divisions; we now have 3 divisions. Our administrative resources--funding and staff--are severely stretched under the new structure. At Question 8. I'm told NEH is planning to cut program grants by 53 percent and preservation grants by 23 percent in FY 96. the same time, grants to the State Humanities Councils will only be cut by 5 percent. Why is there such a disparity here? Answer. In FY 1996, the Endowment has allocated funding totalling $110 million among the Federal/State Partnership, Preservation and Access, and the other major program categories and administration in the amounts specified by the House-Senate Appropriations Conference Committee. The FY 1996 appropriation request that we submitted to Congress totalled $182 million and did not entail dramatic funding disparities. Question. Why aren't the state councils being subjected to the same type of cuts? Answer. Although the level of state council funding in FY 1996 is that specified by the Conference Committee, it bears noting that, among the many kinds of cultural organizations that receive NEH support, the state councils are by far the least able to absorb large funding cuts. Unlike other cultural organizations, which receive NEH grants on a occasional basis for ad hoc projects, the councils are universally dependent upon an annual NEH grant for general operating support. The state councils vary widely in their ability to attract private and state government funding. Few councils, however, would be able to absorb an abrupt reduction of 20-50 percent in their NEH grant without severely curtaining their activities. Question 9. How many grants do you expect to make in FY 96? Answer. We expect to make approximately 560 grants in the current fiscal year. Question. How does this compare with FY 95? Answer. In FY 1995, we awarded 1,505 grants. Question. What percentage of applicants actually receive grants? Answer. In FY 1996, we expect to award grants to approximately 17 percent of our applicants. Question. How does this ratio compare with prior years? Answer. In FY 1995, the percentage of funded applicants was 18.1, the lowest in the 15 years for which we have application statistics. As recently as FY 1989, approximately 25 percent of our applicants received a grant. Question 10. What will the impact be if your appropriation for FY 97 turns out to be less than your FY 96 budget of $110 million? Answer. If NEH were to receive an FY 1997 appropriation that is below the austere current budget level of $110 million, such an event would deepen the widespread negative impact on the nation's cultural and educational life, described in the answer to the previous question, that is resulting from the FY 1996 Draconian cut in our funding. Another budget reduction for NEH essentially would require us to implement once again some of the "downsizing" actions we were forced to undertake in response to the FY 1996 radical funding cuts including, the elimination of additional NEH grant programs, the suspension or outright cancellation of many of our remaining grant activities, a significant scaling back of both the number and size of the grants we are able to make, and the termination of more NEH employees. In short, a continued freefall in our budget would call into question the Endowment's ability to continue fulfilling its historical mission of providing a critical mass of high quality projects and programs in the humanities for the American people. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Question 1. Under the budget of $110,000,000 for FY 97, what would the impact be on the National Heritage Preservation Program. How would that program be impacted if your FY 97 budget were only $90,000,000? Answer. If the Endowment were held to a budget of $110 million again in FY 1997, the impact on our National Heritage Preservation (NHP) program would be comparable to the effect of the FY 1996 budget cut; that is, when measured against the funding received for the program in FY 1995, fewer grants awarded in the NHP program will mean that 130,000 fragile objects of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical importance held in the nation's museums will not receive proper preservation treatment and handling. A budget of $90 million in FY 1997 would be yet another devastating blow to the agency's ability to continue fulfilling its mission of providing the American people with wide opportunities to explore human history and culture through the humanities. At an agency budget of $90 million, the National Heritage Preservation program, as well as most if not all other NEH grant programs, would need to make additional, dramatic cuts in its level of grants. The Endowment also would be forced to close down a number of other important grant activities on top of those we had to terminate in FY 1996. NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART Statement by Mr. Earl A. Powell III, Director of the National The mission of the National Gallery of Art is to serve the country by preserving, collecting, exhibiting, and encouraging the understanding of works of art by the American public at an exemplary level. In order to maintain the very highest standards, over the years the Gallery has consistently hired and retained the best available curatorial, educational, and management staffs. Day-to-day operations support our mission through the care, maintenance, and security of the works of art and the facilities. continued Our FY 1997 request focuses on two basic areas: funding at the present no-growth level for our day-to-day operations and special exhibitions program, plus the repair, restoration, and renovation of the Gallery's two architecturally significant buildings. The National Gallery's federal funds budget request for the fiscal year 1997 is $59,841,000 compared to the 1996 budget of $58,286,000. Total mandatory/uncontrollable increases of $3,156,000 are offset by programmatic decreases of $1,601,000 for a net increase in our request of $1,555,000. are: Comprising the mandatory/total uncontrollable increases personnel compensation and benefits $2,761,000 to cover mandatory/uncontrollable pay increases such as the proposed FY 1997 pay raise and the annualized cost of prior years locality and national pay raises; and rents, communications and utilities - $395,000 to cover the increased costs of water and sewer being charged us by the Department of Treasury and to cover an electric rate increase from PEPCO, which took effect in July of 1995. These increases are partially offset by the following programmatic cuts: personnel compensation and benefits decrease $755,000 through the elimination of 12 FTE by restructuring, the partial absorption of mandatory/uncontrollable pay by delaying the rehiring of essential staff, and reducing the number and amount of employee awards; decreases in the Art Care function of $346,000 delay conservation equipment purchases and curtail selected activities of the Education, Library, National Lending Service and Exhibition Education departments; and decreases in Renovation of $500,000 delay non-critical renovation projects. page 2 The Gallery recognized the need to reduce expenditures and, to that end, has already eliminated 36 FTEs over the last four fiscal years (1992-1996). We will continue to make reductions where possible as demonstrated by our additional reduction of 12 FTES in FY 1997. Furthermore, during these years the Gallery has not been able to obtain inflationary increases of 3-4% needed for goods and services. Instead it has had to take administrative expense reductions in these areas with a 6% reduction taken in FY 1996. In order to stay within the President's budget, while at the same time fund the mandatory/uncontrollable pay and utilities increases in FY 1997, the Gallery must make the various decreases in personnel compensation and benefits, art care, and renovation previously mentioned. The minimal increase for mandatory/ uncontrollable costs is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the Gallery's operations. Since the Gallery is committed to remaining open seven days a week, to further curtail operations, if these minimal mandatory/uncontrollable increases are not provided, risks jeopardizing security and maintenance of the collections. I must ask the Committee not to overlook the significance of our operating dollars. In particular, the Gallery's education programs are important in making the art of the nation accessible throughout the country. The Gallery's Department of Education Resources, for example, produces and distributes to every state in the union color slide programs, teaching packets, films, and videocassettes. These programs are used in schools, libraries, colleges and universities, civic organizations, and other community groups across the nation. All of these programs are based on Gallery collections and special exhibitions; they are provided free of charge with return postage representing the only cost to the borrower. For FY 1995, the viewing audience was reported at over 33 million. Federal appropriations for the National Gallery's special exhibitions program likewise have a multiplier effect. Many museums in this country look to the Gallery to organize and to share their major travelling exhibitions. Recent examples include The Prints of Roy Lichtenstein at the Museum of Fine Arts, Dallas, Piet Mondrian at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, Claes Oldenburg at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, Winslow Homer at the Museum of Fine Art, Boston and John Singleton Copley in England at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. |