House Republicans Seek New Image for NEA : Arts: New proposal urges the endowment chief to act as a national arbiter of obscenity. Meanwhile, Sen. Pete Wilson breaks his silence on the arts controversy.

House Republicans, trying to fashion National Endowment for the Arts legislation that will have broad GOP appeal, unveiled a revised plan Wednesday that would require the endowment to “assure” Congress it will not support art that is obscene or offensive on religious, racial or ethnic grounds.

The Republican plan would also position the chairman of the NEA as a national arbiter of obscenity--but at the same time impose on the endowment’s top official the requirement that such decisions be made on the basis of local obscenity standards from any community in the country where potentially controversial NEA-funded art may appear.

In the Senate, meanwhile, Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.)--breaking a long public silence on the arts endowment controversy--said through an aide that prospects for legal controls over the content of federally funded art are so certain to be enacted that commenting on proposals to spare the NEA such regulation would not “relate to reality.”

The views of Wilson--who has avoided public discussion of the NEA controversy as he campaigns for governor in California--were discussed by Ira Goldman, a Wilson assistant who said he spoke for the senator on the issue, and that Wilson had held intense and lengthy discussions among his staff over the NEA controversy.

“(Sen. Wilson) believes very strongly that the federal government should fund the arts,” said Goldman. “He’s just as clear on the view that a decision by the government to fund certain (art) projects and not fund others is a matter of good government and not censorship.”

But Goldman said Wilson’s perception of the NEA’s practical chances of surviving without sharp content controls are so remote that they have become “hypothetical questions which are so unlikely to ever come to pass that there is no need to answer them.”

The House proposal in question is a revised version of a plan originally advanced several weeks ago by Reps. Tom Coleman (R-Mo.) and Steve Gunderson (R-Wis.) that would also radically restructure the arts endowment--altering the fundamental system of public funding of the arts in the United States.

Wednesday’s version, however, includes a variety of changes and focuses the Coleman-Gunderson plan on the sensitive issue of statutory language to control the content of NEA-funded artworks. It appeared as the clearest indication yet of the fate that may await the arts endowment--at least in the House, where a final vote on legislation to renew its legal mandate is expected before the scheduled start of Congress’ August recess two weeks from Friday.

NEA reauthorization is less far along in the Senate, where an effort has been under way for at least three weeks to fashion a bipartisan consensus that could appeal, essentially, across both parties and isolate extreme conservatives led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

Virtually every knowledgeable observer in the House and Senate has assumed for weeks that the most significant question about the legislative reauthorization of the arts endowment is not whether, but how , the NEA will be restricted in terms of the subject matter of art it can fund.

In that context, the emergence of the new Coleman-Gunderson proposal was seen as another element in an increasingly complex and delicate process of building a consensus--first among Republicans and, later, with Democrats, too--for reshaping the NEA. “We have tried to structure the bill in the most logical way,” Coleman said Wednesday.

Knowledgeable sources both at the arts endowment and in Congress said the House Rules Committee has scheduled a meeting next Tuesday to make final plans for regulating floor debate over the NEA.

Tactically, the Republican effort appeared intended to unite a broad range of the party and isolate the GOP right--led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach), who has released draft wording to make illegal the federal funding of a broad range of offensive, indecent and controversial art.

Wednesday afternoon, the Coleman-Gunderson plan was under discussion among the House GOP leadership. House Republican Whip Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) scheduled a staff meeting to discuss his position on the proposal. A spokesman for Rep. Robert Michel (R-Ill.), the House minority leader, said Michel had not made a final decision on NEA strategy but “will probably support” the new Coleman-Gunderson plan.

Specifically, the new proposal:

* Requires the arts endowment to “assure” Congress it will fund only artworks that respect “the cultural heritage of the United States, its religious traditions or racial or ethnic groups and does not violate prevailing standards of obscenity.” The language is similar to wording proposed by Rep. Paul Henry (R-Mich.), but a spokesman said Henry had withheld support. “I find the language inadequate,” said Henry Wednesday, adding he would offer his own on the floor.

* Establishes a system in which the NEA chairman is prohibited from supporting obscene artworks as defined under a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called Miller vs. California. The case held that there could be no nationwide definition of obscenity and that such issues could only be decided by local communities. The Republican plan would require the chairman to make national decisions on NEA grants on the basis of his perceptions of local standards.

* Divide the NEA’s budget so states would get a total of 60% of the endowment’s money--another variant on earlier versions of the Coleman-Gunderson plan. But the new proposal eliminates a controversial requirement that would have set $50,000 as the minimum amount of an NEA grant--a restriction that would have eliminated nearly 90% of all individual endowment grants, including the entire program of NEA grants and fellowships to individual artists.