substantial figure. That's more than all people in corrections, in police departments and what not.

Mr. SKAGGS. For the time being.

MS. ALEXANDER. For the time being, correct. Let's hope. There are $38.6 billion in expenditures and $3.4 billion back to the Federal treasury every year in tax revenues from people who work in and around the nonprofit arts field. That's significant. Not to mention, as I said, the cross-over from the nonprofit arts sector into the commercial arts sector and the commercial arts sector is, you know, our second largest export in the United States and one of the biggest industries in the United States. I think it's a very important area and I think that you put your finger on it. What we do is we plant that little seed and we take the risks, we identify excellence and we stimulate the local economy to support it. And then that seed begins to grow and flower.

Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE ARTS IN AMERICA BEFORE THE ENDOWMENT

Mr. REGULA. Prior to 1962, there was no NEA. The major funding started in 1972 I believe. So there's a lot of good work done prior to that time. How would you explain in the absence of this agency, or at least a well funded agency, that a great deal was accomplished in this Nation?

Ms. ALEXANDER. A great deal was accomplished, but it tended to be situated in major urban areas and to be hostage to private philanthropy. And what the Endowment has done since 1965 is make the arts accessible or help make them accessible all around the United States, as the map shows.

There has also been a proliferation of artists living all over the United States making their living and contributing to the communities. And, again, that's the major difference, the accessibility of the arts and the artistic experience.

PRIORITY OF ENDOWMENT'S FUNCTIONS

Mr. REGULA. If you were to prioritize the agency's functions, i.e., education, individual artists, State grants, as an example, what would be your No. 1 priority with limited funds?

MS. ALEXANDER. I have been asked that, Mr. Chairman, and I find that I can't prioritize in that way, that it's all important. You can't have arts education without artists. You can have very good teachers, but you still need the excellence of the artist to be there interacting with the pupils. You can't have facilities without the artists, and you can't have arts education without the facilities, and so on. So, it's all important. So, that's why we've been cutting across the board, so to speak, and reducing the number of categories.

CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. REGULA. If there were limited funding, would you favor a challenge grant type program to leverage what we have with either private sector or State or local funding or school boards, for example?

MS. ALEXANDER. Well, we're certainly grateful for the Treasury Funds and the Challenge Program, and it's been reworked under our new division of Planning and Stabilization, but that wouldn't be my only priority, no.

Mr. REGULA. Well, I'm saying, if there were limited funds, would this be a possibility for leveraging what we have available?

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes, but every grant we give leverages other money. It's always one-to-one or one-to-three, or one-to-five. And in our new divisions, we're asking people who are not under the challenge model, could they make a three-to-one match, so that more Treasury Funds can be utilized.

STATUS OF HOUSE AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

Mr. REGULA. Have you had any contact with the authorizing committee? As you know, the authorization expired in 1993, and we haven't gotten a new authorization to this point. It's not authorized, which somewhat limits what we can do, because any member can raise a point of order, and then there's zero under those circumstances, and it's not subject to a vote.

So, my question would be, have you had any contact with the authorizing committee since we completed the appropriation? Ms. ALEXANDER. The House authorization committee?

Mr. REGULA. Yes.

Ms. ALEXANDER. No, I haven't, and, as you may know, they never did have a hearing, so I was unable to testify, and nobody else was on behalf of the agency.

POSSIBLE ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. REGULA. I particularly like in your statement, you talk about depriving our children here and now. In the absence of any authorization, could we perhaps encourage some type of program in the Education Department to get this outreach to the schools?

Ms. ALEXANDER. Well, we work with the education departments, I mean, through the State arts councils, and we have partnerships, of course, with the Department of Education itself, but whether they would take on the added burden is doubtful at this time. We are the main Federal advocate for arts education, and we're in partnership with a great many service organizations and the Department of Education in that regard.

ENDOWMENT'S ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET

Mr. REGULA. What percent of your funding that you receive actually goes out to groups in the form of grants? In other words, what percent of your budget is administrative in the processing of grants as opposed to actually getting out to the groups and or individuals?

Ms. ALEXANDER. Right now I believe our percentage of administration is 16 percent. That's up because every time you reduce our budget, we still have basic things that we have to serve in the agency in terms of administrative budget. So, we're at 16 percent now, and anything Ana Steele, our Deputy Chairman for Management & Budget, would like to add here?

Ms. STEELE. At the request level, we'd be down to about 13.5 percent. So, more than 85 percent goes out in grants.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Yates?

Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're glad to welcome you. I think that your testimony today has been superb. I think it has brought us a great deal of insight into the operations of the Endowment.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF ENDOWMENT'S GRANTS

The charts that you have behind you, does that represent one year's funding?

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. YATES. Last year?

MS. ALEXANDER. Well, it may have some carry-over grants. It was Fiscal Year 1994.

Mr. YATES. That's a one-year

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. YATES. My goodness.

Ms. ALEXANDER. And this is in response, Mr. Yates, to you last year. You asked about the stars on a map in one of our brochures, and we said we'd come back to you with a map of the actual impact.

Mr. YATES. Can we have a picture of that or a rendition of that that may be put into our hearings with the chairman's consent? I want to show the extent of your activities.

Mr. REGULA. Without objection, we'll try to get it into the record if that's possible.

[The information follows:]

1

FUTURE OF THE ENDOWMENT

Mr. YATES. One of the witnesses who has appeared before this committee this year is Mr. Martin Mawyer, who is the president of the Christian Action Network, and he's after you, as you know. [Laughter.]

He succeeds Reverend Wildmon, I think, as the one who states what the moral levels of the country should be, whether its activities comply with the moral levels. And in his testimony he has said, "In the years that" I read from his testimony. "In the years that the Christian Action Network has worked on behalf of our supporters, no public policy has engendered such resentment as Congress's continued funding of the National Endowment for the Arts." I don't think that's true, speaking personally, but he says. that as a fact.

This is what he continues to say, "We respectfully urge the committee to cut off all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts immediately. Should the committee fail to do this, we urge adherence in the Fiscal Year 1996 House language which provides for all NEA funding to be cut off after Fiscal Year 1997."

And if I understand the attitude of the majority of this committee correctly, it proposes to cut off all funding for NEA after the Fiscal Year 1997. Is that a correct statement, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Yates, I think that reflects the majority of the majority in the House.

Mr. YATES. Okay, then a majority of the Republicans.

Mr. REGULA. Not necessarily of this committee. Yes, the majority of the majority.

Mr. YATES. Well, it also reflects the view of this committee, because in conference I made a motion to strike those words, and my motion was voted down by the majority of the majority of this committee.

Mr. REGULA. That's because we were reflecting the wishes of the majority of the majority.

Mr. YATES. I see. [Laughter.]

Mr. SKAGGS. Sounds like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. [Laughter.]

Mr. YATES. Well, you remember the second verse of the opening of the second act of Iolanthe. In the sentry song, when the sentry is parading in front of the House of Parliament, and when he starts to sing, "When in that house, MP's divide. If they've a brain and cerebellum, too, they've got to leave that brain outside and vote just as their leaders tell them to." [Laughter.]

So, I just don't know

Mr. SKAGGS. We haven't rehearsed this, by the way. [Laughter.] Mr. YATES. I'm not sure where that leaves us with the majority of the majority, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. I'm not sure where that leaves me. [Laughter.]

Mr. YATES. I always thought that in this great United States there was room for an individual thinking in the way he wants to think and acting in accordance with it.

At any rate, you are engaged upon a very important project called the American Canvas Project. Why do you plan on holding these meetings throughout the country, and who is paying for this