When NASA asked performance artist Laurie Anderson (Lou Reed's better half) to be their first Artist-in-Residence, House Representative Chris Chocola was not impressed.
One year later, the Indiana Republican moved to amend a science appropriations bill to make sure congress would never again spend another dime on anything as frivolous as allowing NASA to make science fun and interesting.
In Chocola's view, Anderson’s $20,000 stipend exemplified everything that was wrong with Big Government -- part of the "$386 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. Every American business and every American family must make hard decisions to stand by their budget.”
Alan Mollohan (D-WV) disagreed, even though he supported the amendment.
As Laurie Anderson continues her current Delusion tour, take a look at Chocala and Mollohan's exchange on the floor of the House of Representatives in context of recent controversies surrounding climate science.
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Congressional Record excerpt, June 15, 2005):
Mr. Chocola: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to employ any individual under the title ``artist in residence''.
Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. Chocola: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his good work on this bill. I also appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment.
This amendment is really about prioritizing spending and fiscal responsibility. Over the last 2 years, NASA has spent $20,000 for an artist-in-residence program. My amendment is designed to prevent or limit that practice in the future.
Mr. Chairman, nowhere in NASA's mission does it say anything about advancing fine arts or hiring a performance artist. In fact, Laurie Anderson, the person that was chosen to perform the role of a performance artist, when she was called to be offered the job, she said, “Sure, what do I do?”
And the response she got from NASA was, “Well, we do not know; we have never done this before.”
One of the first things that I did in 2003 after I showed up as a new Member of Congress is I attended a memorial service for the Columbia astronauts. Certainly, spending money by NASA on a performance artist and a artist-in-residence program does nothing to make sure that the shuttle program gets back into space and prevents such tragedies in the future.
Now $20,000 may not seem like much in the Halls of Congress; but to the average American family, it is a significant amount of money. I wish I could say that NASA is boldly wasting taxpayer money where no agency has wasted it before, but I am afraid that the artist-in-residence program is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
Recently, the Heritage Foundation identified $386 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. Every American business and every American family must make hard decisions to stand by their budget and eliminate wasteful funding, and the Federal Government should be no different and NASA should not be spending taxpayer dollars on a performance artist. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment...
Rep. Alan Mollohan's response:
Mr. Mollohan: Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, I am going to agree to the amendment, but I would like to have some comment before I do.
I think this is a regrettable amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, it involves an awfully little bit of money. Secondly, I think it sends a really bad signal. Indeed, one of NASA's missions is to inspire; and it has had an arts program, a very small arts program since 1962. Such luminaries as Norman Rockwell have participated in it over the years.
It is in furtherance of part of NASA's mission. NASA's mission is to inspire, to educate. Indeed, in the education theme of NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget, it states: "To develop the next generation of explorers, NASA must do its part to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science and technology and engineering and in mathematics.'"
A part of it is connectivity. One of the ways NASA has done that, if anyone has visited its facilities, is through beautiful murals and other art initiatives. This particular initiative that the gentleman is speaking to is the appointment of Laurie Anderson as an artist-in-residence,which is another phase, if you will, in NASA's arts program. It is a worthy program. It has developed over those years since 1962 an awful lot of memorable artworks. There is no reason to believe that this initiative, which is so modest in nature, would do anything but further enhance the arts program at NASA . Again, it is so small that it is just minuscule. I am afraid the amendment really represents more art bashing than it does good fiscal policy.
The Amendment passed, demolishing one of the few bridges between art and science.
Chocola was a Republican member of the US House of Representatives from Indiana from 2003 to 2007. Joe Donnelly defeated him in 2006. After serving 14 terms, state Senator Mike Oliverio defeated Mollohan in last Tuesday’s Democratic primary.
Laurie Anderson gets the last word: Only an Expert Can Deal with the Problem from Homeland.
Subscribe to Rick's email alerts here. Read top articles here. More Culture & Events here.
Comments