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

CRS Report for Congress
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
In troduction ......................................................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 (L-
HHS-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.



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 the1
Department of the Interior appropriations. 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. 109-
54) (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 grant-
making 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...)

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.

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.



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.

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
a mo unt s.
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.

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



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.

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



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.

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



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.

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)
FY2007 FY2007FY2007
F Y 2002 F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006 budget House Senat e
approp.approp.approp.approp. approp. requestPassed Comm.
ent for the
$115,234 $115,732 $120,972 $121,264 $124,406 $124,412 $129,412 $124,412
ent for the124,504124,936135,310138,054140,949140,955145,955140,955
manities (NEH)
iki/CRS-RL33725ithsonian518,860544,875596,279615,158615,097644,394 624,094644,394
g/wnnedy Center38,31033,69032,15933,02130,34738,70938,70936,709
s.or
leak of Art85,33592,84298,225102,654111,141116,743116,743116,743
://wikimission of Fine Arts1,2241,2161,4051,7681,8651,9511,9511,951
httpstitute of American Indian,
laska Native Culture and4,4905,4546,1735,9166,2076,7036,7036,703
elopment
orial Council36,02838,41239,50540,85842,15043,78643,41543,786
30,000 33,779 35,071 35,633 35,277 0 0 36,500
Services, 26,899 28,637 31,403 34,724 36,547 39,885 39,885 35,764
S/IMLS
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
ment of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations.



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.

!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.



Appendix B. NEA Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006
(in current and constant dollars)
Fiscal YearNEA Appropriations inNEA Appropriations in
Current DollarsConstant FY2006
Dollars (rounded)
1966 $2,898,000 $14,500,000
1967 8,476,000 41,100,000
1968 7,774,000 36,400,000
1969 8,457,000 37,900,000
1970 9,055,000 38,400,000
1971 16,420,000 66,400,000
1972 31,480,000 121,500,000
1973 40,857,000 151,000,000
1974 64,025,000 220,800,000
1975 80,142,000 250,400,000
1976 87,455,000 254,800,000
Transition Quarter (fiscal35,301,000102,800,000
year changed from July 1 to
October 1)
1977 99,872,000 270,700,000
1978 123,850,000 314,600,000
1979 149,585,000 351,600,000
1980 154,610,000 334,100,000
1981 158,795,000 312,500,000
1982 143,456,000 264,300,000
1983 143,875,000 253,800,000
1984 162,223,000 276,000,000
1985 163,660,000 269.700,000
1986 158,537,000 255,300,000
1987 165,281,000 259,400,000
1988 167,731,000 255,200,000
1989 169,090,000 247,700,000
1990 171,255,000 241,900,000
1991 174,081,000 237,000,000
1992 175,955,000 233,600,000
1993 174,460,000 226,500,000
1994 170,229.000 216,400,000
1995 162,311,000 202,000,000
1996 99,494,000 121,500,000
1997 99,494,000 119,400,000
1998 98,000,000 116,200,000

1999 98,000,000 114,700,000



2000 97,628,000 112,000,000
2001 104,769,000 117,500,000
2002 115,234,000 126,700,000
2003 115,732,000 124,800,000
2004 120,972,000 127,400,000
2005 121,264,000 124,300,000
2006 124,406,000 124,400,000
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 NEAs 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.



Appendix C. NEH Appropriations, FY1966-FY2006
(in current and constant dollars)
Fiscal YearNEH Appropriations inNEH Appropriations in
Current DollarsConstant FY2006
Dollars (rounded)
1966 $5,900,000 $29,500,000
1967 5,500,000 26,700,000
1968 4,600,000 21,500,000
1969 6,400,000 28,700,000
1970 8,900,000 37,800,000
1971 14,900,000 60,200,000
1972 29,700,000 114,700,000
1973 40,700,000 150,500,000
1974 54,300,000 187,300,000
1975 79,100,000 247,100,000
1976 85,000,000 247,700,000
Transition Quarter (fiscal22,600,00065,800,000
year changed from July 1
to October 1)
1977 99,400,000 269,400,000
1978 121,000,000 307,300,000
1979 145,200,000 341,300,000
1980 150,100,000 324,400,000
1981 151,300,000 297,800,000
1982 130,600,000 240,600,000
1983 130,247,000 229,800,000
1984 140,118,000 238,400,000
1985 139,478,000 229,800,000
1986 132,679,000 213,700,000
1987 138,890,000 218,000,000
1988 140,435,000 213,700,000
1989 153,000,000 224,100,000
1990 156,910,000 221,600,000
1991 170,002,000 231,400,000
1992 175,955,000 233,600,000
1993 177,413,000 230,300,000
1994 177,491,000 225,600,000
1995 172,044,000 214,200,000
1996 110,000,000 134,300,000
1997 110,000,000 132,000,000
1998 110,700,000 131,300,000

1999 110,700,000 129,600,000



2000 115,260,000 132,300,000
2001 119,994,000 134,500,000
2002 124,504,000 136,900,000
2003 124,936,000 134,800,000
2004 135,310,000 142,500,000
2005 138,054,000 141,600,000
2006 140,949,000 140,900,000
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.



Appendix D. Institute of Museum Services/Office of
Museum Services IMLS Appropriations, FY1977-
FY2006 (in current and constant dollars)
Fiscal YearIMS/OMSIMS/OMS
Appropriations inAppropriations in
Current DollarsConstant FY2006
Dollars (rounded)
1977 $100,000 $271,000
1978 4,000,000 10,200,000
1979 7,852,000 18,500,000
1980 10,900,000 23,600,000
1981 12,857,000 25,300,000
1982 12,240,000 22,500,000
1983 10,800,000 19,100,000
1984 20,150,000 34,300,000
1985 21,560,000 35,500,000
1986 20,474,000 33,000,000
1987 21,250,000 33,300,000
1988 21,944,000 33,400,000
1989 22,270,000 32,600,000
1990 22,675,000 32,000,000
1991 25,863,000 35,200,000
1992 26,999,000 35,800,000
1993 28,454,000 36,900,000
1994 28,777,000 36,600,000
1995 28,715,000 35,700,000
1996 21,000,000 25,600,000
1997 22,000,000 26,400,000
1998 23,280,000 27,600,000
1999 23,405,000 27,400,000
2000 24,307,000 27,900,000
2001 24,852,000 27,900,000
2002 26,899,000 29,600,000
2003 28,637,000 30,900,000
2004 31,402,000 33,100,000
2005 34,724,000 35,600,000
2006 36,547,000 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.