PROBLEMS WITH THE OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

INVESTIGATION OF

THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

I. As Chairman Hoekstra himself has indicated, the purpose of his investigation has not been to conduct an objective oversight review of the NFA, but to support his view that federal funding for the arts is inappropriate and that the NEA should be abolished. (Sec enclosed clips.)

II. The Subcommittee has made extensive demands on the NEA for information which is irrelevant or duplicative and has consumed huge amounts of taxpayerfunded agency resources.

A. The Subcommittee demanded two copies of complete files on some 160 past grants, many of which the NEA is no longer authorized to make duc to Congressional and NEA changes in grant-making rules.

B. The Subcommittee demanded numerous materials that it already had requested and received or are copyrighted films and videos not owned by the NEA.

C. Over a four-month period (November 1996-February 1997) Subcommittee demands required nearly 1200 hours of effort by almost half of the agency's staff, which the NEA has explained was “interfering with the agency's ability to conduct business and serve the public."

III. A Subcommittee investigator, Derrick Max, actually conccaled or misrepresented his identity and purpose in directly contacting NEA grantees. (See enclosed materials.)

A. According to press reports, Max stated he was from a "committee on youth education" and suggested a "funding possibility" when he sought information from Brava! Women for the Arts. Max admits he "didn't identify" who he was with in his "initial contacts."

B. The director of Canyon Cinema reports that Max did not identify
himself and “implied he was affiliated with the NEA” in requesting
immediate copies of materials. (Max reportedly denics this claim but states
that letters from Chairman Hoekstra's oflice “directly resulted” in the
rescinding of Canyon Cinema's grant.)

C. Via e-mail, Max requested extensive information from Hallwalls
Contemporary Arts Center without identifying himself or his purpose,
prompting a complaint from Hallwalls to Senator Moynihan.

APPENDIX D-WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK RIGGS, A CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OPENING REMARKS

THE HONORABLE FRANK RIGGS

JOINT HEARING ON THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

TUESDAY

MAY 13, 1997

Good morning. As Chairman of the Subcommittee

on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, I would like to

take the opportunity to welcome our witnesses and

members of the public to our hearing on the National

Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

For over 30 years the Federal government has funded

the NEA, a government agency that has been the subject of some controversy and extended debate.

Our reason for being here today is to receive

testimony on the current mission of the NEA, whether the

NEA works in an effective and efficient manner, and

whether it consistently follows Congressional intent. The

witnesses represent a broad range of opinions, and will

explore in detail many of the current issues facing the

NEA. This will assist the Subcommittee on Early

Childhood, Youth and Families as it deliberates the

current unauthorized status and long-term future of the

NEA.

Having served on the Appropriations Committee in the 104th Congress, I believe that this hearing and the testimony we receive will serve the additional purpose of

aiding Appropriators as they make funding decisions for

1998.