ment must have been reached in other quarters because no one who was a principal leader of arts in this city knew anything about the December 10 date, including people at the Meyer Foundation who had put up a substantial part of the basic funding.

Now, the issue here is arrogance. During the entire time of this particular situation, when I was attempting to communicate on behalf of other people as well as my own concern, I must tell you gentleman that it was from this experience that I coined a phrase that mendacity and procrastination are the twin hallmarks of bureacracy. There was lying; there was procrastination; there was turning of the truth to the purpose of meeting a particular objective of an individual. The issue of Vantile Whitfield, the gentleman I mentioned in the report, as being both the head of the expansion arts program and the artistic director of the D.C. Black Repertory Co., Vantile Whitfield, so far as I know, is a very honorable man. He may even be a very talented man.

The issue there is simply, is it possible for a public official to serve in any position, paid or unpaid, in an organization which receives a substantial part of its financing from the very Federal agency of which he is an official and to say that, legalistically, this is possible because the money is given to a subportion of the entire organization and have nobody give a damn, including members sitting up there, that this public official was, in fact, participating in policy decisions of an organization which receives substantial funding, helped explain to me a great deal why it is that members of the National Arts Endowment can walk through the arts establishments of this country acting for all the world like viceroys, like a new nobility. There is no one who can question them because anybody in the arts who questions members of the Arts Endowment puts himself in jeopardy of not receiving an award.

Senator PELL. I have no intention of sitting through this stream of personal bitterness and vituperation.

When this witness ceases this personal excessive use of language, I will return.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Meachum, we want to give you an opportunity to express your point of view so you go right ahead. Mr. MEACHUM. Well, there is part of the problem.

As a member of the press, I hold myself, you know, in this position. As a human being, I find myself disturbed because letting Vantile Whitfield have the capability of going to serve with an organization which receives substantial Federal funding bespeaks a certain

arrogance.

It is not only necessary to avoid evil, but the appearance of evil, and certainly there is the appearance of conflict of interest.

The fact of the matter is that the members of the Arts Endowment do conduct themselves in the manner which I have described and one of the ways in which they manage to do this is that they wrap themselves in the cloak that any time any elected official will say anything in criticism of the Arts Endowment he is automatically considered to be a dirty politician trying to use art for political reasons.

The fact of the matter is that at least elected politicians are subject to the will of the people. The bureaucrats are subject to nobody's will except their own, unless it is the Congress, and the press will exercise some kind of watchdog capacity.

I would hope that in the process of writing this new enabling legis lation that some provision would be made for a watchdog committee of the Congress that would look out for the public interest, that would look out for the interest of those arts that do not have the good ear or the good offices of the National Arts Endowment.

I would certainly hope with that watchdog committee that there would be less need for such things as Congressmen proposing that a certain percentage of the National Arts Endowment budget should be set aside for the AFL, that all money for museums could then be put through the National Arts Endowment and that such matters as folk music do not have to be handled through separate legislation.

All these things bespeak a certain lack of full trust on the part of various Members of Congress in the way that the National Arts Endowment has grown and is existing at the present time. Yet, who will do anything about this?

Representative BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. Meachum. Let me just make a few editorial observations, myself.

First. I am delighted to welcome you here and give you an opportunity to express any criticisms you may wish to express. As far as I am concerned, that is one of the reasons that we have congressional committees.

I think you would not disagree that nobody has inhibited you from saying what you want.

Second: If you were here as late as yesterday or the day before yesterday, as I think you were, you would recall that the chairman of this subcommittee raised a number of questions of the Chairman of the National Arts Endowment in respect of the administrative operation of the Endowment.

I think a fair reading of the questions that were put would say that they were fairly critical.

Third: The particular matters with respect to which you have raised your own criticisms, both in your reporting and here this morning, have, by virtue of your statements on television and your appearance here today, now been drawn to the attention of the subcommittee, and we will look into them.

I make these points so that the record is made clear, at least as far as the chairman of this subcommittee is concerned, that there is not going to be any effort to keep people from expressing criticisms.

Indeed, I was in Texas with this subcommittee a few weeks ago where we scheduled witnesses who, I had some reason to believe, were going to be critical of one of my own legislative proposals, and they were. So I am rather sensitive to the responsibility of this subcommittee to hear a variety of points of view on these matters.

I think a reading of the hearings over the last few years would show that there have been some fairly colorful differences of opinion on what ought to go into the legislation.

I will just make one other observation, and that is this:

It is my own feeling that so significant has the amount of Federal support for the arts become that it is appropriate that the legislative subcommittees and the appropriations subcommittees of both the House and Senate, including those of us who, as I think you know, are strong champions of public support for the arts, feel quite free to raise searching criticisms and offer proposals to amend the legislation, or make clear where we think there has been faulty administration.

I think in that sense, the Arts and the Humanities endowments have come of age and they ought to anticipate criticism like any other program of the National Government.

I think probably you will not disagree with most of what I have just said.

Mr. MEACHUM. I can't disagree at all.

The concern that I have is really that, as you know, for quite a long time I have kept silent. I did it because I was primarily interested in the arts.

As I said in one of my pieces, I also practice that constraint which people in my profession do, that we did not want to criticize the Arts Endowment and it is still the main thrust of American journalism in the arts that we did not want to criticize the National Endowment because there was fear of people up here on the Hill.

When I sat through 3 days of the House subcommittee hearings and I listened to the way people talk to Congressmen, and I listened to the way Congressmen talked back to people, I was appalled what the Congressmen did not know about the basic subject he was having a hearing on.

I was not concerned about that side; I was concerned about this side.

I listened to the way the Congressmen were being talked to and being spoon fed and were treated as if they were not really quite bright and were not capable as adults of listening to just a straight-forward thing. Everyone had to rush in and protest and protest and protest and oversell.

Yes; I listened the other day. You asked some good questions and Miss Hanks gave some good answers. I kept waiting for the questions beyond the answers that would really resolve what it is you were trying to say.

I know how our process works. You know ours works the other way sitting at the press table, and I think the public's minds work another

way.

Representative BRADEMAS. We all have our responsibilities, Mr. Meachum.

Mr. Miller.

Representative MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Meachum, I also would like to thank you for your testimony and second that which the Chairman has said because I have had many long conversations with him. He has brought out to me many of the criticisms which you have expressed for my own background, since this is my first term in Congress and my first run-in with the National Endowment.

Also, I daresay that many of those criticisms have also been expressed privately to members of this committee by people out in the field, if you will, or out in the hustings, whatever term you want to use. I think they are of such a nature that we do have to be concerned with them.

One of the things that bothered me in the first set of hearings was people coming in and recommending various set-asides or formulas to make sure that they were protected, that their art form, in fact would receive a fair share in case it fell in disfavor at some point in the future or was looked upon in a lesser light.

66-053-76- -23

I don't think that is really the proper way to go.

I think the proper way to go is an impartial look at all the arts in terms of funding.

As I see it, from a very, very short time, the politics of the Endowment thwarts that attempt. That is why I think we have had some of these requests before the committee.

It is something I know that I will be concerned with, as is the chairman, not only with this legislation, but I assume we will continue in oversight to see exactly how it works. I will be most interested to see how it works because we are talking about certainly not all the money that is needed but a significant amount of money. I think that it is not the intent of this committee in authorizing expenditure of that money to leave some people standing out in the rain but to give them an equal opportunity to foster the growth of their art form.

I appreciate very much your testimony because most of that type of testimony has been in private.

Thank you.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Hall?

Representative HALL. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Meachum, again thank you very much for having taken the time to be with us. We appreciate your coming very much indeed, sir.

Mr. MEACHUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Representative BRADEMAS. Next we will hear from Mrs. Suzanne Sheppard of Sunnyvale, Calif.

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE SHEPPARD, SUNNYVALE, CALIF.

Mrs. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify here.

As I came a very long way, I would like to tell you I was recently asked why I would be willing to travel several thousand miles at very great personal expense to speak for just 5 minutes.

My answer was that I must voice my total opposition to the National Endowment for the Arts because its very existence threatens my right to be an independent artist.

My right to be an independent artist is my right to express my own view of life.

As with every other artist, my work says, in effect, this is what life means to me. This is what is important. And, whether he says this explicitly or implicitly, the artist expresses his conviction, not with the neutrality of a reporter but with the assertiveness of an advocate.

For this reason, an artist's personal philosophy becomes the very soul of his work, the core of its meaning.

So it is that when the Government supports an artist it thereby and unavoidably endorses the artist's philosophy. In so doing, the Government commits an act of ideological favoritism totally at odds with the spirit of this country.

By obligating me to support with my taxes the work of other artists, my Government is forcing me to help propagate philosophical ideas which are not my own.

If I were to protest this injustice by refusing to pay my tax obligation to the National Endowment for the Arts, I would be subject to

imprisonment. For this reason, my artistic freedom is no longer a matter of inalienable right but of governmental permission. In other words, I must buy my freedom to express my own convictions by paying tribute to someone else's convictions.

Where, I ask you, is the justice in that?

What is it that this country will celebrate next year on its 200th birthday? Its love of freedom? Its respect for the individual? The sanctity of personal conscience?

I came here today to say that my Government has no right to extort my support for someone else's ideas. I am here to say that so long as the National Endowment for the Arts exists, my Government has no cause to boast that it stands for liberty of conscience.

It had to be said.

[The prepared statement of Suzanne Sheppard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE SHEPPARD

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 7216. I oppose the very principle of government art subsidies. My testimony will consist of two statements of my reasons for opposing these subsidies; the first is from my remarks at a hearing of the California State Legislature's Joint Committee on the Arts; the second is the argument I delivered at the trial of my suit against the California Arts Commission. These two statements will show that it is precisely because I am an artist that I oppose government subsidies for the arts.

I. TESTIMONY BEFORE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE'S JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ARTS I'm an artist. and I am here to speak in opposition to state support of the arts. Every individual has a right to think for himself-to express his own mind, to make his own choices and to act according to his own judgment. No one has a right to violate this right.

I urge you to consider the injustice of state subsidies for the arts. Subsidies, as you know, require tax money. Taxation for the arts means: involuntary patronage of the arts. Every man has a right to choose for himself whether or not he wishes to support any form of art or any particular work of art. The state has no right to make these decisions for him. The state has no right to violate his freedom of choice.

And I have no grounds to demand that the state tax anyone for my support. No one forced me to become an artist; no one should be forced to pay my way. If people don't like my work, or cannot afford it, they have a right not to buy it. But taxation for the arts violates this right. A state has no right to make artistic choices for the individual; and no artist has reason to claim that his artistic freedom requires the denial of another man's freedom of choice.

As legislators, you know that the state must account to the taxpayers for the way it spends their money. In order to justify its subsidies for the arts, the state must have reasons for the selections it makes. This means that the state is obliged to establish standards of artistic merit, and it cannot justifiably support an artist who does not satisfy its standards. When evaluating the merit of a work of art, the state has to consider the work's content. Its content expresses a theme or viewpoint. This means that the state grants official endorsement to the ideas expressed or implied in the art it subsidizes.

This is crucial to bear in mind: A government with power enough to endorse ideas has power enough to silence them-and that is the essence of censorship. State support of the arts, then, is unjust-and it achieves the exact opposite of its alleged purpose: Instead of supporting the arts, it undermines the very foundation on which the arts depend: Freedom.

When a man is forced to pay taxes for the arts, he is denied his right to act according to the judgment of his own mind. State support of the arts costs a man his liberty of conscience.

This is an unspeakable price for anyone to pay.