16 software to achieve compatibility with the computer programs used by USMA and the CERL. Other expenses included travel and a variety of other related expenses for completion of the HRMP. Question. The Council is using 2 full time equivalents on the West Point project but has stated that with 2 historic preservation specialists it could reduce its estimated backlog by half. How then can the Council justify the use of 2 full time equivalents on the West Point project? Answer. As noted during our hearing, in order to reduce caseload over the long run we must invest staff resources in program improvement work, even though this creates short-term stress in our regular work. In the case of the USMA HRMP, the Army was willing to bear the financial burden of developing what we hope will be a model that can be used not only by the Army but quite possibly by other agencies, States, Indian tribes, and local governments, provided we would supply the staff resources. The Army's funding made it possible for us to engage additional staff and improve our information management system capability to partly make up for the 2 full-time equivalents devoted to the project. Had we known at the time we agreed to conduct the project that our Section 106 caseload would increase as dramatically as it has, we might well have made a different decision, but we continue to believe that the USMA project will result in significant gains for historic preservation in a wide range of contexts. It should be noted that aspects of the approach are already being adapted by the National Park Service to the conduct of a major Congressionally mandated historic property inventory project in Micronesia, and a number of other agencies have expressed interest in exploring its applications. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1989. WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS WITNESSES CHARLES BLITZER, DIRECTOR SAMUEL F. WELLS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR JON E. YELLIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR INTRODUCTION Mr. YATES. Now we have the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Good morning, Mr. Blitzer. We have before us our good old friend, Charles Blitzer, and he is coming here today to speak on behalf of the appropriations for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Budget for Fiscal Year 1990. He is accompanied by Samuel Wells, the Deputy Director, and Jon Yellin, the Associate Director. Dr. Blitzer's statement and biography may be included in the record at this time. [The prepared statement and biography of Mr. Blitzer follow:] (47) STATEMENT OF CHARLES BLITZER, DIRECTOR, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a privilege once again to appear before this subcommittee, this time as Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. To participate in the creation of an important institution and then, twenty years later, to return as director of that institution has been for me a gratifying and fascinating experience. I deeply appreciate the confidence the Woodrow Wilson Center's Board has reposed in me, and I shall do everything in my power to be worthy of that confidence. I particularly would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Regula and the members of the Subcommittee for your generous and valued support over the years. For FY 1990, we are requesting a total amount of $4,700,000, a net increase of $160,000 over the FY 1989 appropriations. This consists of a proposed increase of $460,000 in the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, offset by a decrease of $300,000 in the Endowment Challenge Appropriation for which we are not seeking additional monies in FY 1990. Our FY 1990 request does not reflect any new initiatives; the additional amount we are proposing falls within the area of public responsibility to support the core activates of the nation's official living memorial to Woodrow Wilson. Of the proposed increase of $460,000 in the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, $212,000 is essential for leased space to house our existing activities; $198,000 is critically needed to enable fellowship stipends that we are able to offer to keep pace with current academic salaries and alternative fellowships offered elsewhere; and $50,000 is needed to cover the cost of mandatory pay increases, excluding the FY 1990 pay raise which is not incorporated into our request. Reexamination of Organization and Structure The combination of the 20th anniversary of the legislation that founded the Center and the arrival of a new director has, almost inevitably, led to a reexamination of the Center's organization and programs. Although I believe, and our Board believes, that the Center has been remarkably successful in carrying out its original congressional mandate--to symbolize and strengthen relations between the world of learning and the world of public affairs--we also believe that the health of any institution requires that it look periodically at what it is doing and how it is doing it. For the past seven months, with the help of our Board and my colleagues and outside advisors, I have spent much of my time taking such a look at the Woodrow Wilson Center. As a result, we have made a number of changes. Briefly, these are: --the top administration of the Center has been reorganized and one senior position has been eliminated; --the Center's fellowship program has been altered to lengthen appointments and to emphasize the creation of a community of scholars; --the staff of The Wilson Quarterly has been markedly reduced, its production costs have been cut, its format has been changed somewhat, and it has returned once again to publication four times a year; --our Radio Dialogue program has also been reorganized to make it less dependent upon outside contractors, to increase its audience, and to make it more reflective of the work of the Center and its resident scholars; --our Development Office has been reorganized. Its director is responsible solely for development activities and she and her staff are supported entirely with the Center's non-appropriated trust funds. No matter what further changes, if any, may lie ahead there are some things about which I am already certain. The Center's unswerving commitment to the support of excellent research on important topics, its insistence that even the most current issues should be viewed in historical perspective, its emphasis on dissemination of the work it supports, its continuing efforts to bridge the gap between the world of learning and the world of public affairs, and its scrupulous non-partisanship must all be maintained. I believe that in at least some of these areas we may be able to find more effective ways of achieving our objectives, and I intend to devote much of my time in the months ahead to exploring--with the help of our Board and my colleagues-a broad range of such possibilities. Fellowship Process One variation on current practice that we have begun to make relates to the fellowship selection process. In part to examine the reasons for the decline in fellowship applications in recent years--a decline in overall numbers and especially in applications from senior scholars and non-academics--and in part to review the overall fellowship process, the Board established an ad hoc committee last summer. The final report officially adopted by the Board on October 4, 1988 based on the ad hoc committee's work strongly recommended an increase in stipend levels. Following through on that recommendation, we are requesting an increase of $198,000 for fellowship stipends in this budget. The proposed increase is based on analyses of current academic salaries and surveys of stipends offered at other institutions. These have shown that the stipend amount that the Woodrow Wilson Center is able to offer has become increasingly noncompetitive. Combined with the reality of a declining number of fellowship applications, we have concluded that the 1983 formula that tied fellowship stipends to the GS-13, step 1 level is beginning to impede our goal of attracting the best scholars and non-academics. The solution that we propose in this budget request will also permit more flexibility in the awarding of fellowship stipends. We would do this by increasing the maximum for 34 of the 35 fellowship years funded by Congress to $50,000, with an anticipated average of approximately $44,265. For one fellowship year, we request approval to key the stipend to the GS-18, step 1 level on the model of the congressionally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace. If we were to receive this money, the Board of Trustees would seek to identify a distinguished 2 |