Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services: Background, Funding, and Issues

Order Code RL33725 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services: Background, Funding, and Issues November 15, 2006 Susan Boren Specialist in Social Legislation Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services: Background, Funding, and Issues Summary Federal funding for arts and humanities programs is provided through annual discretionary appropriations. The majority of the federally funded arts and humanities programs are contained in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Interior appropriations provide funding for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The Office of Museum Services, within the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), is now under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor-HHS-ED) appropriations. The FY2006 final Interior appropriations law (P.L. 109-54) provided $124.4 million for NEA and $140.9 million for NEH. The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget would provide $124.4 million for the NEA and $140.9 million for NEH. For FY2007, the House-passed Interior appropriations bill would provide $129.4 million for NEA and $145.9 million for NEH, whereas the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported Interior Appropriations bill would provide $126.0 million for NEA and $140.9 million for NEH. For FY2006, the Office of Museum Services (OMS) in IMLS received $35.7 million. The FY2007 budget request for the OMS was for $41.4 million. The FY2007 House Appropriations Committee-reported Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill would provide $39.9 million for the OMS, and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $35.8 million. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L.109-289), contained a Continuing Resolution for the funding of programs including NEA, NEH, and IMLS through November 17, 2006, at the lower of FY2006 or House-passed FY2007 levels. Several related issues reappear with each Congress. A major one is what the federal role should be in funding the arts, humanities, and museum services. Another issue is whether or not to reauthorize the statute for the NEA and NEH, since it has remained unauthorized since the end of FY1993, and has been carried through and sustained by annual appropriations acts. In addition, with regard to NEA, NEH, and OMS, a major issue is how to address accountability criteria, and how much oversight responsibility should and does Congress exercise in dealing with these three agencies. And finally, should there be a true endowment that combines the NEA and NEH, or is it feasible now to combine two endowments into one? These are just a few selected issues likely to be addressed in Congress. This report will be updated as legislative activity occurs. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Trends in Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 NEA and NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Office of Museum Services OMS/IMLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FY2005 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FY2006 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 OMS/IMLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Federal Role in Funding for the Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Reauthorization for the NEA and NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Accountability for NEA, NEH, and Museum Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Feasibility of a Combined Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities . . 12 Appendix A. Reauthorization of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix B. NEA Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix C. NEH Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix D. Institute of Museum Services/Office of Museum Services IMLS Appropriations, FY1977-FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 List of Figures Figure 1. NEA Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2. NEH Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3. Museum Services Appropriations, FY1977-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of Tables Table 1. FY2002-FY2007 Appropriations for Selected Arts and Humanities Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services: Background, Funding, and Issues Introduction This report summarizes federal financial support for the arts, humanities, and museums, provided through the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. It provides background information, funding information, and explores some issues involving selected arts and humanities-related programs, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Office of Museum Services within the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Funding information is also provided for the Smithsonian and some selected additional programs, including the Arts in Education program. (See Table 1.) Recent Developments The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget would provide $124.0 million for the NEA and $140.9 million for NEH. For FY2007, the House-passed Interior appropriations bill would provide $129.0 million for NEA and $145.9 million for NEH, whereas the Senate Committee-reported bill would provide $126.0 million for NEA and $140.9 million for NEH. The FY2007 budget for the Office of Museum Services (OMS) in IMLS was $41.4 million, and the FY2007 House Appropriations Committee-reported Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies appropriations (LHHS-ED) bill would provide $39.9 million for the OMS; the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $35.8 million. In previous years, there were congressional earmarks for IMLS that ranged from $11.7 million in FY2000 to a total of $39.9 million in FY2005. There were no IMLS earmarks in FY2006. For FY2007, IMLS’s congressionally directed grants would total $18.2 million in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill and $10.1 million in the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L.109-289), contained a Continuing Resolution for funding programs including NEA, NEH, and IMLS through November 17, 2006, at the lower of FY2006 or House-passed FY2007 levels. CRS-2 Background The majority of federally funded arts and humanities programs are contained in the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Interior appropriations laws provide funding for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The Office of Museum Services, within the Institute of Museum and Library Services, is now under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Of the estimated 200-plus arts and humanities programs scattered throughout federal agencies, the majority of arts and humanities funding is provided through the Department of the Interior appropriations.1 President Bush’s FY2007 budget request ($2.74 trillion in estimated budget authority) includes far less than 1% for arts and humanities-related spending. The NEA and the NEH, when combined, specifically constitute an estimated 0.01% of the FY2007 budget.2 The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2006 (P.L. 10954) (including rescissions) provided a total of $124.4 million for NEA and $140.9 million for NEH, representing approximately 0.01% of total estimated budget authority ($2.76 trillion) in FY2006. Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services Programs Three of the major arts programs funded by the federal government include the NEA, the NEH, and the Office of Museum Services within the Institute of Museum and Library Services (OMS/IMLS). NEA provides direct grants to art institutions, grants for programs of national significance, and a limited number of individual grants for Literature fellowships, Jazz masters, and National Heritage Fellowships in the folk and traditional arts. NEA has awarded approximately 120,000 grants for 50 states and six U.S. jurisdictions since 1965. State arts agencies, in compliance with the congressional mandate, are now receiving more than 40% of NEA grantmaking funds. In addition to providing state arts grants, NEA administers the Challenge America Arts fund.3 1 The federal government also provides support for the arts through tax expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contributions to the arts, humanities, and culture that reduces tax liability on income tax and on gift and estate taxes. 2 An estimate of the FY2007 total budget authority ($2.74 trillion) would include less than 0.1% of the total budget authority for arts and humanities-related spending. This figure is calculated based on programs in the FY2007 budget, and using the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance ([http://www.cfda.gov]) designations for arts and humanities programs. (For estimated total U.S. budget authority, see U.S. Budget, Historical Tables, FY2007, Table 5.1.) 3 The Challenge America Arts fund is a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under served areas. Because the NEA (continued...) CRS-3 NEH supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation, public humanities programs, and grants under the jurisdiction of 56 state humanities councils, and has initiated a “We the People” program. NEH also supports a Challenge grant program to stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions. Since its creation, NEH has provided approximately 61,000 grants to all states. NEH is celebrating its 40th anniversary as a fully operational public agency. Within IMLS, the OMS supports general operations grants for museums, museum leadership grants, museum conservation grants, and museum assessment.4 In the past 25 years, the IMLS’s Office of Museum Services has awarded approximately 44,000 grants totaling over $400 million, aiding approximately 17,500 museums of all types. Funding for Museum Services through the Institute of Museum Services (IMS) was originally authorized by P.L. 94-462 in 1976 and came under the umbrella of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, which also includes NEA and NEH. In later legislation, P.L. 104-208, The Museum and Library Services Act, part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1997 combined Library Services with Museum Services. However, each part maintained a separate office under IMLS so that there was an Office of Museum Services as well as an Office of Library Services. OMS is now under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED) appropriations instead of Interior and Related Agencies appropriations. The rationale for this transfer was that the Office of Library Services, the larger of the two components of IMLS, was already under L-HHS-ED appropriations, and having a single funding stream appeared to be simpler. The last reauthorization for IMLS occurred in 2003. See Appendix A in this report for further discussion of the reauthorization. 3 (...continued) administers the Challenge America Arts fund, it is required to submit a detailed report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the use of funds for the Challenge America fund program. 4 The IMLS and the Office of Museum Services have been reauthorized through FY2009 by P.L. 108-81, the Museum and Library Services Act. CRS-4 Trends in Funding NEA and NEH The first fiscal year of appropriations for NEA and NEH was FY1966. The funding trends are shown below in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows NEA funding as it began in FY1966 with $2.9 million in program appropriations (including ½ of the amount for administration (½ of $727,000) shared with NEH.) Then, beginning in FY1978, the NEA received appropriations separate from NEH for administration. In current dollars, appropriations for NEA reached an all-time high in FY1992. This was followed by a dramatic drop in FY1996. Figure 1 shows the shifts in NEA funding for Fiscal Year 1966 through FY2006. Figure 1 also presents inflation adjusted funding for NEA using FY2006 constant dollars. Inflation adjusted appropriations for NEA increased steadily and peaked in FY1979, but dropped dramatically in FY1996.5 Figure 1. NEA Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 Source: Excerpted from House Appropriations Committees tables. See Appendix B for annual dollar amounts. Note: Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars. 5 See Appendix B in this report for the annual dollar amounts that are represented in Figure 1. CRS-5 For NEH, appropriations reached a high point in FY1994, declined dramatically in FY1996, but began a steady increase from FY2000 to FY2006.6 Adjusting for inflation, using FY2006 constant dollars, NEH appropriations increased steadily from FY1966, reached a high point in FY1979, and decreased dramatically in FY1996. (See Figure 2, below.) Figure 2. NEH Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 Source: Excerpted from House Appropriations Committees tables. See Appendix C for annual dollar amounts. Note: Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars. 6 See Appendix C in this report for the annual dollar amounts represented in Figure 2. CRS-6 Office of Museum Services OMS/IMLS Funding for Museum Services through the Institute of Museum Services (IMS) was originally authorized by P.L. 94-462 in 1976. Appropriations for the IMS provided $100,000 to begin the program. Museum Services funding steadily increased to $28.8 million in FY1994, decreased slightly in FY1996, but increased to $36.5 million in FY2006.7 In constant FY2006 dollars, appropriations increased from FY1977, reached a high point in FY1993, then declined significantly in FY1996, with slight increases from FY2000 through FY2006. (See Figure 3, below.) Figure 3. Museum Services Appropriations, FY1977-FY2006 Source: Excerpted from House Appropriations Committee tables. See Appendix D for annual dollar amounts. Note: These totals do not include Congressional earmarks for specific projects for both Libraries and Museums under IMLS. For FY2000 the IMLS earmarks totaled $11.7 million; they equaled $39.9 million by FY2005. There were no earmarks in the FY2006 Labor-HHS-ED Appropriations Act for IMLS. For FY2006 the total for OMS includes funding for the Museum grants for the Museum of African American History and Culture ($842,000). Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars. 7 See Appendix D in this report for the annual dollar amounts represented in Figure 3. CRS-7 FY2005 Funding For final FY2005 funding, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) provided $121.3 million for NEA and $138.05 million for NEH. The conference added $2 million to NEA’s funding for the “American Masterpieces” program. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $34.7 million for OMS within IMLS, $39.9 million for “Congressionally directed grants” and $205.9 million for Library programs for a total of $280.6 million for IMLS. This included $16.9 million for the “Museums for America” program, to “build the capacity of museums to serve communities through technology and education.” P.L. 108-447 also provided $35.6 million for the Arts in Education program. FY2006 Funding After a series of hearings, the House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations marked up the Interior Appropriations bill on May 4, 2005. The full House Appropriations Committee met on May 10, 2005, and reported H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80, May 13, 2005), providing $121.3 million for the NEA and $138.05 million for NEH. On May 19, 2005 the House passed the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2361, by a vote of 329 to 89. The House-passed bill would have provided $131.3 million for NEA, $10.0 million above the Administration’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 Appropriation. (See Table 1 below for additional arts-related appropriations.) A House floor amendment by Representative Slaughter was approved that increased NEA’s appropriation by $10.0 million and the NEH by $5.0 million with offsets totaling $15.0 million from the National Forest system and the Department of the Interior’s Departmental Management activities. Under the House passed bill, NEA’s Challenge America program was increased to $24.9 million funded under NEA grants and state partnerships. Other House floor amendments that were not agreed to would have reduced funding for the NEA. One sought to cut $15.0 million from NEA to provide $4.8 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. Another proposed cutting $30.0 million from the NEA to shift $27.5 million to the Forest Service’s Wildland Fire Management program. On June 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 2361 (S.Rept. 109-80), and on June 29 the Senate passed H.R. 2361, providing $126.3 million for NEA and $143.05 million for NEH for FY2006. The Senate passed H.R. 2361 on June 29, 2005. The Senate Committee version and the Senate bill included $5 million in general increases to NEA and NEH. On August 2, 2005, the FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) was signed into law as P.L. 109-54, providing $124.4 million for NEA and $140.95 million for NEH. The House considered and passed H.R. 3010, the L-HHS-ED appropriations for FY2006, providing no funding for Arts in Education and $249.6 million for the IMLS. The FY2006 Senate-reported figure for Arts in Education was $35.7 million, and for IMLS was $290.1 million total, with $37.4 million for OMS. P.L. 109-149, the Labor, HHS, and ED Appropriations Act, provided $36,547,000 for the Office of Museum Services, including $842,000 for the Museum grants for African CRS-8 American History and Culture, and $911,000 for Native American/Hawaiian Museum Services.8 It also provided $35,277,000 for Arts in Education. FY2007 Budget Request The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget proposes $124.4 million for NEA (including $14.1 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund). In the NEA budget, NEA’s direct grants would constitute an estimated $44.9 million. The new national initiative called American Masterpieces is proposed to be funded at $9.8 million, and includes touring programs, local presentations, and arts education programs in the fields of dance, visual arts, and music. For IMLS, the FY2007 budget proposes $262.2 million, and of that amount the Office of Museum Services (which serves an estimated 17,500 museums) would receive $41.4 million (it now includes funding for the African American Museum of History and Culture ($1.5 million) and Native American/Hawaiian museum services ($920,000). For NEH, the FY2007 budget would provide $140.95 million. NEH’s FY2007 budget proposes $15.2 million for the “We the People” initiative. These grants include model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities — American history, culture, and civics. The FY2007 budget proposes $54.9 million to support NEH’s grant programs for education, research, preservation and access, and public programming in the humanities; and $31.08 million for the federal state partnership program for the 56 state humanities councils; and $14.9 million for the NEH Challenge Grants program and Treasury funds to stimulate private donations. FY2007 Funding NEA. The House-passed bill would provide $129.4 million for NEA, an increase of $5.0 million over the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill ($124.4 million), the Administration’s FY2007 budget, and the FY2006 appropriation. The FY2007 House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $44.9 million for direct grants and $39.5 million for state partnerships. During House consideration, an amendment was adopted to add $5.0 million for each of the NEA and NEH. Another House amendment that would have reduced the NEA by $30.0 million and redirected most of that money to the wildland fire management budget of the Forest Service was not agreed to. The House-passed bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill, and the Administration’s budget would allow $14.1 million to be used for Challenge America grants. The Challenge America Arts Fund is a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under-served areas. These grants reach over 17,000 schools, many in remote areas. The House-passed bill, the Senate committee-reported bill and the Administration’s budget included $9.9 million for the American Masterpieces program. It is funded jointly under NEA grants and state partnerships. This national initiative includes 8 In previous years, there were congressional earmarks for IMLS that ranged from $11.7 million in FY2000 to a total of $39.9 million in FY2005. There were no IMLS earmarks in FY2006. CRS-9 touring programs, local presentations, and arts education in the fields of dance, visual arts, and music. See Table 1 in this report. NEH. For NEH, for FY2007, the House-passed bill would provide $146.0 million, $5.0 million above the FY2007 Administration request, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported bill, and the FY2006 level. The House-passed bill and the Senate Committee reported bill would provide $14.9 million for matching grants for both Treasury Funds and Challenge Grants. The House-passed bill would provide $131.0 million for grants and administration while the Senate Committee-reported bill would provide $126.0 million. The House included the extra $5.0 million as a floor amendment. See Table 1 in this report. The House-passed bill, the Senate Committee reported bill, and the FY2007 budget request would allow $15.2 million for the “We the People” initiative. These grants include model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities American history, culture, and civics. OMS/IMLS. For the Office of Museum Services (OMS) in IMLS the FY2007 House Labor-HHS and ED Committee-reported bill would provide $39.9 million; the Senate Committee-reported bill would provide $35.7 million for the OMS. In previous years, there were congressional earmarks for IMLS that ranged from $11.7 million in FY2000 to a total of $39.9 million in FY2005. There were no IMLS earmarks in FY2006. For FY2007, IMLS’ congressionally directed grants would total $18.2 million in the House Committee-reported bill and $10.1 million in the Senate Committee-reported bill. Issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services Several arts-related issues reappear with each Congress. One of the recurring issues is what the federal role should be in funding the arts, humanities, and museum services. In addition, another issue is whether or not to reauthorize the statute for the NEA and NEH, since it has for so long remained unauthorized and has been carried through and sustained by annual appropriations acts. In tandem with this issue, with regard to NEA, NEH and OMS, another issue is how to address accountability and how much oversight responsibility should and does Congress exercise in dealing with these three agencies. And finally, should there be a true endowment that combines the NEA and NEH or is it feasible at this time in the history of the two agencies, NEA and NEH, to combine two endowments into one? These are just a few selected issues that are likely to be addressed in Congress. Federal Role in Funding for the Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services Among the questions Congress perennially considers is whether funding for the arts, humanities and museum services is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. The current climate of budget constraints and lean budget allocations for appropriations subcommittees and committees raises questions about the need for such support. Some argue that NEA, NEH and OMS/IMLS should be abolished CRS-10 altogether, contending that the federal government should not be in the business of supporting culture. They also argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private support.9 Proponents of federal support for the arts, humanities, and museums argue that the federal government has a long tradition of such support, beginning with congressional appropriations for works of art to adorn the U.S. Capitol in 1817. Some argue that abolishing or significantly reducing funding for NEA, NEH and IMLS will curtail or eliminate the programs that have national purposes, such as touring theater and dance companies, radio and television shows, and nationwide programs such as Challenge America Arts grants (NEA), Museums for America (OMS), and the “We the People” initiative (NEH). Reauthorization for the NEA and NEH One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts, humanities, and museums is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act (NFAHA) (P.L. 89-209, as amended). Congress has made several attempts to reauthorize this statute, which provides authority for NEA and NEH and previously provided authority for Museum Services under the IMS, Institute of Museum Services. The last reauthorization for the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 took place in 1990 (the Arts, Humanities, and Museums Amendment of 1990, P.L. 101-512) and expired in FY1993. The authority for NEA and NEH has been carried through appropriations language since that time. The 104th Congress considered but did not enact legislation to reauthorize the NEA and NEH under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act. However, a newly created Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS) was authorized through the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, P.L. 104-208, merging the previous Institute of Museum Services with Library Services programs. (See Appendix A of this report for the most recent Museum and Library Services Amendments.) In the 105th Congress, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee reported S. 1020, a bill to reauthorize the NFAHA. There was no further action in part because of lingering controversy over a small number of questionable NEA grants in the past. At the time of House passage of the FY1997 Interior appropriations bill, the House, in an informal agreement, assumed that NEA would be terminated in two years and NEH in three years. In contrast, the Senate 9 Giving USA, a publication by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy, provides an annual report on philanthropy. According to Giving USA 2006, private giving to organizations in the arts, culture, and humanities category totaled $13.51 billion in 2005. This represents 5.2% of total estimated giving ($260.28 billion) in 2005. This includes $38.0 million in disaster relief for museums in support from “Architecture for Humanities” and other rebuilding efforts focused in the arts. In current dollars, private giving to the arts, culture and humanities reflects a decrease of 3.4% (or 6.6% taking into account inflation). One of the largest gifts reported in 2005 was for an estimated $400 million from Marguerite and Robert Hoffman, Cindy and Howard Rachofsky, and Deedie and Rusty Rose to the Dallas Museum of Art. CRS-11 Appropriations Committee expressed continued support for NEA and NEH and helped to maintain their funding, providing $99.5 million for NEA, $110 million for NEH, and $22 million for Museum Services. Congress chose to focus on arts education instead of a reauthorization for NEA and NEH. Emphasis on arts education seemed to many a safer choice at the time due to NEA controversies. As a result, the language placed in the FY1998 Interior appropriations strengthened support for arts education. In response to NEA controversy, Congress enacted NEA reform measures in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-83). However, once again there was no formal reauthorization. The reform measures were part of the funding bill. Among the NEA reforms was an increase in the funding allocation to states from 35% to 40% for basic state arts grants and for grants to under served populations. The legislation placed a 15% cap on NEA funds allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with national impact. Three members of the House and three members of the Senate were added to the National Council on the Arts, but the size of the National Council was reduced from 26 to 20. Both NEA and NEH were given specific authority to solicit funding and to invest those funds. Interior appropriations bills in the 106th to the 109th Congress have repeated many of the same NEA reforms, without enacting a formal reauthorization. Accountability for NEA, NEH, and Museum Services Congress has oversight responsibility of NEA, NEH and Museum Services and has the task of keeping these agencies accountable for the federal support they receive. As mentioned above, through the years, there have been controversies for Congress to confront including questionable grants given primarily by NEA. Ironically, one of the NEA grants given back in time (1989-90) was not a direct grant but a sub-grant through a state organization for artwork that was labeled sacrilegious by some. Consequently, NEA anticipated the congressional reaction and disallowed subgrants, disallowed broad grants for a theater’s season of performances, and eliminated grants to individuals by arts discipline, except to maintain Literature fellowships, Jazz Masters and National Heritage fellowships in the Folk and Traditional Arts fields. A few controversial grants through the years have called into question whether or not Congress has been successful as a watchdog for taxpayers’ money. As a consequence, Congress has been enacting annually in appropriations law the NEA reform measures as mentioned in the reauthorization issue discussion above and these are now part of the appropriations laws and are already accepted as NEA’s official guidelines. One of the most controversial NEA cases was that of performance artist Karen Finley. On November 5, 1996, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier decision NEA v. Finley, ruling that applying the “general standards of decency” clause to NEA grants was “unconstitutional.” On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court reversed the federal appeals court decision for NEA v. Finley (CA9,100F.3d.671) by a vote of 8 CRS-12 to 1 stating that the NEA “can consider general standards of decency” 10 when judging grants for artistic merit, and the decency provision does not “inherently interfere with First Amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.” To date, no NEA projects have been judged obscene by the courts. As reported in budget justifications to Congress, all three agencies appear to have avoided controversy since the 1990s. The “We the People” program of NEH has funded 725 projects including such projects as support for collected editions of the papers of Ben Franklin, the First Federal Congress, television documentaries on Andrew Jackson, and public programs on Alexander Hamilton at 40 community libraries. In FY2005, 100% of the Congressional districts were awarded direct grants from NEA, showing wide geographical distribution of grants in all of the states. Eleven million middle and high school students were provided arts education toolkits as part of the NEA’s Shakespeare in American Communities initiative. For the Office of Museum Services, a program called “A Nation of Learners” has supported between 800 and 1,000 projects serving America’s youth. Feasibility of a Combined Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities During initial passage of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, in 1965, there were proposals by several Members of Congress including Senator Gruening and Senator Pell that would have established a single endowment for the arts and the humanities. However, subsequent legislation treated the arts and the humanities as two separate entities. Until FY1977, the NEH and NEA did share an appropriation for administration. Although there was very little published background information discussing the concept of a single endowment for the arts and humanities, there was testimony by Barnaby Keeney, then Chairman of the Commission on the Humanities who remarked that the arts and the humanities should be combined... “The humanities and the arts must be considered together.... I believe strongly that the two are inseparable.” 11 The proposals in the 89th Congress which would have combined the arts and the humanities under one endowment were rejected. The rationale was not outlined in either the House or Senate reports or in debate, but the recommendations of the National Council on the Arts and Government strongly favored two separate but interrelated independent agencies. In the upcoming session of Congress, legislation may be considered to combine the two endowments (NEA and NEH) into one. Part of the rationale is that duplication may exist in the two endowments — in giving grants to museums, for 10 The language used came from the Miller v. California case (413 U.S. 15 (1973). It provides that grant deliberations “must take into account consideration of general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the America public.” 11 National Arts and Humanities Foundations, hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 24, 25, 26, March 4, 5, 1965, p. 224. CRS-13 example. Both give grants to museums. However, proponents for separate entities argue that the two endowments provide funding for different purposes. Also, now that they have their own separate clientele and support base for funding, some say, it’s best to keep them separate to support either arts-related or humanities-related projects. Others state that having a combined endowment with one funding stream for administration might save money, particularly in this time of severely limited budget allocations. Proponents for separate endowments feel that changing the administration and program structure now could cause substantial chaos through reorganization. CRS-14 Table 1. FY2002-FY2007 Appropriations for Selected Arts and Humanities Programs ($ in thousands) FY2002 approp. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Smithsonian Kennedy Center National Gallery of Art Commission of Fine Arts Institute of American Indian, and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development Holocaust Memorial Council Arts in Education Office of Museum Services, OMS/IMLS FY2003 approp. FY2004 approp. FY2005 approp. FY2006 approp. FY2007 budget request FY2007 House Passed FY2007 Senate Comm. $115,234 $115,732 $120,972 $121,264 $124,406 $124,412 $129,412 $124,412 124,504 124,936 135,310 138,054 140,949 140,955 145,955 140,955 518,860 38,310 85,335 1,224 544,875 33,690 92,842 1,216 596,279 32,159 98,225 1,405 615,158 33,021 102,654 1,768 615,097 30,347 111,141 1,865 644,394 38,709 116,743 1,951 624,094 38,709 116,743 1,951 644,394 36,709 116,743 1,951 4,490 5,454 6,173 5,916 6,207 6,703 6,703 6,703 36,028 30,000 26,899 38,412 33,779 28,637 39,505 35,071 31,403 40,858 35,633 34,724 42,150 35,277 36,547 43,786 0 39,885 43,415 0 39,885 43,786 36,500 35,764 Source: Table 1 is derived from the House Appropriations Committee’s tables for both the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations and the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations. CRS-15 Appendix A. Reauthorization of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) The legislation authorizing the IMLS expired at the end of FY2002. However, funding was carried through appropriations law until enactment of P.L. 108-81. H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, which authorizes funding for IMLS through FY2009, was signed into law on September 24, 2003 as P.L. 108-81.12 Some selected legislative provisions affecting the OMS are as follows: ! P.L. 108-81 includes an “obscenity clause” requiring the IMLS Director to establish procedures to prohibit funding to any project that has been “determined to be obscene” in the judgment of the courts, and require the Director in making grants to “take into account consideration of general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” The law used the definition of obscenity that was formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California [413 U.S. 15 (1973)], and this language was carried through Interior appropriations as amendments to the NEA statute (National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, as amended [20 U.S.C. §954(d)].13 The law required that the IMLS Director carry out and publish analyses of the “impact” of museum and library services. ! P.L. 108-81 clarifies and expands the definition of “museum” to include aquariums, arboretums, botanical gardens, art museums, children’s museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, nature centers, history museums, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, science and technology centers, specialized museums, and zoos. ! P.L.108-81 revises the museum subsection on “purposes” to restate the importance of museums’ public service role of connecting the whole of society to our cultural heritage; reemphasize the educational role of museums through leadership and innovative technologies; create the highest standards of management and services for museum operations; support resource sharing and partnerships among museums, libraries, schools, and other community organizations. 12 H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, which authorized funding for IMLS through FY2009 (Hoekstra, Jan. 7, 2003) was reported by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Feb. 25, 2003 (H. Rept.108-16) and was passed by the House on Mar. 6, 2003 (416-2 (Roll call no. 47). A comparable bill, S. 888 (Gregg, Apr. 11, 2003) was reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on May 14, 2003 (S. Rept.108-83 ). The Senate passed H.R. 13 as amended, in lieu of S. 888, on Aug. 1, 2003. H.R. 13 was signed into law on Sept. 25, 2003 as P.L. 108-81. 13 See CRS Report RS21509, Museum and Library Services Act of 2003: Using “Obscenity” and “Decency” Criteria in Selecting Grantees, by Andrew W. Murnane. CRS-16 ! P.L. 108-81 authorizes the Office of Museum Services Director to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements to help pay the federal share (50% share, with an exception that by arrangement, 20% of the funds may be used to pay above a 50% share for museum services) for a broader range of museum activities, including learning partnerships and collaborations among museums, libraries, schools, and other community organizations; new technologies to enhance access to museums; and specialized programs for under served areas. ! P.L. 108-81 authorizes appropriations for the Office Museum Services at $38.6 million for FY2004 and “such sums” as may be necessary for FY2005-FY2009. P.L. 108-81 also included amendments to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science Act and the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to raise liability limits to $8 billion. For those aspects of P.L. 108-81 related to libraries, see CRS Report RL31320, Federal Aid to Libraries in the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, by Gail McCallion. CRS-17 Appendix B. NEA Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) Fiscal Year NEA Appropriations in Current Dollars 1966 $2,898,000 NEA Appropriations in Constant FY2006 Dollars (rounded) $14,500,000 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Transition Quarter (fiscal year changed from July 1 to October 1) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 8,476,000 7,774,000 8,457,000 9,055,000 16,420,000 31,480,000 40,857,000 64,025,000 80,142,000 87,455,000 35,301,000 41,100,000 36,400,000 37,900,000 38,400,000 66,400,000 121,500,000 151,000,000 220,800,000 250,400,000 254,800,000 102,800,000 99,872,000 123,850,000 149,585,000 154,610,000 158,795,000 143,456,000 143,875,000 162,223,000 163,660,000 158,537,000 165,281,000 167,731,000 169,090,000 171,255,000 174,081,000 175,955,000 174,460,000 170,229.000 162,311,000 99,494,000 99,494,000 98,000,000 98,000,000 270,700,000 314,600,000 351,600,000 334,100,000 312,500,000 264,300,000 253,800,000 276,000,000 269.700,000 255,300,000 259,400,000 255,200,000 247,700,000 241,900,000 237,000,000 233,600,000 226,500,000 216,400,000 202,000,000 121,500,000 119,400,000 116,200,000 114,700,000 CRS-18 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 97,628,000 104,769,000 115,234,000 115,732,000 120,972,000 121,264,000 124,406,000 112,000,000 117,500,000 126,700,000 124,800,000 127,400,000 124,300,000 124,400,000 Source: Appropriations are from NEA Annual Reports and from the House Appropriations Committee’s tables. Note: From FY1966 to FY1978 the appropriation for administration was shared with NEH. NEA, in its calculation of the final appropriation, has added to NEA’s appropriation half of the total appropriation for administration. These numbers have been rounded. Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars. CRS-19 Appendix C. NEH Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) Fiscal Year NEH Appropriations in Current Dollars NEH Appropriations in Constant FY2006 Dollars (rounded) 1966 $5,900,000 $29,500,000 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Transition Quarter (fiscal year changed from July 1 to October 1) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 5,500,000 4,600,000 6,400,000 8,900,000 14,900,000 29,700,000 40,700,000 54,300,000 79,100,000 85,000,000 22,600,000 26,700,000 21,500,000 28,700,000 37,800,000 60,200,000 114,700,000 150,500,000 187,300,000 247,100,000 247,700,000 65,800,000 99,400,000 121,000,000 145,200,000 150,100,000 151,300,000 130,600,000 130,247,000 140,118,000 139,478,000 132,679,000 138,890,000 140,435,000 153,000,000 156,910,000 170,002,000 175,955,000 177,413,000 177,491,000 172,044,000 110,000,000 110,000,000 110,700,000 110,700,000 269,400,000 307,300,000 341,300,000 324,400,000 297,800,000 240,600,000 229,800,000 238,400,000 229,800,000 213,700,000 218,000,000 213,700,000 224,100,000 221,600,000 231,400,000 233,600,000 230,300,000 225,600,000 214,200,000 134,300,000 132,000,000 131,300,000 129,600,000 CRS-20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 115,260,000 119,994,000 124,504,000 124,936,000 135,310,000 138,054,000 140,949,000 132,300,000 134,500,000 136,900,000 134,800,000 142,500,000 141,600,000 140,900,000 Source: Appropriations are from NEH Annual Reports and from the House Appropriations Committee’s tables. Note: Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars. CRS-21 Appendix D. Institute of Museum Services/Office of Museum Services IMLS Appropriations, FY1977FY2006 (in current and constant dollars) Fiscal Year IMS/OMS Appropriations in Current Dollars 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 $100,000 4,000,000 7,852,000 10,900,000 12,857,000 12,240,000 10,800,000 20,150,000 21,560,000 20,474,000 21,250,000 21,944,000 22,270,000 22,675,000 25,863,000 26,999,000 28,454,000 28,777,000 28,715,000 21,000,000 22,000,000 23,280,000 23,405,000 24,307,000 24,852,000 26,899,000 28,637,000 31,402,000 34,724,000 36,547,000 IMS/OMS Appropriations in Constant FY2006 Dollars (rounded) $271,000 10,200,000 18,500,000 23,600,000 25,300,000 22,500,000 19,100,000 34,300,000 35,500,000 33,000,000 33,300,000 33,400,000 32,600,000 32,000,000 35,200,000 35,800,000 36,900,000 36,600,000 35,700,000 25,600,000 26,400,000 27,600,000 27,400,000 27,900,000 27,900,000 29,600,000 30,900,000 33,100,000 35,600,000 36,500,000 Source: Appropriations are from IMLS and from the House Appropriations Committee’s tables. Note: IMLS congressional earmarks add to the total for IMLS. For FY2000 to FY2006, the earmarks are as follows: in FY2000 — $11,751,000; in FY2001 — $39,251,000; in FY2002 — $29,524,000; in FY2003 — $35,156,000; in FY2004 — $31,402,000; in FY2005 — $39,889,000; and in FY2006 — $0. Inflation is calculated based on the GDP deflator as indicated in the OMB FY2007 Historical Tables, Table 10.1, using FY2006 dollars.