じ

Your comments brought to mind a picture that hangs in my office, an interesting story. And I'm afraid I'm deficient on the details. We can make them available to you.

The long and the short of the story is a beautiful work of art, as you might guess, a bucolic scene of a farm pond with cattle around it and I have no doubt in my mind vast. And the picture was painted by a black artist, an artist that on the basis of his work was awarded a very high honor by private arts leagues in Canada.

When the artist presented himself to receive his award, they refused it. They refused to give him the art. No government interceded on behalf of that artist, not our government nor the Canadian government. The intercession on his behalf came from the other artists, who refused also to receive their awards. They believe that freedom and dignity should be respected and art should be received on its merit for its quality from whatever the

source.

In the end, the artist received his award. But that receipt of that award was to no thanks to any government anyplace but the love and the respect of his colleagues in the field of art. And maybe that is a response that will be helpful.

Mrs. Mink. I can certainly understand the sentiment behind your explanation, but it seems to me that it is important for this country to support not the people who are going to receive awards or who are going to make it or whose work is so excellent that it is recognized by other artists or by society. But the nature of the endowment is to support struggling young people who are coming forward in a wide variety of programs in the arts and try to explain to young people in our schools the importance of this essence of creativity.

It's not to go around and substitute the selection of excellence by the presentation of awards and to render approval in that sense but to go to the kernel of creativity in this society and to put a kind of premium that this country has really achieved what it has, in the sciences and the technology and all of the advancements, because we prize individual creativity.

Killing this foundation, it seems to me, would have a very dire effect on the whole support mechanism that we have built on individuality and creativity.

Any comment?

Mr. Armey. I thank you again. And this is clear that we are in disagreement, but I believe I saw a glimmer of hope there. I think I might have heard you at least infer that the gold seal argument is not of much standing.

Mrs. Mink. I don't look at the foundation as an institution that bestows any sort of symbol or whatever of acceptance. They are there to stimulate arts in all forms in all areas, in the rich, poor, rural, and urban areas, for the young, for the middle-aged, for the elderly. And it is that support I think which is important.

Thank you.

Mr. Riggs. Thank you, Ms. Mink.

I'm happy at this time to recognize the Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Mr. Castle.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Armey, for being here. It's a pleasure to be with you. I, too, like you, love art, freedom, and the Constitution of the United States. And I respect you greatly individually and as our leader, but I come to a totally different conclusion with respect to the arts. And I'd like to explain why.

We support the arts at the federal government level about I think 100th of 1 percent of our entire budget. You've indicated it's a budget issue. And I guess if you want to argue anything is a budget issue, you can argue that We have reduced this by 40 percent in the course of the last 5 years or so in getting to that $99 million figure, which I think it is now. That is, if we're talking about balancing budgets, that is almost not even on the radar screen, much less an important part of it.

You've indicated that entertainment should go first. I don't have a problem with that. We should go through the Tax Code in my judgment and start with some of the large entertainment companies and some of the incredible write-offs that they have. And I think you will find that the federal contribution to entertainment is hugely disproportion in various other ways, tax breaks and other ways, as it is to the direct contribution to the National Endowment for the Arts.

I believe that we argue about censorship. And I'd like to ask you a question about that. But the bottom line is that if the arts community in each individual state or whatever, however it's broken down in the various states, works correctly, it's really not an issue of censorship or anything else.

As a matter of fact, I have community arts programs grants for the State of Delaware in my hand. We're going to hear from Peggy Amsterdam from Delaware later. We're very proud of our program. It's been an economic engine in the State of Delaware.

We literally in little tiny Delaware, much less Texas, for goodness sake, we have literally hundreds of programs which have benefited from this. There's no censorship involved at all. It's dance operations. It's education. It's a variety of things.

One thing I'd like to clear up right away, you mentioned the agreement that was struck late in the morning on the night the rule was defeated. I was in that room as well, as you know. As a matter of fact, it's my notes that are usually used as the context of what happened that particulate night.

One of those notes shows that the House authorization had to be codified and had to show that the NEA was going to be out of existence in two years. That legislation was actually introduced and I think went through this committee but never came to the House floor.

Would you not agree with me that makes that agreement null and void? Isn't that a very significant part of any agreement?

Mr. Armey. No, I would not. I will look into it. I will check and see if that legislation was reported out of committee. I don't recall that. I will check and see.

Certainly if that legislation comes forward, that would change the matter if it becomes forward before that bill. And if, in fact, you did the work in '95 or '96, the committee should be able to duplicate that.

I would like to return to another point. I do not believe that this committee would stand for a federal government program that's funded community groups in any community in America that would sit as a panel to evaluate the worthiness of other people's political or religious views. This would be an insufferable thing.

It is of very little solace to me for you to suggest that what we have now is a very elaborate scheme by which we take the taxpayers' dollars to establish, even in your local community

Mr. Castle. Mr. Armey, let me interrupt you there because

Mr. Armey. -a group of people that would sit in judgment of other people's right to express our

Mr. Castle. You're right. There are things about the arts that drive me crazy. Jane Alexander and I have had this out a couple of times because I just totally disagree with some of the things that have happened, the Mapplethorpes and various other things. But, by and large, if you run through this and now with the limitations which we have put in it, it has gotten to the point that the things that may involve politics or may involve religious views are being eliminated. The individual grants are being eliminated. Now we are dealing basically with community groups. We are dealing essentially with education, symphonies, matters such as that. It's not a question of freedom. It's a question of the economic aspect of the arts and helping with that. If we do that, would you be comfortable? If we could continue to do that and put those restrictions on, would you be comfortable with a continuing federal role?

Mr. Armey. Let me just go back to my first point. I do not believe it is consistent with the Constitution of the United States to do this. Second, Mapplethorpe was a very talented person. He had, in fact, an extraordinary talent. How he used it was something you may or may not have liked, but Mapplethorpe would never have been a controversy in America had there not been a National Endowment for the Arts that was funding his work.

Mr. Castle. Well, you appreciate Mapplethorpe a lot more than I do. I am not an art critic, but if you think he's that great an artist, then I put you in a different league as a critic than I.

Mr. Armey. Let me be clear. I do not appreciate everything he did with his talent, but his talent was very real. Now, anybody can use

Mr. Castle. I question his talent.

Mr. Armey. -their talent to bad purposes.

Mr. Castle. Let me ask you about the Constitution. You indicated that the founding fathers voted "no" on this issue, but the founding fathers also did not include education in the Constitution; is that not correct, which we fund mightily at the federal government level? You might disagree with that, too. I don't know where you are on that issue.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Armey. That is a position that I've taken of long-standing, that the support for education in our federalist system is a matter of state and local government.

Mr. Castle. But you don't take the position that only things that are identified in the Constitution could be funded by the federal government, do you? I mean, virtually probably 90 percent of our funding is completely unidentified in terms of social funding and other things that we do.

pact of

Os it
the general

wel face)

11

Mr. Armey. I believe that there is a matter that goes forward and through the judgment of the Congress, there are certain clauses of the Constitution by which we evaluate whether or not it is legitimate and necessary to undertake this activity or that. And our judgment is tested against the Supreme Court in our system of checks and balances. The one thing that is clear to me from the Constitution is that only the provision for the common defense is an activity that is mandated on the federal government. Everything else is optional. Our Constitution requires that we provide for the national defense, requires nothing else of the federal government.

Mr. Castle. In closing - my time is up - I can't say that there's anyone I have more fun

Mr. Clay. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. Castle. -disagreeing with than you, sir. I appreciate the

Mr. Clay. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. Castle. My time is up, but I will yield.

Mr. Clay. It also provides the mandates for the general welfare.

Mr. Armey. And that is where judgments come in, absolutely correct. And whether or not this does or does not fall within that general welfare is a matter of what the great debate has been about for all of these years. But there has been no debate about the exact wording of the Constitution as it mandates our requirement, our provision for the common defense.

Mr. Riggs. Mr. Leader, thank you.

I am going to go to Mr. Martinez in just a moment and then conclude this round of questioning, allow you to get on with your schedule for the day. But let me just note I have in front of me sort of an outline of the so-called NEA compromise, indicating that the House authorization bill would codify a two-year phase-out of the National Endowment for the Arts. The bill that was reported out to the full committee in the last Congress called for a threeyear phase-out.

Furthermore, I'm looking at a letter that you sent to our colleague Congressman Souder of Indiana saying, "So long as I am majority leader, I will not schedule an NEA authorization bill for floor consideration that would violate our agreement of a 2-year, $99 million per year phase-out." So I am assuming, sir, that that remains your position.

Mr. Armey. If I may, then the action is perfectly consistent with that agreement.

Mr. Castle. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman, because

Mr. Riggs. I'd be happy to.

Mr. Castle. -in all fairness, it just never happened. It was one of the conditions of that agreement. And, regardless of what happened in this committee or did not, that two-year phase-out never occurred as an authorization. Are we all in agreement on that?

Mr. Armey. That it did.

Mr. Riggs. Certainly.

Mr. Armey. Yes. The committee did not report the bill.

Mr. Riggs. Mr. Martinez?

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I almost sensed a little bit of a concession when you said yes, to promote the general welfare was one of those things that we can debate about if this is included in that. You know, that language appears in the Constitution of the United States right at the beginning, in the preamble, which I look at as report language, similar to the report language we add to bills to explain things in the legislation. And it does say a lot of different things in there besides the general welfare, which I think are a part of the Constitution and do demand our attention in providing for the general welfare. I don't believe it's a question of whether or not art will survive. As you said earlier, art will survive. But we've all heard of the struggling artists. Art will survive but very poorly.

But more important than that is the question of whether we'll enrich our societies supporting the arts and in places where normally they don't go. I have been to North Dakota. I've been up there quite a few times, and I was there not too long ago. And I was told that you were actually born in North Dakota, in a small community.

Mr. Armey. I was raised there.

Mr. Martinez. Raised there. And I've been through that community. And it's not a rich community. Yet, if you look at the people in and around it, especially, let's say, on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, they enjoy the benefits of the arts. They're very cultural people. And I think about that, and I think about all the people that I know, like places in my district, where art has gone where it had never been before. And, really, what it had done, it had developed talent among people that might not have otherwise been developed.

I think Mr. Castle is more enlightened that the rest of my colleagues who are anti-NEA. He stated some very important points. But some of the others have stated points like the NEA sets the standards for art. It doesn't set the standards for art. I know of no policy statement that the NEA determines what is good art and what is bad art. So that's a myth. And then to state that only 143 congressional districts do not have grants from the NEA, that's good because there are 435 congressional districts in this country, that means the overwhelming majority do have, which means that if you include the 5 territories and commonwealths, we have 540 districts. And certainly 540, 143 is a small fraction, about 20 percent of them.

I don't expect to change anybody's mind whose mind is set against the arts, but I really believe that if you really open your eyes and look around the country, especially those places where you originated from and areas around that area and places where I come from, that you'll see where the NEA has done a lot of good for a lot of people and discovered a lot of talents without causing them great suffering and allow them to become prosperous in