Our regrant procedures and staff preliminary review has been free of any political concern, and we in Texas would like to keep it that way! The various publics are concerned in Texas today about the issues of government and the individual (our particular theme in this state), and our committee, which reflects broad social and ethnic segments of the society, hope to be able to maintain this contact in the future. We appreciate your strong support of this program in the past, and I now urge that the Pell Amendment to the Appropriation Bill reauthorizing the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities be defeated. Yours truly, A. J. CARLSON, Associate Dean for Humanities and Vice-Chairman, Texas Committee for TEXAS COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES AND PUBLIC POLICY, Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: At its meeting on September 16, the Texas Committee for the Humanities and Public Policy voted to oppose what we believe are undesirable and restrictive provisions in the Bill reauthorizing the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities-(S. 1800 introduced by Senators Javits and Pell and H.R. 7216 introduced by Representatives Brademas and Bell). The specific provisions we oppose are those requiring that the National Endowment for the Humanities support for state humanities programs must go to a designated state agency, and the filing of a state plan. Members of the Texas Committee believe the creation of a state humanities agency would inevitably raise the issues of significant state support and state control. It is likely that the state legislature and executive would determine the purposes of the agency and could therefore establish directions other than those of the existing statebased programs. Since a fundamental purpose of the state-based program is to foster grassroots discussion of public policy in a humanities context free from partisan advocacy, this amendment could present a significant threat to the current objectives of the program and allow the program to be used as a platform for the furthering of partisan political interests. We recognize that the Senators and Representatives who introduced the legislation are friends of the humanities, but we believe if the provisions in their legislation are enacted the state-based program, not only in Texas but throughout the nation, will be seriously hampered. We strongly urge that the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities programs be reauthorized as they are presently established. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Cordially yours, THOMAS B. BREWER, Chairman. NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: This is to voice emphatic opposition to the amendment to the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities putting the control of the Foundation in the hands of the states. This amendment would cripple the National Endowment for the Humanities by muzzling its programs. The goal of the Endowment is to foster free discussion, and in many if not most states this would be impossible if local controls were imposed. I ask therefore that S. 1800 be amended so as to leave the National Endowment for the Humanities free of state control and free to discuss the tough issues. Sincerely, PETE A. GUNTER, Chairman, Department of Philosophy. 66-053-76-30 I hope that as you consider the amendment, you will keep in mind my concerns about the program. Thank you for your attention to the matter. Sincerely, HUBERT J. MILLER, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: I would like to make a response concerning two related bills that have recently been introduced into the Senate (S. 1800) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 7216). The purpose of these bills is to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities; however, they each contain an amendment which, if adopted, would permanently alter the structure and usefulness of the state-based humanities program here in South Carolina, and in other states as well. The effect of such legislation would be to chnanel support from the National Endowment to a designated state agency rather than to the state-based volunteer committees that now exist. In turn, any state government wishing to apply for funds would have to submit a state plan. In my opinion, the implementation of these amendments would be unwise, and their ultimate impact would seriously impair the effectiveness of all statebased programs in the humanities. It seems, first of all, that the legislation described above would place these programs into a political rather than a public arena; and the concept of state-based volunteer committees would probably be lost if committee membership were to be determined at the state government level. It is also possible that the combination of federal and state supervision could inhibit flexibility to the point that perspective applicants might actually be discouraged from submitting proposals. Finally, in the event that existing humanities programs should be joined with state arts agencies—a most likely projection here in South Carolina-there would then be a merging of identity and purpose that could only detract from both programs. In this last respect it seems to me that our proper goal should be mutual cooperation, not the duplication of activities. For these specific reasons, and they are compelling ones I think, I respectfully suggest that the amendments contained in S. 1800 and H.R. 7216 not be adopted. Sincerely, LELAND H. Cox, Jr., Executive Secretary. AUSTIN COLLEGE. Sherman, Tex., October 10, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing to you out of my deep concern for the impli cations of S1800 and HR7216, the so-called Pell Amendment. As a member of the Texas Committee for the Humanities and Public Policy over the past four years, it might at first glance be assumed that I have a personal interest in opposing the creation of a designated state agency to deal with the NEH state-based program. My current assignment would end in 1976, however, so that I do not have an immediate stake in the future of the state committee. Allow me to say, however, that in observing the manner in which our regrant applications have risen from less than ten per quarter to now more in the range of 40-50, we have as a private committee touched the local communities of Texas on subtle public policy issues. I do not believe that a committee authorized (and thereby controlled) by the state legislature and/or state executives would be able to deal in as objective a manner with the critical and subtle issues of public policy. While we as a committee would like to underscore your previous support for the State-Based NEH program and we can report significant progress since its inception—this amendment would have the effect of turning over to the state executive a public forum which, to this point, has remained absolutely objective. the State-based programs. Our sole wish, as voluntary workers in a good cause, is to keep the flexibility and spontaneity that have characterized the efforts of thousands of people in the direction of encouraging the humanistic disciplines to move into closer conformity with and relevance to public needs. We apologize for the length of this letter, but the issues need to be made clear and our objections made as precise as possible. The sponsors of amendments proposing changes have long been known to be friends of the humanities, but, in our opinion, they may be creating more disruption and damage than they realize. We hope you will send a copy of this letter to committee members in your branch of the Congress who will be involved in any way in action on S. 1800 or H.R. 7216. We hope also that we will have your support for our views as the bills move through regular channels. Sincerely, THOMAS M. GALE, Chairman. YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, New Haven, Conn., October 14, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing to support the new authorization for the National Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts. From a close view of the effectiveness of the role these two remarkable federal foundations have come to play in recent years, I can testify flatly that they are essential to the maintenance of impressive cultural levels in our country and, in particular, to scholarship as communicated by this Press. "Indispensable" is no longer too strong a word to apply to their programs. I therefore urge their continued existence as may be authorized by the Congress. Thank you for any attention you may care to give to this expression of support. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, CHESTER KERR, Director. ALABAMA STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES, Montgomery, Ala., October 15, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: It is my understanding that the recommendations for the amount of funds to be authorized for the National Endowment for the Arts are now being formulated by the House and Senate Committees. As Executive Director of the Alabama State Council on the Arts and Humanities, I would like to urge you to support the authorization level suggested by the Chairman of the Associated Councils on the Arts, Mr. Louis Harris. In the State of Alabama, the cultural activities are being conducted throughout the whole state. During the past year, there were 204 projects involving all disciplines of the arts, enabling many people in rural areas to view for the first time performances and to be aware of the arts. Enclosed please find our Annual Statement for the 1973-74 fiscal year, observing the various activities and listing the local organizations throughout the state, which benefited from the funds allocated by the National Endowment for the Arts to our state. Your support of the arts is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions relating to the Annual Statement or our agency, please let us know. Sincerely, M. J. ZAKRZEWSKI, NEW YORK, N.Y., October 15, 1976. DEAR SENATOR PELL: It is particularly important in this period of recession and inflation that government recognize the necessity of meaningful support for the arts. Louis Harris' excellent testimony at the House and Senate Committee hearings on September 25th, states the case eloquently. I hope that as you consider the amendment, you will keep in mind my concerns about the program. Thank you for your attention to the matter. Sincerely, HUBERT J. MILLER, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: I would like to make a response concerning two related bills that have recently been introduced into the Senate (S. 1800) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 7216). The purpose of these bills is to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities; however, they each contain an amendment which, if adopted, would permanently alter the structure and usefulness of the state-based humanities program here in South Carolina, and in other states as well. The effect of such legislation would be to chnanel support from the National Endowment to a designated state agency rather than to the state-based volunteer committees that now exist. In turn, any state government wishing to apply for funds would have to submit a state plan. In my opinion, the implementation of these amendments would be unwise, and their ultimate impact would seriously impair the effectiveness of all statebased programs in the humanities. It seems, first of all, that the legislation described above would place these programs into a political rather than a public arena; and the concept of state-based volunteer committees would probably be lost if committee membership were to be determined at the state government level. It is also possible that the combination of federal and state supervision could inhibit flexibility to the point that perspective applicants might actually be discouraged from submitting proposals. Finally, in the event that existing humanities programs should be joined with state arts agencies-a most likely projection here in South Carolina-there would then be a merging of identity and purpose that could only detract from both programs. In this last respect it seems to me that our proper goal should be mutual cooperation, not the duplication of activities. For these specific reasons, and they are compelling ones I think, I respectfully suggest that the amendments contained in S. 1800 and H.R. 7216 not be adopted. Sincerely, LELAND H. Cox, Jr., Executive Secretary. AUSTIN COLLEGE. Sherman, Tex., October 10, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing to you out of my deep concern for the implications of S1800 and HR7216, the so-called Pell Amendment. As a member of the Texas Committee for the Humanities and Public Policy over the past four years, it might at first glance be assumed that I have a personal interest in opposing the creation of a designated state agency to deal with the NEH state-based program. My current assignment would end in 1976, however, so that I do not have an immediate stake in the future of the state committee. Allow me to say, however, that in observing the manner in which our regrant applications have risen from less than ten per quarter to now more in the range of 40-50, we have as a private committee touched the local communities of Texas on subtle public policy issues. I do not believe that a committee authorized (and thereby controlled) by the state legislature and/or state executives would be able to deal in as objective a manner with the critical and subtle issues of publie policy. While we as a committee would like to underscore your previous support for the State-Based NEH program and we can report significant progress since its inception this amendment would have the effect of turning over to the state executive a public forum which, to this point, has remained absolutely objective. ant procedures and staff preliminary review has been free of any po▪ncern, and we in Texas would like to keep it that way! The various are concerned in Texas today about the issues of government and the al (our particular theme in this state), and our committee, which reoad social and ethnic segments of the society, hope to be able to maintain tact in the future. We appreciate your strong support of this program in , and I now urge that the Pell Amendment to the Appropriation Bill rezing the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities be defeated. ours truly, A. J. CARLSON, ociate Dean for Humanities and Vice-Chairman, Texas Committee for [umanities and Public Policy. TEXAS COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES AND PUBLIC POLICY, LAIBORNE PELL, nate, gton, D.C. S SENATOR PELL: At its meeting on September 16, the Texas Committee for manities and Public Policy voted to oppose what we believe are undeand restrictive provisions in the Bill reauthorizing the National Founfor the Arts and Humanities-(S. 1800 introduced by Senators Javits and d H.R. 7216 introduced by Representatives Brademas and Bell). specific provisions we oppose are those requiring that the National Enent for the Humanities support for state humanities programs must go to gnated state agency, and the filing of a state plan. Members of the Texas ittee believe the creation of a state humanities agency would inevitably the issues of significant state support and state control. It is likely that ate legislature and executive would determine the purposes of the agency ould therefore establish directions other than those of the existing stateprograms. Since a fundamental purpose of the state-based program is to grassroots discussion of public policy in a humanities context free from an advocacy, this amendment could present a significant threat to the at objectives of the program and allow the program to be used as a platform e furthering of partisan political interests. recognize that the Senators and Representatives who introduced the legisare friends of the humanities, but we believe if the provisions in their ation are enacted the state-based program, not only in Texas but throughout tion, will be seriously hampered. strongly urge that the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities ams be reauthorized as they are presently established. Thank you for your htful consideration. Cordially yours, THOMAS B. BREWER, Chairman. NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, tor CLAIBORNE PELL, tor Office Building, hington, D.C. EAR SENATOR PELL: This is to voice emphatic opposition to the amendment he National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities putting the control of Foundation in the hands of the states. This amendment would cripple the ional Endowment for the Humanities by muzzling its programs. The goal he Endowment is to foster free discussion, and in many if not most states would be impossible if local controls were imposed. ask therefore that S. 1800 be amended so as to leave the National Endowat for the Humanities free of state control and free to discuss the tough es. Sincerely, PETE A. GUNTER, Chairman, Department of Philosophy. 66-053-76-30 |