George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, let me just talk about the good old days. The good old days, for my dear friend from Washington State, were days when there was deep criticism of the National Endowment for the Arts for putting pornographic material in grants that they offered. I mean, that is what resulted in the cut. The representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate and the country were disgusted with the way that the National Endowment for the Arts was distributing grants. They were wasting taxpayers' money. So just as a matter of historical reference, that is why they were cut back was because they were granting sort of disgusting material for grants with taxpayer money. So what we did not see before 1994 was a limitation on the amount of money that went to big museums and big cities and people with all the money and the resources in the world. Thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and others, we put in these reforms after 1995 and 1996, which said put a cap on the amount of funds that one State can receive, that State grant programs and State set-asides increased to 40 percent of the total grants. That is what we did in the post-1994 period. Anti-obscenity requirement for grants supported by a Supreme Court decision in 1998. Put six Members of Congress on the National Council of the Arts to monitor what went through the system. We reduced the Presidentially appointed council members to 14 instead of 26. We prohibited grants to individuals except for literature fellowships and National Heritage fellowships or American Jazz Masters fellowships. Prohibited self-granting or full seasonal support grants. Allowed the NEA and the NEH to solicit vest private funds to support the agencies. That is a beef that I have had for quite a while is that we give grants to people. With all due respect for the good work they do, they go out and make a tremendously good commercial success, but they do not give back; and my argument has been commercially successful people ought to be able to come back and give back to the big pot to help everybody, the fledgling artists and others who are out there trying to get some help instead of reaping the commercial benefit at taxpayers' expense. We have provided granting priority for projects to underserved populations. That is very important, as I come from a relatively rural area. We have provided priority for education, understanding and appreciation of the arts, and emphasis for grants to community music programs. These were all post-1994 reforms.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally divided.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time; and Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts, but I rise in opposition to this amendment. The President's budget provides a budget request of $116,489,000. Last year, fiscal year 2002, the enacted budget appropriation was $115,234,000. So we are over a $1 million increase already in the President's budget, essentially flat-funding it, but increasing it slightly. The request today is for $116,489,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts; and the committee, in a bipartisan way, supported that. They supported it because it believed it is an adequate amount to pay for the Federal share of contribution to the arts, and I believe that, too. I think $116,489,000 is a fair amount. It is a fair number. I point out to my colleagues that this was an increase last year of over $10 million a year ago for the National Endowment for the Arts. It was $104 million, went up to $115 million. So we have already added over $10 million a year ago and now to come back and add another $10 million this year, in addition to the $1 million that the President has already requested and the committee, in a bipartisan way, has already approved, I think is wrong. When is enough enough? I have serious questions about the $134 billion that is generated, allegedly generated, by nonprofit arts groups; and I know they do a great job. They do it in my State, and I support them very strongly. However, that is like saying if we buy little league uniforms for the teams in America, we are going to generate all the money that goes to little league or high school or sports. It is a big universe, in other words; and I will give credit to some amount of money that is generated by the $115 million that we put in last year and that we are going to put in $116 million this year. I think that is a fair expenditure. For some it is too much; for some it is too little. But I think it is just right. I would just urge my colleagues, when is enough enough? I will say to the sponsors of the amendment, this is money that is going to be cut out of the Interior Department operations accounts. We have held these operations accounts in the bill down. We have not even fully funded their inflationary request; and so if we are going to further cut into the Interior Department operations accounts, I think it is going to have an impact on the national parks operations. It is going to have an impact on public lands administration, on refuges that a lot of people go to see and enjoy the wildlife refuges in this country, and other programs that are part of the interior appropriations process. The interior bill has a lot of responsibilities. We have a documented backlog in repairs for public facilities of over $12 billion. Ten million can make a big difference in that $12 billion backlog maintenance problem. We are trying to make prudent investment in our land management agencies, in Indian health programs, in energy research. They can use $10 million, too, if we really want to look at the cumulative effect of having dollars invested and benefits to the public. I am not going to say the arts are not valuable, they are; but $116 million is enough, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, finding that $116 million is adequate.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and in opposition to the point of order. The gentleman's amendment allows the management of the forest by thinning and protection of life and health of the forest by local control, that is, the Forest Service regional forester. I think it is a commonsense amendment, I cannot imagine anybody would be against it, and so I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate my colleague's interest in this matter, and certainly offer to work with him toward that end. I speak on behalf of the chairman and the entire subcommittee.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman from North Carolina makes a very good point. We commend him for his excellent work in this area. I note on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee that we look forward to working with the gentleman from North Carolina to ensure the continued integrity of the Energy Star program. We thank the gentleman very much for bringing this to the committee's attention.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to have a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and other Members of the Wisconsin delegation are to be congratulated for their hard work on this matter. The chairman believes we can meet that goal as the appropriations process goes forward. We have his pledge to the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Green and Mr. Ryan, and to the other Members that the chairman will use his position in the conference committee on this bill with the Senate to do everything that we can to see that the needed funding is provided.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I know that we have agreed we need to take quick action to deal with this chronic wasting disease. From the information the gentleman has shared with us, it appears that more funding is needed in order to address this problem.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the committee will look forward to working with the gentleman after the Egmont Key transformation legislation has been enacted.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is aware of the gentleman's good work and also has the same understanding as the gentleman that there will be a savings of money.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and we appreciate the gentleman's arguments on behalf of the Rachel Carson refuge. On behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, we can assure the gentleman that we will consider his request as we work towards completion of this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, I would be pleased to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this bill is about 2.8 percent of an increase over last year. That is below what the family budget of most families would be if you look at inflation in this country. So this bill is staying within the guidelines, and we did so diligently, and with a lot of effort.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman say he is not an expert on the details of the request, that he just wants to cut money. And I appreciate that and understand that, and I respect the point of view of the gentleman. But the budget request that the President sent up, and by the way the President supports this bill, the administration has already said they support this bill, the interior appropriations bill. So it is not the President that is against this; it is Members of the House. The budget request cut PILT funding, Payment in Lieu of Taxes. We have the Western Caucus, of which I am a member, who went nuts. That hits our small counties out in the Northwest and the western States. So that is $65 million. The science and water programs of the U.S. Geological Survey, two-thirds of those requests were from Republicans to restore U.S. Geological Survey money, $61 million. The national fire plan. We have the Western Governors Association and the National Governors' Association and the Western Caucus that want that in. So it is important what is in the details. It is not just money; it is not just the big number. It is what is in the details. I challenge the gentleman to look at these and to say where he does not like them.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a question. Does the gentleman realize that that BLM increase is 1\1/2\ percent over last year? I am from the West. I know what the challenges are in environmental advocacy out in the West and some of the Federal lands that are subject to being under BLM authority. I know it is just numbers, but there is an impact on the ground that comes from the gentleman's amendment and the comments that he has made.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's point. My colleagues had to have been here because if we look at what happened in the wee hours of the day and night, with my own leadership and the leadership on the other side sort of sticking things in and taking things out and putting things in nobody really knew about, we ended up with a massive omnibus package that is not in the best interests of our constituents, of the House or anybody else, and frankly, let me say, I do not think it is in the best interests of our constituents to sort of delay this process, to frustrate the process, to obstruct the process. In the final analysis, it is something that probably is going to be worse than we all are looking at today. So, again, I come at this as conservative as anybody else, but I am sitting in the room working on these bills and trying to figure out how to balance them, and that is what the chairman has done, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and others, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and Mr. Dicks. We are not all on the same page, but we have got a package that we think makes some sense, trying to get it through the process and work through and get 13 appropriations bills signed and into law and fund the Federal Government to the extent that a majority of the Members of the House and Senate and the President feel should be funded. So I just say let us vote on the bill, on this amendment. Let us either defeat it or pass it, but I urge my colleagues, move the process along. Let us get through this system, get this bill passed and move on to the next one, and we will have more attempts, more opportunities to craft a bill, but we have to get through this first step first, and I think that is what we ought to be doing and moving along and respecting the chairman of the subcommittee and all of the people who have worked so hard to make this right.