House Passes Ban on Obscene Art

Sidestepping a potential dispute over whether a compromise bill actually precludes the National Endowment for the Arts from funding obscene artworks, the House voted Tuesday to accept the agreement and sent it to the Senate for final action.

But, in an exchange between lawmakers over what the House-Senate conference committee language actually says about the funding of indecent or obscene artworks, plays, operas or dance productions, Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.) made clear that the compromise remains fragile.

In responding to questions by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita), Yates conceded that the compromise does not prohibit the endowment’s chairman from deciding that a proposal’s inherent artistic excellence outweighs possible objections to sexually explicit content.

Interpretations Differ

Yates, chairman of the House delegation on the conference committee that worked out the compromise, appeared to have a different interpretation of the agreement’s effect than Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), leader of House Republican conferees.

Regula told Rohrabacher he was under the impression that the committee solution to the problem that has preoccupied congressional deliberations on the NEA budget was a nearly airtight guarantee against obscenity.

The House voted 381 to 41 to accept the compromise agreement and, with a separate voice vote, overwhelmingly turned aside objections by Rohrabacher to the wording of the obscenity provision.

“It was the conference committee’s intention to leave within the (NEA) chairman’s discretion” the issue of whether possibly explicit content would disqualify a grant applicant from national endowment support,” Yates said.

Wording Left Vague

He said the committee left wording of the obscenity prohibition vague so that the inherent artistic excellence of a proposal--even one that might contain sexually explicit subject matter--could serve “to justify overcoming the possible obscenity and approving the grant.”

The NEA chairman, Yates said, could conclude that artistic merit “is overcome by the weight of obscenity.” At that point, he said, the head of the NEA “would have to decide” whether to extend federal support.

“I’m telling (Rohrabacher) it was the intent of the conference (committee) to leave that decision to the discretion of the chairman,” Yates said.

Rohrabacher responded that the NEA “should have higher standards than the local porno store.”

John E. Frohnmayer, the newly confirmed NEA chairman, said in a telephone interview over the weekend that, regardless of the outcome of the House-Senate debate, he intends to avoid funding obscene works.

Meets With President

Frohnmayer attended a private luncheon with President Bush Tuesday. He held a closed meeting with key NEA staff members but was not present for any of the House debate on the bill.

The Senate, at the insistence of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), inserted an amendment in the NEA funding bill prohibiting federal support for obscene or indecent artworks or materials that denigrate religion or offend other sensitivities.

The House version did not include the Helms restrictions, and the House earlier voted down an attempt by Rohrabacher to force adoption of the Helms language.

It was unclear what effect the clarification of the conference committee language by Yates may have on Senate approval of the compromise bill. The Senate was expected to take the matter up with little delay.

After fractious debate on the Senate floor and in the conference committee last week, a compromise was reached in which “obscene” artworks including “sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts” were ineligible for federal support.

But the wording carefully required that the finding of obscenity must be joined by a decision that the work in question does “not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”