of Energy. In addition to all of the Cabinet departments, there is funding from a number of agencies as well: EPA, NEA, NEH, and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation. The end result is funding from various departments and agencies apart from any congressional hearings, and apart from any congressional authorization or appropriation. I support riverfront revitalization but not at the expense of trampling upon basic property rights and subverting plans and desires of local communities. I think riverfront revitalization should be community-led and a community-driven process, not something that is dictated through an Executive order in Washington. My amendment allows for the riverfront renaissance that communities desperately need, while offering protections from further Federal encroachment. It allows the President's Executive order to go forward and it would allow the rivers initiative to go forward. Congress has never authorized or appropriated one dime for the American heritage rivers initiative, nor has it even defined the term ``river community.'' The Executive order contains the term ``river community'' without any kind of definition. This amendment would require congressional review of the 10 rivers that have been nominated for designation. The Executive order lays out 10 rivers to be designated as American heritage rivers. We would simply say that when those 10 rivers are designated, that Congress should have the right of review and designation, confirmation of those designated rivers. The amendment would require that all property owners holding title to lands directly abutting the riverbank shall be consulted and asked for letters of support or opposition to the designation. Now, it has been wrongly conveyed by the opposition of this amendment that somehow every property owner along the river would have veto power and that if any property owner objected to the designation or objected to participation in the heritage rivers initiative, that suddenly the whole project would therefore be ended, or any possibility of receiving that designation would be eliminated. That is not the case at all. We simply believe that those most involved, those whose lives are going to be most affected, the property owners along the river, would have the right to say yes or no. I think that makes perfect sense and that process is not guaranteed under the Executive order. Let's ensure that they are notified and at least that they have the right of commenting and expressing their opinion. In the amendment, we would define the river community as those who own property, reside, or who regularly conduct business within 10 miles of the river considered for designation. It is absolutely necessary for us to place a definition as to what a river community is, and how it should be defined. The amendment would make the initiative subject to the existing provisions of the Clean Water and Safety Drinking Water Acts. I hope that would be supported by environmentalists. All of us are concerned about the enforcement of environmental laws, and an Executive order that will somehow be able to circumvent existing environmental law. The amendment would ensure that this process, as it goes forward, would be subject to existing provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. I agree we must revitalize our rivers and preserve their historic character. This amendment ensures that it is not at the expense of those who have chosen to be a part of the surrounding communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to define river community, we need to comply with existing environmental laws, and the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We need to ensure that property owners are notified that they have the right of comment, that they have the right to write letters of opposition or support. We need to provide in this Executive order for congressional review. If there is one complaint I have heard from my constituents across the State of Arkansas, it is that, we as the elected representatives of the people, too often have simply given up our legislative authority. We have allowed the executive branch, through various Executive orders, to usurp what is legitimately and constitutionally our right and our responsibility. This amendment represents one small area where we can say that the President has issued an Executive order, and we now will ensure that we have the right of review. This amendment would do that. I think that we can once again assert our proper role by ensuring that we can review the designation of the heritage rivers. Most importantly, we would protect property owners from the encroachment of an ever-growing Government and an ever more intrusive bureaucracy. We would ensure that the plans of the local communities are not subverted because of this new Executive order and that local communities, drive the entire process. I believe the amendment is reasonable, it is temperate, and it will reassure our citizens, our constituents, and those along these important American heritage rivers, that we take their rights as property owners and citizens of this country and value them greatly. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to do something that I think is highly irregular. I earlier asked unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. But after reading the letter that came from the Sierra Club, and a number the other organizations, and after listening to the comments of my esteemed colleague, and my good friend, Senator Dodd, I really think that it is essential that the amendment be read. So I am going to proceed to do that. It is very brief. But I think the American people, whenever my colleague says there is some great morass, that we are adding some great regulatory burden--there are some I guess that would say democracy is a great regulatory burden; to ask people to have some input on whether or not as property owners they want to be part of this, that it is a terrible burden, I guess; but that it is a big process to ask Congress to use its proper role in review. I mean, when we look at wild and scenic rivers, we review that. We have the right to make a determination on that. I would like to read the amendment. I think we can perhaps better focus our debate when we understand exactly what is in the amendment. American Heritage Rivers Initiative During fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, the President and other officers of the executive branch may implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative under Executive Order 13061 only in accordance with this section. Nominations.--The President, acting through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, shall submit to Congress nominations of the 10 rivers that are proposed for designation as American Heritage Rivers. It doesn't exclude any rivers. The President, acting through his chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, will submit the nominations. Prioritization.--The nominations shall be subject to the prioritization process established by the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The point there being that we ought to comply with existing law, and that if we were going to prioritize these rivers it should be on the basis of where the greatest need is as determined by the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Consultation with Property Owners.-- I used to wonder why the American people would object to this amendment. To ensure the protection of private property owners along a river proposed for nomination. All property owners holding title to land directly abutting riverbank shall be consulted and asked to offer letters of support for or opposition to the nomination. I suppose that is a great burden--to notify the property owners, and let them express themselves pro or con. But I think that is what America is about. I think that avoiding that kind of process is what the American property owners today, the landowners of this country, so object to. Consultation of property owners; that is No. 3. Designation.--The American Heritage Rivers Initiative may be implemented only with respect to rivers that are designated as American Heritage Rivers by act of Congress. That goes back to our review process. Then the definition of river communities, which was totally omitted in the Executive order. Definition of River Community.--For the purposes of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as used in Executive Order 13061, the term ``river community'' shall include all persons that own property, reside, or regularly conduct business within 10 miles of the river. Without that definition, someone in another State could nominate a river in Arkansas, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island. Or somebody in Washington State could nominate--I mean we have to have some kind of definition as to what we mean. We are filling that void through this amendment. That is the entire amendment. I have read it all, every word of it. So let the American people determine whether or not there is something so objectionable as has been characterized by those who are opposing the amendment. I have much more to say. But that was the point of my seeking recognition--to simply read the amendment for the American people, and for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, that, of course, is the case, but a vote for the Hutchinson amendment is not, as it has been suggested, a vote against this initiative or a vote against having a river in your State participate in this program. I think it gives the wrong appearance and the wrong suggestion for Members of the Senate that somehow their vote on this amendment might influence whether or not rivers in their States would be selected and be so designated. There are many who came and asked me to sponsor an amendment similar to what was passed in the House in which funds were simply cut off for this program. I resisted the desire to do that, because I didn't think that the goals, as stated for the initiative, were bad, but I did believe that there needed to be some protections, and some assurances. Senator Dodd says that this is somehow some backdoor way of killing the program. Well, the House in effect did that. I resisted that because I didn't want to indicate I wasn't supportive of the goals of the initiative. But I did believe that we needed to have a process that ensured that it would guarantee the rights of private property owners along these precious historic rivers would be protected. It has been asserted that we have such a process in place. My confidence in that process is somewhat shaken because of my experience with the administration over this issue. Fifteen U.S. Senators signed a letter asking for the comment period to be extended for 120 days, but we could not get the administration to honor that request. Because our simple request was denied, I have a hard time accepting that the requests of average citizens would be honored. The process may look good on paper, but that is not the process in reality. If, in fact, there is such confidence that property owners are going to have input and those most affected are going to have adequate input, then there shouldn't be any problem in accepting an amendment that puts that assurance into statutory language. The fact is, the process has been short-circuited. Those most impacted and those most affected are not being given an opportunity to express themselves. It has been suggested that this is a small program, voluntary program, no money involved. How can that be asserted? We don't know how much money is going to be spent. Nobody can tell me how much is going to be spent on this initiative because no one knows. There has been no authorization. There has been no appropriation. We have eight Cabinet- level departments involved and four Federal agencies involved. Let's put that in the amendment, ``No money will be spent. We are going to designate these rivers and no money will be spent.'' No. We are not going to get that assurance because that is not the case. How broad are the implications of this initiative? No one knows, because Congress has been cut out of the process, until this moment. An Executive order, a short comment period, the process moves forward, and when one Senator dares to stand along with some colleagues who have had some courage to cosponsor the amendment, suddenly we are imposing some terrible, onerous burden upon this program. Who objects to that? I believe this is why we were elected: to look at the executive branch, to rein in agencies that may go off without adequate public input and without a proper process. All we are doing in this amendment is assuring there is going to be such a process. They say, ``Well, this is terrible to have to notify all the property owners.'' There are a lot of ways of notifying, and we have, both on the State and Federal level. There are many different kinds of public notification. You can do that through newspapers. You can do that through radio. You can do that through public service announcements. As a former radio station owner, it was something we did that all the time. It is common knowledge that newspapers give public notice all the time. It is important to ensure in statute that we are going to have public notice to all property owners and that their input is desired. We want to know if you are for the initiative or against it, give us your ideas. Give us your suggestions--that is not some kind of onerous burden. It is a fundamental part of freedom. It is part of liberty. It is part of the essence of a democratic republic. It is an asssurance to the citizens of our country that they will have adequate input. It is not to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say, ``Well, we can't possibly notify everybody.'' We can and we should. The Amerian public should know, and they have the right to give their thoughts and their suggestions on whether they are for it or they are against it. If one is convinced that the property owners' input is going to be guaranteed under the current process, there surely should be no objection to supporting this amendment and guaranteeing that they are going to have proper input. The fact is, we need to reassure the citizens of this country that we in the U.S. Senate do take the rights of property owners seriously and that when we are going to designate their property, we are going to give it a title--we don't know what all the implications of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative may be--it is incumbent upon us to guarantee that they are going to have the right to be involved in that process. That is what this amendment is about. Let's let them know. Let's let them have input. Let's let their elected officials be able to make the final decision. It is argued that for Congress to review and to approve the designations of these rivers is somehow to politicize the process. Anybody who has watched the executive branch operate over the last 4 years--for that matter, I suspect you go could go back much further; I have been in Congress since 1993--if you look back over those years, I think it is very difficult to argue that designations and decisions being made in the executive branch are somehow nonpolitical. If you wanted to depoliticize the process, bring it before the U.S. Senate, bring it before the House, bring it before the appropriate committees and let us ratify it. We do it all the time. We do it for the wild and scenic rivers. This will allow Congress to have the same kind of input and the same kind of ratification process that we have on other programs. No, that is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. It is a good thing to notify property owners, to ensure public input, to allow the elected representatives of the people to have a say-so in these kinds of programs. For many of us who have looked at the use of the Executive order over the last few years, we understand, we understand well, that a nation that was built upon three equal branches of Government and a system of checks and balances. Too often the legislative branch has allowed our prerogatives to be usurped by an executive branch that would just as soon govern by Executive order. Whether it is totally meritorious or whether it may not be totally meritorious, we should have a say in those kinds of decisions. Here is an area in which we, as the legislative branch, can reassert our rightful constitutional authority to review these decisions. So I ask my colleagues to, once again, look at the actual language of the amendment, look at the intent of the amendment, look beyond the rhetoric and support this very responsible, moderate, temperate provision to ensure that the rights of our citizens are protected. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of offering an amendment that is opposed by a chairman for whom I have the greatest respect and greatest esteem and the highest regard. So it is with that recognition that were I not so convinced of the merits of this amendment, I would have to rethink its value and its submission. When we talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, I think the opponents of this amendment are making a mountain out of a molehill. This amendment has the simple purpose of protecting the rights of property owners and ensuring the input and participation of those most affected by these designations. It is not too much to think that Congress ought to ratify this designation, that Congress ought to have a say or view in the designation of these rivers in what could be a very, very broad program--eight cabinet departments, and four Federal agencies We have a process for the Wild and Scenic Rivers. Why not have a say in the American heritage rivers initiative as well. Now, my esteemed colleague said there is very little money involved. We do not know. It has not been authorized, nor has it been appropriated. How much money is involved in this? Who can really give me an answer to that? There is no answer because we have eight cabinet departments and we have four Federal agencies, each one taking a little bit out of their pot. How much is involved? I would pose that question to those who are opposing this amendment. This has been presented as just a small initiative; that really we are making too much out of it and this is just a voluntary program. If it is a small program, we have eight cabinet-level departments involved and four Federal agencies participating in it. That sounds like a rather major initiative to me. If you will compare the simplicity of my three-page amendment to the length of the Executive order, which has been submitted for the Record, I think one will see who is making a mountain out of what molehill. Now, my esteemed colleague gave us some historical background as to how this initiative came forward. Let me just amplify a little bit more. The President officially announced this in his State of the Union Address. It was published during the month of February in the Federal Register, although it was not noticed to a great extent. Several public hearings apparently were held in the spring but congressional offices were not uniformly notified of hearing dates. Equally troubling was the short 3-week public comment period that was posted in the May 19 Federal Register. Because of the scope and the goals of the initiative and the magnitude of possible designations, I along with 15 of my colleagues signed a letter to Kathleen McGinty, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, asking for a 120-day extension. That is all we asked for, extend the comment period. They gave 3 weeks for the public. This is being presented as, Well, we would welcome all of those who are concerned about this to have adequate input. The fact is, the administration gave 3 weeks for public comment, and we as the elected representatives of the people said, Please extend that to 120 days. The administration only agreed to a mere 3 weeks. I think that was a very inadequate response to a program that has never been authorized and never been appropriated. As I read the letter that has been sent out to all of my colleagues from the American Rivers, from the National Audubon Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation, the River Network, and the Sierra Club, I hardly recognized the amendment of which they were speaking. They outlined their objections to the Hutchinson amendment. They say the Hutchinson amendment imposes ``unprecedented, onerous and unnecessary requirements.'' I read the amendment. So let the American people make their judgment as to whether that is an appropriate characterization of the amendment and whether asking Congress to approve, asking the property owners be notified and given the opportunity to say yes or no to it, whether they like it or not, if that is an onerous and unprecedented requirement. Then they have four bullets in which they express their objections. Listen to these objections. These are the objections of the American Rivers, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, and the River Network. Objection No. 1, ``All designations would require congressional approval.'' Boy, that is something to object to, that Congress would actually approve it. They object, ``The amendment would require all property owners along rivers to be identified and asked to support or oppose the nomination.'' Boy, that is something to object to, to actually notify the property owners and give them an opportunity to say whether they support it or oppose it. This is the objection of these groups to this amendment. That is an onerous requirement, to notify property owners about this new designation that is going to impact their lives, impact their property, the use of their property. They object, they say, ``The amendment would prohibit the initiative to assist nondesignated rivers.'' I don't see that in the amendment. Then they say, ``The amendment would create and impose on river communities a 20-mile-wide Federal corridor including all persons who own property, reside or regularly conduct business in the corridor.'' I say to my distinguished colleague who questioned the definition, if you don't like definition, give us a different definition. But at least there is a definition of what a river community is. Because in the Executive order there is no definition of what we are talking about when we say a river community. We thought there ought to be some kind of definition as to what a river community is, and the best way to define it is to designate those who are most impacted by it. So, once again, I would never present any legislative offering that I am authoring as being a perfect legislative remedy. But I am suggesting that there is nothing intemperate or unreasonable about what we are seeking. We are seeking to ensure that private property rights are protected, that property owners have an opportunity for input, and that congressional review and approval be preserved. That is our prerogative as those elected by our citizens. Once again, if there is a mountain being made out of a molehill, it is those who would oppose a very commonsense amendment that would ensure that those most impacted by another Federal initiative will have input and have some protection for their rights and that those they elected to represent them up here would have a final say on whether those rivers are so designated or not. I ask my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and look at the reality of what this amendment does, the purpose of the amendment, and then grant their support for the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, with mutual respect for Senator Dodd's opposition to this amendment, three times my distinguished colleague has suggested that a vote for the Hutchinson amendment will be a vote not to participate in the American heritage rivers initiative. I assure my colleagues, and I hope that Senator Dodd will join me in assuring my colleagues, that this process is not so political that casting a vote for an amendment designed to protect the private property owners would somehow jeopardize later approval or selection as an American heritage river. It is simply not the case.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My point in the amendment of course is to make Congress a partner in this process. And to the extent that this would be difficult to implement, this change I hope will be helpful. I appreciate the Senator's indulgence. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in participating in this debate on the Hutchinson amendment on the American heritage rivers initiative, and listening to I think some very valid points that have been made by my esteemed colleague, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, and would modify the amendment to read, on page 2, section (b), No. 3, ``Consultation With Property Owners.--To ensure the protection of private property owners along a river proposed for nomination, the comments of all property owners holding title to land directly abutting river bank who wish to comment shall be considered.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to provide a written version.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to engage Senator Gorton in a discussion of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. As the Senator is aware, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 222 to 203, on July 15, 1997 passed the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. Included as part of that legislation was an amendment which prohibits funding for the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program. Although a similar provision has not been included as part of the Senate deliberations on this appropriation, I offer the following argument for its inclusion in the upcoming conference between the House and Senate. Many of my colleagues may question exactly what the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program is. After all you will not find it mentioned in any line item within this bill, nor will you find it housed in any of the agencies which receive appropriations under this bill. The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program or USMAB operates through the State Department and under the guidance of the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization [UNESCO] to designate tracts of American land as biosphere reserves. These areas are ``voluntarily'' subject to land management requirements designated to facilitate ecological research and preservation. Currently, there are 47 biospheres in the United States covering a land area approximately the size of Colorado, our eighth largest state. Some biospheres, such as the Land Between the Lakes Biosphere in Kentucky, include populated areas with over 484,000 residents. Despite the size and breadth of this program it has never been authorized by Congress, yet it is still 100% taxpayer funded. It is supported through interagency transfers from a total of thirteen different agencies. Collectively, these agencies contributed $210,000 to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program in Fiscal Year 1997. While the total value associated with this program may fly well below many of our radar screens, the question and problems associated with the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program are very real and very much in the minds of our constituents. While I was serving in the House, some of my constituents brought to my attention a proposal by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program to create the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative, which would have encompassed part of my home state of Arkansas as well as part of the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. As I began to investigate this proposal some of the very worst fears of my constituents were confirmed. The ``voluntary, honorary'' land designation represented a potential threat to the private property rights of my constituents. For example, on page 120 of the Feasibility Study for the Ozark Man and the Biosphere appeared the following statement, ``Normally, there is no need for change in land-holding or regulation following the designation of a biosphere reserve except where changes are required to ensure the strict protection of the core area or specific research sites.'' Perhaps what was even more frightening was this biosphere was being created in secret. The steering committee responsible for attempting to create the Ozark biosphere admitted in their feasibility study that they ``decided that public meetings would not be part of the interview process because such meetings tend to polarize views of the public and may capture negative attention from the press.'' (Page 43 of the Feasibility study) Many individuals will undoubtedly wonder how this was possible. Under what legislative authority did the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program undertake these initiatives? The answer is that there is no legislative authority. Congress has never passed any law creating the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program authorizing them to engage in their activities. Even the web page for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program admits that ``No specific law exists for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program.'' Proponents of this program will undoubtedly assert that my experience was an isolated incident, and it was for the very reasons I cited that the area around the Ozarks was never finally designated a Biosphere Reserve. However, I would urge these individuals to look at the testimony presented before the House Resources Committee this year, where local officials repeatedly testified that they were never consulted about proposals to create biosphere reserves in their areas. I would encourage the proponents of this program to look to the Alaska and Colorado State Legislatures and the Kentucky State Senate, all of which passed resolutions opposing the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, despite the fact that there are currently three biospheres in Alaska, four in Colorado, and two in Kentucky. To date, the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has taken no action to address the concerns of these State and local officials. This is not to say that the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has not produced some positive contributions to our understanding of the environment and mans relationship to it. However, until my questions, the questions, of my constituents, the questions of the State Legislatures, and the questions of many of our colleagues are answered, I in good conscience cannot support using one more tax dollar in support of this program. It is for these above stated reasons that I ask that the House adopted language be included in the Conference report. I thank Senator Gorton, for the opportunity to present this very important issue for Conference consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Abraham for their work on behalf of this amendment. It does not change the appropriations for the arts; it is $100 million, block granted to the States. There is a chart down in the well. Everybody has seen what their State will do. Forty-five States will have more resources for arts funding under this amendment. The National Endowment has simply failed on their mission to broaden public access to the arts. One-third of the congressional districts in this country get zero from the National Endowment for the Arts. One- third of the funding of the NEA goes to six cities. This is unfair. The issue is simply local control. The issue is more resources for art. I ask my fellow Senators to say ``yes'' to more resources for art and to say ``no'' to Washington bureaucrats and support this amendment. It means more money for your States to help on those local arts projects. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, over and over during the debate on the National Endowment for the Arts we have heard the proponents come to the floor and say how good and beneficial the arts are. Who can argue with that? The argument they seem to make is, we ought to automatically reauthorize, that we ought to automatically appropriate $100 million for the National Endowment for the Arts because art is good, without any scrutiny, without any close examination of how the National Endowment is operating, how they are working today. The debate has in fact deteriorated into kind of a syllogism. The syllogism goes like this: Art is good. The National Endowment for the Arts is art; and, therefore, the NEA is good. Obviously, art is good. It is inspiring. It is uplifting. We have heard anecdote after anecdote of the benefits of art in our lives. But the NEA is not the equivalent of art. In fact, as we see on this chart, the NEA is less than 5 percent of the total Federal support for the arts and the humanities. You can look at the Smithsonian, the military bands, the Fulbright International Exchange, the National Endowment of the Humanities, the National Gallery of Art, the Holocaust Memorial Council. On and on we find the Federal role in arts is not limited to the National Endowment at all. Only 5 percent, in fact, of all of the Federal involvement, involves the NEA. That 5 percent though, as we have seen, has been eroded by extravagant overhead, over 18 percent administrative costs that are immediately taken off because of the bureaucracy here in Washington. And that small 5 percent is absorbed by six cities--six cities. And one-third of all of the congressional districts in the United States receive nothing from the National Endowment of the Arts. So in all of this debate, the problems in the NEA have gone unanswered. I heard the proponents of the NEA come to the floor, and over and over again they laud how wonderful art is--Who can object to that?--how great literature is. Who can complain about that? But they never respond to the objections that have been raised concerning the National Endowment for the Arts. Their mission is broader public access to the arts. Yet, as we saw just a few moments ago in a statement by Chairwoman Jane Alexander, she says that there are only a few States that have the proper nurturing and development to produce artists. That, to me, will never fulfill their mission of broadening public access to the arts. Fully 85 percent of the 1997 grantees were past recipients of NEA largess-- 85 percent. That is not going out and fostering new artists, new writers, new sculptors. Here are the issues before the Senate. No. 1, accountability. As the proponents of the NEA come down, they have not responded to the NEA's own IG report which listed the abuses, things like 63 percent of the grantees that had project costs that were not reconcilable to accounting records, 79 percent with inadequate documentation of personal costs charged to the grant, 53 percent failed to engage independent auditors to conduct grant audits as required by the OMB. No one responded to that. I listened and listened. No one would respond to the inspector general's report or the General Accounting Office's evaluation of the NEA and how it operates. So accountability is an issue. Local control is an issue. Do we want to continue to say yes to Washington bureaucrats, or do we want to say yes to local control of how these dollars are spent? Third, the issue is fairness and funding. Under the proposal of Senator Sessions and myself we have offered an amendment that will allow 45 States to receive more for arts. I hope that all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate will pick up the ``Dear Colleague'' on their desk that we so often overlook. If Members look up your State, you will see exactly how much more will be available for arts education or available for the local artists under our amendment as opposed to the status quo. Say no to Washington. Say yes to local control. Say yes to the Hutchinson-Sessions amendment. If there are no opponents here to speak I yield to the cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Sessions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, we have 30 minutes equally divided; is that correct?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1187.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I will just say, if you check each one of these institutions, they are well endowed, they have good support and good sources of income and the dependence upon any kind of NEA grant, I think, is simply not justifiable. If you are looking at the Boston Symphony, the Art Institute of Chicago, with the kind of support base that they have, and compare them-- Amendment No. 1206

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes that we have remaining to respond to some of the statements made by the opponents of the amendment. I remind Senator Reed, incidentally, the State of Rhode Island would gain $123,000 in additional funds for arts spending in Rhode Island under the block grant amendment that Senator Sessions and myself have offered. I remind each Senator that they can check on their desks here in the Senate Chamber exactly how much, but 45 States will receive more funds under this amendment to support the arts within their own States. I was interested that Senator Reed spoke of the shriveling of the arts. If we take this pittance, this relative pittance, in view of the Federal budget, of $100 million and we remove that National Endowment funding, that national entity, that somehow the arts in this country would begin to shrivel. I think, in all due respect, the Senator from Rhode Island underestimates the American people, underestimates the arts community in the United States, and underestimates how much the arts flourish today without a huge injection of Federal funds. As an example, the Metropolitan Opera, which has a total income of $133 million, the Lyric Opera, which has an annual income of $37 million, the Boston Symphony, which has an annual income of $43 million, and the Art Institute of Chicago, which has an annual income of $96 million--all of them receiving NEA grants. Most of these wealthy organizations experienced significant cuts in NEA funding in the last 2 years. Yet, in spite of those cuts in NEA funding, each one reported dramatic increases in total income in 1996. The point being that even as funding cuts in the NEA have occurred, arts in this country have continued to flourish. But I will tell you what is offensive to me. What is offensive to me is that the Metropolitan Opera is getting an NEA grant. What is offensive to me is the Boston Symphony, with a $43 million income, is getting an NEA grant, while the Opera Theater in Wildwood, in Little Rock, AR, got $4,000. The mission of the NEA was to broadly increase access to the arts. That is not what is happening. Mr. President, 85 percent of the grantees in the last fiscal year have been previous recipients of NEA funds. That is not increasing access to the arts. So I suggest that, if we really care about the arts, removing the Washington bureaucracy, sending the money to the States, allowing those closest to the people to make those decisions, will be far wiser and far more productive for arts in this country. I have raised great issues as to the priorities of the National Endowment, the decisions they are making. The State of Arkansas--you know, I heard Senator Dodd. I have the greatest respect for him.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. May I inquire how much time opponents of the amendment have remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield such time as he might consume to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield, but let me finish my point. I have the greatest respect for Senator Dodd, but he spoke of, ``Let's not concentrate on the few bad grants, let's concentrate on the 100,000 good grants.'' When he said that, I thought about Arkansas, because we got one last year. We made 12 applications and we received 1, for the Arts Council in Arkansas. So I have great questions about the priorities. In Arkansas, the NEA spent 17 cents for every man, woman and child in Arkansas; 17 cents. In New York State the NEA spent $1 for every man, woman and child in New York State. I'm sorry, everybody says, ``Give the NEA a chance.'' We have given them chance after chance after chance. Year after year these objections and these concerns have been raised. We see no reform. We see no change. Instead we see arrogant elitism. And I say it is time to end the NEA. Don't end support for the arts--no. But end this Washington bureaucracy, send that money back so Rhode Island will have another $123,000, so Arkansas will have another $700,000, so Alabama him have another half-million dollars, so the States all over this country can do more for those artists, for those schoolchildren who, too often, fall through the cracks. I believe that the amendment that we have offered makes eminent common sense. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. First, I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his creative and innovative ideas on how we might truly have endowment of the arts. I hope that everyone understands on both sides of this debate that there is support for funding for the arts. The issue is the National Endowment--the so-called National Endowment for the Arts. As I have listened to the proponents of the NEA, I have heard glowing commendations and glowing reports about arts in America. But what I have failed to hear anyone respond to--and the question I would pose to the Senator from Connecticut--is the very I think deplorable record that the NEA has established, both in its administrative costs and over 18 cents on the dollar, by a nickel more per dollar, than the National Endowment for the Humanities, or other Federal agencies. The inspector general, who, in conducting his grantee audits from 1991 to 1996, found that absolutely deplorable record of audits, a lack of accountability without knowledge of where the money was going, who was spending it, who was receiving it. It is that kind of slipshod management that has put a question mark over I think the future of the NEA. And when we talk about funding for the arts, only 5 percent of the Federal involvement in the arts at the Federal level is the NEA. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars being spent at the Federal level in support of various arts programs and other agencies and departments. It is not a matter of pulling out the Federal role in arts. I would welcome the response.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, and I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Michigan for his outstanding leadership on the issue of the National Endowment for the Arts, for his very constructive role that he has played over recent years since his entry in the Senate. I know this is an issue he has felt very strongly about, that he has looked for creative and innovative ways in which we can continue to fund arts in this country, in which we can continue to emphasize that arts are a priority and, at the same time, address many of the concerns that the American people have addressed concerning the National Endowment for the Arts, its administration and its elitist attitude. I would just like to say in reference to that attitude, which has caused such consternation among those who sincerely believe that arts are important in America but are greatly troubled by what they see in the National Endowment for the Arts, a statement that was made by Jane Alexander, the Chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Arts, when she testified before the Labor and Human Resources Committee this past April. In a dialog with myself and in response to the questions I posed to her, Ms. Alexander said: Let me suggest an analogy here with regard to the arts. Her response was in direct answer to my question concerning the situation in Arkansas in which, out of 12 grant applications, only one was granted. A little over $400,000 went to the whole State of Arkansas, while single exhibits around this country received more. In response to that she said: Let me suggest an analogy here with regard to the arts . . . There are apples grown in practically every State of the United States, but there are few States that have the right conditions for nurturing and developing apple trees; and then, they are distributed all throughout the Nation. The implication being that arts are like apples, that there are only a few places they are really going to flourish, and that Arkansas was not one of them. I hope my constituents understand and I hope that my colleagues understand why that was so offensive to me. She went on: The same is true of the arts. The talent pools, the areas of nurturing and development of artists tend to be located in a few States. Perhaps that explains why one-third of all of the direct grants of the National Endowment go to six cities. Perhaps this attitude, revealed in an unguarded moment, explains why one-third of the congressional districts in this country receive nothing from the National Endowment for the Arts. This is an agency whose original mission was to broaden access to the arts. Broaden access to the arts-- I ask, is that going to be the result of the attitude that development of artists tend to be located in a few States, that the talent pool is only located in a few States? I take great, great exception to that, and that is why I believe the Senator from Michigan--I have my own amendment I will be talking on later--but I commend the Senator from Michigan for the good job he has done in addressing these kind of abuses and this kind of attitude. I have pointed out that the administrative costs for the National Endowment are well above most other Federal agencies--almost 20 percent. Almost a penny out of every nickel that the NEA has is spent on administration overhead. So I believe the votes that we are going to cast this evening on the Abraham amendment, on the Hutchinson-Sessions amendment, and on the Hutchison of Texas amendment will be, to a great extent, a vote on whether we want the Washington bureaucracy or whether we want more local control on funding for the arts. So I ask support for the Abraham amendment. I also ask support for other amendments that will be offered concerning the National Endowment. We must not obfuscate, we must not confuse what this issue is. It is not are you proarts or against arts. So often I have heard proponents of the NEA come down and say, ``Well, arts are good.'' Of course, arts are good. They are beneficial, uplifting and they are inspiring and ennobling. They are all of those things, but you cannot equate the NEA with arts. In fact, the NEA funds less than 5 percent of the Federal contribution to arts in this country. So it is time that we reform. It is time we made a change in the status quo. I commend the Senator from Michigan. I thank him for yielding.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bryan amendment. I rise because this program has proven very successful over the years that it has been in existence. This is a positive program that promotes cooperation between public and private enterprises, which are the types of agreements we should be supporting on the Senate floor and not opposing. In addition, this program has been found that it costs the government no money. Price-Waterhouse did an economic analysis and determined that ``the Forest Roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers.'' This program is an efficient and effective mechanism for financing forest road construction. And, since net payments to the Treasury will remain the same, Price-Waterhouse concluded there is no subsidy to the timber purchaser. Finally, I want to stress a point that I feel is of utmost importance. Many do not realize that 25 percent of the proceeds from timber sales go directly to the counties to be used for roads and schools. In Arkansas, where the per capita expenditures on students rank 46 out of 51 states and the District of Columbia, our children cannot afford to lose this vital source of funding. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my strong opposition to this amendment to strike funding for the Forest Roads Program.