Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) just pointed out, the House exercised its will yesterday on the matter of the National Endowment for the Arts. The gentleman offering this amendment does quite well, as he pointed out, New Jersey does, but let me speak of his own district. In his district, he has four NEA grants alone that total over $210,000, almost a quarter of a million dollars. When you consider there are 435 Congressional districts competing for $98 million, you have to say that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) does extraordinarily well. Let me mention a few of those grants in the gentleman's district. The National Poetry Series, to support the work of five upcoming winners of the 1999 National poetry, an open competition. The McCarter Theater Company, it supports the production of a new musical. The Princeton Art Museum tour, touring an exhibit entitled The Art and Culture of Chinese calligraphy. The American Boys Choir School, which gets by itself $120,000 to support their efforts to plan and to stabilize their endowment. While I am sure that land and water certainly does add to the quality of life and to the joy of living, without any question I think that these programs that the NEA helps to leverage also do a great deal for the quality of life in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas). It is very shortsighted for him to attempt to take half the money in what is already I think agreed by many of us to be an extremely underfunded program. The NEA's direction from this Congress is to try to reach into every nook and cranny in the United States, and it is doing a very good job of doing that. The things that we know now about the importance of the arts and the effect that it has on the developing child, making a child a better student, giving them self-respect, teaching them discipline, all the things that we want for America's children, the ability to really develop one's mind and one's ability in science and math directed to the attention given and being exposed to music, particularly piano and dance, is certainly undisputed in this country today, and again is something that we very badly need and we very badly want. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my cochair of the Congressional Members Arts Organization, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), and he and I have worked very diligently in trying to keep this program alive. Thanks again to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his good work on NEA. I would urge that the House not pass this amendment and recommend very strongly a ``no'' vote, should it come to a vote tomorrow.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know how many forests the gentleman has in New Jersey, but let me say that when I first came to Congress in 1987, the National Endowment for the Arts budget was over $170 million. It has been cut considerably as well. I know of no other program, no other investment that we make in the United States budget of $98 million that will bring back into this Treasury almost $4 billion. Indeed, that money that is sent out enriches the lives of everyone that it touches. I agree that open space is terribly important, but I do not want to see us pit one against the other, because the importance will be very difficult to approve for each one. I would think that the people in the gentleman's district would agree that the money that they have for the National Endowment for the Arts has been money well spent and has had a positive effect on the State of New Jersey, particularly in the gentleman's district. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and everyone in between. The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the economic benefits it means to every city in the United States. When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return. But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child exposed to the arts is a better student.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary half hour. Mr. Speaker, this rule has many good features. It is an open rule that will allow Members to work their will. It self-executes important amendments that deal with vital issues, such as the wildland fire suppression, forest health and Indian health care. In fact, I would have been pleased to vigorously support this rule if it had protected all portions of the committee-reported bill from points of order and if it had allowed the precedents of the House to determine the order in which Members would be recognized to offer amendments. However, the rule reported by the Committee on Rules leaves unprotected a single provision of the bill, allowing that provision of the bill to be struck, but then the rule allows a specified majority member to offer an amendment to put the same provision back in the bill. Now, why do we go through this charade? Because apparently they wanted to mollify a segment of the conference while simultaneously allowing a majority Member, who is not a member of the Committee on Appropriations or the authorizing committee, to appear to take a leadership role on the arts. As the Chair of the Congressional Member Organization for the Arts, I encourage all Members to support the arts and welcome their active participation and leadership in the ongoing efforts to fund the National Endowment for the Arts at a reasonable level. However, this year in particular, the decision to award this important amendment to a majority Member is extremely unfortunate. This is the last year in which debate on Federal support of the arts will be led by the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Known as the champion of the National Endowment for the Arts and credited for keeping it alive by the shear force of his will, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) is retiring at the end of the year. Under the normal procedures of the House, the gentleman would have had the honor of offering amendments to strengthen the arts, but this rule deliberately snatches that honor from him, for purely partisan reasons. Of course, this disappointment can never obscure the debt that artists, arts, educators and arts institutions across the Nation owe to their long time champion.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the last year in which debate on the Federal support for the arts will be led by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. Renowned as the champion of the NEA and credited for keeping it alive by the sheer force of his will, the gentleman from Illinois is retiring at the end of the year. Under the usual procedures of the House, the gentleman would have the honor of offering amendments to strengthen the arts. But this rule takes that honor away from him. Of course, this disappointment can never obscure the debt that artists, art educators, and art institutions across the Nation owe to their long-time champion. History will record Sid Yates' legacy, the vitality of the arts across our Nation. This rule cannot tarnish Sid Yates' leadership on the issue, but it does demonstrate the nature of the leadership so caught up in its power that it has the audacity to deny the foremost supporter of the arts one last chance to lead the battle for the NEA survival. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the National Endowment for the Arts. It has been 32 years since President Johnson signed into law the bill legislation that would create the National Endowment for the Arts. He, along with most Americans, believed that the Federal Government must have a role in supporting arts. Since then we have seen a profound impact on the nonprofit arts community in this country. The number of arts agencies has risen from five in 1965 to 56 today. Local arts agencies have grown from 400 to 4,000. Nonprofit theaters from 56 to 425. Orchestras from 1,000 to 1,800, and opera companies from 27 to 120. From an economic perspective, the benefits of the NEA are unmistakable. Last year, the $98 million allocated to the NEA provided the cornerstone for a $37 billion industry. For the price of one hundredth of one percent of the Federal budget, we helped create 1.3 million full-time jobs in States, cities, towns, and villages across the country, generating $3.4 billion for the Federal Treasury in income taxes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and more than 100 CEOs of major corporations, all support the NEA because they recognize the contribution of the arts to our economy and to our culture. Most importantly, we must not forget the impact of the arts on our Nation's most precious resource, our children. Providing students access to art has a significant impact on their overall development, including academic achievement and behavior. In fact, a study conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board showed that students with 4 or more years of arts classes raised their SAT scores by 53 points on the verbal and 35 points on the math portions of the test. For 36 cents per capita, how can we not even consider making this investment? The NEA is also instrumental in making sure all Americans have access to the arts. Through its innovative new program, ArtsREACH, the agency is working to stimulate participation in areas that are often underserved by the arts grants. This program, which will be announcing its first set of grants later this year, provides funding directly to communities and States that receive fewer than five grants during the preceding year. With help from the NEA, communities develop a cultural plan with input from the local Chamber of Commerce, social service agencies, police departments, mayors, local artists and other community leaders. Outreach grants will enable communities to undertake such endeavors as building performance and exhibit spaces, enhancing opportunities in arts education, and developing arts alternatives for youth at risk. Mr. Speaker, we may hear opponents of the NEA argue that the agency is no longer needed, that the private sector is fully capable of supporting the arts in America. I respectfully beg to differ. Every Federal dollar spent by the National Endowment for the Arts leverages many additional public dollars at the State and local levels, as well as multiple private donations. Funding for the arts rests on a delicate balance of Federal, State, and local government funding, ticket sales, other earned income, as well as corporate and individual philanthropic giving. No arts organization can survive on earned income alone. In fiscal year 1997, the $99.5 million contributed by the Federal Government helped leverage $280 million in State funding and more than $675 million from local governments. The Federal Government needs to continue to do its share. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop holding the NEA a political hostage. We owe this to the agency, to the artists, and most importantly to our constituents. In the 1996 Louis Harris poll, a majority of all Americans supported a Federal role in funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts has been and will continue to be a hallmark of civilized societies around the world. The benefits that we receive for our economy, for our children, and for our communities far outweigh our small financial investment. I urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to shrink this important responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations recognized the benefits of the arts by providing $98 million, nearly level funding. That funding should have remained in the bill, making an amendment to restore it unnecessary. However, this rule allows the funding to be struck and then allows an amendment to restore it. If the rule passes, I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment to restore the NEA funding. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Committee on Rules chose this procedure; however, in the end, the rule does allow a straight up-or- down vote to provide funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the House of Representatives. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 283 through 287 yesterday and today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 286 and 287, and voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 283, 284 and 285.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myslef such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, these amendments would all have been in order under an open rule. I will insert these materials for the Record. Test of Previous Question for H. Res. 499 H.R. 3682--Child Custody Protection Act Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order listed in section 2, may be offered only by a Member specified in section 2 or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments specified in section 2 are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. The following amendments are in order pursuant to the first section of this resolution: amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by mr. watt of north carolina Page 4, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 6 and insert the following: ``(b) Exception.--(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor or to prevent serious physical illness or disability or because her life or physical health was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition or serious physical health condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a constitutional scholar.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.