HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Funding for Controversial Arts Agency

By a vote of 103 for and 326 against, the House refused to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. Instead, the House passed a bill (HR 2351) authorizing $174.5 million in fiscal 1994 for the agency, which is controversial because of sexually explicit art it has funded.

Supporter Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) said: “I think we can do what the Constitution gives us as a guide--leave the funding of the arts to private citizens, who put up $9.32 billion, God bless them. We don’t have to take $174 million out of Middle America, which doesn’t understand this garbage. It repels them and it should.”

Opponent Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said: “Let’s not just pander to some of the interests that are shortsighted and refuse to deal with facts. Arts are good for America and we ought to proudly support them in this Congress, which is a representative body for the American people.”

A yes vote was to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

$425 Million for Educational Grants

The House passed a bill (HR 1804) to spend $425 million in fiscal 1994 grants to states for the improvement of elementary and secondary education in public schools. The bill sets national goals to be reached by 2000 in areas such as curriculum content, teacher competence and student achievement. States and localities choosing to receive the federal money would use it to begin restructuring their systems. The program would be overseen by a National Goals Panel appointed by the White House, governors, congressional leaders and state legislatures.

Supporter Thomas C. Sawyer (D-Ohio) said the bill sets up “a framework that will enable us to refashion the entire federally supported K-12 delivery system to improve teaching and learning in all schools for all students.”

Opponent Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) said: “Simply throwing more money at the problem is not the answer to our education woes. . . . we should be voting to allow for real school reform” such as empowering parents to choose among private, parochial and public schools.

The vote was 307 for and 118 against. A yes vote was to pass the bill.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

‘School Choice’ Amendment

The House rejected an amendment enabling communities to allocate some of their money from HR 1804 (above) to private and parochial education. The “school choice” amendment sought to make non-public schools affordable to parents wishing to transfer their children out of public systems.

Supporter Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said the amendment holds “that parents are better than bureaucrats, that students are more important than teachers’ unions, that learning is more important than regulation if the local community wants to voluntarily make that decision.”

Opponent Gene Green (D-Tex.) said the amendment would cause “the erosion of much-needed public funds for education. Private schools today are doing their jobs just fine, and do not need public funds to continue.”

The vote was 130 for and 300 against. A yes vote supported diverting a portion of federal education money to private and parochial education.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

Debate on Additional Jobless Benefits

The House agreed to the rule for debating a bill (HR 3167) providing an additional four months in which the long-term unemployed can apply for more weeks of unemployment checks after their initial 26-week allotment expires. This would extend until Feb. 2, 1994, an emergency program that was supposed to expire Oct. 1. The legislation would benefit an estimated 750,000 workers, giving them seven or 13 weeks of additional checks, depending on the unemployment level in their state.

Controversy centered on how to pay the estimated $1.1-billion cost. Backers of the rule said the spending would be offset primarily by the bill’s requirement that states do a better job of retraining the unemployed for quicker re-employment. But critics, mainly Republicans, called that approach wishful thinking and said they preferred the certainty of specific spending cuts.

The vote was 239 for and 150 against. A yes vote was to debate the bill providing additional unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

Source: Roll Call Report Syndicate