Beloved Workhorses: How Not Pursuing Fame Did Not Inhibit U.S. House Members from Effectiveness and Likability

By Scott Crass

Imagine members of Congress who don’t crave media attention. Imagine people who are so beloved within the institution that negative sentiment is non-existent. Finally, imagine folks for whom reaching across the aisle to craft comprehensive legislation is second nature. In Beloved Workhorses, one doesn’t have to imagine. A number of former members of the U.S. House of Representatives encompassed all three traits and thrived. Why? Because they were salt-of-the-earth men and women with remarkable personal stories. Beloved Workhorses portrays them.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 24, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664189102

Scott Crass

The author’s first word could easily have been “politics.” Scott Crass’s passion for politics may have been fueled by his first book on U.S. presidents, given to him by his mother, Madeline, at the ripe young age of 5. He quickly wore out the pages, prompting his mother to buy a replacement. Scott has been a devoted student of Presidential and Congressional politics ever since. Scott obtained his B.A. in Political Science and Communications from Monmouth University in Long Branch, N.J., and achieved his M.A. in Counseling at the same institution. A New Jersey native, Scott has always been drawn to his beloved Jersey Shore, where he enjoys spending much of his free time. Besides politics and the Shore, Scott is a fan of music of all kinds, including oldies, swing, Strauss waltzes and the sounds of another Jersey treasure, Frank Sinatra. He lives in South Brunswick, N.J and thrives by a personal motto, “Failure is only our enemy if it does not serve as our guide.”

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Scott Crass.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 11/30/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

804318

Table of Contents

Prologue

Chapter 1Yates Was Mr. Arts But For Chicago, Decency and the NEA, He Was the True Masterpiece

Chapter 2Natcher’s Legend Is A Perfect House Voting Record With Meticulous Personal Style Not Far Behind

Chapter 3The Man From Beaver Dam: Kastenmeier’s Altruism and Decency Governed His 32 Years Serving Wisconsin

Chapter 4Smith’s Longevity on Capitol Hill and Life Exceeded Only By Integrity and Excellent Mind

Chapter 5Don Edwards of San Jose A Shark For Social Justice

Chapter 6George Brown Forever True To His Beliefs and Not Bothered by Perpetual Risks of Political Suicide

Chapter 7Horton Epitomized the Camaraderie of the Greatest Generation Of Which He Proudly Hailed

Chapter 8McDade A Jolly-Good Fellow and Scranton’s Most Unabashed Champion

Chapter 9A Hoosier of Zero Reproach: Lee Hamilton’s Respect Perhaps Unsurpassed In Congressional History

Chapter 10For Archetypal Midwestern District, All-American John Myers Hailed Straight From Central Casting

Chapter 11Stokes The Trailblazer Takes Second Fiddle To Status As Cleveland’s Fierecest Advocate

Chapter 12A Kid from Southie, Moakley Had the Best Personality and Warmest Heart on the Hill

Chapter 13Gradison A Gentleman, Scholar – And The Father of Indexing

Chapter 14Judicious and Competent, Hughes Was Adroit At Weaving Together Intricate Judiciary and Jerseycentric Legislation

Chapter 15Hefner Was Gospel Singer and To Friends and Colleagues, Just Plain Gospel

Chapter 16Kildee, The Man from Flint Defined By His Patience, Virtue and Class

Chapter 17Levin A Gentle Warrior For Fairness and A Master of Explaining Complexity and Advocating Action

Chapter 18From Dean Martin’s Hometown, Applegate Made His People Feel Like Somebody Because He Loved Them

Chapter 19Never Boastful, Pease Achieved Lasting Results on Sundry Issues

Chapter 20Jenkins of Georgia a Rare Southern Powerhouse Among the National Congressional Players

Chapter 21Leach: An Ordinary Congressman With All Admirers and Few Detractors

Chapter 22Bereuter Never Met A Bipartisan Solution He Didn’t Like

Chapter 23Dixon Was Capitol Hill’s Calm and Steady Hand Through Thankless Assignments With Little Political Reward

Chapter 24The Gutsiest Congressman: Synar Proudly Voted Contrary To This District - And Never Looked Over His Shoulder

Chapter 25The Chairman and the Manager, Martin Olav Sabo Was A Minnesota Twin: Balanced Budgets and Congressional Baseball Players

Chapter 26Montana’s Pat Williams A Master At Forging Compromises On Social Issues Long Vexing

Chapter 27Al Swift A True Chap and on Many Issues, Simply A Chaperone

Chapter 28Tom Foglietta A Quintessential Italian, Philadelphian, and For Many, A Trusted Friend

Chapter 29Quiet He Sure Was But Bill Coyne A True Pittsburgh Pirate For Working Class and His Home Town

Chapter 30Bill Emerson’s Comity and Compassion Essential To Advancing Causes; Eradicating hunger Topped The List

Chapter 31Gunderson’s Quest To Remove the Rigidity From the GOP Also Extended To His Personal Life

Chapter 32A Beautiful Soul: Evans’s Quiet Kindness and Decency Belied His Fierceness As A Marine

Chapter 33Highly Respected and With Gravitas, Howard Berman Was A Natural At Molding Intricate Concepts Into Law

Chapter 34Lacking Political Background Extraordinary for Lindsay Thomas Whose Abilities Hailed from Central-Casting

Chapter 35Baseball Fan Boehlert Was A Quintessential Moderate – And His District’s MVP

Chapter 36Tom Lewis Didn’t Vote With Majority Democrats Often But Legislated With Them Every Day

Chapter 37Fighting for America’s First District: Herb Bateman Always Opted For Substance Over Style

Chapter 38Callahan Cultivated Colleagues Via A Winning Personality and Houseboat Hospitality

Chapter 39For Colleagues and Constituents, Henry Was A Special Congressman Guided By A Strong Faith and Doing Right

Chapter 40Garrulous and Gregarious Gallo’s Personality Cemented New Jerseyan’s Larger Than Life Belovedness

Chapter 41Meyers A Proud Centrist For Whom

Chapter 42Houghton’s Integrity and Devotion to Goodwill Shined Well Above His Wealth

Chapter 43Gracious and Vivacious: Morella’s Survival In a Democratic District Due To Her Sincerity and Visibility

Chapter 44John Tanner A Quintessential Blue Dog who Ran Laps Only For the People of Tennessee

Chapter 45Edwards A True Talent and for the Longest Time, A Hardened Political Survivor

Chapter 46Low-Keyed Glen Browder A Master of Good Government Idealism Who For the Most Part Succeeded

Chapter 47Professional Soldier Peterson Went Full Circle In Vietnam: From POW to Ambassador and Congress Along the Way

Acknowledgements

Sources

PROLOGUE

I wish I had a dime for every member of Congress I’ve heard share the advice they were given by elders as newcomers to the political arena. One is, Jack (for example), you’d be surprised at what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit. The second is that in Congress there are show horses and work horses.

Throughout my decades following Congress, I have seen official Washington D.C. informally bestow one of those two categories on its members and The Washingtonian Magazine actually awards the category annually. The show horses are members who typically attract the cameras, neon lights, headlines and virtually any means to publicity. They perception is they are often flamboyant, confident, legislative bulldogs with twin goals of attracting followers in the marble corridors of Capitol Hill and putting re-election worries in the rearview mirror.

Understandably, the connotation of the term show horse, is often negative and in introducing Beloved Workhorses, it behooves me to state that my goal is not to denigrate most high-profile members. Political institutions large and small demand glamour figures. Ubiquity, if you will, is how national leaders such as House Speakers, Majority Leaders and Presidential candidates are produced. On the flip side, that type of attention is not craved by everyone in Congress and the beauty is the body is filled with work horses who can accomplish their goals without the spotlight. This book profiles those who had a proven ability to do just that. Let’s explore.

While tough and high-profile assignments often caught up with the work horses, it was their intelligence and capability that motivated them as opposed to landing above the fold on page one or on the nightly news circuit. In fact, part of their reputation was working so hard behind the scenes that one might mistake them for staff rather than members.

Therein lies a characteristic even more remarkable. As respectable as being workhorses made these members, many shared a trait that was wondrous and rare for the halls of Congress. They were void of any enemy and often became among the most beloved members. It’s easy to see why. These men and women were all genuinely nice, affable and empathetic people with nary a negative word to be said about them by anyone – colleagues, staff, press, and even constituents back home who were philosophically aligned with another party. They were on a first name basis with Capitol employees and legislative support staff and often befriended them with commonalities, stories or inquiries about family. Top aides to most of these personalities were hard pressed to recall these members even raising their voice let alone yelling at staff or creating a difficult office environment. They weren’t like family, they WERE family. They revered their bosses and in many cases, remained with them for large portions of their tenures. Staff for other members would convey envy if not jealousy that they worked for so-and-so and needless to say, office morale was always high and turnover was very low.

Most important was their legislative thoughtfulness. A prime reason these Congressmen and women were so popular was because there was no contradiction of who they were. These individuals were tenacious but benevolent, goal-oriented but thoughtful and malleable but never permitting themselves to be steered off course. They were not people of bombast and most were incapable of doing so if they tried. They were not churlish, dogmatic, sanctimonious and couldn’t care less about getting the upper hand. Foremost, they recognized the reasons they were sent to Washington: to strive for sound policy while finding common ground and doing so with civility and magnanimity. Hence, they never, ever took cheap shots.

Though the concept seems incredulous if not trite in this age of hyper-partisanship, most of these men and women lived for reaching across the aisle. While loyal to their party and their own philosophies, nearly every individual I have portrayed spurned the ideological extremes. Even those whose voting records were near the far left or right of their parties had a proclivity for compromise and making the system work. What does one call people who demonstrate these attributes? Beloved workhorses.

While the United States Senate certainly had its fair share of beloved workhorses, this book portrays the lives of roughly 35 members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle that embodied those very words. Let’s delve in.

The Appropriations Committee is the most celebrated place of bipartisanship and camaraderie under the dome. For members such as Democrats Bill Natcher and Neal Smith and Republicans Joe McDade, John Myers and Dean Gallo, party label was subordinate to not only helping their colleagues on both sides of the aisle but sometimes being their best friend.

The Judiciary Committee conversely is often the scene of the fiercest philosophical warfare in the House as some of the most contentious and emotional issues that illuminate the vast divide between Democrats and Republicans are debated (gun control, civil rights laws, etc.) Not everyone who serves on that committee emerges from meetings with open arms from the other side but many are regarded for their sheer altruism while maintaining personal camaraderie.

Another trait that defines many of these members is that many were stolid to the point of shunning publicity. They often found the ritual of putting out press releases or making phone calls to raise money a heinous distraction and would escape it by regaling their perspective donors with stories. The very first member I profiled, Sidney Yates of Illinois, served in the House for 48 years yet was so uninterested in being the center of attention that he once stood in the back of the room while others did the talking at a press conference specifically assembled for him.

A few members were small town lawyers at heart who never had any desire to do anything but look after the communities in their districts. Being catapulted into the national spotlight was certainly never a thought. Yet when leadership needed keen minds and uncontested models of probity to conduct high-profile investigations, they turned to Lee Hamilton of Indiana, Ed Jenkins of Georgia or Julian Dixon of California. Louis Stokes of Ohio was another member of this group and being the first African-American member of Congress from his state and one half of a celebrity family (his brother Carl was Mayor of Cleveland when Louis won his seat), could have basked in the glow of fame. Yet he too was content to let others take the headlines.

A main criterion for which House members would be included in my book was that they were thoughtful both personally and politically. New Yorkers Frank Horton, Sherry Boehlert and Amo Houghton along with Connie Morella of Maryland and Jim Leach of Iowa were part of the dwindling and perpetually frustrated moderate wing of the GOP. Each was meticulous about their jobs.

Even if voting records sometimes irked folks back home, a fair number of members I portray were popular amongst constituents due to their accessibility and strong presence. That brings us to the term courage because at least a few of these members cast multiple votes that were anathema to their districts, which could have been immediate career-enders. Mike Synar’s support for grazing fees and gun control put him in jeopardy for many cycles during his sixteen years as a liberal Democrat from Oklahoma. However, he never looked over his shoulder for the simple reason that he believed in the cause and in any case, his rapport with voters was such that they recognized his sincerity. Synar kept proving his staying power until his luck finally ran out when he lost the primary in 1994. California Democrat George Brown’s stance particularly on defense issues was so liberal in a mixed but Republican-leaning district that when he died in office in 1999, a top aide quipped at his memorial service every day brought an opportunity for political suicide.

Other members rarely if ever found themselves at risk politically but were noted for their abilities to forge consensus on complicated, often intractable issues. Michigan’s Dale Kildee and Paul Henry as well as Montana’s Pat Williams worked hard for solutions on education funding and matters concerning church and state. Folks including Doug Bereuter of Nebraska and Sandy Levin of Michigan tackled fair trade, Bob Kastenmeier of Wisconsin weaved together unglamorous but necessary copyright and patent revisions, and Jan Meyers of Kansas focused on streamlining small business regulations. As for Connie Morella of Maryland? Well, besides fiercely advocating for her sizable federal worker constituents she was just a genuine, gregarious, classy lady whom people loved being around.

For many, serving people was gospel because these members were gospel themselves. Bill Hefner of North Carolina, for instance, was a singer who regaled colleagues with religious hymns at colleagues’ fundraisers. He also had an underrated sense of humor, as did Al Swift of Washington State. Hefner and Swift were not the only two members for whom keeping their heads down belied the fact that they were charismatic and quite jocular. Natcher, the courtly Kentuckian is in The Guinness Book of World Records for having never missed a House vote for his 40+ years in Congress until just before his death. He further exuded dignity with his perfectly starched shirts.

Another member who exuded dignity was Joe Moakley of Massachusetts but in his case, it was just as notable in his public passing as a member of Congress as the way he conducted his life. Moakley and other figures profiled were quintessential to their ethnicities. Moakley was the model Irish-American while Tom Foglietta of Pennsylvania was the classic Italian who left Congress to become Ambassador to Italy. Both men also lived hard-knock lives fighting for their lifelong pride and joys, Boston and Philadelphia respectively.

While loyal to their party and personal philosophies, nearly every individual I have profiled spurned the ideological extremes, even those most aligned with it. Yates and Don Edwards of California were proud ACLU liberals (and hailed from places where those views weren’t out of line) but their gentlemanly ways and knowledge of the legislative process left them with the ability to amalgamate a something for everyone approach into weighty, long-standing issues. They were also considered first-rate human beings by those on all sides. As a matter of fact, that is the case for everyone in this book and for good reason. It was my very first criteria.

My second criterion was time of service in Congress, consistent with an earlier theme. My most recent book, Departures on the House, focused on the gigantic turnover year of 1992 when redistricting, retirements and the check overdraft scandal led to 110 Congressmen/women not returning for the next session. This book is a cousin of sorts in that nearly all of the members I am profiling remained in office past 1992 (Levin of Michigan retired as late as 2018.) The sole criteria, however, is that they took their seats in Congress before the change class arrived at the end of that year.

When a House member yields time to a colleague during floor debate, he/she commonly introduces them as the gentleman from this state or the gentlelady from that state. Often, and particularly more so in today’s climate, that label is obligatory - polite because of decorum but inherently disingenuous. Yet for the men and women I am profiling, nobody would dare think twice. They were gentlemen and gentleladies to the nth degree, having been a beginning characteristic of their affection among colleagues.

These individuals hailed from all over the country – from the most cosmopolitan areas like Chicago, Cleveland, and San Jose but also all-American towns such as Covington, Indiana, Bowling Green, Kentucky, Steubenville, Ohio, and Waco, Texas to name a few. There are distinct military towns represented (Mobile, Alabama and Newport News, Virginia) and areas that needed economic advocacy such as Flint, Michigan, Scranton, Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Some members grew up dirt-poor, others decidedly middle-class and a handful simply born fortunate. At the end of the day, however, all were great Americans and public servants at their finest.

Now a couple of thank yous are in order. First, the members, families and aides of the subjects I am profiling provided me invaluable materials and assistance for which the book could not have have been as concise without. The same goes for other members not profiled who shared with me memories of their colleagues and close friends. To that end, I want to single out former Congresman Dennis Hertel of Michigan for his accessibility and counsel when I had a question or concern. He frankly epitomizes every characteristic of the men and women in this book and it is appreciated. Last but in no way least, I want to thank my editor, Alexa Marotta. Throughout her readings of material that she no doubt found less than scintillating, her work was thorough and conscientious. Nothing ever escaped her and she succeeded in getting me to listen to her – most of the time.

Now comes the matter of dedications and a temporary dilemma. Writing this book correlated almost entirely with the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc in many lives as it goes to print. The book fell behind schedule because for much of the pandemic, libraries and other computer centers where I typically write were either closed or had limited operations. The inconvenience I went through, however, is nonexistent in comparison to the men and women whose lives have been turned upside down by the pandemic. With despair came heroism and kindness and throughout these long months many essential workers - doctors, nurses, first responders, and grocers to name a few, were on the frontlines daily to provide their fellow Americans support to survive. While risking exposure to COVID-19, these individuals never asked for credit and so, I thought it was appropriate to dedicate this book to the great Americans who continue to look after us in what are still adverse circumstances.

This changed shortly after January 6th. The attempted insurrection of the U.S. Capitol that day brought nauseating and needless violence that resulted in the death of Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick. Officer Sicknick never dreamed of being a footnote to history. Throughout his 42 years, he was content to serve his country in anonymity, first as a member of the New Jersey National Guard and for the 13 years before his death, as a member of the Capitol Police force.

Officer Sicknick and I share an affinity for Capitol Hill. I spent a great deal of time roaming the buildings there over the years and recognized many of the corridors and stairways, including benches that were damaged during the repugnant event. He and I also share another connection. Officer Sicknick was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, the same place as my mother and her siblings and grew up in nearby South River, a small but well-known township in Middlesex County often dubbed the greatest county in the land. It is also the county where I grew up and lived for most of my life.

Though the men and women I am profiling are former members of Congress and thus would not have been in the building on January 6th, had they been in office Officer Sicknick would have protected them. Based on everything I have learned and written, they would’ve been the first to show their appreciation and honor Officer Sicknick’s memory because that’s the kind of people they were/are.

Therefore, while I would be remiss not to recognize the essential workers in times like these, I proudly dedicate this book to Officer Brian D. Sicknick. He was a model citizen whose life was taken too soon and whose memory should live on for the ages.

In closing, I would like to convey my deepest appreciation to all of the former members of Congress, families and staffers who assisted with this project. The information, anecdotes, and photos they provided were crucial in encapsulating how wondrous they were as public servants. To paraphrase the immortal Rod Stewart, the love for these members was immeasurable, their respect for them immense. That will be their legacy for many years to come and that is something for which they deserve to be immensely proud.

Happy Reading!!!

Best Always,

Scott

This book is

dedicated to the memory of Officer Brian D.

Sicknick, a veteran and longtime U.S. Capitol Police Officer

who died trying to preserve American democracy

Cover Images

First Row:

Congressman Sidney Yates (D-Illinois); Congressman William Natcher (D-Kentucky); Congressman Robert Kastenmeier (D-Wisconsin); Congressman Neal Smith (D-Iowa); Congressman Joseph Moakley (D-Massachusetts)

Second Row:

Congressman John Myers (R-Indiana); Congressman Julian Dixon (D-California); Congressman William G. Hefner (D-North Carolina); Congressman Bill Emerson (R-Missouri); Congressman Amory Amo Houghton (R-New York)

Third Row:

Congressman Don Edwards (D-California); Congressman Paul Henry (R-Michigan); Congressman Sonny Callahan (R-Alabama); Congressman Mike Synar (D-Oklahoma); Congressman Tom Foglietta (D-Pennsylvania)

CHAPTER ONE

Yates Was Mr. Arts But For Chicago, Decency and the NEA, He Was the True Masterpiece

Introductory Quote: Here’s how it works. So and so will come to me and say ‘Don’t you think we ought to do something about the C-135’s that the President wants to sell to Egypt?’ I’ll say to him, ‘Clear it with Sid. Find out whether he wants us to fight on this one and let me know.’ –House Speaker Tip O’Neill on his deference to Illinois Congressman Sidney Yates on United States policy toward Israel. The anecdote was used for the title of a 2019 book by Michael C. Dorf and George Van Dusen entitled, Clear it With Sid.

image%201.jpg

Photo courtesy of Michael Dorf and George Van Dusen

I llinois Congressman Sidney Yates hailed proudly from Michael Jordan’s hometown. Of course, as legend and notoriety go, it’s probably the other way around but the sentiment is still apropos. On the basketball court, Jordan was said to be simply the best. In the court of Congressional affairs, Yates takes the label front-and-center. His legacy however is so much more than that. Yates was proudly a liberal’s liberal, a champion of civil rights, personal liberties and the arts which he helped make sure persevered through some very adverse circumstances. In 1998, as he prepared to close a career of 48 years and 24 terms, he delineated what he was grateful to have accomplished. I used my position for building up our natural resources and the endowments.

By the time he left office at age 89, Yates was the second oldest member of the House in history (he has now fallen to third spot). His last vote in office, against the impeachment of a president on what he deemed frivolous charges, was evidence that his principles had not diminished with age. With a mellow tenacity, Yates was personally beloved. Future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once labeled him, the most distinguished gentleman and Wisconsin Democrat David Obey described him as, an elegant, classy committed liberal of immense decency. He was also the smartest man in the room he ever entered. At the same time, he proved that being wily and a gentleman who cared about the rules of the game were not mutually exclusive. How gentlemanly was he? A prominent staffer once said he was never obnoxious in the way he treated members with another point of view and The Almanac of American Politics labeled him a genial man who almost never loses his temper, which foes have certainly attested. An example was the conclusion of one protracted debate on his signature cause of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). At this time his nemesis, Republican Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, conceded defeat and shook Yates’s hand, telling folks he whipped me fair and square. Even Herb Sohn, a frequent opponent (whom Yates flattened with a 2/3 vote) called him, one of the nicest people I ever met.

Yates represented the affluent and highly educated North Side district and was as erudite as the district itself. The Washington Post once wrote he "walks around his Washington office belting out everything from show tunes to folk songs to opera. The day after the Clinton budget passed by two votes, Yates walked into the office of [House Majority Whip] David Bonior and belted out Shakespeare’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech from Henry V verbatim." If some considered Yates esoteric for reciting that and other works, it was no surprise to those who knew him. Outside of his family and perhaps Chicago, Yates’s first love was the arts and The Chicago Tribune called him its greatest friend. To wit, it could be agreed without objection that his fight to preserve all aspects of the NEA, even work that some found objectionable, made him the true masterpiece.

In every sense, Yates had plenty of gifts. Politics in America once described his hearings as often among the most detailed in the House, he does his own research on issues and always seems familiar with each budget item. Dorf and Van Dusen wrote that part of Yates’s effectiveness was revel[ing] in mastering a complex subject, championing the cause in committee and then taking the fight to the floor of the House…he had a close rapport with the House parliamentary staff, frequently going to their office just to chat. He never brought a bill to the floor without a thorough consultation.

There was Yates the man. A master of what CQ called clumsy humor, The Chicago Sun Times as Yates was turning 80 wrote, In a business that isn’t short on ego trippers, Yates has never been a self-promoter. He seldom calls a news conference and doesn’t have a press secretary, political consultant, or pollster. Not surprisingly, loyalty was another of his virtues. Mary Bain, a legend in her own right on Capitol Hill, was with him for literally the entire duration of his political career – a volunteer in ’48, his campaign chief thereafter and his Chief of Staff for his entire 34-year second stint in Congress. One employee, Cliff Sloan called the duo, that rarity on Capitol Hill, a Congressman and a top aide who worked together as equals, and who were committed to getting things done rather than getting attention. Yates was also a paternal figure to many colleagues including Obey, a fellow Appropriator 30 years his junior, who good-naturedly called him Little David and Norman Mineta of California who called him Uncle Sid. Pelosi said that when she arrived in Congress in 1987, Yates taught her the facts of life.

Sidney Richard Yates was born in Chicago in 1909, one of six children to a blacksmith from Vilnius, Lithuania who drove a horse and wagon for Federated Metals Co. The family shortened their surname from Yatzofsky and settled on Maxwell Street. The library was instilled in him early as were show-tunes, particularly Gilbert & Sullivan which he nearly memorized. Yates attended Nettlehorst Elementary School and Lake View High School and played basketball as a forward with a strong ability for making left and right handed shots. He earned both his Bachelor’s and J.D., in Jurisprudence from the University of Chicago through the financial support of his brother and continued to play basketball for the Maroons which advanced to the All-Big Ten Conference. After college, Yates continued with the Lipschultz Fast Freights and earned five dollars per game.

image%202.jpg

Photo via the Illinois Secretary of State

In the summer of 1931, Yates was a counselor at a Wisconsin summer camp where he met his future wife Adeline. He subsequently founded a law firm with Addie’s brother Marshall named Yates and Holleb. In 1935, he became assistant attorney for the Illinois State Bank Receiver and two years later, an assistant attorney general to represent the Illinois Commerce Commission in traction matters.

Yates’s first run for political office occurred in 1939 when he unsuccessfully sought the post of Alderman in the 46th Ward as an independent resurgent candidate against James Young who was close to Machine Boss Joseph Gill. His slogan was, Smash the Machine, but as he would later joke, the machine smashed me. In a lengthy 1985 profile, Yates told The Chicago Reader he went to Gill’s headquarters to concede and, I told them that when I was young it seemed my father did so many foolish things. I was comparing Mr. Gill to my father. And I said, it occurred to me how much smarter my father had become. I said I had become much smarter as a result of this race, too. And I became part of Mr. Gill’s organization.

For a while, Yates was content to toil in his law practice but with World War II brewing, he enlisted in the Navy and served as a lawyer for the Bureau of Ships in Washington D.C. Back home, he was becoming a face to remember in Chicago’s Jewish community as Director of B’Nai Brith’s Lake View branch, President of the Young Men’s Jewish Council and Bulletin Editor of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers.

image%203.jpg

Photo courtesy of ----

In 1948, Yates entered the race for the Democratic nomination for the fairly Jewish and primarily Lakefront-oriented Ninth Congressional district. As Yates recalled many times, a Republican sweep appeared to be on the horizon with New York Governor Thomas Dewey who was believed to be a shoo-in against President Harry S. Truman (The Chicago Tribune, Yates’ hometown paper which ran its famous Dewey Defeats Truman headline, believed it until the very end.) Though Yates raised a respectable $15,000, he assumed he’d be among the also-rans against first-term Republican incumbent Robert Twyman. Instead, he defeated Twyman with just under 55% and went to Congress. Twyman blamed the desultory campaign by Dewey for his loss saying the GOP standard bearer, at no time was too clear as to the position that he intended to take on any given issue. Fittingly, Yates often invoked a down-home Missouri expression of Truman on the House floor. He noted Truman was often asked whether people from his parts say, A hen lays or a hen lies. Truman replied, The people where I come from don’t say either. They pick up the hen to see.

Whether it was a jab at Yates or other incoming Democrats, Twyman said I do not feel that people have indicated that they desire a socialist form of government. Yates called it the most marvelous election night in history, and regardless of the questions he was now a member of Congress. In Michael Dorf and George Van Dusen’s book Clear It With Sid they wrote, If you would have believed, or even imagined, in 1948 that Sidney Yates would hold his congressional seat for almost 50 years. The fact that Yates made it to Congress was all the more extraordinary because the screening committee initially bypassed him as the Democratic nominee. The nomination instead went to John Haderlein. Only when Haderlein was offered the job of Chicago Postmaster when the incumbent died did Yates get it, and Yates acknowledged he did so grudgingly (They scraped the bottom of the barrel and came up with me. I said sure). He played guitar on campaign stumps because, I couldn’t think of what I could say in a speech at a bunco party in my predominantly Jewish ward so I took along my guitar. I only knew three chords, and sang a German song.

In Congress, Yates found a mentor in Adolph Sabath, a fellow Chicagoan and chair of the powerful Rules Committee who first won his House seat in 1906. Sabath was an octogenarian looked to by members of all generations for wisdom, just as Yates would be decades later. By luck, every Illinois Democrat senior to Yates passed on a seat on Appropriations and with the help of Sabbath and another old-time Democratic Congressman, Tom O’Brien, he got the seat. From his earliest days in office to his last days, Yates left no doubt that he was a proud and unapologetic liberal. His first bill supported equality for Japanese-Americans interned during World War II while in 1994, following the nationwide Democratic tsunami, he excoriated President Bill Clinton to his face for straying from liberalism (Clinton grimaced and was supposedly quite angry).

In his first month in office, Yates joined attempts to keep stringent rent control legislation and, testifying at a hearing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, introduced an argument outside of typical reasons for rent control. Complaints by tenants are not at all directed to the question of increases. If that were all, perhaps the tenants would not be as vehement in their protests as they are now. But in supposed hotels, which have been decontrolled under present law, letters I have received reveal that reasonable maid service is no longer available except on a charge basis of as much as $1.50 an hour. Bed linens and towels are furnished once a week and in insufficient quantities. Doormen and elevators operators have been discharged and manually installed. Windows which used to be washed once a month are now washed every four months. He went on to tell the committee that, On the north side of Chicago, many working girls have been compelled to join with as many as six other girls in a one-room apartment, where previously the renting girl had lived with herself or one roommate on a permanent basis. He explained how some families even had to return with their elders. Ahead of his time, Yates introduced legislation in 1951 that aimed at gathering information on – and eventually banning – the mandatory retirement of older workers. It wasn’t until President Jimmy Carter signed the Age Discrimination in Employment Acts of 1978, euphemistically known as the Older Persons Act) in 1977 that he had the gratification of witnessing it become law.

In 1950, Yates opposed the McCarran Internal Security Act. He declared his reasoning in floor remarks. I shall vote against this bill even though I believe that there are some deficiencies in their existing anti-espionage and anti-sabotage law. The legislation contained in this conference report is worse than no legislation at all, and as a matter of fact, will make much more difficult the job of the FBI and keeping tab on the Communists in this country. Yates’s opposition may have been considered courageous, but it left Republicans raising cain and sensing they could make him a one-term wonder. Yates explained his views in a newsletter, the first of nearly 120 he distributed to communicate issues of the day in his first two terms alone. His opponent, Maxwell Goodwin, was the surprise choice of Republican primary voters who seemed to favor John Babb. Goodwin stated, the vast majority of our citizens are neither isolationists or One Worlders, and certainly, they are not socialists. By that end, he viewed a Department of Health, Education and Security that Truman was proposing as ‘a foot in the door for Socialism. He sought to brand Yates with Vito Marcantino, an open Socialist from New York who Yates later called big stuff. To rebut that, Yates referred to his golfing skills. Even in those early years, he was among the best golfers in the House and he asked, Did you ever hear of a communist who could break 75 on the golf course? Yates hung on 52-48%, a margin of 5,000 votes.

Yates was friends with Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson and by 1952 was part of the movement to draft Stevenson for President. At the time, the Illinois governor was downright recalcitrant about heeding President Truman’s wishes that he enter the race to succeed him. Strategy meetings were often held at the Yates/Holleb law office. Stevenson finally acceded and Yates that year had another fight on his hands, this time against radio commentator Bob Siegrist which led The Chicago Tribune to write (perhaps disingenuously) that Yates had it comparatively easy in his first two campaigns. Siegrist was a master of cutting edge techniques, advertising on television and having multiple phones at his headquarters for volunteers to make calls. He campaigned in two Freedom Mobile buses while Yates used a Jeep. Stevenson didn’t do so well against General Dwight D. Eisenhower, having even lost the Ninth Congressional District. Yet a year that actually lived up to expectations of a GOP sweep didn’t impact Yates, who increased his margin to 8,000 votes.

Nationally, Yates may have shown the powers that be that he had arrived by becoming Hyman Rickover’s Congressional champion in 1953. Rickover, a fellow Chicagoan and atomic expert, had twice been denied a promotion to rear admiral in the Navy and now was then facing retirement at age 52. Yates’ good friend Irving Berman, who happened to be Rickover’s brother-in-law, approached him about it strongly. He suspected Rickover’s Judaism was a basis for the rejection and urged Yates to further investigate. His ammunition was nearly non-existent. Every heavyweight in Congress told Yates that while they had no beef with Rickover’s credentials, he could not prevail and Rickover himself told Yates his Judaism was probably a critical impediment. Yates reserved the floor for a special order in February 1953 to draw attention to the matter.

Mr. Speaker, he began, we talk about waste by the military. We are galvanized into action by excessive expenditures for oyster forks, or can openers or poorly designed airfields in North Africa and it is well that we should be. But are we ever aroused by examples of the appalling waste of men and ability in our Armed Forces, particularly in officer selection? Rarely. Not often enough. In speaking of the nine admirals who opted to bypass Rickover for the promotion, Yates spoke of the infancy of atomic exploration and opined, It may very well be that as a result of their nearsightedness, the admirals have placed in jeopardy the success of the atomic submarine project, completion of which is scheduled in 1954. It wasn’t solely about Rickover, though. Let me confess, Mr. Speaker, Yates said, that until I went into the Rickover case, I had assumed that selection boards were doing a good job. I am not willing to make that assumption today. He went on to accuse the boards of convoy mentality, which he explained as the probability that the Navy has no room for an individualist-even one possessed of the brilliance of Captain Rickover…it is a case in which the admirals disposed of a naval officer who wouldn’t conform.

Newly sworn-in Senator Henry Scoop Jackson of Washington was Rickover’s advocate in the Senate, which ceased processing 39 Naval nominations until it could investigate the Rickover matter. The hoopla garnered the attention of Navy Secretary Robert Anderson who ordered the creation of a special board. The board returned with a recommendation accommodating Rickover and Eisenhower accepted it. That spring, Yates took on Republicans with regard to public housing. Eisenhower proposed constructing 35,000 public housing units, which was half of the amount requested by Truman. When the House Appropriations Committee refused to accede to Eisenhower’s figure (it was neither justified nor in accord with the program for the economy and a balanced budget), Yates called the reduced figure help to the big fellow and a kick at the little fellow. When the House considered the Independent Offices Appropriations bill, Yates offered an amendment to codify Eisenhower’s request while reversing the ban on new units. The House rejected it by a vote of 106-198. Earlier that day, Yates spoke of the big bankers’ windfall provision. Why? Because the only firms to which the Administrator of FNMA sells the mortgages in his portfolio are the big insurance companies, the big banks and real estate houses.

In 1955, Yates gained recognition by joining with Congressional barons Emanuel Celler of New York and Wright Patman of Texas (who themselves would each one day become the oldest and most senior members of the body) in disapproving of the Eisenhower administration’s plan to sell 24 government-owned synthetic rubber plants to the private sector. An AP article stated, Yates presented a masterful report which impressed even hostile committee members. Yates showed that under the Eisenhower rubber sale, 87% of all rubber production would be in the hands of the big four tire companies who worked together to control the ‘sale of tires. Shell Oil, for instance, which takes over the government rubber factory in Los Angeles, has a contract with Goodyear and Firestone to sell them rubber; then Goodyear and Firestone turn around and sell Shell tires. These tires are distributed to the public through Shell gasoline stations. And Congressman Yates showed how any Shell dealer who tries to stock any tire competing with Goodyear or Firestone loses his Shell franchise. The paper also noted how Standard Oil would benefit from a similar sweetheart deal.

Banning switchblades, which was becoming an increasing source of crime particularly among juveniles, was also high on Yates’s plate and in 1958, he filed legislation that banned switchblades from transport across state lines. Representative James Delaney, a Democrat from New York, had another version.

Yates was fervent on the issue of civil rights. He helped integrate the Capitol Police Force and when he retired, considered that to be his proudest achievement. He spoke strongly of rare legislation that made it to the floor in 1956, saying the bill gives the right of self-determination – the right to participate in the workings of our democracy to many people who are now disenfranchised for no other reason than their race. Yates received 60% of the vote in 1954 and 54% in 1956. That was his last serious challenge in a general election.

image%204.jpg

Photo via

Yates’s entrance into the 1962 Senate race against Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was more of a case of frustration than a blind desire to serve in the upper chamber. Yates was in line to chair an Appropriations subcommittee but the autocratic and cantankerous Clarence Cannon of Missouri, still petty from the junior Yates previously challenging him on many occasions, merged the panel with another and Yates was out of luck. Therefore, Dorf and Van Dusen wrote, It was clear to Yates that his career in the House [had] hit a wall. Just as it was in 1948, Yates was far from being a top-tier candidate for the seat. His name was insignificant in comparison to influential players and many, like his close friend Senator Paul Douglas, felt a downstate Democrat would stand a better chance against Dirksen. In the end, that likely turned out to be true.

The story of the 1962 Senate race can be summed up in two carnations –BCMC (Before the Cuban Missile Crisis) and after. Yates, initially rusty downstate, hit Dirksen as beholden to special interests and slowly regained his footing to the point that many pre-election polls showed him leading Dirksen. Truman campaigned for Yates in an open convertible (when Yates asked if they could close it, Truman joked, Sidney’s worried about his hair blowing.). The story of his fizzle had more to do with President John F. Kennedy than Fidel Castro.

Yates became acquainted with Kennedy as a colleague in the House and during the 1960 campaign made multiple appearances before Jewish organizations and provided the support necessary to cool down the concerns of Jewish voters and bring them to Kennedy. In turn, in 1962 then-President Kennedy promised to help Yates during the campaign and did initially deliver. He assisted with a visit to Chicago’s McCormick Place, in part yielding to the prodding of Daley. Kennedy acknowledged Daley’s power, joking, I just want to see who did it last November 1960, and there they are. They said terrible things about you, but I never believed it. I hope that you will do the same for Congressman Sid Yates…I understand Mayor Daley plans to keep you locked up here until November 6, then turn you loose. That visit however was largely viewed as perfunctory. Kennedy cancelled another appearance the following day for reasons that appeared to be three-fold.

The official explanation was that he had a cold. In actuality, the Cuban Missile crisis was brewing and Kennedy had to return to Washington. This eventually meant briefing the Congressional leadership including Dirksen whom the White House whisked from O’Hare Airport in an Air Force jet. This made headlines all across Illinois and while Yates had a whatever- will-be-will-be attitude, Mary Bain was apoplectic – both knew the election would be lost there. Therein lies the third reason. The conjecture was that Kennedy didn’t want Dirksen to lose, for he was viewed as congenial to Kennedy and at least some of his agenda and the prospect of a successor being as accommodating was risky. In fact, when Dirksen implored Kennedy to let him return to the campaign trail, the president reportedly told Dirksen, You’re not having any trouble. You’re just as good as in. Kennedy conveyed it differently to Yates but the message was the same. Yates recalled the president told me it would be unpatriotic to go at Dirksen anymore. I could feel the campaign going out from under me.

With returns from Cook County reporting first, Yates began the night with a lead. But Cook wasn’t giving Yates anything near the margin he needed to counter the downstate vote and though he did take populated Madison and St. Clair Counties, the lead began eroding by midnight. Dirksen overtook him and Yates conceded at 2:45 a.m. The final margin was 1,961,202 to 1,748,007 or 53-47%. Declaring himself, deeply grateful for all the people who voted for me, Yates issued a statement in which he said, I shall always remember with affection the untiring efforts of those who stood by our side in this hard fought campaign. He said he’d rest and find a law firm, though few people thought would suffice in the long-run.

Kennedy offered Yates a consolation prize – U.S. Representative to the United Nations Trusteeship Council but, despite the fact that Stevenson was the Ambassador, his heart wasn’t in it. He desperately wanted to be back in Congress and the organization knew it. Lo and behold, a judgeship was found for Ed Finnegan, the man who succeeded him in Congress and he agreed to step aside. The organization nominated Yates to take his place and the general election was a cinch.

Yates’ first year back in Congress was a glorious one. 1965 was the year of the Great Society Congress and Yates was in favor of a strong Medicare bill, regardless of how many tries it would take to get it right (as early as 1957, he proposed an amendment to increase funding for the elderly that garnered just 9 votes.) His philosophy was, If it takes a decade to perfect a Medicare bill, then I say it has been a decade well spent, for the bill before us today is a remarkable example of legislative craftsmanship. Perhaps the Roman poet Ovid was right when he wrote, ‘Delay matures the tender grapes and ripens grass into lusty crops.’

When the House looked at holding three Chicagoans in contempt for refusing to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), Yates proposed a resolution to recommit (Congressional jargon for sending the matter back without voting on it, essentially killing it). Yates’s gripe was that the three were not given due process. It was defeated 54-181.

As he made the case for the Arts on the floor, Yates invoked the words of the former editor of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch who said, When we advance the humanities we advance man himself. For the state of the humanities, high, mediocre and low is the state of man-where he is now, what in prospect he will be, what he holds dear, what he believes, what he seeks, and what he achieves of enduring worth. Yates went on to say the bill is a relatively small, but necessary redress of the imperfect attention given to those who seek this larger meaning for our lives and labeled it apparent that this inattention cannot be addressed by the private sector alone.

Yates’ next battle was to try to do away with the Supersonic Transport and he once explained its extravagance by saying, The SST, which looked like a supersonic marvel on paper looks more like a supersonic white elephant as the time approaches to begin prototype construction. There is little prestige in a white elephant. Yates’ first attempt in 1967 wasn’t very fruitful but by 1970, the tide began turning and he succeeded through two tries with two sessions of Congress. That year, the House codified funding for the SST by a vote of 176 to 162 but the Senate, led by Wisconsin Democrat William Proxmire, voted to remove it. The conference committee did not gut SST though it stripped $80 million of its appropriation and members codified that 213-174.

In the next session Yates was armed with a better strategy, part of which was opening Appropriations Committee hearings on the matter to the public. The result was that the public had more exposure to cons of SST. It initially appeared to be a case of déjà vu as the Appropriators approved full funding but when the matter hit the House floor days later, Yates delineated five reasons lawmakers should put the kibosh on SST, one of which was its enormous expense. There are those who say about this program, ‘Well we have gone so far, why do we not put another couple of million dollars into it in order to get the prototype?’ Surely, those who make that argument will be back to the Congress after the prototype stage to make the same argument. We have about 1.5 billion in the prototypes. How can we stop now? Environmental impact and utilization of public money for private purposes were other negatives Yates presented. Enough colleagues agreed and when he demanded a tally, lawmakers rejected SST 217-204.

Having come to Congress the year Israel achieved statehood led Yates to say late in his career that, My being in Congress co-exists with the life of Israel. Yates was a stalwart defender of the Jewish State and its affairs and he was a prime Congressional mover of efforts to establish a National Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. During the Carter administration, Yates supported the sale of 90 aircrafts to Israel over the administration’s plan to thwart it if they failed to include aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

image%205.jpg

Photo courtesy of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

Yates opposed much of Reagan’s foreign aid and military requests. He called the MX a symbol... of every other national program [that] is being held hostage by the military budget. Yates also opposed Maryland Democrat Clarence Long’s compromise to provide $30 million of Reagan’s proposed $60 million aid for El Salvador.

In 1975, Yates became chair of the Interior subcommittee, thereby joining the prestigious College of Cardinals. He would not surrender the role of top Democrat on the panel until he left Congress 24 years later. What he would also not surrender was a desire to have some control over the way he would run his committee which started with the right to choose its top staffer (the staffer was previously been provided by George Mahon, the crusty full committee chair from Texas). Yates partly engineered a compromise where the salary of a staffer for every Subcommittee chair would be paid by the budget of the full committee, but that individual was to be housed in a member’s personal office. Enter Daniel Beard. He worked for Yates at the Library of Congress before the new chair asked him to become his chief aide. It became a harmonious and lifelong relationship accentuated by the fact that Yates actually asked Beard to return to his side after he moved on to further his career at the Department of Interior after two years (Beard declined but would often visit Yates in the evenings at his office).

David Wilson was another matter. He was the chief clerk to Interior whom Yates inherited when he assumed the chairmanship. The two were oil and water on both style and manner for conducting business. Wilson battled Yates’ plan to move the Interior Subcommittee hearing room from a cramped room in the Capitol to the basement of the Rayburn Office Building but Yates prevailed. Once that happened, Wilson approached Yates with the carpenter’s plan to build a typical dais. Yates vetoed it. I want there to be a table where I can sit across from people and have a conversation, he said. He got his way and it fit him to a tee – Beard said it was consistent with his cerebral disposition and one who loved repartee and conversation. Yates and Wilson also battled on when budget justifications should be published as Yates favored them being put out before hearings so witnesses could be better informed while Wilson didn’t see the need. Once again, Yates prevailed and Wilson was reassigned at the end of the first term so Yates could have someone more compatible.

If Yates had a pet peeve as Chair, it was when his staff wrote questions such as asking a witness to justify what they had written on page 52 of an outline submitted seeking money for a project. Instead, he adopted a play from Albert Thomas, a well-known Appropriator from Texas in the 1960s. As Beard explained it, Thomas’s proclivity had been to randomly turn to a page, put his finger on it and ask why they were asking for a particular grant on that page. Beard said the witnesses had no idea which questions would come but they had to know everything.

As for business, Yates waited years to earn a Subcommittee chairmanship and once it was in his lap he was like a kid in a candy store. The name of the Subcommittee belied the fact that national parks were its main jurisdiction. Throughout Yates’ 20-year tenure as chair (and beyond as ranking member), Interior would deal with some of the thorniest policy issues including progress for Native American reservations, drilling off the coasts and NEA funding. Beard recalls meeting with leaders from a Navajo tribe who presented him a book in advance of their testimony before Yates’s committee. It detailed shoddy construction of Indian schools and Beard soon decided that Yates needed to be shown the book. The endgame was Yates decided it’s not too difficult to build a school and created an Indian school construction fund.

Yates was also fortunate with his two Republican partners. Joseph McDade of Pennsylvania was the subcommittees ranking member for the first ten years and Ralph Regula of Ohio followed. Though there wasn’t always agreement, there was cooperation and genuine affection that produced final products and helped thwart potential poison-pill amendments from both sides. Regula was not skimpy about expressing his affection for Yates. He and I may have seen things differently ideologically over the years, but we have worked together on a lot of things. We never had a sharp word in 23 years. Clear It With Sid wrote the feeling wasn’t mutual as Yates, angered that Regula voted against him on an NEA appropriation, couldn’t stand his colleague from Ohio.

image%206.jpg

Photo courtesy of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum

Yates’s mission for the NEA made him a living legend within the arts community. In 1989, Livingston Biddle told The Chicago Sun-Times he look(s) upon Sidney Yates as the single most important member of Congress for the arts. How did that become part of his core? Both of his brothers being Vaudeville agents impacted him as it presented him access to a number of celebrities (one brother, Charles was golfing with Bob Hope when Charles died of a heart attack).

Lake View High School had impact as well. As the debate over funding obscene art reigned in 1989, he told The Chicago Sun Times, I remember singing all the Gilbert and Sullivan choruses and spirituals, and he reportedly memorized them as well. He did wonders for the District of Columbia’s arts presence, once saying, I’ve always wanted Washington to be the artistic capital of the country as well as the political capital. The battle over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was a long time coming. When Reagan first attempted to trim arts funding early in his presidency, Yates treated it as a mere pest and simply placed the current amount being funded in the new appropriation. Twice, Reagan signed it and never took aim at him again. A precursor of forthcoming battles came in 1985 when Texas Congressman Tom DeLay, angered by obscene poets" that received funding successfully authored an amendment to freeze the NEA budget at current levels.

The late 1980s brought new challenges and avenues for foes of the arts to make their presence known and the boogeymen included archconservatives such as Republican Congressmen Dick Armey of Texas, Dana Rohrabacher of California and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Armey started the ball rolling for his side when he proposed cutting the NEA’s budget over two exhibits – The Perfect Moment by Robert Mapplethorpe that depicted implied gay sex themes and another by Andres Serrano entitled Piss Christ.

For Yates, the biggest conundrum in 1989 was not so much preserving the funding in the House but how to deal with a Helms amendment that passed the Senate which would bar funding for work that is obscene or indecent and denigrates, debases or reviles a person, group or class of citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age or national origin. During the July debate, Rohrabacher offered an amendment limiting funding for the NEA altogether while Armey followed with a perfecting amendment trimming it 10%. Yates replied, In 85,000 grants, less than 20 have been found to be objectionable. That’s one-quarter of one-tenth of a percent. Actually, the endowment has done kind of a remarkable job. Surely, Mr. Armey can’t intend to punish the symphony and the opera and every other class of art because of this one piece of visual art. I would oppose any such penalty.’’ Yates also said, A grant that brings this kind of objection is extremely rare," though it was becoming far more common.

Meanwhile, Yates unveiled his trump card, a true exercise in legislative creativity and an uncanny maneuver. It simply called for the NEA to surrender $45,000, the exact amount of the two offensive grants. When the matter did indeed prove intractable and two hours of fruitless debate had loomed, Texas Democrat Charles Stenholm, a conservative, sought recognition. Dorf and Van Dusen wrote, Members looked up in surprise, no one more so than Dick Armey. He was going to support the compromise. By a 361 to 65 margin, the maneuver was successful, opposition amendments failed, and Yates was the hero of the arts once again.

Debate after summer recess was also unusually boisterous. Pennsylvania