of our greatest cultural resources. For this reason I have fully endorsed the "six-point program" set forth by Secretary Goldberg in his award in the Metropolitan Opera arbitration last year, and for this reason I have strongly advocated some form of subsidy to the arts.

My recommendations for legislative action, however, would not, at this time, include subsidy, despite the fact that I believe it necessary and have sponsored legislation that would authorize grants to the States and despite the fact that I know that the States would put this money to good use. My own State of New Jersey, for example, will be building a cultural center in Trenton and it would be of immense help to the State to be able to participate in a Federal matching program. Government participation in this area must proceed slowly and with careful planning. Proper safeguards must be devised to insure that the Government's role is only that of catalyst and that well-intentioned programs do not result in stultification of creative activity. We must formulate national policy in this area and work toward a clear definition of the Federal role and responsibility. Should the Federal Government, for instance, limit its role to stimulating local or regional activity? Or should it attempt to preserve the great, established cultural institutions? Should we have a National Theater or Opera or Ballet, analogous to those in so many European countries? Or should we attempt to ease the plight of the individual artist by such means as training scholarships?

These are hard questions, and they are questions that should be studied by experts in this area. That is why I feel the creation of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts is an essential first step, and that is why our efforts in the House were concentrated on this bill.

I think that my friend and colleague, Mr. Lindsay, will endorse this statement in his following testimony, since, when I say we made a decision, it was one which Mr. Lindsay and I made after consulting each other.

If an Advisory Council were established, it could help to formulate a national policy with regard to the arts. It could determine to what extent subsidy actually will be needed, and, if it is needed, what form it should take. As I pointed out before, the Government is already given the arts a tremendous subsidy through the income tax laws, and it may be that our course for the future should continue to follow this indirect route.

One of the most important functions an Advisory Council could perform would be to work with and stimulate State, regional, and local arts councils. There is a tremendous move on in the United States toward the creation of such organizations. New Jersey, for example, under the vigorous leadership of Governor Richard J. Hughes, has created a council, and New York's arts council has been actively and successfully operating for 2 years. In my view it is inevitable that any Federal assistance in the arts would be channeled through such agencies.

My final argument for the Advisory Council is that it is within our grasp. The concept is not a radical departure and it has received widespread endorsement. In my subcommittee's files alone are more than 200 letters from university and college presidents and professors wholeheartedly supporting the idea, and support ranges far wider than this. Furthermore, the Council is not an expensive proposition; it could return untold value to the country for an annual expenditure of about $100,000. The Senate has already passed this bill once, and

while the House has dragged its feet, I firmly believe a majority of its Members now favor this bill.

In making this plea for the advisory council bill I by no means intend any unfavorable reflection on the other legislation before you. It is of great value to have as many ideas as possible put to the test of debate and public scrutiny, and it is of supreme importance to the cause of the arts to stimulate public interest in and awareness of the problems at which these bills aim. All I suggest is that as a matter of priorities the Advisory Council must, in my opinion, come first.

I would like to commend the subcommittee once more for undertaking this study, and express my appreciation for the invitation to testify today and my willingness to be of any assistance I can in the future.

Senator Pell, Senator Javits, Senator Clark, Senator Humphrey, and Senator Metcalf, just to mention a few right off the top of my head, have all had a long and a deep interest, and I am very sorry and almost embarrassed by the lack of activity or the lack of success, rather, with these ideas in the House of Representatives.

The Senator from New York has served in the other body and knows how the Committee on Rules operates. It is a very difficult thing. We will keep after it, and, in the meantime, we certainly commend you and thank you very much for your courtesy in having us here.

Senator JAVITS. Congressman Thompson, there are some questions I should like to ask you, but, if it is agreeable to you, we have Congressman Lindsay who will testify, and then my colleagues will be back, and perhaps they will ask questions of both of you. Will you proceed?

May I express my pleasure at Congressman Lindsay's presence. We are very proud of him in New York. Personally, I am very pleased that he is taking such a fine interest in this particular subject, which is of such great interest to me. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LINDSAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. LINDSAY. Thank you, Senator Javits.

First of all, my congratulations to the subcommittee for undertaking these hearings at this time, and, of course, my especial thanks goes to you, Senator Javits, the senior Senator from New York, for the leadership that you have always taken in this field, and for the guidance that you have given a great many others in the thorny thicket of the role of the Federal Government in the arts. I think that it has to be acknowledged that Senator Javits is the countrywide leader in this field, and we are all very grateful and indebted to him for it.

I am particularly pleased, also, that Senator Pell has seen fit to call these hearings. I would like to note in passing that Senator Pell's father was a Democratic Representative from the district that I represent in New York from 1919 to 1921.

Senator JAVITS. Would you mind repeating that, Congressman Lindsay? Senator Pell is here now.

Mr. LINDSAY. I was just saying, Mr. Chairman, that I have good reason to compliment you for taking the initiative to organize these hearings, as the district which I represent, the 17th District of New

York, is probably the cultural center of the United States, and, indeed, of the world, and, as you well know, your distinguished father was the Democratic Representative from that district from 1919 to 1921, if I am not mistaken.

Senator PELL (presiding). Practically the last Democratic Congressman from that district.

Mr. LINDSAY. No, there were two Democratic Representatives from the 17th after your father.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does that indicate hope?

Mr. LINDSAY. I am afraid we are going to put an end to it once and for all.

Now, on this subject, of course, the 17th District in New York has within it all of the Broadway theater area, the off-Broadway theater area, the Metropolitan Opera, all of the great museums of New York, Greenwich Village, and a great many other of our Nation's cultural centers, so I have a very deep interest in this subject, and am very much concerned about where we go from here.

The bill that I have sponsored, along with Congressman Thompson, known as the Thompson-Lindsay bill, is the bill that would establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, H.R. 4172, and H.R. 5408; its companion in the Senate is Senate 741.

Like Congressman Thompson, I have a high regard and respect for the bills that have been submitted by others which seek somewhat different approaches.

None of these bills are necessarily inconsistent. I have a very high regard for the bill carefully worked out by the senior Senator from New York, Senator Javits, which I do hope will receive early and favorable consideration by this subcommittee.

I want to emphasize what Congressman Thompson said about the need for putting first things first in the House of Representatives. We cannot even get out of the Rules Committee of the House for a vote on the floor in this Congress a nonmoney bill, which is the Federal Advisory Council bill on the arts, the Thompson-Lindsay bill, and when we did bring it out under the suspension calendar in the first session of this Congress, as was pointed out, it was de

feated in a showdown vote.

We have reason to believe that there were special circumstances surrounding the vote on that bill which would not be repeated, and we think, if we can bring the bill out under a proper rule, that we can get a majority vote.

We think that it is time that the Federal Government try to pull things together and see where we go from here. That is why the Advisory Council bill that we advocate is a nonmoney bill and does not require any large appropiration. In fact, it is limited to just housekeeping money. It would, as the committee knows, establish a Council consisting of 21 members appointed by the President. They would have such status as Presidential appointees, and in its amended. form the bill would place the Council in the Executive Offices of the White House.

We think there is a need for knowledge on this whole subject, a need for finding where the proper balance is between the Federal Government and the private arena.

We think that there is a need for discovering where areas of excellence lie.

We think that there is a need to distinguish between consumption and appropriation, and we think also that it is time to figure out exactly what are the aspects of governments, both Federal and local, which interfere with the proper growth of the arts and culture in the United States.

A great deal can be done by governments in the absence of direct subsidies. Much can be done by indirect means to improve environmental conditions surrounding the arts in this country.

First of all, there is the intangible problem of the regard and respect that the Government has for the arts. The Advisory Council would immediately elevate governmental thinking toward the improvement of status. It would lift up the Government's thinking about culture in the United States, pull it together, place it under one roof, and give the President an organization to which to turn for advice and guidance as to the future, as in the case of the Science Council, which has done such effective work out of the White House under the direct supervision of the President and his advisers in the past.

Let me cite one small example showing where the Government ought to do some rethinking. The Treasury Department insists that there is no difference at all between a theater for live dramatic performances or ballet and a flea circus or a shooting gallery. The Government taxes both the same.

A bill that I have pressed for a long time would abolish the Federal admissions tax for live dramatic performances, in order, eventually, to reduce production costs and eventually reduce ticket prices.

The Treasury Department persists in taking the position that there is no difference between a live dramatic or musical performance and any other kind of enterprise for profit such as a shooting gallery.

From time to time crises develop, as in the case of the Metropolitan Opera. Fortunately, through the aggressive action of a great many public servants, that situation was saved. For a limited period thereafter there was an outcry about the need for some kind of action at governmental levels so that this kind of crises will not again occur.

Well, I think that if we can at least take the step of getting through the Congress a bill such as the Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, a program can be mapped out to calculate the extent to which the Government should play a long-range role, in anticipating difficulties of this kind in the future. If subsidies are required, then let us discuss them and see what measures could be proposed.

Subsidies are not the entire answer. It is significant, I think, as has been pointed out by my friend, George Martin, the author of the "Opera Companion," and one of the country's leading critics of the history of the opera, that the great operas in Europe were all developed outside of the establishment. This can be documented in detail. I don't oppose subsidies, but there are many different kinds of Government aid. Let us not forget that methods and procedures in this field will make a big difference.

I would like at this point, with the committee's permission, to insert in the record, in fact, an article that I wrote on this subject which was published in Show magazine, entitled "Theater, A Compelling Need: A Feasible Plan." Some of my ideas on this subject are contained in this short article.

Senator PELL. Without objection.

(The article referred to follows:)

[From Show Magazine, April 1962]

THIS MONTH: THEATER

A COMPELLING NEED: A FEASIBLE PLAN BY JOHN V. LINDSAY

The living theater in this country is in deep trouble. Unless something is done immediately to relieve its plight, it faces the possibility of economic strangulation in a matter of years.

The Nation has recently been bombarded with suggested remedies from many sources, including myself and this magazine (see "How to Save Broadway," Show, October 1961). Cut prices. Cut costs. Consider establishment of municipally owned warehouse facilities for storing of sets at minimum cost to producers. Try to eliminate "ice" by establishing a free market in which ticket prices can seek their own levels. Encourage experimentation and new creative talent by lending the support of private foundations. Cultivate new audiences, especially among the young. Encourage cooperation among producers, Actors' Equity, the Dramatists Guild, and the unions.

All of these are valid remedies. To prevent the demise of the theaterone of our Nation's greatest cultural assets-all interested individuals and groups, and all segments of the industry itself, must act to restore the theater to economic sense and artistic health. But until all levels of governmentmunicipal, State, and Federal-learn to consider the dramatic arts in the public interest, and act to improve conditions surrounding and encroaching upon them, most public efforts will fail.

Little or nothing is heard in Washington about the actions only lawmakers can take. The dramatic arts have no spokesmen there. They have no lobbies. Most Congressmen have never heard from their constituents on legislation affecting the arts.

It is the government-municipal, State, and Federal-which can establish art councils. It is the government which can afford tax relief. Therefore, interested people must write their municipal, State, and Federal representatives and demand some action. There is little chance that government will do anything until the various theater groups organize themselves, place their combined best interests ahead of their internal dissensions, and take an active interest in the legislative process. Spokesmen are needed in the States and in Washington. A coherent program of action based on priorities must be established. And it must be understood that theater people will not get constructive legislation enacted until they have convinced a sufficient number of lawmakers of the need for their proposals.

Here is such a program.

1. All levels of government must establish executive offices whose purpose it is to give due recognition and status to the arts. A number of cities and States already have such offices. New York State, under Governor Rockefeller, has developed one of the best within the last year. Many more are developing programs for the systematic improvement of the arts. It is on the local level that this program should begin. It is here that all the vast community resources for private participation should be garnered.

2. The Federal Government should establish a Federal advisory council on the arts. This would exert a unifying force upon the currently confused and chaotic Federal dealings with the arts. Duplication, lack of direction, lack of integration, and bureaucratic stodginess have been all too prevalent. There is a crying need for coordination. The council which would do this work would become a forum for representatives of the major art fields. The precise structure and membership of the council would be up to the President. Certainly, it should be composed of men with broad judgment and the finest artistic credentials. Representation should be based, to some degree, on geographical location. The chief job of the council would be to see where we would go from here.

The council would have the power to study the state of national culture, to propose methods to increase cultural resources and to encourage private participation in the arts, and to foster increased activity in every form of the arts. A bipartisan measure to establish such a council, introduced by Representative Frank Thompson, a Democrat from New Jersey, and myself, failed to pass the House in the last session of Congress, though it had the backing of the previous and the present administrations. The bill is still in the Rules Committee, where it will certainly languish until an upsurge in public interest blasts it out.