The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in New York.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in Denver. Tonight Colorado artists join the debate in Congress over cutting federal funding for the hearts. Then Elizabeth Brackett reports on colleges seeking student acceptance, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers seeing the homeless. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The stock market set a new record today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose above the 4000 mark for the first time in history. At the end of today's session, it was up more than 30 points. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan talked again today about interest rates. Yesterday he predicted a slowing economy. Many analysts took that to mean the Fed would not raise rates again or could even lower them. Today he was asked what the Fed would do if proposed budget cuts hurt the economy. He spoke before a House Committee.

ALAN GREENSPAN, Chairman, Federal Reserve: It may -- and I use the word "may" -- have a short-term effect, and if that occurs, and that affects the markets, affects the economy, it affects the things that the Federal Reserve looks at in order to formulate policy, we obviously will respond to that. But what we will not be responding to is the mere fact of the budget deficit reduction. It's only if through its workings in the marketplace has a far more deflationary effect than I personally think is likely to happen.

MR. LEHRER: House Republican budget cutting efforts were in full swing today. Committees voted to reduce law enforcement programs and high technology grants, to reject an administration request for more U.N. peacekeeping funds, and to eliminate a new federal buildings proposal. The biggest vote was to replace the federal school lunch program with state block grants. They voted down a Democratic effort to kill the idea. House Speaker Gingrich talked about it on Capitol Hill.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: The question is very simple. Can you by eliminating the layer of federal bureaucracy deliver food to the children and lower cost to the taxpayer? Now, the governors all say they think they can do it. And we think the governors can do it. So the argument, essentially, is not over whether or not you should have a school lunch program. It's whether you trust the states to have a school lunch program, or you think the only agency worthy of trust in America is Washington, D.C.

MR. LEHRER: House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt had a different assessment.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: I think many governors [a] they're worried about these programs being cut and then being given the responsibility. The Republicans say they're against unfunded mandates. This could be the mother of all unfunded mandates. We're going to give them less money, and they're going to have to set up a state bureaucracy to run these programs. Does it make any sense to have 50 new state bureaucracies to run the school lunch program? This is a program that runs pretty well.

MR. LEHRER: Former Congressman Donald "Buzz" Lukens was indicted today on bribery charges. The Ohio Republican was charged with accepting money from two businessmen who wanted help for their trade school. Lukens resigned from Congress in 1990, after being convicted on charges of sexual misconduct. President Clinton flew to Canada today for a state visit. In his arrival remarks, he said the U.S.-Canada relationship was based on shared aspirations and a real respect for differences. He addressed the Canadian Parliament this afternoon.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: For a 1/2 century, the United States has shared your philosophy of action and consistent exercise of leadership abroad. And I am determined, notwithstanding all the cross-currents in our country, that we shall preserve that commitment. These times may be turbulent, but we have an historic opportunity to increase security and prosperity for our own people and for people all around the world. And I want you to know that I intend to do everything in my power to keep our country constructively involved in the problems that we must face if we're going to guarantee that our children will live in a peaceful, sane, and free world.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Clinton is in Canada for two days of meetings with Prime Minister Chretien and other Canadian officials. The big three Haiti negotiators are returning to the scene of their big deal. Former President Jimmy Carter went to Haiti today. Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, and retired Gen. Colin Powell come tomorrow. They negotiated President Aristide's return from exile last fall. This trip is to assess Aristide's progress in returning democracy to Haiti. British author and veterinarian James Herriot died today of prostate cancer. He is best known for his book All Creatures Great and Small, which became a popular television series. He was 78 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to arts funding, competing for college students, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - CREATIVE DIFFERENCES

MR. LEHRER: Now, we continue our midway assessment of the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. Funding for the arts is the subject tonight, most specifically funding by the National Endowment for the Arts. We begin with excerpts from a Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee hearing today. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Not even an expert witness like Superman in the person of actor Christopher Reeve could dampen the skepticism of Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington, who questioned whether funding of the arts should be a federal priority.

SEN. SLADE GORTON, [R] Washington: Can you tell me why and how it is that the arts differ in their responsibility for federal money, from money appropriated for research into cancer or AIDS or the support of a passenger railroad system, or for that matter our national defense?

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, Actor: Because the arts are a much more intangible product, that if you'd talk about a railroad, you know pretty much what you're going to get or not get. If you talk about cancer research, you have a specific objective. When you give an artist money to go create, you do not have the expectation or the right to expect certain results. And it is a -- it is a statement of trust that the money represents. But I also think that the system, whether it's a commission or whether it's an endowment, must have a very strict mandate of accountability to the highest standards. There needs -- as I said, we're living in a very formless time, and sometimes in encouraging new forms, there seems to be a gray border area in many people's minds between what is cutting edge and what is lunatic fringe. And this is something that causes discomfort to a lot of people. Now, we have seen repeatedly --

SEN. SLADE GORTON: Excuse me. Who is going to set those standards? Will we set those standards in an authorization bill?

CHRISTOPHER REEVE: I think -- I think that the chairman and the - - the endowment, itself, must work with a definition of art in terms of public use -- in other words, that a recipient for a grant has to be able to demonstrate how his work serves the public interest.

MR. HOLMAN: Reeve's endorsement of the way the NEA currently funds projects was countered by the director of the Wisconsin Arts Board.

DEAN AMHAUS, Executive Director, Wisconsin Arts Board: The notion is to move the money -- at least a good portion of the money -- to the states and then again to the local arts agencies. Let the people, the citizens out in the states and in these local communities determine the future of their communities and their arts, empower these local communities. We have seen in evidence that across the entire country. If we were to receive more funds -- and I'm certainly simply speaking from the Wisconsin Arts Board's standpoint -- then we would provide more larger grants to those institutions that are already receiving support from the NEA. We would also increase support to the organizations who are not receiving the support to the NEA, and we would expand out into other areas of the state.

MR. LEHRER: Again, we go to Colorado for our look at how the debate appears and feels outside Washington. Robert MacNeil is in Denver tonight, as he has been all week. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Tonight we're in the home of the Eulipions Theatre Company, an organization that receives ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year from the NEA. It's in the five points area of Denver, a neighborhood that doesn't boast many other artistic institutions. The theater, itself, is right on the city's new light rail line. Heavily gated and padlocked, it shares a building with a drive-in liquor store. This is only one of many beneficiaries of NEA funding in Colorado. Betty Ann Bowser describes some of the others.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Cloe Parker Robinson Dance Ensemble of Denver has performed all over the world. Its founder is an internationally recognized teacher, and she says her company's been able to develop that reputation for excellence because the federal government has supported her projects for 25 years.

CLEO PARKER ROBINSON, Dance Company Founder: If I had not had dollars from the NEA, I don't know. I may not even have an organization, because they helped us understand the value of what we were doing. We are a product of the National Endowment for the Arts, and we're a million dollar organization, and we came from nothing. And we got support from the National Endowment, and that was a ripple effect.

MS. BOWSER: In Colorado today, the ensemble is considered a cultural icon that continues to receive annual support from the National Endowment for the Arts, this year in the amount of $50,000. Although arts organizations in the state complain that the East and West Coast get more NEA funding than does the Midwest, the state did receive $1.3 million last year to support the arts, including museums, theater groups, folklorists, and individual artists. The Denver Art Museum used part of its money to fund art stops, where schoolchildren get the chance to experience different cultures. But the museum's Sheila Bisenius says money is not all the NEA gives them.

SHEILA BISENIUS, Denver Art Museum: All NEA is matched money, and that's a wonderful lever to go out and raise some new money. It's also given us kind of a seal of approval. If, if the Denver Art Museum gets even a $100,000 NEA challenge grant, that says to everybody, we're okay, we're doing the right things, and so it's very important for that reason.

MS. BOWSER: Fran Holden of the Colorado Council on Art, which administers over half of the NEA funding, says the NEA also is crucial in financing the arts in rural parts of the state.

FRAN HOLDEN, Colorado Council on the Arts: It's gotten communities the resources that often are not available to them, especially in rural areas, such as the small communities we have here in Colorado. We do not have a strong philanthropic base in the state of Colorado. Those dollars, those state and federal dollars, have just made all the difference in the world.

MS. BOWSER: Holden is particularly proud of one project NEA money has brought to the San Louis Valley in Southern Colorado, a poor, largely unpopulated area of the state with few cultural facilities. Through the council's master apprentice program, former construction worker Geronimo Alevis received money to learn how to carve in an almost extinct style, a style that flourished in this part of the country 400 years ago. Now, four years later, he is the master and is passing the tradition on to a new NEA apprentice. He and the apprentice each receive $1,000. Arts organizations in Denver are not as dependent on NEA funding as rural artists. That's because the six-county metro area has a culture tax. One penny of every ten dollars in sales tax revenues goes to support the arts. It was passed in the 1980s, when economic hard times forced the city to cut funding for major attractions. Cultural leaders began to question whether they could ever look to government again to support the arts. So they went to the public, instead, and voters overwhelmingly approved the tax. Since 1988, the culture tax has raised more than $90 million for institutions and organizations. Because of the tax, the Denver Zoo was able to build a major new exhibit replicating a tropical rain forest. Increased revenue has translated into free days at the zoo, the art museum, and the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. Since the culture tax passed, attendance has gone up. In fact, when a Colorado polling organization asked, three out of four people in the six-county area said they went to a museum or the zoo in the last year. 56 percent said they attended a live performance. One reason for the tax's popularity, says Bisenius, is that citizens determine which groups get the money, unlike the NEA, whose money is allocated by peer review by other artists.

SHEILA BISENIUS: The old axiom about, I don't know much about art but I know what I like is, is not right, but I think if you're using citizen review, you at least have a sense that the product that you're funding will be used, will be cared for, will be enjoyed.

MS. BOWSER: Do you think this is a batter way to do business, to have citizen review instead of peer review?

SHEILA BISENIUS: I don't know if it's better. Would a citizens' panel have commissioned the Sistine Chapel? You know, I don't know. but I think if you believe that civilization should give a little bit of money to something it considers important, this may be a way which would be less conflict-ridden.

MS. BOWSER: Although the culture tax is welcomed by area museums and other cultural institutions as a stable source of funding, leaders do not see it as a replacement for the NEA. It does not fund individual artists, and its chance of passage in poor and rural areas is slight. But consultant Floyd Ciruli says his polling shows that the public thinks the culture tax is working.

FLOYD CIRULI, Pollster: I think it is probably the wave of the future. It is clear that because of the negative environment in Washington right now, with interest groups from the right and the left battling to the death over how we interpret Hiroshima, much less how we hand out any money, with the budget crisis that makes funding the arts look somewhat frivolous, that the future of significant funding from Washington is dubious at best, and I think this is a model which you're going to see more and more areas taking a look at.

MS. BOWSER: Even with the anti-tax atmosphere here in Colorado, voters recently approved an extension of the culture tax until 2006. Still, beneficiaries of both the tax and NEA money, like Parker Robinson, say having the culture tax alone would send the wrong message from Washington.

CLEO PARKER ROBINSON: I don't think that it should be done without federal money because they are our leaders. That's the leadership of our country is the federal government, and the values are set at the top. And then your state and your local and your community get their leadership from the top.

MR. MAC NEIL: With me at the Eulipions Theatre in Denver is Jo Bunton Keel, the theater's founder. She's serviced on several NEA grant committees and is currently a member of the Foundation for the Denver Performing Arts Complex, and Hollis Williford, a sculptor and painter who's made his living creating western art for more than 20 years. In Washington, we're joined by Congressman Philip Crane, Republican from Illinois, and by Sen. Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut. Sen. Dodd is a member of the subcommittee that heard testimony on the National Endowment for the Arts this morning. Congressman Crane, you just heard that director of the dance company in Denver, Ms. Parker Robinson, say that she thinks leadership in the arts should come from Washington. Why do you want to kill Washington's role in arts funding?

REP. PHILIP CRANE, [R] Illinois: There are several reasons. The first is this issue came up at the Philadelphia Convention in 1788, and Charles Pinckney from South Carolina introduced a proposal to fund literature, arts, and humanities. That was overwhelmingly rejected by our founding fathers when they crafted our Constitution. So my first argument is it's unconstitutional. And we observed that faithfully until the Depression, when unemployed artists were given grants, welfare grants, to sit in the attics and paint. But after the war, we went back to our constitutional guideline until 1965, at the time of guns and butter. The second point, though, is that you inevitably are going to have censorship, and it's censorship of two kinds. Now, on the one hand, you have censorship with congressional intervention because of the overwhelming public distaste over some of the grants that have been made in the past, but, inevitably, you get censorship through the bureaucratic infrastructure of the NEA, itself. Keep in mind that of the applications made, only one out of four is granted. And so you've injured the careers of 75 percent of those people who've applied for moneys or grants from the NEA. And there is also evidence of a "good old boy" network. The fact of the matter is the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Arizona, Connecticut thrown in there too, get less money from the NEA than does Washington, D.C., with a population of 570,000 people. This town has less people than my congressional district, and yet, it gets twice the moneys that the whole state of Illinois gets. And so there is this evidence of a good old boy network. There are other objections too, though, and the final one I'd leave you with momentarily is the fact that -- answer this for me, if you will -- if you put a crucifix in an empty bottle and finance that with taxpayer money, it would be violating the separation of church and state. When Serano urinated on it, it's suddenly defined as art and warrants the use of involuntarily- raised taxpayer dollars to finance that. And keep in mind too that while last year's budget for the NEA was $170 million, the private sector anteed up $9.3 billion to fund the arts in this country.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, taking some of those arguments over to Sen. Dodd, why, listening to all that, Senator, do you want to keep federal funding for the arts?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: Well, first of all, it does a great deal for a country. Someone once said that politicians may motivate us and military leaders may lead us, but it's the artists who are remembered from generation to generation. They have the finest. It's the signature of a time throughout history. And, in fact, going back historically when you consider the construction of the very building that Phil Crane and I are in, a decision to accept Thomas Jefferson's Library in 1815, there has been a longstanding commitment in this country to support the arts. And the fact that the founding fathers, the framers, debated whether or not it ought to be in the appropriations process, seems to me is not borne out by the consistent support over the years. Arts is also good economics. It costs $176 million. It's a tiny fraction of the federal budget, and, yet, we leverage $11 for every $1 that is submitted by the federal government to the NEA. We have seen right here just for 1994 our literally thousands of grants that go to all 50 states, including my friend Phil Crane's district in Illinois, this has increased tremendous access for people in the arts. It's up 45 percent since the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts. We have seen orchestras, the numbers since 1965 quadruple in the United States. We've watched dance groups go from some forty to four hundred and twenty. We've watched an explosion of arts council from fifty, I think, in 1965 to some two thousand in the United States. In fact, there are more people today who go to arts performances than attend all of our sporting events in this country. We have reached millions of people. It enlightens. It provides a vision and hope for people. It's a wonderful -- and all the things we spend money on -- we have spent money over the last 30 years in this effort. A hundred thousand grants have gone out across the United States. Thirty of them have been controversial. Thirty grants out of a hundred thousand in thirty years -- I think that's a pretty good track record. It's leveraged an awful lot in this nation.

MR. MAC NEIL: We can elaborate on some of these points in a moment. I'd just like to come back to our people in Denver here. Ms. Keel, your theater receives NEA money. How do you use that money, and what would happen if it were cut off?

JO BUNTON KEEL, Theatrical Producer: Well, we have a number of programs. And first of all, for our theater production, and that's how we use our NEA grants, we specialize, and we have a very narrow niche in terms of doing theater productions and African and African-American culture and lifestyles. We also have a youth institute. But how we use our moneys to support our theater productions, again, what this does for our community is one, we turn it over, we keep it circulating here, we, all of our costumes are cleaned by local cleaners. So the dollar that's invested here, not only in terms of enlightenment, in terms of bringing people into five points, it also enables us then to support our community in terms of financial support.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, you've got a lot of recognition as a result of the NEA funding or as a result of your artistic endeavors. What would happen if the NEA funding were cut off now?

JO BUNTON KEEL: Well, certainly, it would be very difficult for us to replace that, and it sounds strange, but for that $15,000, I think Ms. Bisenius had mentioned it helps us to leverage other grant dollars. It's a match for us. It also gives us a stamp of artistic quality, of approval, and that's very important for artists and arts organizations. It also means that for our youth programs that they will be severely impacted for that, because it enables us then to, to allow our youth to come in at $2 or no dollars or 50 cents or a quarter. Tomorrow we have -- Friday -- we will have a matinee for school groups. They cannot afford our regular price. So that helps us then to match those.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Williford, you're a Denver artist. What do you think of Ms. Keel's arguments?

HOLLIS WILLIFORD, Sculptor: I have no arguments with it whatsoever. In fact, I should probably preface my commentary and say that it's directed toward the NEA. Where she's speaking of performing arts, and I'd like to omit myself from the broadcasting money and the performing arts. My commentary is toward the visual arts. It's true that the money or the concept born of the JFK administration, a Camelot ideal, if you will, was an excellent concept and a idea. What I'm against as a professional artist is what the NEA has become, the visual arts part of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: What has it become?

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: Well, it's become a grant seeker or grant chaser subcult of the arts. There are people who make their living applying for grants for the artists, grant chaser grant chasers. And it has nothing to do with the level of excellence that professional arts should represent. 95 percent of the time is spent in pursuing grants as opposed to the level of excellence in the arts. And this is what makes the professionals consider the NEA a joke or an insult to their integrity.

MR. MAC NEIL: Professionals consider it a joke and an insult?

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: Those who make their living, always have, without any help.

JO BUNTON KEEL: I disagree with that. I mean, I actually, I take umbrage at that, because --

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: This is visual arts, not performing arts.

JO BUNTON KEEL: Well, you know, because people will transfer it to performing arts, and I think that in terms of all the arts, media arts, literary arts, visual arts, performing arts, certainly there are those artists who have received some public support who are of high quality, high caliber artists, and I don't think that they spend their time chasing grants because most the grants are such a small, insignificant part of their livelihood. We could not exist on taxpayers' money; we really cannot. I don't know too many visual artists who can make a livelihood on their grants.

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: You're taking this as a personal attack, and it's not.

MR. MAC NEIL: I'm sorry. Just say --

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: Well, she's taking this as a personal attack toward the performing arts. I'm only aware of the vile and profane that the public is so much aware of and so much is published about by the media, and this is an embarrassment to professional artists nationwide.

MR. MAC NEIL: I'd like to go back to Washington with a point you made earlier, Ms. Keel, and go to Congressman Crane. The point is often raised, as Ms. Keel did, that without the imprimatur of the NEA, local artists won't be able to pick up local support. You heard an earlier speaker in that taped piece saying, "It says to local artists we're okay."

REP. CRANE: Well, I think that's absolutely correct. Whoever they put their imprimatur on is a beneficiary because that attracts attention from other sources, people from the private sector who are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for funding the arts. But I made a reference earlier to the bureaucratic structure within the NEA. I don't know how many of you saw the article that Jack Kilpatrick wrote about three years ago, NEA reviewing applications for dance groups. And they had members of dance groups sitting on the judgment panels. Panel A did not award itself any grants but Panel B awarded grants to Panel A, Panel C did it to Panel B, and Panel B did to Panel C. Jack Kilpatrick got that through the Freedom of Information Act. And my point is, there's obviously a good old boy network there. When you consider, as I mentioned earlier, how tiny Washington, D.C. is, you think Washington, D.C. has a monopoly of the artists in this country? Not in the slightest. But they are the third largest beneficiary.

MR. MAC NEIL: Excuse me interrupting. Let me put that back to Ms. Keel. You've served on these committees that make grants. What do you say to what the Congressman says, --

JO BUNTON KEEL: Well, first of all --

MR. MAC NEIL: -- that it's an old boy network.

JO BUNTON KEEL: Well, I'm not an old boy.

MR. MAC NEIL: I stroke your back, and you stroke mine.

JO BUNTON KEEL: No. I think, first of all, people should realize that artists are citizens. I consider myself a citizen. I think I'm very responsible. I think that when I look at an organization and we talk about the not only quality, we talk about how they interact with the community in which they serve, and also their track record. There is an avenue for new groups to come on board. There is an avenue for what is -- what are considered established organizations to be sustained but also to lose some of their support.

MR. MAC NEIL: For instance, the Metropolitan Opera --

JO BUNTON KEEL: Right.

MR. MAC NEIL: -- gets a big grant. That's not exactly a new group.

JO BUNTON KEEL: No, it is not. And part of that is that some of these organizations, especially institutions, have been considered a cultural asset to the entire nation, and what they do then certainly would be lost. We look at the Metropolitan Opera; you look at the artists that go through there, the vocalists, the musicians in terms of symphonic musicians that support them; and when we talk about how important it is to sustain culture and art, certainly the, the pieces that they perform, the operas that they perform are classics. Certainly the symphonic orchestras need support, but so do the myriad smaller organizations, for example, and I have to use us. We -- our African African-American theater is a way to value, to educate the community and other people who really and truthfully don't have any idea perhaps of what we're about, and I have gained from looking at Latino groups, Asian groups, Native American groups, and still the Western European groups.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me go back to Sen. Dodd. Sen. Dodd, how do you respond to the point that Congressman Crane made that what this really -- he used the word "censorship" originally, but I've also seen him say that what this makes partly through the fact that NEA money is matched elevenfold by private money, it makes the NEA the biggest art critic in the country and, therefore, the federal government the leading art critic in the country.

SEN. DODD: Well, let me also comment on the notion that somehow this is all a Washington-based old boys network. Obviously, Washington, New York, Chicago are major urban areas where a tremendous amount of the arts groups are centered. Let me just finish. It doesn't mean that that's all the activity is. For instance, Theater Works USA is based in New York; the grants would go there. But that organization conducted some 24 performances in Phil Crane's district over three seasons, which may not show up as having received grants, despite the fact that the people of his congressional district were the beneficiaries of an organization based in New York. So I -- I want to destroy that myth that this is somehow just a Washington or New York or Los Angeles-based operation. Obviously -- and this is where you get into some of the controversy on the panels that decide who receives what grants. What we've done over the years, under the leadership now, particularly of Chairperson Alexander, Jane Alexander, is we have citizens on these panels. They are trying to make intelligent and good decisions about who receives them. I mentioned awhile ago that when you consider the universe of complaints being 30, that was the number, 30 complaints of 100,000 grants, I think that's a remarkable record. There is, I suppose, a criticism that we don't fund all of the kinds of cutting edge, press the envelope, use whatever words you want to describe, kind of arts efforts that come before it. It doesn't mean that those people cannot find other avenues to receive financial support for their expression. But the fact that we've got some here that enjoy broad-based public support, increase access, leverage private dollars, assist the economy, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. $167 million is not insignificant, but I don't think it warrants quite the harangue that it's been receiving by some quarters over the years. I think it's done remarkably well for the country.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me turn this to a slightly different part of the argument. Mr. Williford, as an artist, a visual artist, yourself, some art appeals to the market place at the moment, some art has to wait a time. Van Gogh painted all his life. He never sold a painting during his life. Emily Dickinson never published a poem in her lifetime. Should there not be support now for future -- decided by peers -- for possibly future great artists who don't make it in the current marketplace?

HOLLIS WILLIFORD: Absolutely. But it should be judged on the level of excellence, and there doesn't seem to be a yardstick. It's true that money is the way the people with no talent or imagination keep score. And I won't argue that success in the marketplace is the living end of the arts. I'd be foolish if I said that, but I do think the money can be well spent and directed toward what we lack so much in America today is education at the lowest level. Any kid in Europe can walk up to you while you're painting a picture in England, and look at what you're doing, and he can tell you what you're painting with, the medium, the canvas that you're painting on, and whether you're painting an impressionistic or expressionistic painting. We're missing it in our public schools, and with the high-technology that we have and the modem connections, that government could be spent on education as opposed to self-indulgence of those professed professionals who are embarrassing the rest of the artists in America.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman Crane, what do you say to the argument that we just discussed with Mr. Williford that some artists don't make it in the current marketplace -- I mentioned Vincent Van Gogh -- and it is a good idea for the culture of the nation to support them for the possibility of future greatness?

REP. CRANE: I would argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the fact of the matter is, as I indicated at the outset, when the private sector is anteing up 9.3 billion -- billion -- dollars, in a single year, in contrast to this arts bureaucracy, and if you have -- if you trust Washington, then believe me, you ought to go back to the books. The fact of the matter is $167 million allocated by the bureaucrats within the NEA pales into insignificance, and when you cite or when Chris cited earlier the 30 offensive things that were funded, if anyone can come back at some point historically and persuade me that that is art, and we can't even get into descriptions of it on this program, as you well know, the museum in Cincinnati, as you know, tried to screen little children from even viewing it, the fact is when individuals out there in the private sector are willing to pay for it, so be it. Secondly, I would argue further that that individual who has that passionate commitment to painting -- I do -- I've painted all my life, since I was a kid -- I love to do it -- I never got paid for a picture. I gave pictures away, but the fact is who knows? Maybe 50 years from now they'll say, gee, Phil Crane was a magnificent artist.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's just give Ms. Keel a final word here.

JO BUNTON KEEL: However, you're talking about expression, and you're talking about taxpayers' money going toward expression. And our Congresspersons for twenty-four -- you know -- hours, seven days a week are paid by taxpayers for their expressions and for their opinions, and some of those expressions and opinions I really disagree with it, but it is absolutely your right and the rest of your colleagues' right to give them --

REP. CRANE: No. If you'll yield just a moment --

JO BUNTON KEEL: No. Let me finish.

REP. CRANE: That's a decision by our constituents.

JO BUNTON KEEL: Yes, but --

REP. CRANE: Our constituents make that.

JO BUNTON KEEL: But it is certainly taxpayers' dollars.

REP. CRANE: It's voter preference.

JO BUNTON KEEL: And it is absolutely voters' and taxpayers' dollars. And so you get to say and express your opinions based upon the voters who put you in who are more than likely in all of our elections across this United States not 50 percent. So, again, with a very narrow scope of people who do go to the polls to vote, you take on the whole right philosophically to make a decision following your expression.

REP. CRANE: We get about a 75 percent vote turnout in my district.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt this. I'd love to go on, but they keep telling me I've got to end it. I thank you all for joining us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, private college problems, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - SELECTIVE STUDENTS

MR. LEHRER: This is that time, February, when many high school seniors wait anxiously to find out if they've been accepted into the college of their choice, but they are not the only ones with anxiety right now. Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW- Chicago reports.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, WTTW-Chicago: The college admissions process has always been tense, but there's a new twist. Now, many colleges are just as nervous about getting to class as students are about getting accepted.

SPOKESMAN: [talking to male student] Should you choose to apply, we'd be very happy to offer you admission to George Mason. We'd love to have you. This is as official as it can get without a letter in your hands.

MS. BRACKETT: Colleges and universities scramble to attract applicants by attending fairs such as this one for top African- American students in the Washington, D.C. area. In the last 15 years, there's been a 25 percent drop in the number of graduating high school seniors. With fewer students to go around, schools have had to be more aggressive in their marketing and more sophisticated in their use of financial aid.

2ND SPOKESMAN: About 42 percent of all students at Princeton are on financial aid, and so we want students -- basically Princeton does not want any student that gets accepted to a university to reject Princeton for financial reasons.

MS. BRACKETT: Admissions officers, particularly at private schools, are trying to attract those who are unwilling or unable to pay high tuition costs but not offer so much money as to hurt the school's bottom line. It's a buyer's market for students with good grades and high test scores. Private schools are also under pressure to increase diversity, so African-American students who meet those standards are particularly sought after.

3RD SPOKESMAN: [talking to female student] What I'd like you to do is to fill out a scholarship application and also an application for admission. If you'll do that -- if you'll fill out an application for admission, I'm empowered right now to tell you that I can award you the $3500 African-American Achievement Award today.

MS. BRACKETT: In one day, 39 institutions offered $4 1/2 million in aid here. Private institutions like DePauw University, which have seen many potential applications choose lower-priced, high quality public schools, attended in force. DePauw admissions officer Shelley Robinson completed aggressively.

SHELLEY ROBINSON: In terms of scholarship range as it pertains to the African-American Student Leadership Award, it looks like you definitely qualify for at least about $5,500.

MS. BRACKETT: The president of DePauw University, Robert Bottoms, thought the college fair was so important he flew out and personally interviewed prospective students. Since Bottoms became president eight years ago, minority enrollment has risen to 15 percent at DePauw.

ROBERT BOTTOMS: [talking to female student] I do hope you'll come visit. That's really the main thing that I like to stress with students. You have an outstanding record. After you apply, if you're accepted -- and I would think that you would be -- you would be eligible for numerous scholarships and opportunities.

MS. BRACKETT: The whole recruitment process for schools like DePauw, a small liberal arts university in Greencastle, Indiana, has changed. That's because of the intensified competition between colleges for all students, not just minorities. Some schools have not met the challenge. In the last decade, fewer students and rising costs have forced about 100 private institutions to close, downsize, go coed, or otherwise transform themselves. At DePauw, Dave Murray has what has become a high stress job at a private institution, dean of admissions.

DAVE MURRAY, Dean of Admissions, DePauw University: With declining demographics, with no new federal and state dollars, with real incomes not keeping pace with inflation, the whole scene in higher education has changed.

MS. BRACKETT: Students' expectations have also changed.

DAVE MURRAY: We have questions asked of us now that were not asked five years ago.

MS. BRACKETT: Like?

DAVE MURRAY: What are you offering? And one standard answer to that is we're offering the same thing we've always offered; we're offering a quality education. But that's not what they mean. They mean what kind of scholarship programs do you have? Students are aware that there are fewer qualified students than there were 10 years ago. There are just as many spaces available in college, and so in that sense, it's a buyer's market.

MS. BRACKETT: That buyer's market has put enormous pressure on private universities to keep up their critical yield rates. That's the percentage of those who are admitted who choose to attend. Four years ago, DePauw made the decision to cut back on the amount of financial aid offered to prospective freshmen. The yield rate dropped by 10 percent. The amount of financial aid was quickly increased for the next year, and an even more aggression admissions program was put together.

SPOKESPERSON: DePauw's unique as a small school as compared to a large school because of all the interaction you get with the professors.

MS. BRACKETT: DePauw thinks one of the best ways to sell the university is to get students to come to the campus. On a recent weekend, students with an interest in math and science were invited to visit. And students were offered an extra enticement, a chance to take an exam that could mean a $5500 annual scholarship for the twenty to twenty-five students who scored well on the exam and had top grades. DePauw carries a price tag of $14,500 for tuition, with another $6,000 for room, board, and fees. Chris Triebel has a B+ average, good test scores, and parents with an income of just under $100,000. He has been contacted by over 200 schools. He says a financial aid package will be important.

CHRIS TRIEBEL, DePauw University Applicant: It will be very important because how much money we actually get might end up deciding where I go to school.

MS. BRACKETT: So if you get several offers from several colleges, how closely will you compare those?

CHRIS TRIEBEL: We'll just have to weigh what we get with the different places and see how much it all adds up to in the end. That might just be where I end up going.

FEMALE STUDENT: I'm hoping to double major in print journalism and advertising.

MS. BRACKETT: Amanda Fleeger and her mother also took DePauw up on its offer of a visit. Fleeger, whose grades and test scores, are slightly above average, has been contracted 23 times by DePauw after Dave Murray first met her on a recruiting trip to Oklahoma a year ago.

DAVE MURRAY: You'll have access to the faculty. I think any student in any discipline, Amanda, profits from a small class or a small lab situation.

MS. BRACKETT: Because of Fleeger's interest in journalism, she got to meet journalism professor Richard Roth. And she was taken to hear journalist Bob Woodward speak to students and faculty. DePauw regularly features speakers such as Woodward because it is sensitive about its rural Indiana location and wants to attract urban students who won't feel isolated. DePauw has been doing everything possible to make sure students like Fleeger don't fall through the cracks.

DAVE MURRAY: This is an extremely important screen for us in that it details our personal contacts with Mandy.

MS. BRACKETT: The university is in the vanguard when it comes to the use of computer tracking of potential applicants. All of DePauw's contacts with Fleeger have been carefully loaded into a computer. Murray developed the program three years ago.

DAVE MURRAY: The main thing that this has done for us to take 23,000 senior inquiries right now and prioritize them for follow- up activities.

MS. BRACKETT: And this screen is, you say, one of the most important screens?

DAVE MURRAY: It is in that this begins to detail our interest in the student. When we have personal contacts with a family, it gets loaded into a screen, and in Mandy's case, you can see here that as a result of one of my recent contacts with her, we learned that DePauw was a first choice, and so that's loaded in there, the fact that she's expected to apply. If she doesn't apply, we'll be shocked because she seems very interested.

MS. BRACKETT: But Fleeger's mother says her daughter will not make a final choice until the financial aid package is known. While her daughter was touring, Linda Fleeger met with a financial aid officer. That same afternoon, President Bottoms was checking with his admissions staff to see whether their aggressive recruitment efforts were paying off.

PRESIDENT BOTTOMS: Dave, we're halfway through the admissions year. How are we doing, and how do we know how we're doing?

DAVE MURRAY: Okay. I guess the basic answer at this point is so far, so good. Of course,at this time of the year we only have about 10 percent of our applicant pool, so on the application front, there's not a lot of certainty.

PRESIDENT BOTTOMS: One reason some of us are cynical and a little guarded, our applications were up year before last but our class was down. So what we wanted to do for the rest of the afternoon was to take the information and let's do some concrete thinking about what we can do to convert those contacts into applications.

MS. BRACKETT: DePauw accepts 80 percent of the students who apply. Last year's yield was 37 percent, which brought in 672 new freshmen. The right balance was struck between money brought in from tuition and money given out through financial aid, and DePauw met its costs. But it's a difficult job.

DAVE MURRAY: No one ever said to me at DePauw that my job was on the line. In fact, a lot of people said very supportive things -- let us know what we can do to help, we're glad you're here -- but I can tell you I felt my job was on the line. I think deans and directors around the countries [country] these days who sit in my chair feel that pressure every day.

MS. BRACKETT: Dick Moll, a former admissions director at Vassar and Bowdoin, now serves as the consultant to many colleges and universities across the country. He sees the pressure admissions directors are under, most recently in New York State, where seven directors were fired last year.

DICK MOLL, College Consultant: Well, when that kind of pressure is on the director and it starts getting into the public press, and it is now in the public press, the families start thinking, aah, Jane is a superb student, Jane is also a top soccer player, so I think I can market Jane, and, indeed, there is a situation today of comparing one college offer to another. Some colleges actually save a little money to enhance the financial aid award if Jane's parents call to say, well, we're admitted to your college with financial aid, thank you very much, but we're also admitted to your competing institution, and they're giving us a little more, would you be willing to do the same?

MS. BRACKETT: Bottoms says DePauw has never bargained for students.

PRESIDENT BOTTOMS: Last year we were very firm. We were as generous as we thought we could be on the front end. We didn't involve ourselves in a bidding war for anybody's sons or daughters.

MS. BRACKETT: According to Bottoms, DePauw will continue to admit students without considering their ability to pay, but not all private institutions still have that option. Moll says the scramble for top students plus the need to pour money into scholarship aid makes students who can pay look good.

DICK MOLL: The student who can pay is given quite an edge in the admissions process. And that's very difficult for a guidance counselor to explain. If this college comes in and admits someone from the fourth fifth largely because he or she can pay, and passes by a student in the second fifth, puts that young woman on the waiting list, some heavy questions have to be asked.

MS. BRACKETT: For the private colleges, the biggest question remains how to stay solvent as their costs escalate and the competition for students continues. Moll says the good news is a new population blitz of young people now in the high schools. The bad news is that fewer of them will be able to pay the high costs of a private institution. Top students will continue to write their own ticket. But it appears that not all private institutions will be around to honor them. ESSAY - LOOK DOWN

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt on seeing the homeless this winter.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Don't pass them by. Certainly, the temptation to do so is strong. How many winters, how many homeless, how many times can you give and give again, or try to haul them up from a stupor or a daze, and get them into shelters, and hand out a buck or two, only to know that when your back is turned, the buck or two will buy a drink or two, or a shot in the arm, or a snort. You might only be contributing to their earlier dying. And you've got your own troubles, after all. You've got your own life, and you gave at the office. You always do. You do care, damn it. How often must it be proved? There's a limit on what one stranger can do for another, not to mention the other pressing problems in the world so much larger than your own town, or your own block, or road. You cannot be responsible for the way life shapes out. Some always wind up at the top. Some are always at the bottom, as the lie today at the bottom of a wall, or in a doorway, or at your feet. But don't pass them by. Too much else is passing them by. The public discourse centers on taxes or health care or the deficit. The national imagination is focused on a balanced budget. In the State of the Union Address, the President speaks of the welfare of the middle class, all fine and good and necessary. But the national imagination can't look only in the direction of the middle class. To be true to itself, it has to look down. This is the season for reviving corny words. Winter is the season. One can say compassion without blushing, or generosity. That's the old saw. Both sentiments apply to another overused term, poverty, which has been so dispirited by social science since the 1960s that it has no comprehensible meaning. First came the war on poverty, then the poverty line. More recently, there have been studies of the working poor to indicate the poverty is relative to a decent standard of living. One can have a job, a car, even a house, and still manage only to slog through in a state of desperation. Yet, these ideas remain abstract, except in winter. Winter doesn't expose poverty. It exposes the poor. Their forms are clarified by the cold. Come to the window. See that? That roll of woolen patches is, upon close inspection, a woman. Only the top of her head shows through her self-spun cocoon. Or that -- you can't miss that. It is a man lying in the middle of the pavement, plain as daylight. He makes it difficult for others to navigate the sidewalk. To prevent yourself from stepping on his body, you steer your own, as in a dance. How gracefully you can move when you have to. And, of course, it is not necessary for your moral well-being to bend down and pick the fellow up. No one will abrade you for your decision after all the years of watching the poor get poorer and helping whenever you could. You do have your own to tend to. You have your place to go. You know how history turns. Only like someone who has just read a story whose conclusion lingers unsatisfactorily in the mind, you may take a step or two and look back suddenly to see what you saw was really there. It was. Don't pass them by. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday, Wall Street set a new record, the Dow Jones Industrial Average topping 4,000 for the first time ever. We'll see you tomorrow tonight. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.