House increases NEA budget by $10 million

Roll call

On July 17, by a vote of 234 to 192, the House approved an amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5093) by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) that, despite the current budget crunch, would increase funding to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) by $10 million-to a total of $126 million-and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) by $5 million-to a total of $131 million. (Supporters of the two agencies want eventually to hike spending beyond their 1994 high points: $162 million for NEA and $177 million for NEH.) This amendment purports to make room for these increases by cutting $15 million from the Interior Department's operating costs.

Slaughter claims that the non-profit arts industry is an economic boon, generating $134 billlon in economic activity annually.

House conservatives argued against the funding increase for the NEA, which has paid for a number of extremely controversial Items. This year, NEA gave money for a joint project by the abortion industry's largest lobbying organization-Planned Parenthood-and the Dance Institute of Washington. The agency also gave money for naked go-go dancing last year as an AIDS fundraiser in New York City.

Leading the charge against the funding increase was Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), who later proposed his own amendment to cut NEA's budget by transferring $50 million to the U.S. Forest Service. It was defeated, 123 to 300. (See future HUMAN EVENTs rollcall.) Tancredo said that Slaughter's claims about the benefits of art were wildly overstated. He said that the government has no more business funding art than It does funding another cultural phenomenon that inspires people in much the same way: religion.

"Why do we not appropriate $100 million a year to religion? It does all of the same things that this particular amendment does or that the National Endowment for the Arts says they do, but, of course, we do not appropriate money to religion because we would then argue about whose religion should be centered and identified and given the money. You are right We should not do that. We should not appropriate money for religion. We should not appropriate money for the arts because it is In the eye of the beholder as to what is art. And to take money away from somebody In my district to determine what somebody In your district to determine what somebody in your district thinks is art Is, I think, unfair."

Other members said that while they might support NEA and NEH funding increases in better economic times, they cannot do It now given the struggling economy. "[I]f we were awash in money, If we were in a surplus, if we had lots of cash to spread around, I think this amendment might be appropriate," said Rep. John Peterson. (R.-Pa.). "But is It really a priority in America to have almost a 10% increase In the arts when we have an economy that is in trouble, when we have poor people in this country who have lost their jobs, we have people underemployed, unemployed? Is this a prudent expenditure of our funds?"

A "yes" vote was a vote In favor of increasing funds for the NEA and NEH. A "no" vote was a vote against these Increases.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Jul 29, 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved