The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, Republican leaders said President Bush may be willing to compromise on capital gains to get a budget agreement. Iraq called the U.N. air embargo an act of war. The U.S. plans to withdraw 40,000 troops from Western Europe over the next year. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we have a News Maker interview with the foreign minister of Iran [NEWS MAKER]. Then Charles Krause reports on and talks to the President of Mexico [CONVERSATION]. Prevention and early detection is the focus [SERIES - FIGHTING CANCER] of Part 4 of our series on cancer, and[NEWS MAKER] we close with a News Maker interview with John Frohnmayer, chairman of the storm hit National Endowment for the Arts.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: There was one sign of movement today in the budget negotiations. Republican congressional leaders said President Bush may be backing down on his insistence that a capital gains tax cut be part of an agreement. They met with Mr. Bush this morning. Afterwards, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole said the President would consider alternatives. But the President and Democratic leaders later exchanged harsh words about the budget's stalemate. Each side claimed the other was responsible for prolonging the negotiations. There will be automatic, across-the-board budget cuts if agreement is not reached by Sunday night. Mr. Bush made his charges at a political speech in Akron, Ohio. The response came from the House Speaker, Tom Foley, on Capitol Hill. Here are excerpts from both.

PRES. BUSH: And all through the talks, for 135 long days time and again, I've gone the extra mile and I think the Republicans and the Congress have gone the extra mile, and each time the other side, it's still your move, it's still your move. Well, that's not just our move anymore and if and when the ax falls, the Democratic Congress knows that it will be held accountable and I will take that message to every state in the union. It is their fault for holding up getting a budget agreement.

REP. THOMAS FOLEY, Speaker of the House: Our position we're moving forward in an attempt to reach an agreement, and to begin a series of charges or counter charges and political statements in a partisan manner, from a partisan platform, by the way, at this stage is not helpful, in fact, is damaging to the talks. So we're determined that it not be critically damaging and we want to go forward. The President is represented in these negotiations by Sec. Brady, by Mr. Darman, and by Gov. Sununu, who are said to have his full confidence. The suggestion that he is somehow waiting on the outside for the negotiations to be concluded by other people is another misleading implication if that is intended. The President is a party to the negotiations. He, himself, has said in previous times that he recognizes an obligation for compromise and adjustment on his part as well as others to reach an agreement. This is not a matter of congressional negotiators reaching a conclusion to present to the President. The negotiation is with the President, the administration, the Congress, and both parties.

MR. LEHRER: And the budget negotiators will resume their talks this evening. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Iraq today called the United Nations air embargo an act of war. The Security Council voted yesterday to extend its land and sea embargo to the air. The first test came today in Jordan where three Iraqi Airways jetliners were allowed to land, drop off their passengers and return to Baghdad. Jordan says it does support the air embargo, but will review whether it applies to passenger flights not carrying cargo. Sec. of State Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze met today about strengthening the alliance against Iraq. Later Baker said Iraq has threatened to hang Americans who have taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He said Iraq has asked for a list for people in the Embassy but that U.S. would not turn over such a list.

MR. LEHRER: Defense Sec. Cheney said today he did not expect the U.S. to use the military to enforce the air embargo. He also said Saddam Hussein's statements during the past few days indicate the sanctions are beginning to bite and said Saddam may resort to military action. Iran today called on the Moslems of the world to hold anti-American demonstrations on Friday. It said they should demand the United States send its troops home.

MR. MacNeil: The Pentagon announced today that it will withdraw 40,000 troops from Western Europe over the next year. That will leave about 360,000 other American troops in the region. The cutbacks are in anticipation of a U.S.-Soviet treaty on reducing conventional forces in Europe. Pentagon officials said some of the troops may be sent to the Persian Gulf.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush notified Congress today of negotiations with Mexico about a free trade agreement. The deal would remove tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers. Such an agreement would remove tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers. Such an agreement already exists between the United States and Canada. In the message to Congress, Mr. Bush pointed to what he described as dynamic, market-oriented reforms recently undertaken by Mexican President Salinas. We will have an interview with President Salinas later in the program.

MR. MacNeil: There was an earthquake in Missouri today, its epicenter along the New Madrid Fault Line, which has been the site of some of America's most powerful quakes. This one measured only 4.6 on the Richter Scale, but it was felt in parts of Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Indiana. There were no reports of injuries or serious damage. That's our Summary of the news. Still ahead, Iran's foreign minister, the President of Mexico, cancer prevention, and the furor over obscenity in the arts. NEWS MAKER

MR. MacNeil: First tonight a new call for the Moslem World to raise up against the United States. It did not come from Iraq's Saddam Hussein but from Iran. A radical Iranian newspaper asked that Friday be a day of World protests to force the World to withdraw from the Middle East. There is a series of mixed signals coming out of Iran on the Gulf crisis. Here to explain it to us if Ali Akbar Velayati the Foreign MInister of Iran. Mr. Foreign Minister thank you for joining us.

MR. VELAYATI: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Does you Government support these calls for demonstrations throughout the Moslem World. As the call today called them filthy foreign forces out of the Gulf region?

MR. MacNeil: Yes as you know we believe in the regional solution for this crisis that we are facing in the Persian Gulf. This is our belief. On the basis of our belief from the very beginning we have said repeatedly that all countries in the region should help together and cooperate with each other for putting an end to this crisis.

MR. MacNeil: So your Government is in favor of Moslems or people in the Moslem World demonstrating against the U.S. presence there. Is that correct?

MR. VELAYATI: Our position, the position of our Government as expressed by our officials and what you all hear from people may be from our Government or from independent groups but generally speaking we can tell you we are against the presence of the foreign forces in that region. Especially for the permanent presence of the foreign forces there.

MR. MacNeil: Iran and Syria have just reached some new understandings. You do not oppose Syria sending forces to defend Saudi Arabia and persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. Is that right?

MR. VELAYATI: No. They can follow their own decision and we have very good relations with Syria and we have a mutual understanding. This is a decision that goes back to the Government and people of Syria.

MR. MacNeil: Iran has from the beginning opposed the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait. You fought Saddam Hussein for 8 years in a very costly war a million dead or more. What do you think he will do in this situation?

MR. VELAYATI: We are familiar with his behavior. What he has done in Kuwait has been condemned from the very beginning. Just 18 hours after the invasion of Kuwait we condemned that invasion and still we are insisting in our position and asked the Iraqis and said to them that you have to withdraw from Kuwait. I think that there solution for these crisis and I think the peaceful solution should be based on the total withdrawal by the Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think that Mr. Hussein is going to do that or that he is going to be goaded in to some kind of military action as the embargo begins to squeeze on him?

MR. VELAYATI: This is our hope that Mr. Saddam Hussein is going to withdraw from Kuwait. Otherwise the military solution is the only chance that will remain according to what we could understand from the international atmosphere.

MR. MacNeil: How do you assess the dangers of it coming to a clash now as the Iranians look at it?

MR. VELAYATI: I think that the situation is very dangerous and this is the duty of all countries in the region to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Iraq peacefully.

MR. MacNeil: You have pledged to honor the embargo against Iraq. Does that include the air embargo voted yesterday?

MR. VELAYATI: Yes we observe all resolutions that have passed in the Security Council including the last one that was passed yesterday by the Security Council and we also observe this kind of embargo, air embargo.

MR. MacNeil: Reports persist that some one in your country may be willing to trade food to Iraq for oil. How do you account for these persistent reports? I mean is your Government policing the border to make sure that doesn't happen?

MR. VELAYATI: The official position of our Government is the prevention of any kind or transmission of foods from our country to Iraq. You know three days ago we have arrested 29 smugglers who tried to smuggle foods from our country to Iraq. The position of our Government is seriously against any kind of violation of these embargoes.

MR. MacNeil: For a long time your country refused to end the war with Saddam Hussein unless one of the conditions being that he was deposed or greatly weakened in power. Do you believe that should be an objective of those countries opposing him now? In addition to getting out of Kuwait that he should be removed from power or weakened militarily?

MR. VELAYATI: Now we are in a peace process. We have already finished the withdrawal of the forces and we have repatriated 80 person. So we think that now our position is different from that time but it doesn't mean that we accept or we confirm the position of Iraq and Kuwait. This is the duty of the people in Iraq to decide about their own government.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with some people that say this crisis has been a windfall for Iraq. You got everything that you wanted from Saddam Hussein. Has it been a great boom for your country?

MR. VELAYATI: That is true that we got what we asked for. I mean the most important thing that we have been looking for is the acknowledgement of the validity of the 1975 treaty which we have already got. But the reason for these achievements is more complicated than what you have already said.

MR. MacNeil: I see. We have to leave it there and I thank you very much for joining us Mr. Foreign Minister.

MR. VELAYATI: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight the President of Mexico, part four of our cancer series and Arts Endowment Chairman John Frohnmayer. CONVERSATION

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight is a conversation with the President of Mexico. He is Carlos Salinas De Gortari. Today President Bush sent a proposal to Congress to begin free trade talks with Mexico. Recently President Salinas spoke with the Newshour about free trade and about his country's role in the Persian Gulf crisis. Charles Krause reports.

MR. KRAUSE: Carlos Salinas De Gortari is a Harvard-trained political economist. He was elected President of Mexico just barely in July, 1988. His two opponents charged election fraud, and there were protests, and there was real concern Salinas might prove to be too weak to govern effectively. But since his inauguration, Salinas has moved decisively. He's jailed union leaders and businessmen for corruption. He's opened Mexico's economy to imports and to foreign investment. He's also privatized the country's banking system. Meanwhile abroad, Salinas has refocused Salinas' foreign policy, which in the past was often at odds with the United States. He and President Bush have met three times and reportedly, they get on quite well. One clear sign of the new relationship, within days of the Iraqi invasion, Mexico announced it would increase oil production and exports to the U.S., but clearly, it's the free trade agreement that's the most important sign of the new relationship. If approved, the agreement would further integrate the U.S. and Mexican economies by reducing tariff barriers and increasing opportunities for investment. Already, the U.S. and Mexico export and import more than $50 billion a year from one another, everything from tomatoes and wheat to auto parts and computers. In Tijuana and in other cities along the border, the ties are evident and the border economy is booming. But for most of this century, Mexican nationalism and mistrust have prevented even closer relations. Now Salinas has tied his own political future and the future of Mexico to better relations, more investment, and free trade with the United States. We interviewed President Salinas at Los Pinos, his office and residence in Mexico City. Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us. Why is a free trade agreement so important to you and to Mexico?

CARLOS SALINAS DE GORTARI, President, Mexico: First, because Mexico has opened its economy unilaterally, that is, we have today one of the most open economies in the world, with almost no restrictions for the free entrance of goods into Mexico. Now we want reciprocity. We are also committed to free trade at the GATT negotiations and therefore, this is a step in the direction of free trade between the different countries of the world, and last but not least, in the world traders today, regional blocks are being created and we want to be part of the very important North American trade region so as not to be left out of any important trading block. The Europe of '92 will be no doubt the biggest market unless Mexico, the U.S., and Canada can eventually form a free trade agreement.

MR. KRAUSE: But if the Uruguay Round and if the free trade doesn't go as well as you hope it will, in effect, are you entering into a free trade agreement with the United States as a way to protect your own markets?

PRES. SALINAS: There are 81 million people in Mexico and every year almost 2 million additional are added to the total population, and I have to respond to their demands. I have responsibility for my people, and I am convinced that through the creation of such a huge free trade area that prospectives for the Mexican population will increase substantially.

MR. KRAUSE: How, specifically how?

PRES. SALINAS: Because we will have additional flows of investment, both of nationals and foreign, from the U.S., from Europe, from Japan, from countries that know there is a very important market here with the dimension and capacity to produce at world levels, world competitive levels, and, therefore, this will increasingly mean additional jobs for Mexicans. I want Mexicans working in Mexico and not elsewhere.

MR. KRAUSE: But as you know, the AFL-CIO, and the United States is afraid that the United States will lose jobs as a result of this free trade agreement.

PRES. SALINAS: Well, first, I believe that if those jobs are not created in Mexico, they will be created elsewhere, looking for the advantages to produce at competitive prices and quality and opportunity. On the other hand, a stronger market in Mexico would mean an additional opportunity for goods produced in the U.S. and therefore, the chance to increase employment opportunities in the U.S. and last but not least, if those jobs are not created in Mexico, Mexicans will merely walk across the border to look for those jobs in the U.S., and as I said before, I want my countrymen working in Mexico, not in the U.S.

MR. KRAUSE: But what you're, in effect, saying is that the two countries are so closely linked already that whether there's this kind of free trade agreement or not, there's no escaping the interchanges that already occur?

PRES. SALINAS: They're already occurring, and during the years of crisis, many Mexicans went to the U.S. looking for an opportunity to improve their standards of living, and it's true that whatever the level of growth in Mexico, the American economy will continue demanding some of these workers for jobs in the U.S. that others do not take, but nevertheless, the free trade agreement with the stimulus for investment and job creation in Mexico will reduce dramatically the flow of migrants from Mexico to the U.S.

MR. KRAUSE: What will Mexico be prepared to give the United States to obtain a free trade agreement?

PRES. SALINAS: Well, as in any negotiation, each part will have to give in the sense of lowering certain tariffs, guaranteeing permanent access of goods which previously were not received on a free entrance.

MR. KRAUSE: In preparing for this interview I spoke with Carla Hills' office, and they say quite openly that the areas of compromise of negotiation might well include your oil industry, the access to U.S. investment, petrochemicals.

PRES. SALINAS: Are you part of the negotiating team?

MR. KRAUSE: No, I'm not.

PRES. SALINAS: I'm glad to know that.

MR. KRAUSE: But let me ask you in a serious way. There are certain sectors of the Mexican economy which have been closed.

PRES. SALINAS: We have drawn the line. Oil will not be part of the negotiation. Now the rest, well, let's wait for the negotiation to take place, and then we will discuss about the areas in which both countries will have to provide for an agreement to be really beneficial for the development of our respected economies.

MR. KRAUSE: In a worst case scenario with the Middle East crisis, it is conceivable that the oil fields in Kuwait, in Iraq, and even in Saudi Arabia, could be bombed, could be out of production for months or years. Do you envision a situation in which Mexico as part of a free trade agreement might be put in a situation where it might agree to provide the United States with some of the oil that would be lost from the Middle East?

PRES. SALINAS: We are ready and we are already investing more in payments in order to produce more oil, and we will sell it at market prices to whoever wants to buy it.

MR. KRAUSE: But you don't foresee a situation in which the industrialized countries, in effect, scramble for secure oil sources, and in effect, the United States somehow or another decides that the Western Hemisphere and the oil production in Venezuela, in Mexico, and Canada, should be used in the Western Hemisphere?

PRES. SALINAS: Well, whatever is done with Mexican oil will be decided only by Mexicans.

MR. KRAUSE: Now your government soon after the crisis began offered to increase your oil production by a hundred thousand barrels a day. Is your support for the U.S. and the Middle East crisis and in the United Nations in any way linked to your other priority, which is to obtain a free trade agreement with the United States?

PRES. SALINAS: Our policy in the United States is totally related to the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. Again, I emphasize we are proud of belonging to the United Nations and to be part of the world community sharing the values of sovereignty and respect for the independence of other countries.

MR. KRAUSE: In general terms, has it been difficult for you politically to be supportive of the United States in this crisis?

PRES. SALINAS: Well, we've been supportive of a multi-national response to the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait. It has been condemned unanimously in the Security Council and as a nation before. We belong to this community of nations and we will participate fully in the resolutions that the community that adopts. At the same time, these are the principles that we sustain, the respect for the sovereignty of another country, and also the respect for peace and stability in any region of the world.

MR. KRAUSE: Does Mexico have a direct stake in the outcome?

PRES. SALINAS: Well, it certainly first as a nation that belongs to the community of nations which asks for the respect for sovereignty and also because being in that part of the world, almost 40 percent of the oil reserves, Mexico being one of the main oil exporters, it certainly affects us whatever happens in this crisis in the Middle East, but also I am convinced that the outcome will have an effect on the development of industrialized nations and whatever happens in the U.S. economy and the economy of Europe and Japan will no doubt have an effect on the Mexican economy as well.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. President, thank you. SERIES - FIGHTING CANCER

MR. MacNeil: Next we continue our weeklong series on fighting cancer. Tonight we focus on prevention, which some people consider the fastest way to cut cancer death rates. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett has our report.

MS. BRACKETT: This woman is doing what only 31 percent of American women do on a regular basis; she's getting a mammogram, an X-ray photograph of the breast which reveals tumors that cannot be felt by a doctor. The National Cancer Institute recommends a mammogram every one to two years for women over 40 and every year after 50. Health professionals say women's reluctance to go through this relatively simple screening procedure is one reason why the incidence of breast cancer has continued to rise in this country. Some women have stayed away because of the controversy over the accuracy of mammograms. Doctors admit that mammography misses 10 percent of cancers. Dr. David Dershaw of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York says there are several reasons why so few women get mammograms.

DR. DAVID DERSHAW, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Women are afraid to have a mammogram because first of all they're afraid that the mammogram will show that they have breast cancer, an obvious fear, and they fear that they will either die of the disease or be figured by the treatment for the disease.

MS. BRACKETT: Dr. Dershaw says that the death rate from breast cancer could be reduced by as much as 40 percent if women over 35 were screened. To try and reach more women, the State of New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering set up a program to bring portable mammography equipment to downtown offices. The hope was to bring in women who were too busy or perhaps too fearful to schedule mammograms with their own doctors or clinics. The technique worked for Citibank Vice President Judy Capel.

JUDY CAPEL, Citibank: The major reason is the convenience. It's right here. I leave my office five minutes, downstairs, and I have it done. And it's much cheaper than through a private program.

MS. BRACKETT: Price is another reason why women avoid mammograms. Depending on the setting, prices can range from $50 to $250. The $65 charge brought assistant manager Yvonne Casellas to the "Be Smart" program at Citibank, though it wasn't only the cost that kept her away in the past.

YVONNE CASELLAS, Citibank: It's like making a dentist's appointment without having a toothache. I mean, it's something that you usually don't do. You usually just don't go to a doctor for a check-up and you just don't do the preventive things that you should to maintain your health.

MS. BRACKETT: It is hard to get busy downtown businesswomen to get mammograms, but it is even harder to get poor women in the neighborhoods to take time for a screening.

REPORTER: How old are you?

SPOKESPERSON: I'm 35.

REPORTER: You're 35. Have you had a mammogram?

WOMAN: No.

SPOKESPERSON: Well, today's your day.

WOMAN: I'll be there.

SPOKESPERSON: You can make an appointment inside.

WOMAN: Just make an appointment?

SPOKESPERSON: Just walk right in there and you can make an appointment and fill out a registration form and come back.

WOMAN: Thank you.

MS. BRACKETT: Poor women are far less likely than middle class women to seek early medical treatment. As a result, National Cancer Institute statistics show that while American white women with breast cancer have close to a 75 percent five year survival rate, women in Harlem have only a 30 percent five year survival rate. Dr. Harold Freeman of Harlem Hospital.

DR. HAROLD P. FREEMAN, Harlem Hospital: The reasons for this are mainly late diagnosis. I started 708 women who came into Harlem Hospital with breast cancer. We found that half of those women were incurable when they walked into the hospital, so that at the end of five years only 30 percent were alive.

MS. BRACKETT: Nearly, 3000 women come each year for mammograms at the two free indoor clinics in Harlem. The van, sponsored by the Italian-American Foundation for Cancer Research, brought in 508 women for free mammograms during the 15 days it was parked in Harlem. Sponsors say it was the non-medical setting that brought so many women to the van. That was the case for Norma Cates. At age 68, she came to the van for her first mammogram.

MS. CATES: I fear doctors and hospitals and doctors, I really, really do, and that's the reason why I never ever want to go back. I don't like hospitals.

MS. BRACKETT: So is it easier to come to something like this?

MS. CATES: Yes, for me it is.

MS. BRACKETT: The van found more than 70 women who needed to be referred on for further tests because of questionable results on their mammograms. Besides mammograms, doctors say women should regularly get pap tests to detect cervical cancer and men and women over age 40 should get screened for colo-rectal cancer, even though most people don't. We talked to Dr. Freeman, past President of the American Cancer Society, as well as a surgeon at Harlem Hospital about why people don't do as much as they could to prevent cancer.

DR. FREEMAN: We're looking at a situation where public education is key to informing the American public that these tests do save lives, but there's another aspect to this. Here in Harlem where I work in particular, we've had to set up very special things in order to provide the screening tests to a population of people who cannot afford to have the tests, and it's almost like whistling Dixie to say to American women that you should have an annual mammogram if you're 50 and above, when many American women really cannot afford the test, which often costs about $100 for the test.

MS. BRACKETT: And Freeman believes people have to go beyond screening tests in order to significantly reduce the cancer death rate.

DR. FREEMAN: There are some very, very important things that can be done with respect to lifestyle to prevent cancer from ever happening.

MS. BRACKETT: Doctors claim that if Americans ate a low fat, high fiber diet, rich in Vitamins A and C, a third of cancers could be eliminated. Diet is now suspect in cancers of the colon, breast, prostate and uterus. They also recommend protection from the sun to slow the startling rise in skin cancer.

DR. HAROLD P. FREEMAN, Harlem Hospital: In the last years, there's been a very great increase in the number of American people who have developed skin cancers, particularly melanomas. Currently there are about 8,000 deaths per year from skin cancers, with 2/3 of them being from melanomas.

MS. BRACKETT: The medical community is most adamant about the need for people to quit smoking.

DR. FREEMAN: The biggest thing that we could say about this is that if people stopped smoking in this country now, at some point in the future, 30 percent of cancers would not occur. I think that the problem that we're getting into is that some people in the population hear so many threats against things that they should avoid that they're overwhelmed and they say, well, why should I do anything, because everything causes disease or cancer. The big hitters here that we must have the population aware of is the smoking and diet part.

MS. BRACKETT: But even many women who get a mammogram are not ready for those lifestyle changes.

MS. CAPEL: I don't have to change my lifestyle to have a mammogram. To stop smoking, to start eating the right things, to do exercises every day, I have to change my lifestyle. That's a lot harder.

MS. BRACKETT: Even Grace Gomez-Stahl, the technician who runs the mammography machine in the van, still smokes. You see all these women come in and you're dealing in the cancer field, yet, you're a cigarette smoker.

GRACE GOMEZ-STAHL, Technician: Yeah. It's a hard habit to break. I wish I could. I've gone for acupuncture and my next step is going for hypnosis.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you believe in the cancer statistics that cigarette smoking causes cancer?

MS. GOMEZ-STAHL: Yeah, definitely. I definitely do. Cigarettes do cause cancer, there's no doubt about that. I've studied it and I know for a fact they cause cancer.

MS. BRACKETT: Then why is it so hard to quit?

MS. GOMEZ-STAHL: I think it's more of a thing that people don't really -- I, myself, I know it's possible, I know it's true, but you don't really think -- it's not you, it's not going to happen to you until, God forbid, one day.

MS. BRACKETT: What can you say to people to convince them that they may be that person that gets cancer?

DR. FREEMAN: Well, first of all, we have to understand that lifestyles have an addicting kind of quality about them, but I think that what we've seen is that education increases, people of all cultures and all races are able to separate themselves from those addictions, including diet and tobacco, in particular. For example, only 17 percent of the American people who have finished college are cigarette smokers, whereas about 40 percent of the American people who have not finished high school are cigarette smokers. Here is an example of an addiction, but the proof that as people become more and more educated, they're able to eliminate these kinds of addictions, and diet is the same thing and the amount of exercise that people get is also related to how well educated that they are.

MS. BRACKETT: Still it often happens that people know what it takes to prevent cancer, but they don't believe again that they will be the one person that gets cancer. How do you convince people of that?

DR. FREEMAN: My answer to that is that you could put on a blindfold at midnight and cross the New Jersey turnpike successfully, but we don't advise it.

MS. BRACKETT: Still, with all the information that we now know about cancer, with the increased information on the impact of lifestyle on cancer, more Americans than ever are getting cancer.

DR. FREEMAN: President Nixon declared a war against cancer in 1971, and that war has been mainly fought as a research war. Where we have failed, in my opinion, in that war is we have not transmitted that technology to the neighborhoods, to the trenches where people live, and therefore, on behalf of the American Cancer Society a year ago, as President of the society, I declared a different kind of war against cancer which I call a guerrilla war, where we will approach the problem where people live, creating healthy lifestyles related to diet and the elimination of smoking as primary and also convincing people that they need to have certain examinations periodically even when they seem to be well. But on the other hand, all of this is incomplete and is almost to no avail if people, individual people do not share in the responsibility for promoting their own survival and their own quality of life. So society has to provide a means. Individual people have to share in the responsibility.

MR. MacNeil: Tomorrow night, our series will continue with a look at one of the most unfortunate companions to cancer, pain, and new approaches to controlling it, and on Friday, we'll talk to cancer experts about the future priorities in the war against cancer. NEWS MAKER

MR. LEHRER: Now a News Maker interview with John Frohnmayer, the embattled chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. Frohnmayer is a Portland, Oregon, attorney who a year ago took the job of running the government agency that dispenses money to artists and artistic institutions. It has been a year of storms. Conservative members of Congress accused the NEA of funding offensive art. Artists accused the NEA of buckling under to those political attacks. Now the very existence of the Endowment is on the line. I spoke with Mr. Frohnmayer earlier this evening. Mr. Chairman, welcome.

JOHN FROHNMAYER, NationalEndowment for the Arts: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Is the Endowment in serious jeopardy, sir?

MR. FROHNMAYER: I think not. I'm hopeful that in the next short time Congress will pass legislation, both Houses of Congress will pass legislation, and the President will sign it to reauthorize the endowment and hopefully without content restriction.

MR. LEHRER: Do you have your own analysis of what has brought it to this jeopardy point, this very, very difficult point?

MR. FROHNMAYER: I think that there are a lot of things that contribute to the general unrest in our society about what our values are, what we stand for, what our position in the world is. Some is I think our lack of education in the arts to help understand what art is and what art is not, and some is I think mistakes that the Endowment has made, but in that instance I would say that art is experimentation in a lot of cases and some leeway has to exist there.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe that Sen. Helms and other members of Congress were right to raise the question of some of the things that the Endowment was funding?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Certainly Congress has the right to raise questions about anything that concerns it, and I think that in some respects, the debate has been a healthy one, to help us re- establish the value of art in our society, to help us understand ourselves better, that it can be a catalyst for better community understanding. Those kinds of things are very valuable.

MR. LEHRER: But how could this controversy, this debate, be considered healthy? In what way has it been healthy?

MR. FROHNMAYER: I think in a democracy whenever we discuss our values, what is appropriate for our society, how we should express ourselves, those kinds of debates are healthy provided that they ultimately move forward to some kind of a resolution. One of the things about this debate that has been so frustrating is that it's gone over the same ground again and again and again and hasn't really moved forward toward resolution. And I hope that that's the position we're now in, is moving forward toward resolution.

MR. LEHRER: Now you hope that the Congress will re-fund, re- establish or continue the establishment of the Endowment without restrictions on what you can do. Now there are restrictions in place now. You believe those are wrong.

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, the point is that the agency must be responsible, must be responsive to the taxpayer, because it is their money we're using. But the way to be responsible and responsive is through procedures as opposed to the broad brushed cutting of content restrictions which take the risk of being unconstitutional as an infringement on speech on one hand, and even if they are not attendant to chill the field and to restrict the ability to create, which is what the arts are all about. So what I'm saying is, yes, we have to be responsible, but we can do that procedurally as opposed to having these content restrictions.

MR. LEHRER: Procedurally but in a way that would define what is obscene and what is not obscene, you and others at the NEA would say, all right, this project is okay, it's not obscene, that project is not okay. How would that work?

MR. FROHNMAYER: No, that's really not our business. Our business is to try to identify quality art that will make the arts more accessible to the American people. The wisdom of the bill that the full Committee in the Senate passed a couple of weeks ago is that it puts the determination for obscenity in the courts who are capable of making that kind of decision, who have the due process guarantees and safeguards that our judicial system has. And what the Senate bill says is that if a court has determined that obscenity has taken place with Endowment money, then we in the Endowment would go forward to recoup that money and so forth. That seems to me to be an intelligent approach to the situation.

MR. LEHRER: Rather than try to make a determination before you grant the money.

MR. FROHNMAYER: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: But of course, Sen. Helms and others what you to make that determination before. That's their complaint, is it not?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, it is their complaint. I mean, they certainly are concerned about obscenity, but keep in mind that none of us are ever for obscenity. In fact, one of the descriptions of this debate that I heard that I thought was apt was it's a debate against an irresolvable debate between those people who are against obscenity [most people], and those people who are for freedom of expression [most people]. And the idea is simply that nobody really favors obscenity, but we can make those kinds of judgments on the basis of artistic quality, on the basis of public understanding, on the basis of other things that are in our enabling legislation. And this kind of obscenity legislation is not necessary.

MR. LEHRER: You used the term "chilling effect". There are critics within the artistic community who have attacked you for caving in to the Helms of this world by first of all requiring a pledge or a statement be signed by artists that they're not going to use money to do something that's offensive or whatever. Do you in retrospect support that? Do you still think that is a good decision on your part?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, it wasn't a pledge and isn't an oath. It is simply the certification that has existed at least for 10 years to every applicant who receives money from the Arts Endowment. What we did do is quote verbatim the law that Congress passed in our terms and conditions which attached to every grant and we did that for two reasons. We wanted the artists who were applying to know precisely what the law is, and we felt that there is no better way to do that than to quote it exactly. And secondly, we wanted Congress to know that we understood the law and were intending to enforce it. And I believe that both of those purposes have been achieved.

MR. LEHRER: So you, if you have your way, that will continue to be required of people who accept grants from the NEA?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, I have no way of knowing what the legislation will be next year. I mean, this is what Congress is in the business of doing right now. The particular legislation we're dealing with is fiscal '90 legislation.

MR. LEHRER: But do you support the continuation of the requirement that artists sign this kind of pledge?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, again, I quarrel with the use of the word "pledge", but I think it's important that artists know what the law is. How we implement that will depend upon what the law is and what our best judgment of how we can inform them is.

MR. LEHRER: Joseph Papp of the Shakespeare Festival in New York City has said your actions, he mentioned the pledge, this statement, this signing requirement, plus the fact that you vetoed four grants to individuals in the theater world, that peer panels in your own panels had recommended that they be funded, you personally vetoed them, anyhow he says that you have abandoned your position as head of the arts in America. How do you respond when you hear somebody say something like that about you?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, opinions are easy to express and of course, Joe doesn't take into account that the National Council on the Arts, which is the advisory board to me, rejected the panel recommendations on those four grants, so that the panel recommendation and the National Council recommendations were at odds. But it's my responsibility to exercise my judgment as best I can. I think that at least part of the reason that I was chosen for this job is my judgment and I have every intention of exercising it. And at least one thing that gives me some comfort in an area where there is a lot of controversy is the fact that I am getting attacked from both sides of the spectrum.

MR. LEHRER: The New York Times said, in fact, that you were a guy walking a tightrope in a hurricane. Is that an apt description?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, it's certainly a very high wind.

MR. LEHRER: I mean, is this what you bargained for when you came from Portland, Oregon?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, I knew that it would be a disruptive period. I have been surprised at the vigor, intensity and duration of the debate, but I am encouraged, because I think within the last month or so we have seen some signs that cooler heads are prevailing and we are starting to reach a consensus on what could be done.

MR. LEHRER: And are you going to hang in there?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: There were reports that you might quit. Are those premature, wrong, or what?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Clearly wrong.

MR. LEHRER: You can't be enjoying this, can you?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, it's not fun to be attacked, particularly the personal attacks, but I do recognize that many of those are directed at the position as opposed to the individual. And the reason that I took the job in the first place is that I believe that the arts have a strong place in our society and that they can help us be a better, stronger society, and that's what I'm really working toward.

MR. LEHRER: Do you see yourself as an advocate of artists in America?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: And as a defender of what they do?

MR. FROHNMAYER: Well, I think that the advocacy is really on -- to use an architectural analogy -- it's a two pillar bridge. On the one hand, it's an advocacy for the arts and the artists in this country. And on the other side, the other pillar is to bring the arts to the people of this country and to make sure that the people have greater access to the arts. So it's really an advocate for the arts, on the one hand. It's an advocate for the people to get to the arts on the other.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Frohnmayer, thank you very much.

MR. FROHNMAYER: Thank you. ESSAY - STRAY BULLETS

MR. MacNeil: Earlier this week, a stray bullet struck down another young victim in New York City, the 24th random shooting incident since mid July. Essayist Roger Rosenblatt of Life Magazine has some thoughts.

MR. ROSENBLATT: The idea of an accident of birth is never so troubling as when you read the term "stray bullet". Why us? Why them? In New York, this past summer, child after child was hit and killed by stray bullet. The first was nine year old Veronica Coralles, shot while she lay asleep in the back of the family car. Raymond Jamison, 10 months old, was shot as he played in his walker. One year old Yaritimi Fruto was shoot when men gunned down her father as he was driving to criminal court to turn himself in for weapons possession. Three year old Ben Williams was lying on a couch when gunmen fired 18 bullets through the front door. Police suspect the gunmen were after Ben's 19 year old half brother, a suspected drug dealer. They killed the three year old instead. After the killings came the customary regrets and vows. We've got to put an end to this drug business. We've got to stop the sale of semiautomatic weapons. All four killings were done with semiautomatic weapons. We've got to beef up the criminal justice system. We've got to instill a greater respect for human life. The words find their slots in the newspapers, while the war zone neighborhoods call a brief recess to murder and allow candlelight vigils and funeral services Inevitably, a quick eyed photographer manages to catch the life drained expression of a grieving mother or father. Their eyes stare out of their skin as if out of solitary confinement. They look, in fact, as if in some dreadful anticipation, they had been waiting all of their lives for the stray bullet to find their child, had been waiting from birth for the day when the stray bullet would obliterate their family's structure and continuity. To those of us who do not live in the neighborhoods where stray bullets fly, the term "stray bullet" has a ring of a million to one shot like a lottery. To those who live in housing projects in the Ft. Green section of Brooklyn, where Ben Williams lay on his couch, the odds are not so improbable. Bullets do not really stray in such housing projects. They merely hit one target rather than another. They fill the atmosphere like rain and eventually make targets of everyone, everyone who is unlucky enough to be born a target. Of course it's right that officials rail against drugs, crime and guns. One hopes forever that these curses are disappeared, but in the meantime, more fortunate Americans continually see the picture of less fortunate Americans who go about reasonably doubtful that tomorrow will ever come. This division of lucky and unlucky citizens is weird, unnerving. If my child naps on the couch at the same exact moment that Ben Williams naps on the couch in the same city, in the same country, why should my child alone expect to wake up? The question does not call for some faecal plea for greater economic opportunity or the spreading of wealth. The question is simply confusing and it hurts. It is not fair that the world be divided between those who live in the paths of stray bullets and those who do not, not fair that there are those for whom the air means murder and those for whom the sky's the limit. Most of us have little power to relieve the menacing tragedy that hounds the country's poor, but we know these people. We suffer with them. When their children die, we weep for them. By a different accident of birth, we could have been in their shoes or on their couches, stray bullets. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again, the top stories this Wednesday, late today President Bush decided to tap into America's strategic oil reserve to counter recent oil price increases. The White House said it will sell 5 million barrels from the reserves, and Sec. of State Baker said Iraq has threatened to hang Americans hiding in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.