Appropriations Update
Congress ignores president’s history recommendations
President Bush, having announced his budget proposal earlier in the year, has been keeping an eye on Congress as it considers his budget proposals. Given the recent actions by congressional appropriation committees, there is little evidence that the White House is willing to make much of an effort to sway the Republican-controlled Congress to fully fund the president’s history-related proposals. Those measures include $25 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) “We the People” initiative, $100 million for the Department of Education (DOE) “Teaching American History” (TAH) program, and several smaller programs in other departments.
Appropriation subcommittee allocations for the 13 spending bills for the fiscal 2004 federal budget were decided by the House leadership some months ago. Shortly thereafter, both houses of Congress started to hold hearings and markups on the draft spending bills. House Appropriations Chair Bill Young (R-Fla.) optimistically hoped to move all 13 appropriations bills through his chamber before Congress adjourned for the summer recess. Wishful thinking. To date, in the Senate, even fewer appropriation measures have been acted upon.
The good news is that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to boost arts and humanities funding over last year’s spending levels. The bad news is that the recommended levels are not even close to approaching the president’s recommendations that included $25 million for the NEH history-centered “We the People” initiative. This seems remarkable, considering that the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. Nevertheless, after a concerted effort by humanities and history advocacy organizations, the House, by a vote of 225 to 200, brought the NEH budget line up to $142 million, still some $10 million short of the president’s proposal but far better than the committee proposal. In the Senate, the full Appropriations Committee gave the NEH a similar increase, bringing their total also to $142 million, but attached a significant caveat to the bill.
Because Congress was considering Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) “American History and Civics Education Act of 2003” (S. 504)—Alexander ‘s bill had passed the Senate and supporters were anxious to pass it in the House without subjecting the measure to congressional hearings—the Senate inserted report language (S. Rept. 108-89) recommending that, should the Alexander bill pass, funding would be pulled from the NEH “We the People” programmatic increase to cover at least part of the costs of implementing Alexander’s bill. Alexander’s staff then quietly instigated action to earmark the entire “We the People” NEH funding for his bill. This in turn actively motivated the history and humanities advocacy community to overtly call for a House hearing into the measure, to question some of the less attractive provisions in the Alexan der bill, and to vehemently oppose any effort to divert “We the People” funding away from the NEH priorities. Letters were sent off to congressional appropriations committee members registering protests and opposing the effort to divert the “We the People” funding. At this writing, the future of the NEH fun still remains in limbo. Should Alexander secure an appropriations victory it will be a hollow one as few in the history community seem really devoted to the Alexander approach to improve historical literacy nationwide.
Funding for the Labor, Education, Health and Human Services appropriation measure that includes the “Teaching American History” initiative were off to a similar controversial start. The full House Appropriations Committee recommended a fiscal 2004 funding level of $50 million for the TAH grant program. This is $50 million less than the president’s request of $100 million, and $49.3 million less than the fiscal 2003 enacted level ($99.3 million). By contrast, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $120 million for the fiscal 2004 program, an increase of $20 million over the president’s request, and $20.6 million over the fiscal 2003 enacted level! Thank you, Senator Byrd!
According to the Senate Report (S. Rept. 108-81) accompanying the bill, the additional funds “cannot be used for social studies coursework”; rather, they are designed “to augment the quality of American history instruction and to pro ide professional development activities and teacher education in the area of American history.” The report also calls for the DOE to develop a framework for evaluating the multiyear program. With such dramatic differences between the House and Senate versions of the DOE bill, the conferees will have their hands full when they try to reconcile the measures.
The House and Senate have also considered the Department of the Interior funding bill. The Interior bill includes funding for the National Park Service and its various history-related programs. The Senate bill provides $71 million for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), including level funding of $34 million for the State Historic Preservation Offices. Historic preservationists were hoping to see a funding level of $50 million for the states and $90 million (a 30 percent increase) for various other historic preservation efforts.
The House funding recommendation includes $3 million for the tribal preservation organizations and $30 million for the “Save America’s Treasures” grant program. In an effort to shore up what some Republican strategists consider “sagging support” with black voters, the Republican controlled committee recommended $4 million in new money for grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) if appropriated this would be the first funding by Congress for the HBCU in two years. To end on a positive note, both the House and Senate recommended just over $8.5 million for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars—the level requested by the Center and approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Legislation Introduced
Legislation for changing IRS rules on donations
Legislation (H.R. 806, Artists Contribution to American Heritage Act and S. 287, the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, part of the larger CARE Act) was introduced earlier in the year in both the House and the Senate. If enacted, the legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enable artists and writers (including historians and other scholars) to obtain a tax deduction equal to “fair market value” for charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor. The legislation is strongly supported by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and other museum organizations.
Both the House and Senate versions revise the existing Internal Revenue Service regulations governing donation policy. Current policy does not allow an author, for example, to donate research notes and manuscript versions of published works to an institution and obtain a meaningful tax deduction; typically, they may deduct only the cost of their raw materials. The new legislation would allow donations of the “fair market value” of their works, provided the contributed works were created at least 18 months prior to the date of donation. Contributions must also be formally appraised and a written appraisal would need to be attached to the donor’s tax return. The creator must also deduct the entire amount the year the gift is made; the deduction can be taken only for income earned as an artist or writer (not for instance for income derived from waiting on tables), and the donor must be a professional.
The new donation requirements also would provide some new guidelines for institutions receiving such donations. For example, the donor’s work must be related to the purpose of the institution that accepts the gift.
Briefly Noted
Homeland Security History Office—A step closer to authorization
On July 10, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee issued its Committee Report (S. Rept. 108-86) for the pending Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal 2004 (H.R. 2555). Included in the report is language authorizing the creation of an Office of History within the Homeland Security Department.
According to report language (p. 9), the Office of History would “produce, oversee, and coordinate the production of a range of reference, policy, and historical background assessment papers, . . . provide expert historical knowledge essential for informed decision making to maintain the institutional history of the Department . . . provide professional assistance to the historical and archival activities of the directorates and bureaus within the Department; and . . . produce such documentary collections as may be deemed necessary.” The committee also recognized the importance of funding the office, and included language at the end of the report stating that the department should submit a reprogramming request as required under Section 605 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
The language creating the office is the culmination of an effort by the National Coalition for History to legislatively establish the departmental history office. Cause for celebration, however, may be premature as until the Senate actually votes on the appropriation bill the report language remains vulnerable to revision or being struck out entirely. Senate supporters of the creation of the history office remain optimistic.
Florida Ballots from the 2000 Election Saved
On May 8, 2003, Glenda Hood, Florida’s secretary of state, announced that she had instructed all 67 Florida counties to forward more than six million ballots from the 2000 election to the State Archives. Hood’s action puts to rest concerns of historians, political scientists, and archivists who feared the 2000 presidential election records would be destroyed in accordance with Florida’s records disposition schedules. For well over two years, the National Coalition for History has played a leading role in advocating the preservation of the ballots and the related election records such as instructions from super visors to poll workers, records of canvassing board meetings, legal briefs, and paper and electronic communicatior0 between the secretary of state’s office and local election board officials.
Hood spokesperson Jenny Nash said the 5,000 cubic feet of ballots (the equivalent of 450 large filing cabinets) will be stored in the climate-controlled archives building in Tallahassee. While the ballots were saved for the benefit of future historical research, some doubt their potential usefulness. “They’re of no value at all except as a historic relic,” said Barry Richard, Florida attorney for the Democratic candidate Al Gore. “They’re just a curiosity at this point.” Julian Pleasants, a history professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville disagrees: “For the most part, ballots don’t have historical value, but obviously 2000 was a bit different. This is the most controversial presidential election in modem history.”
African American Museum Gets Senate Blessing
On June 24, 2003, the Senate pass legislation (S. 1157) to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture within the Smithsonian Institution. The bill, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) and passed by voice vote, authorizes $17 million to begin work on the project. The House version of the measure (HR 2205), sponsored by John Lewis (D-GA), is expected to pass before the August Congressional recess. It is currently pending in both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in the Committee on House Administration. The White House supports the bill.
The museum would cover the history of African Americans through slavery and Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the Civil Rights movement. Construction may be completed by 2013 with funds provided by both the federal government and private donors. The remaining key question that law makers must consider is where best to locate the museum. Some backers want it built on land in front of the Senate side of the Capitol. Other possible locations include several parcels of available land adjacent to the Mall and nearer to the Smithsonian central complex of museums. The site for the project must be chosen by the Smithsonian Board of Regents 18 months after the bill’s passage.
Historians’ Brief Plays Role in Lawrence v. Texas Case
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, a case that focused on whether that state’s antisodomy law was constitutional. Jus tice Anthony Kennedy wrote the major it y opinion that attacked the societal presumptions and legal reasoning behind the 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, a previous case where the Court had endorsed Georgia’s anti sodomy law. Kennedy’s opinion found for the plaintiffs—two gay men sentenced under provisions of the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law—and focused heavily on the historical impact of sodomy and sodomy laws. A close reading of Kennedy’s opinion reveals that much of the language was intellectually influenced by an amicus brief submitted to the Court by several historians back in January 2003.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs originally approached University of Chicago historian George Chauncey to see if he would prepare the amicus brief. Chauncey assembled a larger group of academics and intellectuals, including well-known historian of the gay movement John D’Emilio. When asked by the NCH about the impact that the historians’ brief had on the recent decision, D’Emilio stated that in “reading Kennedy’s decision, I was impressed and enormously gratified- that he incorporated so much of this historical reasoning and evidence into [his] argument. history matters!”
FOIA Citizen’s Guide Available
On 23 June 2003, the House Governmental Reform Committee published an updated version of “A Citizen’s Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to request Government Records.” This new version is the 11th revised release of the guide.
