Should we possibly consider in the legislation that should the need for indemnity go over a certain amount that a check had to be made with the appropriate committees of Congress or someone?

In other words, so that you could have a general limitation that could be handled with no problem, but if you had a situation of wanting to bring the Russian show in along with the Chinese show, for example, that you could have a waiver.

My question may be totally inappropriate, but you might want to consider it.

Senator PELL. Personally, I have faith and trust in the organizations we set up. And I guess I am among a minority of Members of Congress who is not seeking more decisions to make.

I would not go for that too much.

Miss. HANKS. I presume also you could put in ad hoc legislation if that did occur.

Senator PELL. If that did occur, ad hoc legislation could come in, I would rather leave it pretty open and shut as we pass it.

I think we are crossing too many t's and dotting too many i's now in our legislative work.

No. 5, "the bill does not contain any recognition of the role for private insurers. They might play a role for coinsurers, perhaps in other ways."

You are quite right, between $25,000 and $25 million, there is no role for the private insurer, but up to the $25,000, which would be expensive, there is a role, and there would also be perhaps a role above the $25 million limit.

I think this is a fact of life. Some insurance companies will be upset with it. Others will just look at themselves as good citizens and may be for it. I do not see how we can come up with any particular bouquets for private insurance companies, do you?

Mr. BERMAN. That adds up to a question which I would be gladly relieved from answering, Senator, because I do not want to have any relationships with private insurance companies to be prescribed by any testimony I should make, at this point and I would very much like permission to remain neutral on this matter.

Senator PELL. Do you have any comments?

Miss HANKS. Presumably he could speak for himself or supply his own information, but it is my understanding that Mr. Huntington Block, who is one of the country's leading museum insurance brokers, is, the last I heard, very supportive of the legislation.

Senator PELL. My understanding is to the same effect. And my staff has been in touch with him. My understanding is that he will be submitting a statement for the record.

Miss HANKS. I would hope so very much because the last time I talked to him

Senator PELL. This also might cover that point, and I would think these hurdles are not insuperable. My hope would then be that the administration would not then find other hurdles.

In this regard, my understanding is that both of you in your individual capacities support the thrust of this bill, or do you oppose it basically?

Miss HANKS. I support the thrust of the bill and I certainly think that my statement does.

55-490 O-75-8

Mr. BERMAN. I second Miss Hanks.

Senator PELL. Now, we were looking for a mechanism to run the indemnity program. This is why we came up with the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, which I recognize has its constitutional limitations in it.

Do you have any suggestions as to a better entity to run the program?

Mr. BERMAN. We have been thinking so far, Senator, in terms of a directed responsibility from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. We might, first, draft guidelines I think, implementing congressional intent in this legislation.

Then we would seek advice from experts across the country in the private sector and review individual applications in conjunction with people from the Federal Government and outside it.

In that way, we would be using the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities as a springboard, as it were, for bringing in experts and private institutions and individuals.

Senator PELL. Miss Hanks?

Miss HANKS. No further comment.
Senator PELL. Mr. Lehman.

Representative LEHMAN. Thank you, Senator.

I am happy to have Dr. Berman and Miss Hanks here. Miss Hanks is from Miami and Dr. Berman has relatives there, so we are like hometown people.

In your statement you mentioned, Dr. Berman, I would like for you to elaborate a little bit on this question concerning separation of powers because, of course, we all know of a number of commissions and councils, White House Library Council and others that do contain Members of Congress in their makeup.

And why would this be a particularly threatening separation of powers when so many other such similar types of organizations do contain Members of Congress and still basically belong to the executive branch?

Mr. BERMAN. Perhaps I might note, Mr. Lehman, that these points, are in the nature of an appendix to our own testimony; that they are, as it were, simply quotations from the OMB position.

For two reasons, one of them being my insufficiency equal with that of Nancy Hanks in any aspect of the law, and the other being, I think the inappropriateness of my commenting on essentially an OMB position, I could not begin to give an accurate response to that question.

Senator PELL. If you could forgive me for interrupting, the only way we can ever get at OMB is through the representatives of the administration that they have sent up here. I have yet to see an OMB person testifying directly.

You really have the responsibility of representing the administration and OMB, and it cannot be set aside.

Correct me if you think I am wrong.

Mr. BERMAN. I do not want to go so far as to make a statement of either approval or denying on either of those points, the substantive one and the contextural one.

Let me point this out. Implicit in my previous testimony is the notion that there may be mechanisms in the legislation that will simply

circumscribe this problem. If there were no congressional representation in the instrumental body that acted on this, this whole problem would disappear. That, I think, is the best way of tackling it.

Miss HANKS. Senator Pell, I think really, sir, that the question was one of timing in terms of the lateness of the hour.

OMB had to get the comments in from the State Department, Smithsonian, National Gallery, and all of the other places, and my associates and Dr. Berman's were talking to OMB on the final word at 6:30 last night.

Senator PELL. But, as you well know, this happens all the time, and OMB finally gets its views across at 6:30 p.m. or 9 o'clock the next morning before the testimony comes up. I never recall seeing any OMB man directly testifying before an authorizing committee. So you are OMB, you are speaking for OMB, in effect.

Miss HANKS. That is right. We will attempt to find answers to these questions, sir.

Senator PELL. We would be delighted, frankly, if you would bring OMB up here and we would hold a special hearing. Otherwise, it is up to you.

Representative LEHMAN. The only comment I have, Senator, is we have talked about what benefits this could be for the enlightenment and the approach of the citizens of this country and other countries. Nobody has said anything about perhaps this could be another conduit toward peace in the world, that not only can be learned about the culture of other countries, but maybe I am a little sanguine in these matters, matters of these kinds of exhibitions would be in the form of hostages against hostility.

Wars have been stopped for less reasons than this. And perhaps, in this kind of case, it would certainly maybe be a small, but perhaps significant, deterrent against any type of irresponsible hostilities. That is all I would like to say.

Senator PELL. Congressman Pressler.

Representative PRESSLER. No questions.
Senator PELL. Thank you.

There are a couple more general questions that I had here.

Do you feel, Miss Hanks or Dr. Berman, that the definition of eligible items that we have listed was adequate, or do you feel that there were some points there that should be added or subtracted?

Miss HANKS. We would definitely suggest to add the word "photographs," because photography has become so important a part of the whole visual arts community.

We were very pleased to see the inclusion of the folk arts and craft arts, and I think the point Mr. Pressler made is that too often people would have left the Indian artifacts out 5 to 10 years ago, but now there is very definitely the tremendous increase in interest in these objects around the country and, of course, there are some considerable collections, Mr. Pressler, of American Indian art in Europe that would be covered if it were brought back here to show.

Mr. BERMAN. Senator, we regard the list as entirely adequate.

Of course, no list can be exhaustive, and perhaps in the future the committee will wish to add to it. But, certainly, for the present, it seems very good.

Senator PELL. Legislation as drafted limits participation to nonprofit institutions, and do you think that for-profit institutions should be permitted?

Miss Hanks. I would think perhaps the committees might wish to consider flexibility and not necessarily in terms of profit institutions, but rather the covering of objects owned by private individuals because, particularly in Great Britain and, indeed, in some of the other foreign countries, they need to borrow from private individuals to round out an exhibition. And I think there needs to be some flexibility here.

Of course, in terms of the legislation and in terms of the regulations, presumably the other government would be making the evaluation and would include those private pieces right along with it.

Representative LEHMAN. In other words, it would be David Rockefeller, yes; Chase Manhattan, no?

Miss HANKS. Yes.

But, of course, this legislation is dealing with what is coming in from abroad here. If it were going the other way

Representative LEHMAN. In reverse.

Miss HANKS. If the legislation were in connection with materials going from this country abroad, as was suggested by Mr. Dillon, I definitely think private owned pieces should be included because, among other problems, you have many privately owned pieces on permanent or semi-permanent loan. I think it could be a technical problem otherwise.

Senator PELL. In connection with this question of whether it should go both ways, as Mr. Dillon recommended, what is your view, Miss Hanks, in that regard?

Miss HANKS. I would certainly defer to the subcommittees on the political judgment as to whether it could be handled at one time. I think it is advisable in the long run and very appropriate because it is extremely important for people in other countries to have the benefit of seeing our works.

And until all nations indemnify works coming across their borders, we do have serious financial problems.

Mr. BERMAN. Senator, I would agree with that exactly. It is a longrange priority, but not a present one.

The main indication of this being the fact that the Endowment for the Humanities has, so to speak, a national, rather than international, charter. And the notion would be that we are responsible for bringing materials for the use of the general American public, but are not then heavily involved in exportation of American culture.

Senator PELL. There is one bit of information that might be of interest, and I will not ask for it if it is too much of a job to put together.

But do you know if anywhere in the Government there is a listing of all the exhibitions that have both come to America and gone from America over the last 10 years, and how the insurance was handled on these exhibitions?

Mr. BERMAN. I do not know if such a document now exists. It ought to be relatively simple to look it up and attempt to provide it for

you.

Senator PELL. I am not sure it would be that simple, but we would be very grateful if you could see if that information was available and give it to us if it is.

Mr. BERMAN. Senator, do you want this to apply only to those exhibitions that have had Government assistance?

Senator PELL. I would like to have included all exhibitions.

Mr. BERMAN. That is harder, but we will do our best.

Senator PELL. I think you will find it is a more difficult job than you realize. I think it would be interesting for the appendix of this hearing as we move to final consideration of the bill.

Also, my own recommendation would be that we take very much into account the suggestion you have made here today and do a second draft of this bill, trying to meet the problems that OMB has raised and then, hopefully, securing a revised, at least, if not approval, a statement of not disapproval from OMB.

Representative PRESSLER. May I join the chairman in those remarks and say that as a member of the minority, I try to be as supportive as I can of the administration. But it is extremely difficult to do so if one does not know of the objections until arriving at the hearing.

Senator PELL. This is, as you know, somewhat customary because everybody is under the gun, and they only let you know at the last possible moment, which is, I am afraid, human nature.

I thank you very much indeed, and the record will be kept open for 2 weeks so that any members of the House or Senate subcommittees or interested citizens or residents of the United States, Government agencies, can submit their information.

I particularly thank my colleagues on the House side for cooperating in this joint hearing.

I only wish there were more joint hearings. We have done this in the field of arts and humanities now for more than 10 years, and I think it is an example, citing what Congressman Lehman said, of the peaceful side of art.

Representative LEHMAN. Détente.

Senator PELL. And I notice another thing, in all the hearings one normally has, there is always a policeman in the room and outside, even in the education hearings. But this time the Sergeant at Arms has decided there will be no violence here, and there is no policeman outside or inside.

At this point I order printed all statements of those who could not attend and other pertinent material submitted for the record.

[The prepared statement of Miss Hanks and the material referred to follows:]