EXPLANATION: The bill called the Second Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1995 makes funds available for additional disaster relief and also makes funding cuts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. The House and the Senate have their own versions of this bill (H.R. 1158, S. 616). Under both version of this bill, Congress would cut $5 million of its funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (and also the National Endowment for the Humanities). On March 16, 1995, an amendment to triple the cuts from NEA funding was defeated in the House (260-168).

RELEVANT COMMITTEES: This bill has not been to committee.

STATUS: The House and Senate each approved their own versions of the bill. The bills moved to a conference to reconcile the two versions of the bill. A joint House and Senate conference approved a report on May 17, 1995. Both the House and Senate approved this bill. On June 7, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Second Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1995.

SPONSORS: Rep. Robert L. Livingston (R-LA) sponsored H.R. 1158 Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR) sponsored S. 617

PRO: Supporters of the NEA not only make the cultural argument about the necessity of the NEA, but also point to economic figures. The say that for every $1 the NEA gives out, $11 worth of private funds are directed to those who the NEA give to. Furthermore, each taxpayer only gives 64 cents to funding the NEA while the appropriation for military band is $20 million greater than the entire funding for the NEA.

"The nonprofit arts industry is an important part of the economy, constituting nearly 1 percent of the entire U.S. work force and contributing $36.8 billion to the national economy. In addition, Federal funding enhances the ability of specialized artists and musicians to keep unique cultural traditions alive for future generations."--Rep. Bruce F. Vento (D-MN).

CON: Opponents of continued funding for the NEA argue that the NEA should get is funding privately. Others even say that the NEA should not exist because it is waste of taxpayers dollars and that there are other higher funding priorities.

"Last night multimillionaire Hollywood actors, actresses, and producers--one after another-- got up to accept their Oscars during the Academy Awards and ranted on national television about the need to preserve Federal taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for the Arts...Steven Spielberg and Quincy Jones could personally fund the Endowment at its present funding level with a portion of their annual incomes. Half the proceeds from the movie Forrest Gump could fund the Endowment. I didn't hear any such offers from any celebrities. It is an outrage to have these people tell viewers across America who are making $5 and $6 an hour or $20,000 and $30,000 a year that they should be making more sacrifices as taxpayers so we can have money for the NEA."--Rep. Hancock, M. (R-MO).

WHAT'S NEXT: Either the House and Senate will need to vote by 2/3 majority to override the President's veto or cuts will need to be restored and the section of the bill that eases environmental laws will need to be removed. The fate of the NEA's funding is still in jeopardy. On June 27, 1995, the House Appropriations committee approved a bill that would reduce funding for the NEA from $132 million to $82 million. The appropriations bill must now be approved by the full House and Senate.