Mr. DILLON. They then say here the cost of insurance to us in these various items I have been quoting has varied between one-half of 1 percent, or up to 1 percent of the total value of the works of art. I understand that the record for earlier years is similar. This is worth emphasizing, that the loss or damage experienced in major international exhibitions involving lending museums, both in the United States and abroad, has been negligible. Museums are, after all, custodians and keepers of works of art, and the care and professionalism with which they must these responsibilities are of the highest level. We at the Metropolitan Museum have been happy to have loans of our art covered under the British idemnity, as opposed to purchasing our own insurance. I should note, too, that insurance coverage for international exhibitions constitues a relatively small part of the total coverage needed by the U.S. museums for their permanent collections and for domestic travel. The proposed bill will in no way reduce or eliminate insurance coverage needed, year-in and year-out, on the immeasurable value of the works of art held in U.S. museums. On the other hand, indemnity legislation is needed because of the prohibitively high cost of insurance incurred when a large concentration of value is removed from its normally secure surroundings and exposed to the risk of foreign travel, exhibition, and return to its customary location within a brief period of time. Despite the lack of losses, the insurance industry is simply not comfortable with the large transient values at risk and, therefore, charges compensatory high premiums. The current exchange with the Soviet Ministry of Culture under the provisions of the special indemnification bill has been a valuable learning experience for us at the Metropolitan and, I dare say, for the Department of State. It may be helpful to the committee if, in the wake of this experience, I offer a specific suggestion with reference to the draft legislation you are now considering. This proposed legislation presently provides indemnification only for foreign exhibitions which come on loan to institutions in the United States. It does not provide for art whch we send for exhibition to institutions abroad, such as the Metropolitan's current exhibition in the Soviet Union. Since, more often than not, American museums may be obliged to send exhibitions overseas on a reciprocal basis, I suggest that this legislation should include American art sent on foreign loan whenever the Department of State certifies that the contemplated exhibition is in the national interest. This procedure, of course, should not apply to both parts of any single exchange, or to art sent from us to a foreign government whose policy it is to indemnify such exhibitions. The problems of valuation in international exchanges are quite different in character from domestic exhibitions. For that reason, I endorse this legislation's provision that instead of having a U.S. Government agency estimate the valuation of objects in proposed international exhibitions, the Government should instead review the evaluations made by the lenders. Objects of art coming from abroad generally are government property-more precisely, the property of government-owned institu tions. Realistically, we must accept the value estimated by such governmental lenders or do without the loans. It is worth noting here, that in our experience with Great Britain, the British Government traditionally permits borrowing museums in England to accept our valuation on objects going to them on loan. Only if a reasonable overall dollar value of a given exhibition of foreign works of art is accepted by our Government at the outset can we avoid substantial delay, confusion, and disagreement that could easily make the proposed exhibition impossible. If the valuations set by foreign lenders on their national treasures are thought to be too high, the only practicable solution is to refuse the exhibition. Haggling over individual valuations with foreign countries is simply not a feasible alternative. Since, as a matter of historical record, catastrophes in these exchanges are extremely unlikely, the bulk of the questions concerning valuation are more often than not entirely academic. Moreover, you will note that in the present wording of the draft, section 226 (a) provides for the arbitration of the value of damaged objects after the damage has occurred. This seems to us to put the matter of valuation in a proper sequence, and it should be sufficient to protect the interests of the Government. Recently we have received substantial support from the National Endowment for the Humanities toward the costs of several international exchanges. We are deeply grateful for this support without which we could not have mounted the exhibitions. While these sums were not specifically allocated to insurance costs, it is obvious that in contributing to the overall costs of the exchanges, the National Endowment was effectively subsidizing an important share of the insurance costs involved. Should this bill become law, the two National Endowments will be able to help in bringing more and better foreign art exhibitions to our people at less cost to the taxpayers than is presently the case. I would like to conclude with a more generalized plea for increased Federal interest in and support of the Nation's cultural institutions. Even though Federal moneys appropriated for the arts and humanities have risen steadily in the last few years, they still remain far below the per capita levels made available by Canada and many European countries. While historically private sources have provided the bulk of support to leading cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum in the United States, rising costs, inflation, and reduced endowment incomes have made it clear that Federal help to the institutions which serve our artistic needs must be substantially increased. This proposed legislation to make the U.S. Government a supporting partner in important international exchanges involves no significant outlay of funds. However, it constitutes a very significant step in the right direction. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you. Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Senator MONDALE. Mr. Chairman, would the committee permit me to introduce the witness for the next panel? Unfortunately, I have to leave for another meeting. Senator PELL. Absolutely, please proceed. Senator MONDALE. I am pleased to introduce to the joint hearing today Mrs. Barbara Schissler, representing the University of Minnesota Art Gallery, who will be testifying in the next panel. She has had extensive experience in the art museums. Today she is representing not only the university, but the Committee on Institutional Cooperation of the "Big Ten." Through this organization she is currently negotiating with Russian officials to bring to the United States a special exhibit of 19th century Russian art which has never been seen in the United States. The hope is that this exhibit would travel the Big Ten galleries during 1977. It would be a major cultural event for the communities and institutions involved. An exhibit of this value must, of course, be insured against possible loss or damage. So, Mrs. Schissler is here today to explain how that proposed legislation would affect the Russian exhibit. I am pleased that she is able to be with us today, and I think her testimony will help with the legislation that is pending before our committees, and which I support. I might also add, since I have you all here, in exchange for my support for that proposal I hope I will have your support for the Bicentennial film and photography project I have proposed. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor for an instant? I must apologize to both witnesses as I must leave in order to introduce Mr. Moynihan, a nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations. He is attributable to New York. I simply want to say that I support this legislation. My earlier question concerning premium payments is answered, in my judgment, by the provision which excludes amounts up to $25,000. But I think the witnesses should confirm that because the receiving museums must pay the first $25,000, they would still undergo a very considerable danger. In conclusion, I thoroughly support this section of the bill and so will do my utmost to bring it into law. Thank you. Senator PELL. Chairman Brademas. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope Senator Javits shall communicacte my warm regards to Ambassador Moynihan. Thank you for your statement. I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Dillon. The context within which your statement is--perhaps understandably in view of your own identification with the Metropolitan Museumlargely focused on the question of exhibitions of art, and I would simply put out to you the rhetorical question that I am sure you are aware, Mr. Dillon. Under the proposed bill indemnification is made possible, not only with respect to works of art, but with respect to manuscripts, documents, motion pictures, other artifacts or objects. I take it that you are sympathetic to that kind of comprehensive cov erage. Mr. DILLON. Most certainly. My statement was directed toward the works of art because that is where my experience lies. Representative BRADEMAS. I note also that you propose, in your prepared statement, that the legislation should include American art sent on foreign loan whenever the Department of State certifies that the contemplated exhibition is in the national interest. Do I judge from your response to my first question that you would have in mind that the legislation should include not only American art, but the other artifacts that are covered? Mr. DILLON. Most certainly. Most certainly. Representative BRADEMAS. And from your testimony, Mr. Dillon, I judge that that is really the only amendment that you propose to the bill? Mr. DILLON. That is correct, and it is because of our specific experience with exchanges. The big exchange with the Soviet Union where we did have such a bill specifically passed by the Congress was made possible under this legislation. I do not think that that exchange would have been possible otherwise. Representative BRADEMAS. I note, finally, that in your statement you state that the proposed legislation to make the U.S. Government a supporting partner in important national exchanges involves no significant outlay of funds. I think that is rather important, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to insert following my colloquy with Mr. Dillon a letter I have just received from Dr. Franklin D. Murphy, chairman of the board of the Times Mirror Co. of California, in which he endorses this bill strongly, and states: I hope it will be emphasized and reemphasized that this is one of those happy bills that solves a major problem in the public interest, and probably will not cost anybody anything. [The letter referred to follows:] DR. FRANKLIN D. MURPHY Chairman of the Board TIMES MIRROR May 29, 1975 TIMES MIRROR SQUARE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053 (213) 486-3838 The Honorable John Brademas House of Representatives 2134 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear John: I got a call last week from your Administrative Assistant, asking Those of us in the art museum world are deeply in your debt for your willingness to sponsor this bill. I hope it will be emphasized and re-emphasized that this is one of those happy bills that solves a major problem in the public interest and probably will not cost anybody anything! With kind personal regards. FDM:ib Sincerely, troull |