by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating
Committee for the Promotion of History <pagem@CapAccess.org>
1. Update on House Interior Appropriations Bill
2. Senate Committee Recommends Reauthorization Bill for Endowments
1. Update on House Interior Appropriations Bill --
There has been confusion in the press and on the floor of the
House about whether the understanding of the House Rules and
Appropriations Committee leaders is for a phase out of NEH in 2 or 3
years. Based on remarks that Representative Goodling (R-OH), a key
player on this issue, made on the House floor, I reported yesterday
that the House had passed legislation calling for a 2 year phase out.
But there are indications that the 2 year phase out applies only to a
rule regarding NEA. It seems that H.R. 1977 which passed on July 18
calls for a $99.5 million for NEH in FY'96 with a three year phase
out. When these various bills and reports are printed, this confusion
should be clarified.
H.R. 1977, the House Interior Appropriations Bill, also included
$350.4 million in FY'96 for the Smithsonian Institution which is a cut
of less than 10%. Funding for the Institute of Museum Services was
$21 million, the level recommended by the Appropriations Committee,
which is $9 million below their current level. The Holocaust Memorial
Museum, which needs additional upkeep due to wear from the very large
number of visitors, received an increase in FY'96. As the result of a
special amendment debated on the House floor and passed, the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars' budget was cut an additional
$1 million and will receive only $5.1 million in FY'96.
2. Senate Committee Recommends Reauthorization Bill for Endowments -
On July 19 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, chaired
by Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS), met for two hours to consider a revised
version and several amendments to S. 856, a bill introduced on May 25
to amend the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, the Museum Services Act and, the Acts and Artifacts Indemnity
Act. Of the sixteen members of the committee, fifteen were present
for all or portions of the mark-up. Only Senator Simon (D-IL), who
left proxy votes for all the pending amendments, did not attend the
markup. The room was packed with a large number standing.
In opening remarks Senators Kassebaum (R-KS), Jeffords (R-VT),
Kennedy (D-MA), and Pell (D-RI) all stressed the importance of these
agencies and emphasized that the revised S. 856 was a bipartisan
compromise bill worthy of support. Two of the major changes in this
revised substitute bill were: first, a reduction of 5% a year for the
next four years in the authorized funding ceilings instead of the 2% a
year as in Jeffords' original bill; and second, the provision that 30%
of NEH funding go for state programs -- the earlier version had called
for 25%. The current level at NEH is 20% for state programs.
Currently a total of 40% of NEA funding goes to the states, which
corresponds to language in the bill.
Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MT) introduced the first amendment to
the revised S. 856. He called for a gradual move toward privatization
with a 20% reduction per year for both NEA and NEH for the next five
years. He argued that the endowments, particularly NEA, are caught
between some people saying tax dollars should not be used to fund
certain kinds of projects and others saying the government should not
be censoring the arts. He spoke of making changes in the tax code
that would encourage increased private contributions to the arts but
admitted that tax changes were outside the jurisdiction of this
committee. Kassebaum responded by stating that the revised bill puts
in place requirements that will ensure that tax money is responsibly
used. She urged that time be given to see if the new requirements
work before moving to privatization.
Almost all the Senators joined in the debate, many pointing out
that raising money in this climate with so many strains already on
philanthropic organizations is unrealistic. Some also expressed doubt
about the viability of any tax changes. Senator Gorton (R-WA), who
chairs the Senate appropriation subcommittee with responsibility for
the funding of the endowments, was a strong supporter of the Abraham
amendment. He said that the endowments "spend a great deal on junk"
and that "they hadn't produced a Monet or Whistler." Gorton strongly
stated that a 5% reduction a year is not enough and pointed out that
the House had just voted for a 40% cut. He indicated that the 20%
cut a year recommended in the Abraham amendment could be a smaller
reduction than may come out of the Senate appropriations subcommittee.
A number of Senators took issue with Gorton. Following a lively
debate, Kassebaum called for a vote. The Abraham amendment failed
with 6 voting for it and 10 against. Three Republicans -- Kassebaum,
Jeffords, and Gregg (R-NH) joined with all seven of the Democrats in
defeating the measure.
Kassebaum then called on Senator Dodd (D-CT) for his amendment,
which called for $150,000 of NEH and NEA money to be earmarked for a
study on the viability of creating an endowment. Dodd said that he
had received some strong opposition to the idea of using funds from
the extension of copyright to fund an endowment and noted that other
options needed exploring. Abraham asked if Dodd would expand his study
to include the viability of developing annual income sources as well
as the capacity for creating an endowment. Even Abraham had admitted
in the earlier debate that it was unrealistic to expect to raise an
endowment of $5 billion, the amount necessary to spin off current
funding levels. Abraham suggested that there are a number of
innovative income producing enterprises, such as benefit concerts,
that should be considered. Dodd said he would consider expanding the
scope of the study. The amendment passed on a voice vote, with only
Senator Coats (R-IN) objecting.
Senators Gregg (R-NH) and Ashcroft (R-MO) introduced the next
amendment which called for S.856 to be consistent with the
recommendations of the Senate budget resolution which called for a 50%
reduction of NEH and NEA over the next five years. This would mean a
10% reduction each year, instead of the 5% in the revised bill.
Jeffords (R-VT) spoke against the amendment, stating the Senate may be
negotiating with those in the House who call for zero funding and that
the Senate needs to begin at a higher level. (Jeffords was reflecting
the reality that in Conference Committees, where the House and Senate
are seeking to find compromise language related to sums of money, they
will simply split the difference.) The amendment failed on a tie vote
of 8 to 8. Jeffords joined the 7 Democrats in voting against the
amendment.
The last amendment was introduced by Senators Pell (R-RI) and
Kennedy (D-MA) and sought to restore the whole individual fellowships
program that had been eliminated by S. 856. The only part of the
individual fellowships program that was retained in the revised S.856
was NEA's Literary Fellowships. Although only about 5% of endowment
funds go to individual fellowships, some Senators felt those were the
grants that led to embarrassments and inappropriate use of tax
dollars. Although Wellstone (D-MN) spoke of how individual grants
were key in the development of specific artists' careers and Kennedy
(D-MA) noted the crucial role that grants play in supporting scholars
and scientists who win national and international prizes, the
Republicans could not be persuaded of the importance of individual
fellowships. In a vote along party lines, the amendment failed with
the 9 Republicans voting against the amendment and the 7 Democrats for
it.
Prior to the final vote on the bill, Senator DeWine (R-OH)
expressed his appreciation that language had been placed in several
portions of the NEA bill stating that in awarding grants that
preference would be given to the undeserved communities.
The revised and amended S. 856 passed by a vote of 12 in favor
and 4 against. Five Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting
this bill --Kassebaum, Jeffords, Gregg, DeWine, and Gorton.
********************************************************************
H-Net subscribers are invited to redistribute the NCC reports.
For the complete file, GOPHER UIC.EDU then follow:
Researcher/History/H-Net/NCC
The NCC is a coalition of 53 scholarly organizations, including
H-Net. NCC is the history profession's lobby in Washington, and
its positions reflect the consensus of its member organizations.
********************************************************************