1999CRH9267 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BROOKLYN MUSEUM OF ART
no...@house.gov
[Congressional Record: October 4, 1999 (House)]
[Page H9267-H9273]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr04oc99-58]
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BROOKLYN MUSEUM OF ART
EXHIBIT FEATURING WORKS OF A SACRILEGIOUS NATURE
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) expressing the sense of
Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal
funds unless it cancels its upcoming exhibit feature works of a
sacrilegious nature, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 191
Whereas on October 2, 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art
opened an exhibit entitled ``Sensation: Young British Artists
from the Saatchi Collection'';
Whereas this art exhibit features a desecrated image of the
Virgin Mary;
Whereas the venerable John Cardinal O'Connor considers the
exhibit an attack on the Catholic faith, and is an affront to
more than a billion Catholics worldwide;
Whereas the exhibit includes works which are grotesque,
immoral, and sacrilegious, such as one that glorifies
criminal behavior with a portrait of a convicted child
murderer fashioned from small hand prints;
Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art's advertisement
acknowledges that the exhibit ``may cause shock, vomiting,
confusion, panic, euphoria, and anxiety'';
Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art refuses to close the
exhibit, despite strong public opposition to the show from
religious leaders, government officials, and the general
population;
Whereas the American taxpayer, through the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities, provides funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art;
and
Whereas the American taxpayer should not be required to
subsidize art that desecrates religion and religious beliefs:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the
Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds
unless it closes its exhibit featuring works of a
sacrilegious nature.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to bring House
Concurrent Resolution 191 to the floor. This resolution was submitted
by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney).
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened a
controversial new art exhibit, despite strong objections from civic and
religious leaders. As many know, the exhibit includes a desecrated
portrait of the Virgin Mary, decaying animals, and a depiction of a
child molester.
These are just a few of the offensive items in an exhibit recognized
and celebrated for its shock value, an ``over the edge'' flaunting of
decay, defamation, and death.
[[Page H9268]]
It is a show intended to ``cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic,
euphoria, and anxiety,'' and those are the words of the Brooklyn
Museum.
Mr. Speaker, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I believe
most American taxpayers do not have the stomach to support the display
of this type of exhibit. No matter what we think of this exhibit, we
can all agree that the American taxpayers should not be forced to
subsidize any exhibit that denigrates the beliefs and values that they
hold most dear.
Ten years ago, after the NEA funded Andres Serrano's defilement of
the crucifix, Congress directed the chair of the National Endowment of
the Arts to take into account ``general standards of decency and
respect'' in awarding Federal grant money to artists. Many artists
protested that this was a violation of free speech rights.
In June of 1998, however, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the decency clause. It was upheld because the
court recognized that the right of free expression does not include the
right to force others to pay for your expression.
Mr. Speaker, the Brooklyn Museum is a great institution celebrating
and displaying great works of art for over 176 years. It has been a
gift to our children, encouraging them to explore the depths of their
own creativity and imagination. If there was ever a time when we needed
to encourage our children to honor beauty, it is now. If there was ever
a time to teach our children about great works of art, of great
painters, sculptures, and designers, it is now. But the Brooklyn
Museum's current exhibit is so extreme that children are not allowed to
view it unless they are accompanied by a parent.
It seems to me that our public art institutions should be a safe
haven for our children, a place that honors the highest standards of
beauty, not the lowest common denominator of human depravity.
Hard working Americans help support the Brooklyn Museum of Art
through the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment of
the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. In
the past 3 years, taxpayers have paid over $1 million to help fund the
Brooklyn Museum.
In a time when our communities are desperate for more art classes,
local art museums, and children's workshops, the Brooklyn Museum
exhibit seems inconsistent with our priorities to foster a greater
appreciation of the arts. This debate is about whether or not taxpayers
should subsidize the housing and promotion of objectionable exhibits.
American taxpayers have paid for the brick and mortar of the Brooklyn
Museum, a museum that should reflect the best of the American people.
This exhibit, sponsored and hosted by the museum, clearly does not
reflect the values we hold dear. This resolution will protect American
taxpayers from funding the Brooklyn Museum showcase of a denigrating
exhibit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 191, which
expresses the sense of Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should
not receive Federal funds unless it cancels its recently opened exhibit
entitled ``Sensation.''
First and foremost, I would like to express my utter disbelief that
we are wasting valuable floor time on this resolution as the first
session of the 106th Congress draws to a close, and we have not yet
considered important issues such as healthcare reform, increasing the
minimum wage, and preserving Social Security.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we are 4 days into fiscal year 2000, with 11
of the 13 annual appropriations bills still not enacted. If the
Republicans cause the Federal Government to shutdown in 2 weeks, the
Brooklyn Museum of Art will not get any Federal funding anyway. But
aside from the Republican leadership's complete disregard for effective
time management, I am greatly concerned that this resolution condones
and encourages censorship and sends a message that it is acceptable for
city officials to make funding decisions based on their individual
likes and dislikes.
Hitler's dislike of avant-garde artists of his time, Picasso and
Matisse, led to the banishment of their works from Germany for 8 long
years.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions
that the government cannot penalize individual artists because their
work is disagreeable. We know that this resolution is really about the
Republican leadership's continued attack on all Federal funding of the
arts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
my good friend and class president.
Mr. Speaker, let me start and say I introduced this resolution at an
important time in our Nation's history. We have, as we all know,
violence pervasive throughout all sorts of elements in our society. We
are in a period of great moral turmoil in many respects.
Those who argue against the proposition that I propose today say that
this is censorship, and they liken it to what Hitler did in Nazi
Germany. We say that is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are talking
about some fundamental questions centering around the role of the
Federal Government in funding of works of art, or so-called works of
art, that attack real core beliefs of the American people, many
Americans, and beliefs that we hold near and dear to our hearts.
The questions I asked in this resolution are simple: Should the
American taxpayer be required to send their hard-earned tax dollars to
a museum, or other institution, that exhibits works of art, the likes
of which feature a portrait of the Virgin Mary desecrated with elephant
dung? Should taxpayers' dollars be used to glorify a convicted child
murderer? Should Americans that work 40, 50, 60 hours a week, be forced
to turn over a portion of their paychecks so that individuals can
express themselves in a manner that so offends so many?
Mr. Speaker, the resolution that I introduce today answers a
resounding ``no'' to those questions.
Just this past Saturday, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened that art
show featuring the aforementioned exhibits; and, as a result, the
museum has come under fire from many sources, many individuals, who
share, as I do, the belief that this is just wrong.
The venerable Cardinal O'Connor of New York City called the Exhibit
``an attack on religion itself, and, in a special way, on the Catholic
church.''
Coinciding with the exhibit's opening, hundreds of people, with no
other vehicle to express their frustration, took to the steps of the
museum to say that public funding of such exhibits that promote hate,
bigotry, and Catholic bashing is wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with
them. That is why we have gone forward with this resolution.
Since 1997, the Brooklyn Museum of Art has received nearly $1 million
through the National Endowment of the Arts and the National/Endowment
for Humanities. When taxpayers decide to support the arts, I doubt
these are the kinds of exhibits they have in mind.
Our resolution gives a voice to millions of Americans who are
disgusted because they are being forced to fund this offensive exhibit.
Furthermore, I believe that most of my constituents would join me in
saying that this exhibit goes too far and is devoid of culturally
redeeming value, by any standard.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the proposition before us is quite simple.
However, there is a vocal minority that wants to confuse the debate by
suggesting our resolution is an attack on the First Amendment.
The ``Sensation'' exhibit, as it is titled, does not belong in a
publicly supported institution. That is the simple premise at work
here. This is not to say it does not belong anywhere. If there is an
audience for this type of exhibit, and I would suspect there is a
substantial audience in some quarters for this, let them find a private
outlet for which to express that sense.
While these so-called artists have a right to create their art and
galleries have a right to display it, the First Amendment does not
guarantee that the American people must subsidize it.
[[Page H9269]]
In the words of David A. Strauss, a specialist in constitutional law
at the University of Chicago, ``it is clear the government is entitled
to make some decisions on what it will fund and what it will not
fund.''
Not only are we entitled to do so, my constituents demand that I do
so here today.
I agree with Jonathan Yardley in today's edition of the Washington
Post when he writes, ``the museum has a right to present such works as
it cares to, but has a weighty responsibility, the handmaiden of public
funding, to exercise that right with sobriety and care. The support of
taxpayers is not license to thumb one's nose at taxpayers. The
religious and moral sensibilities of ordinary people are not frivolous;
they deserve, and should command, the respect and consideration of
those who slop at the public trough.''
Mr. Speaker, we know that Congress is not a body of art critics.
However, ``Sensation'' is clearly an example of going too far. It does
not take a Ph.D. in art history to know that a portrait of the Virgin
Mary being desecrated upon is offensive to Catholics.
Mr. Speaker, our Federal tax dollars should not be spent on images
that glorify sacrilegious, immoral, and criminal behavior. They should
be used to defend, not offend. Further, if we subsidize the expression
of art, let that expression carry a message of education, not
desecration.
Last week, the Senate adopted a similar measure overwhelmingly, and I
urge my colleagues in this body to follow the Senate's lead. Tell your
constituents you will account for their tax dollars.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hope this issue does not come down to
Republicans and Democrats, even though normally on things like that,
that is the way the votes go.
I just cannot believe that people can make a decision on what should
be funded as art when they have never even seen what they are talking
about. I just do not believe, just because it was a foreigner that did
it and thought he was doing something correctly, that we would be so
upset that we would attack an entire museum, with all of its exhibits
in it, just because inadvertently someone was upset.
{time} 1615
Now, I was raised as an altar boy, and I am familiar with the Blessed
Trinity, and the fact that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph. While
there was the immaculate conception, there were still pictures of the
Virgin Mary, and of course, Jesus, in every church and cathedral that I
have had a chance to attend.
Now, from what I have seen on television, this was an abstract
drawing of an overweight African-type cartoon that, with all of my
catechism and training, it never would have entered my mind that this
was supposed to be the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
notwithstanding what the artist had put on the bottom of it.
It never seemed to me that my mayor would be embracing anything like
this, with or without the dung, as being what we think the Virgin Mary
would look like, since basically we are talking about what a European
Virgin Mary would look like as opposed to what an African Virgin Mary
would look like.
I can understand how people of different cultures would clash, but
are we suggesting that every time there is something that we find
grotesque or different or odd, or something that we are ignorant about
and we do not understand, that we come to the floor and say, cut the
funding?
Am I supposed to check every library that got a Federal dollar and
find some book that I do not understand, Ph.D. or not, and come here
and say, I am offended by this, and just because we do not understand
it, cut it out?
The city council of New York City has someone appointed from the city
of New York sitting on this board. They are supposed to decide what
exhibits they have and what exhibits they do not have. Clearly, if the
mayor wanted to make the Brooklyn Museum a big hit, he sure did. There
were lines out in the street. I could not find my way to the Brooklyn
Museum of Art before the mayor announced what he did.
So if we do not like this grotesque thing, we ought to charge it up
to Mayor Giuliani for giving it all this free publicity. There are
lines wrapped around the building. They have to get more private funds
now because people know where it is.
If the National Endowment has thought it was a pretty decent museum,
for God's sakes, we do not want to say, because somebody may have made
a mistake or someone did not understand what they were doing, that we
in the Congress are so sophisticated, so smart, so creative, that we
can say, hey, do not fund it.
I do not think we would want to do that, and certainly the way the
polls look, I do not think the mayor, well, whether he did it for
political reasons or not is subjective, but I do not think that he will
be the beneficiary of doing it for Catholics, because Catholics really
do not believe that politicians set the criteria about what we like and
what we do not like, certainly not from the mayor's point of view.
So I hope we would reconsider this and not have a party vote on it. I
think there are a lot of other things we do not understand that are
worse than this.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a member of the committee.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
I want to rise in strong support of what the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) are
doing here.
Someone mentioned their disbelief. My disbelief is that we even have
to come here today to state the case. I say that as a member of the
committee of jurisdiction who has fought long and hard, and my Democrat
members will remember me as the Republican that worked long and hard to
preserve the Federal funding for the Humanities and the National
Endowment for the Arts and Public Broadcasting System. I did it
gratefully and happily and persistently.
But this is not the first time that we have had this particular
discussion. I was also a member of the committee when we had this in
the 1990s, as well as the Mapplethorpe and the Serrano situation, which
has already been referenced here, and the obscene art controversy
raised at that time.
So in 1990, when we reauthorized the NEA to ensure, and I quote, this
is the language of the statute, ``Artistic excellence and artistic
merit are the criteria by which grant applications are judged, taking
into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the
diverse beliefs and values of the American public.''
That is exactly what we put in place at the time, and there were
cries that went up that, oh, no, this decency language, the decency
clause, will not be constitutional. As Members may remember, Karen
Findlay challenged and brought it as a First Amendment case before the
Supreme Court.
But in June of 1998, the Supreme Court upheld that in the Karen
Findlay case, remember, she smeared chocolate on herself, her naked
body, but in the Karen Findlay case, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the decency clause. So I do not want to hear
anymore questions about whether or not it is constitutional for
Congress to make a determination under the decency clause as to whether
or not this money can be given in grants to artistic entities, such as
a museum.
I know what Members are going to say, well, this was not a precise
grant, et cetera. But money is fungible. Everybody understands that
money is fungible. But there is no way that we should be endorsing or
having taxpayers pay for something that violates any religious beliefs
or even aggrandizes pedophiles and child murderers.
I thank the Members for this opportunity. The Congress must go on
record in opposition to the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and stating that no
funds should ever be used under these circumstances again.
Mr. CLAY. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
Let us clear the record. First of all, there are no funds from the
National
[[Page H9270]]
Endowment for the Arts that are provided for this exhibition. We ought
to stop talking about Federal funds supporting this exhibition.
Secondly, we have people making the suggestion that this exhibition
ought to be given someplace else other than in the art museum. Where
should art be on display, other than in an art museum?
Then we say this is not censorship. Censorship to me is what we
decide is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of art, even
with our limited, and some of us with unlimited or no knowledge of art,
deciding what it is, what is art.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is
censorship. The issue is whether or not the Members of the House of
Representatives or the mayor of New York City is going to determine
what passes for art, and what people can see and cannot see in the art
museums of the city of New York or the United States of America. That
is what it is about, clear and simple.
Those people who are proponents of censorship, they do not want
anyone to label them as would-be censors, so they couch their
censorship in language of Federal funding or public funding or
taxpayers' money, or words of that ilk. They seek to hide behind that,
when really what they are trying to do is determine what people will
see and will not see, and they want to make that determination in
accordance with their own taste or lack of taste, their own knowledge
or lack of knowledge, as the case may be.
Yes, the Brooklyn Museum does benefit from some public funds under
certain circumstances and at certain times. That is not unusual. Every
art museum, every proponent of the arts, every culture throughout the
history of civilization on this planet has had public subsidization of
some kind. The arts do not flourish without public subsidies of some
kind, so we, as an enlightened society, make measures whereby we
provide for public subsidies of the arts.
But we do not tell museums what they can display. We do not tell
authors what they can write. We do not tell sculptors what they can
sculpt. We leave that up to the artist, and we leave the success or
failure of those works, whether they are written or on canvas or in
some plastic medium, we leave the success or failure of those artistic
works up to the final arbiters, the general public.
Interestingly enough, in this particular case, the general public
seems to be saying, we have an interest in seeing what is on display at
the Brooklyn Museum. I think the mayor of New York City may have had
something to do with that interest in giving this display all the
publicity that he has.
Whether he did or so intentionally or not, I don't know. Only he
knows that. But whether he did so intentionally or not, he has provided
this exhibit with more publicity than any art exhibit that the Brooklyn
Museum of Art has had in recent memory. As a result of that, thousands
of people are lined up in the streets around the Brooklyn Museum
wanting to see this exhibit. That tells me that there is a great deal
of public interest in this exhibit, and since there is a great deal of
public interest, the public ought to determine whether or not it is
there for people to see.
Let us not think that we here in the Congress or any mayor of any
city or anybody of any common council can determine what the public
ought to see or ought to read or ought to believe. That is up to them
in a democratic society, not up to the Members of this House.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella), a cosponsor of this resolution.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I want to get back to this question about whether or
not we are subsidizing, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we are paying for
this. This is being misrepresented in the debate.
Money is fungible, and no, there is not a precise grant. But it is
absolutely a subsidy, a subsidy last year that was more than $160,000,
much more than that, to the Brooklyn Museum, and this year it is
projected that it will be well over $250,000.
Do not tell me, it stretches credibility, to think that that money
has not subsidized this particular exhibit.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from South Carolina for yielding time to me. I also thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.''
Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that the United States
taxpayer has to subsidize so-called art that desecrates one's religion.
This is the issue.
There are others who want to say it is censorship, others who want to
say that we are determining what art is. That is not true. The issue
is, how do we appropriately use taxpayer money?
What we are saying, and I think we have the vast majority of support
of the American people, both Democrats and Republicans in this body
already sponsoring this resolution, we are saying that unless the
Brooklyn Museum takes this exhibit away that desecrates an image that
is sacred to a lot of Christians across the country, that glorifies a
child molester, that they should not receive taxpayer money. It is very
simple.
If they want to take this exhibit and put it somewhere else, in
somebody's house, in somebody's apartment, or so many of the other
private museums around the country, then so be it, and there will not
be a problem. But this museum receives public money from both the city
of New York, the State of New York, and from the Federal Government.
Do we not think there are more appropriate uses for taxpayer money
than to desecrate religion? Is that such a stretch, that the NEA itself
imposes standards on its exhibits, but we cannot; that the average
American sitting at home who believes strongly in his faith or her
faith says, wait a minute, I am working every single day, and the
government is taking a little bit of my money and is going to fund
this, are they not entitled to their opinion?
For those who say, this is democracy, now, we are a Republic.
{time} 1630
We are supposed to speak for those folks. But we are speaking for
them. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people there on
Saturday with me and so many others saying this is wrong. It is not a
question of gray. Let us move on. Is this not over? It is wrong. It is
wrong to use taxpayer money to fund this.
The Brooklyn Museum Board of Directors had every opportunity before
the exhibit opened to take some of the more offensive works out. They
decided not to. Incensed and in reflection upon their arrogance, I do
not believe they deserve another dime of taxpayer money. They want to
stick it to so many people across this country, so many New Yorkers, so
be it. Let them do it on their own dime, not ours.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many hundreds were there to say that
it was wrong, but I know that 10,000 went and paid $9-and-something to
go see if it was wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion.'' The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella)
just quoted the First Amendment to us.
What does this resolution do? It says that the sense of Congress is
that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless
it closes its exhibit featuring ``works of a sacrilegious nature.'' I
repeat, ``sacrilegious nature.'' How do we determine what is
sacrilegious except by determining what offends a religion?
Remember, the First Amendment does not say there shall not be an
establishment of religion. It says Congress shall make no law
``respecting an
[[Page H9271]]
establishment of religion.'' Does this resolution respect an
establishment of religion? Let us read some of the clauses:
``Whereas the American taxpayer should not be required to subsidize
art that desecrates religion and religious beliefs.'' It says the
reason for this resolution is because the Brooklyn Museum exhibit is a
desecration of religion. It says that this art exhibit features a
``desecrated image of the Virgin Mary''; ``desecrated'' is a religious-
content word. It says that John Cardinal O'Connor considers the exhibit
an attack on the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is, indeed, one of
several established religions.
The point is that this is not really a debate on censorship. I agree
with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the author that
Congress has the right to choose whether to fund art or not. Indeed, I
happen to have voted against funding the NEA every time it has come up.
The reason is that, when we fund art, we immediately get into First
Amendment problems because government is funding one position and not
another.
So I am not arguing that we do not have the right to stop funding. I
entirely agree with the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr.
Fossella), that we should not be funding art that offends people. I do
not think we should be funding art at all.
We can stop funding all art. We can stop funding all art that offends
people. The one thing we cannot do is make a distinction on whether
that art offends religion or not. So I wish this had been written
differently. I wish I had a chance to weigh in earlier on.
I want to close with the recognition of the excellent good faith of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), my high regard for him, and
my high regard of all my colleagues who have sponsored this resolution.
But our oath of office is to uphold and defend the Constitution. That
is the one thing we swear to do. We do not swear to be popular. Lord
knows my position is not going to be popular in my district or in the
State of California. But I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
The Constitution says we cannot pass any law respecting an
establishment of religion. That is what this resolution does. I must
vote no.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a storm brewing in Brooklyn right
now, and at the heart of the matter is whether the Government should
force taxpayers to fund a museum where art is or can be considered to
be anything, from splattering elephant dung on the painting of the
Virgin Mary to cutting a pig in half.
Now I am not an art critic, and I may not know good art from bad, but
I know when something is offensive when I see it. This Sensation
Exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum of Art is the personification of
offensive.
Mr. Speaker, I am a staunch advocate of protecting First Amendment
rights, of freedom of expression. I believe the people in this country
should be able to create art that depicts whatever they please. That is
the American way; and we, as citizens, should respect that right. But I
have got to ask, Mr. Speaker, where in the Constitution does it say
that American taxpayers have to like it as well as pay for it?
The answer to that question is quite simple. The Constitution does
not say that. The Constitution makes no mention of the right to
Government funding for anyone's artistic concepts. There is no right to
Government funding for any offensive material or, for that fact, no
material at all.
If one wants to create a display of offensive art, fine, but pay for
it oneself. Do not ask me and other taxpayers to fund it. It is not
right. And it does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Mayor Giuliani for taking the stand that he
has on the Sensation Exhibit, and I urge all my colleagues to take the
same stand by passing this resolution today.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I like much of the art that is in the
Saatchi collection in the Brooklyn Museum. The reviews I read I do not
think were quite flattering. But this is, once again, the law of
unintended consequences.
A few years ago, one of our colleagues in the other body did not like
a show that was going to be at the Corcoran Gallery not far from here,
made a big deal about it, and made the show bigger than it ever would
have been.
Now people are lining up around the Brooklyn Museum of Art to get in.
So what my colleagues are trying to accomplish they are actually
enhancing, and I think they have failed at that.
But the other problem is that my colleagues are heading down a road
they do not want to go. Because surely somebody can go down the street
to the National Gallery and find a Botticelli or something else they
think is offensive and think we should not fund. But where do we stop
from there?
But what is even worse is, yet again, this House has found it upon
itself to get involved in the politics of New York and New York City.
Quite frankly, I do not care about the politics of New York. I do not
know why the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) cares about the
politics of New York. Let the people of New York do it.
Why is the party of States rights, the party of returning power to
the local governments and the States trying to decide whether the city
of New York, this does not even have anything to do with the NEA, this
show does not have anything to do with the NEA, it is whether the city
of New York ought to fund the Brooklyn Museum of Art on this show.
We really should not care, unless we want to become that
paternalistic to tell the people what to do. I certainly do not want
the people of New York telling the people of Houston, Texas, or
Pasadena, Texas, what to do. But that is the next thing we will get.
Some animal rights person will come up and say, The Pasadena rodeo is
cruel to animals, and we should not allow any funding for it. It is a
really dangerous path that my colleagues are heading down.
There is so much other business the House should be involved in. We
have not even passed our budget for this year, but we certainly have
time to deal with whether the city of New York ought to fund a show at
the Brooklyn Art Museum.
Do we not have time to work on our budget instead of working on stuff
like this?
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Clay) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. DeMint) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not from Brooklyn. I am from the Bronx, just a
little bit away. But I am from New York City, and I know politics when
I see it. This House has not done its business this year. We have not
passed the budget. There are so many things that we have not done.
What are we wasting our time on? We are wasting our time on politics.
This is all about who will be the next Senator of the State of New
York.
The Republican leadership ought to get its act together. They ought
to pass the budget. They ought to make sure there are votes to pass the
budget instead of trying to vote on these knee-jerk issues so that they
can play to their right wing base. That is what this is all about.
Once we start going down this slippery slope of Government telling
museums what they can or cannot do, where does it end? Sure this
exhibit is offensive. Sure this exhibit is disgusting. But I do not
think that we in Government ought to sit and judge as censors and say
that we will not pay for this museum or that museum or whatever it is
because we are offended. That is not what we should be doing.
[[Page H9272]]
Let us do our business. The Republican leadership wants to put their
smoke screen up because they have not done their job. The American
people know that they have not done their job.
So let us not talk about not giving Federal funds to the Brooklyn
Museum. There are no Federal funds that go into this exhibit. There are
Federal funds that go to the Brooklyn Museum for other things, targeted
things, specific things. This is all about politics.
Mayor Giuliani gets up, and he starts talking again and again. If he
had kept his mouth quiet, nobody would even know about this exhibit. He
has given it more publicity than it ever could have gotten. But, again,
he wants to move to the right, play to the Republican base, maybe get
the conservative party line in New York. That is what this is all
about.
So this Congress, again, should do the job that the American people
elected us to do. We ought to pass the budget. We ought to do things on
time. We ought not to talk about these knee-jerk base kind of gut
reactions.
The Republicans want to play to their corps. They want to get their
members enthused. They want to show that one person can out-right wing
the other person. That is really a disgrace. Let us pass the budget and
not waste our time on this nonsense.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, that here we are talking
about attacking the people who criticize this junk as if they
contributed to this, as if they brought it about.
It is not Mayor Giuliani. It is no one on this side of the aisle. It
is no one who attacked this stuff that caused this to happen. It is the
bizarre, idiotic attitude of people who believe that they want to push
the envelope as far as they possibly can in order to prompt this kind
of thing.
No, it does not need to be here. It does not have to be on the floor
of the House of Representatives. That is absolutely true. If no idiot
would have brought this stuff forward in the first place and try to
pass it off as art, we would not be here. But here we are because, of
course, there is money that is going into this and because I have to
tell taxpayers that they, in fact, must contribute to this kind of
junk. It is nothing but junk.
But it goes to show my colleagues how difficult it is to actually
identify what is art and what is not. We should not be contributing
anything to, quote, ``the arts'' because somebody will stand up at some
point in time and say that this garbage is art; and, therefore, it
should be funded. We should not be funding any of this, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to try and decide
whether or not I agree with the last speaker. I guess if I could
understand what he said, I might agree with him. Stuff? Idiots? Junk?
Et cetera?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I represent Rochester, New York; and we have always
known that people in New York City do strange things, but we have
always tolerated them with some bemusement.
The mayor of New York now has embarked on his 18th First Amendment
case, having lost all of them; and Congress today is going to try to
join him in that exercise, which is going to be found blatantly
unconstitutional.
I find more than a sense of irony that today we had H. Res. 57, where
the House of Representatives expressed its great concern over
interference with freedom of the press, but not in the United States,
in Peru. So now we are all going to work this afternoon to see what we
can do to interfere in Brooklyn.
Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder. If the mayor does
not want to go, he should not go. As a matter of fact, other people and
the reviews of this show tell us that people are lining up around the
building, standing in the rain to get in to see what has aggravated
Giuliani so much this time.
Nobody as far as I know has fainted, been nauseated, or had to be
removed to the hospital, which were some of the things that we were
told might happen with this show.
My colleagues, I think a majority of Americans that we represent, God
bless their judgment, think that it is time to really close the door on
the tactics that make the arts and humanities political hostages every
time we find something that we can pounce on.
The benefits that we receive for our economy and for our children and
for our communities by arts and humanities are indisputable and far
outweigh the small financial investment that we are making; however, we
make no investment in this show in Brooklyn.
{time} 1645
Now, the sooner we get around to accepting that fact, maybe we can
get around to passing a budget and do something to stop having to shut
down the Federal Government. I think it is unthinkable that we can work
at this ploy just to aim solely at influencing the New York State
senatorial election.
I want to say something for this museum. For more than a century, the
Brooklyn Museum of Art has provided so many benefits, not only to the
people of New York but to Americans all across the country. It strikes
me as dreadful that the mayor not only wants to stop this show, he
wants to evict this show, he wants to tear down the building and salt
the ground. This Brooklyn Museum and what it has done for the
Brooklyn's Children Museum through the Brooklyn Public Library is
incalculable.
For Heaven's sake, let us not mess with this thing and please get
back to the business of the United States.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' I think it is
something we should remember in this debate.
I need to remind my colleagues on the other side that New York can do
whatever it wants with its funds. We are trying to save Americans from
using their money to pay for pornographic art.
It is interesting that in the religious arguments we have heard about
the laws we make in this room that we hear arguments from the other
side of the aisle that there should be no religious displays in the
public sector. We take away all mangers from the public square, any
religious materials from government schools, yet it is okay to have
religion displayed in public facilities as long as it is perverted and
pornographic. I think we have a double standard.
We talk about censorship. We try to censor all religious materials
from our culture, yet we call it censorship if we try to take away
pornographic and perverted art.
To sit here and say this is not relevant at a time when we look
across America and wonder about the loss of values, the loss of the
value of life, the violence that we see and then say that the
denigration of everything sacred is not important to this institution
is forgetting a lot about what made this institution and this whole
country. We see a total disregard for all that is sacred.
I am thankful for the sponsors of this resolution and all who have
spoken for it. It reminds us and all Americans that we do not need to
sponsor from this organization this type of perversion.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is foolish both in substance
and in principle. Foolish in substance because the Brooklyn Museum
receives little federal money, just a few grants for educational
projects and touring exhibitions. Foolish in principle because it is
not the place of this Congress to bar a cultural institution from
receiving federal money just because we may not like one exhibit it has
chosen to display.
First, let's take a look at the substance of this debate. The
Brooklyn Museum of Art, a well-respected institution that serves about
half a million people each year is presenting an exhibition that has
received acclaim internationally. This exhibit features the works of
some of Britain's most popular artists. In fact, this exhibition drew
the highest attendance of any contemporary art exhibit in London in 50
years. The most controversial pieces in the show are by Chris Ofili, a
young British artist of Nigerian ancestry, who has won the Turner
[[Page H9273]]
Prize, a prestigious award given to the most talented young British
artists, and whose pieces have sold for tens of thousands of dollars.
Whatever you may think of the subject matter, this is a serious
exhibition of work by serious artists, displayed in a respected museum.
Supporters of this resolution will claim that they believe in the
right of these artists to show their work, but that American taxpayers
should not have to pay for an exhibit like this. Well, let me point out
very clearly, that the taxpayers are not paying for this exhibition. No
federal money went to show this exhibit. Not a dime. The Brooklyn
Museum receives federal money, but the money it receives goes directly
to pay for educational initiatives and touring exhibitions. Do we want
to cut off these worthy programs because we don't like one piece of art
that the Museum has chosen to display? That would make no sense.
So this resolution is foolish in substance.
But this resolution is foolish, and I would say dangerous, in
principle. What have we come to when the United States Congress is
condemning an individual for exercising his right to free expression? I
thought our book burning days were over. What's next? Will we be
closing down our public libraries because they contain books that we
don't like? I don't like every book in the library, but I'm glad
they're there. Will we attack the libraries for having a copy of Mein
Kampf, Hitler's autobiography, which offends people's sensibilities?
Where does it end?
This exhibit is shocking. It's outrageous. Art has been called a lot
worse since the beginning of time. But that's the point of art. It's
meant to provoke debate and discussion. Good art makes us confront our
own cultural norms. Does this exhibit fit my own artistic tastes? Maybe
not. But will I defend the right of artists to express themselves and
the right of the museum to bring various kinds of artistic expression
to the public? You bet.
But, this is not about one exhibit. This is about whether you support
free expression and creativity or not. If you support the first
amendment, you find yourself fighting to the end to defend the rights
of people you find offensive. We would set a very dangerous precedent
here if we vote for this resolution. For the United States Congress to
single out one museum and one artist as sacrilegious and then to hold
the museum hostage to the tastes of the Gentlemen from New York as a
condition of receiving federal funds is outrageous. Politicians should
not be deciding what is art. We've debated in this House many times
whether the federal government should be subsidizing art. I believe we
should, and there are many who disagree. But if we do decide to
subsidize art, as we have for over 35 years, we must do so without
interfering in the content. If every arts institution must suddenly
worry that their exhibitions will not satisfy the 435 art critics in
the House of Representatives, it will create a chilling effect in the
cultural world.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in my colleagues from New York who are
supporting this resolution. New York is the capital of the art world,
where we have a tradition of respecting the free expression of artists.
If you don't like this exhibit, protest it, boycott the museum. Best of
all, stay home and don't see it. But you don't need a Congressional
Resolution to express personal outrage. It is improper and outrageous
and it should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to strongly urge my colleagues
to support the sense of Congress resolution which prohibits Federal
funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless they discontinue the
exhibit which features works of a sacrilegious nature. Thomas Jefferson
once said, ``to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and
tyrannical''.
Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder. It is not the role of
Congress to determine what is art, but it is the role of Congress to
determine what taxpayer money will fund. The First Amendment protects
the government from silencing voices that we may not agree with, but it
does not require us to subsidize them.
Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing a
sense of Congress that while we support everyone's right to express
themselves artistically, we are not obligated to support them
financially.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 191, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, was agreed to.
The title of the concurrent resolution was amended so as to read:
``Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the
Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless it
closes its exhibit featuring works of a sacrilegious nature.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________