A prominent political strategist recently urged Congressional leaders to "toss conservatives a bone" by abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). What's most disturbing about this advice is that this important agency is now being targeted for elimination, not to help balance the budget or to create new jobs, but because it fits a certain political agenda.

       That's unfortunate for average citizens in Minnesota and across the country whose access to the arts has already been diminished by two years of deep NEA cuts. These cuts have forced ticket prices up, shortened museum hours, and cut back or eliminated rural arts programs. If the agency is eliminated, both rural and urban communities will be the losers, and the arts could become the sole province of the affluent.

       I'm no expert on the arts, but I do know that they have made important cultural, educational and historical contributions to societies throughout history. The arts inspire us, challenge us, and sometimes make us uncomfortable. But their value cannot -- and should not -- be measured simply in dollars.

       For 32 years, the NEA has been one of the most important supporters of artistic excellence and diversity in the United States, and it has greatly broadened public exposure to a diverse range of artistic endeavors. Alfred Uhry, who wrote "Driving Miss Daisy" said his work never would have been published "if not for the support of the National Endowment for the Arts."

        The NEA's fate will soon be decided when House and Senate negotiators meet to resolve large differences over the agency's 1998 funding. The House voted to eliminate the NEA, while the Senate approved a slight increase to $100 million last week only after determined efforts to weaken or eliminate it were turned back. Even under the best case scenario, NEA funding will be dramatically less than the $163 million it received just two years ago.

Cuts Would Hurt Minnesota's Vibrant Arts Community

       In Minnesota, the vitality of the arts has already been severely crippled by NEA cuts. In 1997, the state's share of NEA funding was reduced to $2.6 million -- 45 percent less than it received in 1995. I recently met with about 75 members of the Minnesota arts community who told me how important the NEA has been to their organizations.

       Both big and small Minnesota organizations have been hard hit. The St. Paul Orchestra has had its federal support almost cut in half since 1995, hurting its outreach efforts. And Forecast, a Twin Cities organization that stages public arts events, must now decide if it can continue to publish its "Public Art Review," which goes to readers nationwide.

        Beyond the Twin Cities, the situation is even worse. Not a single artist or organization in rural Minnesota got funding this year. St. Francis Music Center in Little Falls lost all its special programs, including performing arts programs and its artist-in-residence program. It also had to double tuition at its summer piano camp, putting the price beyond the reach of many local residents and forcing the center to rely much more heavily upon students from the twin cities.

     Unfortunately, the most common arguments against the NEA are often based on misconceptions. Some have said there is no legitimate role for the federal government in the arts. Others have objected to the NEA's cost and its support of controversial projects. Still others have called it an elitist agency, whose support will be readily replaced by private funding. But a closer look at the NEA's work belies these criticisms.

      All great nations have supported the arts. The NEA currently costs each American 38 cents per year. Compared to the $32 per capita support for the arts in France and Canada, this is a modest investment. More than 1.7 million Americans are employed in the arts, and these jobs create $37 billion in economic activity and return $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal treasury. In Minnesota, the arts provide thousands of jobs and boosts the state's economy by an estimated $1 billion.

       Besides supporting orchestras, operas, dance companies and arts agencies in small towns and cities, NEA funds children's festivals, at-risk youth projects, artists in the schools, literacy programs, and concerts in the park. This ensures that the arts are not solely available to the wealthy in urban centers.

        Since its inception, the NEA has awarded more than 110,000 grants to artists and organizations in every state. While controversial grants have commanded lots of media attention, there have been only a handful in the agency's history.

        NEA grant recipients are required to come up with at least a dollar-for-dollar match from other sources, such as state and local agencies, corporations, foundations, and individuals. These grants lend prestige to an artist or organization which can leverage other funding. Taking away the NEA's seed money, and its "seal of approval" will only further limit Americans' access to the arts. With private support for the arts declining, it is doubtful that the loss of NEA funding can be easily replaced with private donations.

        As Congress decides the NEA's fate, I will fight for its future by stressing to my colleagues its value to both our culture and our society.