San Francisco M. H. de Young Memorial Museum "Animal Style" Art from East to West" (1970). Toledo Museum of Art "Dutch Masterpieces from the Eighteenth Century" (1971). DEPARTMENT OF STATE Washingtor D.C 20520 JUN 26 1975 Honorable Claiborne Pell and Public Welfare Subcommittee on Education United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman: Counsel for the Subcommittee has asked the Department of State for its views on Senate Bill 1800, Part B, the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act. The Department of State supports the intent of this legislation. Major international exchanges of art constitute an important part of the cultural interchange between nations. The rising monetary value of significant works of art has created obstacles to the exchanges of such objects which allow the peoples of the world to share their cultural heritage, and thus become more understanding of each other. Not the least of these obstacles has been the high cost of insurance. We have already seen instances of important artistic exchanges between countries which would probably not have been possible without programs of government indemnity. In the United States, such support has been offered in two cases by special legislation. However, what is really needed now is a comprehensive system to provide such indemnities in appropriate cases. The Department of State notes that the proposed legislation would apply only to items while on exhibition in the United States. We would recommend that indemnity legislation provide authority for the coverage of items being sent from the United States to other countries in specified cases. For example, indemnity legislation would be most appropriate where an exchange of art is contemplated with another country, and where the circumstances make it desirable for the United States to cover the American items rather than -2 those being brought to this country. (The recent exchange under which the Scythian Gold came to the United States from the U.S.S.R. and the Metropolitan Museum sent paintings to the Soviet Union is a case in point.) However, we would recommend that only one part of an exchange, either the inbound or the outbound, be covered. In no case should both halves of the exchange be covered by the U.S. Government indemnity. In addition, there might also be cases not involving exchanges, in which coverage of an outbound exhibition would be appropriate, for example the U. S. entry in an international exhibition. The Office of Management and Budget advises us that the Administration does not support Senate Bill 1800 in its present form. OMB has indicated that the need for federal involvement in indemnification, and the nature and extent of that involvement are issues requiring further study. In addition, a specific reservation was expressed by the Office of Management and Budget concerning a possible constitutional problem with the Bill regarding separation of powers, since the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities includes members of Congress. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Washington. D.G. 20560 June 18, 1975 Honorable John Brademas Chairman Subcommittee on Select Education Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for your invitation to testify on Part B of Title II of H. R. 7216, the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs Act of 1975. I regret that a longstanding institutional commitment precluded my appearance before the Subcommittee on June 4th. Part B of Title II would authorize the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities to indemnify against loss or damage works of art, manuscripts and documents, other objects and artifacts, and film and tape recordings which are of educational, cultural, historical, or scientific value and the exhibition of which is certified by the Secretary of State as being in the national interest. Indemnification would be for the period eligible items are on exhibition in the United States. Individuals, non-profit agencies and institutions, and governments may apply to the Council for indemnification, which shall cover loss or damage in excess of $25,000, and provision for the adjustment of claims is made. The bill authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council under Part B of Title II and to pay certified claims. It also requires the Council to report annually to the Congress on claims paid and pending, and on the aggregate value of indemnification contracts outstanding at the close of each fiscal year. The Smithsonian Institution supports the principle of government indemnification of objects in international cultural exchanges. Indemnification of national treasures is practiced in countries outside of the United States, and is an important and useful means and, I believe, may be the only feasible means of increasing these extremely valuable exchanges. We, of course, must defer to the agencies of the Executive Branch with respect to technical aspects of the bill. However, I would like to suggest that consideration be given to expanding the concept of indemnification to include not only exhibitions coming to the United States, but those going abroad from this country as well. As a follow-up to the Bicentennial, there are likely to be substantial demands on American museums for loan exhibitions. One additional comment may be in order with respect to the bill's proposed vesting of indemnification authority in the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities. The Council is primarily an advisory and coordinative body consisting of representatives of organizations with interests germane to those of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. To give these representatives decision-making responsibility may conflict with their advisory as well as their institutional interests. Both the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art are members of the Federal Council and at the same time might be eligible applicants for indemnification. We understand that this provision may also create a potential Constitutional problem with respect to the separation of powers since the Council includes Members of Congress. The Office of Management and Budget advises that the Administration is opposed to enactment of this legislation in its present form. It believes that further study is required to determine whether there is a need for Federal involvement in this area and, if so, the nature and extent of that involvement. |