ARTS PLEA: NO NEW CUTS IN FUNDING

Two members of the executive board of the Congressional Arts Caucus have urged a House subcommittee not to let the nation’s budget crisis do any further damage to the work of the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services.

Or, as Rep. Theodore Weiss (D-N.Y.) pleaded before the House Appropriations interior subcommittee on Thursday, it should “weigh the true value of the arts and treat these programs fairly.”

“True, our (the nation’s) budget is out of balance,” Weiss said. “But clearly it is not the fault of spending for the arts or any other domestic program. . . . With proposed outlays for cultural programs totaling .05% of the total federal budget, how much savings through cuts to these programs can Mr. Reagan possibly hope to achieve?”

On the Museum Services budget, which the Reagan Administration wants to demolish, “leaving just enough to close down shop,” the Manhattan congressman added: “To annually subject the museum community to a life-or-death fight for survival is both cruel and unnecessary.”

Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio), in testimony submitted for the record, called it “most unfortunate that President Reagan, a former Screen Actors Guild president and actor, fails to place a high value on culture in this country. . . . If we can spend billions on the instruments of destruction, can’t we afford to spend millions on the instruments of creation and beauty--on the things that strengthen our vision and national character?”

Under the constraints of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget-balancing law, neither Weiss nor Oakar appears to expect significant increases. “I’d really like them (the subcommittee), at the very least, to keep things even (for the endowments),” Weiss said after his testimony. By “even,” he meant the budget numbers for the current fiscal year before the mandatory 4.3% cuts for most domestic programs imposed in March under Gramm-Rudman. “I don’t know that they could withstand the 4.3% cut,” he said.

“I have always thought they (the endowment budgets) were too low to begin with,” Oakar noted. “But Gramm-Rudman says 4.3% and I’m afraid that’s it. I don’t like even to say a 4.3% cut. And for IMS, which gives smaller museums an opportunity to survive, the $21 million is piddling to begin with. And the Administration wants to gut it.”

Under the President’s budget for fiscal 1987 beginning Oct. 1, the National Endowment for the Arts would be reduced by 12.5% from the original fiscal 1986 figures, from $165.7 million to $144.9 million; the National Endowment for the Humanities would suffer nearly a 10% cut, $138.6 million to $126.4 million, and the Institute for Museum Services would be cut 98%, from $21.4 million to $330,000. The percentage spread reflects the situation before the mandatory Gramm-Rudman cuts.

Currently NEA receives $158.5 million, NEH $132.7 million and Museum Services $20.5 million.

In her testimony, the Cleveland congresswoman noted that she hoped “my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will continue to show good judgment in rejecting” arts and humanities budget cuts “as a shallow panacea. . . . We cannot afford to make cuts in programs that are quality-of-life issues.” She suggested that a majority of Americans “supports increased funding for the arts and humanities.”

“In spite of the efforts of cultural organizations to take on a larger part of the financial burden,” Weiss said, “their efforts are continually being undermined. The Administration’s persistent efforts to eliminate postal subsidies for nonprofit organizations have resulted in a 45% increase in mailing costs since Jan. 1. . . .

“Spiraling real estate costs,” Weiss continued, “are squeezing artists out of necessary rehearsal and performance space. Insurance costs have become prohibitive. Corporate mergers are eliminating corporate arts programs, and proposed changes in the tax code may limit charitable contributions.

“And with the prospect of Gramm-Rudman taking huge amounts of money from state and local governments, their funding programs will focus more acutely on the needs of the hungry, the homeless and the unemployed.”

The next key step in the budget process for the various arts agencies is likely to be the “mark-up” in mid-May of the Appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and related agencies.

That’s the day, with the full subcommittee seated around a long table at the front of the room, when subcommittee chairman Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.) will preside over recommending allocations of the lump sum set by the Appropriations Committee to the various agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Those departments and agencies include Interior, Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, Museum Services and the endowments for the arts and humanities.

Unless the members agree on certain budget numbers in advance, notes Anne Murphy, executive director of the American Arts Alliance, all the trading and the battles take place in public. “It’s a fun experience,” she said. “The room is hot and crowded, shirt-sleeves are rolled up, ties are off. It’s a poker game.”