I point out American literature which has worldwide acceptance. I have been in Budapest; in three places at one time were translations of plays by Americans, Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams, and one other whom I forget.

You cannot measure what it means when you have the experience that comes when you read a poem or go to a play, see a painting or hear music. It is not measurable.

All we know is that in every culture so far there have been these things and they have added something to life, whether you can measure it in exact ways or not.

So, I think that all you can say, to answer your question directly, is we can have both. We still can afford both. We can pay a little less for some things so that we can pay a little more for others.

Mr. BACKAS. I would like to add to that, that I think that there will come to be two very important actual measurements, for ill or good, that legislators will be using. One of them will be the economic impact of the arts. I think that cities and States, counties, regions, are going to be doing that more and more. They are going to be studying it, discovering that very likely for every dollar spent at the box office, another dollar and a half is generated in the business community and that, in fact, in those major cities the arts are a major industry. I think this will have an increasingly important effect on legislators making priority decisions.

I think many people will be surprised by the level of the economic impact of the arts.

The second thing will be sheer public response, constituent wishes. I expect that to be increasingly important, too.

I think we in the State arts councils are just uniformly convinced that there is a huge voice asking for the arts and they want it with part of their tax money, and I believe that voice will be conveyed to the legislators and will help to determine their priorities.

Mr. HERO. I agree with Jim completely.

I think the growth of the local arts council, community arts council, and community commissions is an answer to the demand.

I mentioned the town of Ashland and the economic impact of the Shakespearan Festival in that part of the State. It happens all over Oregon in other towns. It is not simply a matter of what art contributes to the quality of life which is not something we need to debate today, but there is definitely an economic impact.

I think that is equally important in terms of what you are saying which is recognizing the importance of the arts.

Mr. BODE. I just want to add a modest exception to what my two colleagues said.

I am uneasy when they talk about the economic impact of the

arts.

It seems to me the economic arguments should not be as strong perhaps as they make it. I am sure the arts do make money but I am equally sure that is not why I believe that we should have them. Representative PRESSLER. I see we have another vote.

I think I will adjourn the committee, and thank the witnesses very much for their participation.

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the joint committees recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, November 13, 1975.]

66-053-76

-9

ARTS, HUMANITIES, AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS ACT OF

1975

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1975

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARTS AND HUMANITIES
OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.

The committees met jointly at 10:05 a.m. in room 4224, Dirksen Senate Office Building.

House members present: Representatives Brademas, Jeffords, Pressler, and Smith.

Senate members present: Senators Pell, Mondale, Javits, and Stafford.

House staff present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Annie Goekjian, staff assistant; and Martin L. LaVor, minority legislative associate. Senate staff present: Livingston Biddle, staff director, and Cary Peck, legislative associate.

Senator PELL. The joint hearings of the Senate Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities and the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House of Representatives will come to order. This is our second day of these hearings.

Today we will focus on that portion of the legislation extending the life of the National Endowment for the Humanities for a 4-year period. I believe I can say without contradiction that no person here objects to a 4-year extension of the Endowment's life. However, there has been controversy concerning my amendment to establish in law State humanities councils. Perhaps a little history will be helpful in order to understand why this amendment was put forth.

In 1964 and 1965 when we were discussing establishment of the Endowment, the question of State involvement was raised. The president of Brown University, Dr. Barnaby Keeney, who later became the first chairman of the Endowment, informed me at the time that the Humanities were not ready to handle such a program and that it would be unwise to legislate it.

I complied with his wishes, although with some reservations.

In 1968 I again raised the question of State-based councils and was again told that the time was not yet right. The question came up again. in 1970, and Wallace B. Edgerton, the acting chairman at that time, agreed with Dr. Keeney's previous view that a mandated program was not then feasible. However, he did agree to set up some type of pilot project, and the Senate report that year reflected this development.

(123)

Wallace Edgerton was true to his word, and pilot programs were established.

In 1973, Dr. Ronald Berman, then chairman, appeared before us. We again spoke of the concept of State-based humanities councils, and he informed us that, in comparison with the initial 6 State programs, there were then approximately 40. Therefore, the legislation did not contain mandatory language, but, again, the Senate report reflected our deep interest and concern in these matters.

When I was drafting this year's reauthorization bill, it was clear to me that there were viable programs in all 50 States, and therefore, legislation was introduced which would enact into law that which had been done in a voluntary manner. The purpose of my amendment was this: To give each State humanities council a life of its own, a guarantee of a percentage of funding, and a guarantee that it would be its own master in planning its own programs. A program of State humanities committees such as the present one, while it may have advantages, still carries with it the problems of the annointing by some Federal official of chosen people within the State who must pay very close attention to a Washington base. It is like a laying on of hands, and the annointed chairman similarly lays his hands on others. My amendment would give the State councils an independence from this type of procedure, which has an element of Federal control. Each State could design its own program to fit its own needs and not just be an entity ordained from Washington.

Since introduction of an amendment, there have been many letters and comments against my proposal. Unfortunately, they all seem to say the same thing, which leads one to think that there was a certain amount of orchestration in the opposition to this amendment. The latest, and perhaps the most unreasonable, is the argument that this amendment would decentralize all programs of the NEH. This, of course, is nowhere in the legislation. There have been other arguments. Two seem most important to the participants.

The first is the parochial one with regard to the existing programs and how they would be hurt if they became part of a State political process. It well may be true that a State may choose other people to run its program than would an agency in Washington. Nevertheless, one can argue, that States do have a right to choose who should conduct programs within their own boundaries.

The second most popular argument seems to come from the academic community and suggests that enactment of my amendment would: (1) decentralize the humanities; and (2) subtract from overall quality. In contrast, I see no reason why a national program with national goals cannot be operated along with a local program with maintenance of the same level of quality in both.

As I plainly stated in introducing my amendment, I intended to elicit discussion.

I have yet to hear arguments which convince me that I am not right in my proposal. Indeed the more I examine this situation, the more I feel I am on the right track. I have asked a great many Senators simple questions: Who is chairman of your State arts council? Most know the answer. And, then I ask who is chairman of your State humanities committee? They do not know. And all this leads one to believe that the arts have done a far better job than the humanities in

125

developing diversified, popularly supported, constructive programs at a grassroots level. I mentioned yesterday that I believe we should carefully review the question of equal funding for the endowments. One seems to have generated great momentum-the other at this time in my view appears, in comparison, to have lagged behind.

I welcome discussion on these points.

I welcome the discussions we will have today. And I am pleased now to ask Dr. Ronald Berman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, to present his views, and to continue the discussion.

If he would please present his colleagues.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. RONALD BERMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

Dr. BERMAN. Thank you, Senator.

May I introduce the staff here with me. On the extreme left is Mr. Joseph Hagan and next is Mr. Tashdinian, the Deputy Chairman Robert Kingston, and John Barcroft, Director of Public Programs. I have a brief opening statement with your permission that I will read.

[Prepared opening statement of Dr. Ronald Berman follows:] PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. RONALD BERMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a formal statement. It speaks to the needs of Congress for information pertinent to reauthorization. With your permission, I should like now to offer a brief, informal statement as prologue to your questioning.

The NFAH Act became law ten years ago. Passage of that law was an act of national leadership reflecting great credit on you, Mr. Chairman, and others in the Congress who saw and responded to a need for Federal support of "progress and scholarship in the humanities and the arts."

Certainly there has been progress. Initially the Humanities Endowment was able to support a small number of projects. Today, our programs reach millions of Americans. This owes a great deal to your guidance and oversight; to the help of your staffs; and to bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress and from successive Administrations.

May I take just a moment here to pay public tribute to the late Stephen Wexler whose tragic death deprived not only the subcommittees of which he was counsel but also the Arts and Humanities throughout the nation of a dedicated advocate and staunch friend.

The tenth anniversary of our legislation calls up the perspective of a much greater occasion: the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And this ought to be instructive. Our nation owes its being to thinkers and leaders who were truly great humanists, exercising public responsibility with a deeply conscious reference to history and philosophy.

After two centuries of turbulent history we still possess the vital legacies of liberty and democracy. It is these which energize our determination to master the crises of our own times. The chief resources in this search for the public good are as they were 200 years ago—the humanities, the instruments of judgnent: history, literature, philosophy, ethics, jurisprudence, and the study of religion and the arts.

The purposes served by the Humanities Endowment, as you intended, are JefFersonian. We know that Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher, interested in new knowledge discoveries; and that he also championed the diffusion of knowledge o inform public opinion. Those twin purposes define what the Endowment does: t aids the production of humanistic knowledge, and it promotes its disseminaion and use by the citizenry at large.