The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, a Korean Air DC-10 jetliner crashed in Libya, killing at least 82 people. The U.S. economy was reported more sluggish last quarter than it's been in nearly three years, and 29 people died in new fighting in Lebanon. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, we go first to a debate over Exxon's oil spill clean-up plans. Exxon President Lee Raymond faces off against Alaska official Dennis Kelso. Then Congress as art critic. Congressman Dick Armey debates Wendy Luers of the National Endowment of the Arts, and finally we have a Clarence Page essay about the future of the blues. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: There's been another crash of a DC-10 jetliner. It happened today in Libya, when a Korean airplane crashed short of the runway at the Tripoli Airport. One hundred and ninety-nine people were on board. Eighty-two are known dead. Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News narrates this report.

LOUISE BATES: The DC-10 jet were coming in to land at Tripoli Airport when passengers heard the plane's landing gear hitting the roofs of houses along the route. Seconds later the plane crashed, cartwheeled for about 400 yards, then split into three pieces. The airport was shrouded in heavy fog and visibility was poor when the pilot attempted to land. But it's not yet known whether human error or technical failure is to blame. Of the 199 people on board at least 82 are known to have been killed. The houses destroyed by the plane before it crashed yielded four more bodies. The pilot, who survived, lost contact with the control tower 15 minutes before impact. Crash investigators will be eager to interview the pilot who is conscious in hospital. He already said he did nothing wrong. More than a hundred other survivors were taken to hospitals in Tripoli. Many of them, including the 18 crew members, were in the first class section of the plane. In Seoul, South Korea's Prime Minister, Kan Yung Hun, called an emergency cabinet meeting. Government officials say there are no signs that terrorism was to blame.

MR. LEHRER: A spokesman for the plane's manufacturer, McDonnell -Douglas, emphasized the reports that weather may have been a contributing factor in the crash. It was eight days ago that a United Airlines DC-10 crashed at the Sioux City, Iowa Airport, killing 111 of the 296 people on board. In that tragedy, an engine exploded, knocking out the plane's hydraulic systems. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The U.S. economy turned in its worst quarterly performance in almost three years the government said today. The Commerce Department said the Gross National Product grew at a 1.7 percent annual rate, a development likely to heighten recession fears. In Smyrna, Tennessee, the employees of Nissan voted by more than a 2 to 1 margin against joining the United Auto Workers Union. The move defeated efforts to make the Smyrna plant the first fully Japanese owned auto factory in the United States to unionize.

MR. LEHRER: A House committee heard more stories today about the Internal Revenue Service. Former and current IRS investigators said they were pressured by higher-ups to withhold information about misconduct in the agency. A current agent said the IRS was overly concerned with its image.

PAUL WHITEMORE, IRS Special Agent: Integrity is our foundation and it's their responsibility to maintain the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service, and I think they're very protective of what gets in the paper so our image will not be tarnished. And so I think they were fearful of some of these things getting in the paper and getting IRS's name attached, that it could possibly tarnish or damage IRS's image.

MR. LEHRER: The committee also heard from the new IRS Commissioner, Fred Goldberg. He said the agency will take new steps to prevent wrongdoing and protect employees who report it. Also in Washington, the Environmental Protection Agency said America's air continues to get dirtier. In its annual pollution report, EPA said 101 geographical areas in the country were found in 1988 to violate government standards for ozone, 44 for carbon monoxide. In Alaska, the State Attorney General's Office announced it had decided not to file criminal charges against Exxon. Such action had been under consideration since the Alaska oil spill in March. We will have a further update on the spill right after this News Summary.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Felix Bloch spy story continued to preoccupy official Washington today. Pres. Bushspoke about the case of the as yet uncharged U.S. veteran diplomat as Bloch, himself, was being pursued by reporters and FBI agents in New York. Mr. Bush made his comments in response to reporters' questions at the White House.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You are always concerned about people who are willing to betray their country and I will say on this case it's allegation at this juncture and it's being investigated. I will also point out that it is a counter intelligence capability of our country that at least is bringing some of the facts to light so far. But the question is can we improve our counter intelligence? We always ought to be striving to improve that. Can embassy security be improved? We go through this periodically and the answer is I'm sure it can.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In what is being hailed as a major victory for Baltic activists, the Soviet legislature today approved measures aimed at giving the Baltic republics more control of their economies. The Soviet News Agency Tass reported that one resolution would allow Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, to trade independently with other Soviet republics. The second would allow Estonian and Lithuanian authorities to decide production matters and control how profits are spent.

MR. LEHRER: The State Department had some bad news today about the U.S. effort to stop drugs at the source in Peru and Bolivia. A report from the department's Inspector General said the programs in those two South American countries have not worked. It said despite spending $100 million over the last 17 years, there has been no significant reduction in the production of and trafficking in cocaine in either country.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In Beirut, there was some of the worst fighting in months. Throughout the night, Christian militiamen traded fire with Syrian troops who are backing the Moslems. At least 29 people were killed and more than 80 wounded. Much of the shelling seemed to be indiscriminate, hitting some neighborhoods at the rate of several dozen shells per minute. Some of those rockets hit a home for the elderly, killing at least two inside. The latest round of fighting in this 13 year old civil war began in March, when Christian militiamen tried to blockade ports used by Moslem militiamen.

MR. LEHRER: There's been a verdict in the Olaf Palme case. Palme was Sweden's prime minister when he was shot to death in Stockholm three years ago. A 42 year old Swede was convicted of the murder today. Carl Peterson, seen here in a police line-up, was sentenced to life in prison. Sweden does not have the death penalty. Peterson had a long criminal record and a history of drug abuse but he denied he shot Palme. No motive was ever established.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now the State of Alaska versus Exxon and on to the government's role in the arts. Then a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - EXXON - SLIP-SLIDING AWAY?

MR. LEHRER: First tonight a fresh dispute over the Alaska oil spill. It's between Exxon, owner of the tanker Exxon Valdez that spilled 10 million gallons into Alaskan waters in March, and the State of Alaska. The issue is Exxon's plan to halt it's clean-up operation in mid September because of the coming of cold weather and without a firm commitment to resume the work in the spring. We have both sides of the dispute represented by an upset official of the State of Alaska, environmental commissioner Dennis Kelso, and the president of Exxon, Lee Raymond. Mr. Raymond, to you first. Why no commitment to resume the clean-up in the spring?

LEE RAYMOND, Exxon Corporation:Jim, I think there has been a misunderstanding of what Exxon has said on this subject for some time and I think the best way to put that in perspective is to reference what we said back in May of this year when at that time we anticipated the question of what would happen next spring and I generally don't like to read things but in this case since there seems to be a lot of people wondering about each individual word. Let me read what was said at our annual meeting by our Chairman. He said our objective is to complete the job by mid September and mile stones have been established to measure our progress. In any event we will return to the area in the Spring of 1990 to reinspect the area to assure that the job has been properly done and if not to put it right. We say that today. If the job hasn't been properly done we will be there next spring to put it right.

MR. LEHRER: As you know what has caused this flap was a memo from Mr. Harrison who O.R. Harrison of Exxon who said our only commitment for the Spring of 1990 is the survey the shoreline and these are not negotiable points.

MR. RAYMOND: Well if I may I think we need to put that memorandum in some perspective. Otto Harrison who is our manager of Valdez operations and you have to say he has to have one of the World's most difficult jobs right now was starting to perceive that his organization was becoming continually pestered sort of speak by people asking all throughout the organization what was going to happen in September and during the winter and next spring. Their objective today and his is to do everything that we can this year to treat the shoreline that is there. That is their prime focus and he was concerned that his organization was going to start to lose that focus and start worrying about things in the future. Therefore he said to his people you, your job is to worry about today my job that is Otto Harrison's job is to worry about September and the winter and next spring and he is continuing to have those kinds of discussions with the Coast Guard and I am sure Mr. Kelso and others all the time in Alaska about those activities. His point was we need to keep our eye on the ball and all of us need to keep our eye on the ball to the extent that we could get more done now we are going to have less to talk about over the winter and next spring and that is our objective.

MR. LEHRER: Where is the ball now. In other words what is the State of the cleanup from Exxon's point of view.

MR. RAYMOND: I am glad that you asked that. In terms of progress on the shoreline which I think is probably the best measure at this point but certainly not the only measure. As of the 25th of July the data I received today and this is data on shoreline clean up in Prince William Sound and I am told that these data now are.

MR. LEHRER: Just the main area?

MR. RAYMOND: The main area and then you get into the Gulf of Alaska and I will make a comment on that but Prince William Sound which is where all of us agreed the initial focus should be. That both we and the Coast Guard now estimate that about 155 miles of shoreline in Prince William Sound have been treated. And a the number in the Gulf of Alaska is somewhere around 400 miles have been treated. And we are continuing to make solid progress. As a matter of fact in the last we have made some very significant progress in both of those areas. I am not going to say that it is not a tough job. It is a very tough job but I think the people who are there have done an excellent job and everybody I hope has the same objective in mind and that is toget that shoreline cleaned up this year.

MR. LEHRER: Well the figures that you mentioned 155 miles. How much does that leave still to be done?

MR. RAYMOND: Well there in is the problem, of course, but when the initial plan was put together in late May which was approved by the Coast Guard and all the Agencies in Alaska there were 209 miles in Prince William Sound to be treated and something on the order of 734 total so it was 525 miles in the Gulf of Alaska. Subsequent surveys since that time have indicated that perhaps the shoreline in Prince William Sound to be cleaned up may be as high as 345 miles but the increase from 209 to the 345, I think, in the words of the people who do the survey is lightly oiled. That is the moderately and heavily oiled are about the same in both of those. And one of the reasons, I think, that the progress at least on a mileage basis is starting to move along is that initially and all of us agreed to do this we tried to get at the heavily oiled to begin with particularly some areas that were sensitive and as we move off of those we move in to areas that need less treatment since there is less oil there so the mileage starts to build up pretty rapidly.

MR. LEHRER: What is in simple terms Exxon's commitment here as far as putting the area back to what it was like before the spill? How do you see that?

MR. RAYMOND: Well our prime focus is on the environmental condition of the beaches. We want to make sure the best that we can that the environmental condition of the beaches the ecological systems are back in the kind of condition that they were before the spill. There is another issue of course that relates some what more to the esthetics in terms of what the rocks might look like and I am not trying to down play that but it seems to us that the real prime focus is to make sure that the environment is operating properly and that there is not toxicity in the water and that there isn't a lot of toxicity the air near the shorelines. That is our prime focus.

MR. LEHRER: So there might still be some residue of oil around that doesn't effect those other things.

MR. RAYMOND: That is right.

MR. LEHRER: You don't feel that is Exxon's responsibility to clean that up?

MR. RAYMOND: Well I think our concern there is Jim that there becomes a point and we've already had some people start to discuss this with us were continuing to try and press to very very detailed clean up techniques can start to do more damage then good. That is for example in the example you gave in trying to clean off the rocks you could end damaging the environmental system more then you gain by trying to clean off the rocks and that is going to be a difficult decision, a difficult trade off for people to look at and that is one of the things that will obviously have to be looked at next spring.

MR. LEHRER: How much has Exxon spent on this thing so far?

MR. RAYMOND: Well as of about a week ago it was about 650 million dollars.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think it is going to cost by the time that you are through?

MR. RAYMOND: Well we really don't know. We have an estimate of a lot of things but that is a pretty difficult thing.

MR. LEHRER: I read a figure at one point 2.8 billion dollars?

MR. RAYMOND: Well people have calculated that number by looking at what we had done in the second quarter earnings and making some other guesses. We really don't want to get in to a lot of discussion on insurance policies. You know if you have ever had your fender on your car bent you know what dealing with an insurance company is like. I think that it is safe to say that the cost is going to get up 2 or 3 time.

MR. LEHRER: That is the clean up and what ever damages that you have to end up paying for?

MR. RAYMOND: That is right.

MR. LEHRER: I see.

MR. RAYMOND: So it is a very very large number.

MR. LEHRER: thank you we'll be back in a moment. Mr. Kelso to you now. What upsets you about what Exxon is doing in the position that Mr. Raymond just outlined?

MR. KELSO: Exxon gave us their word. They gave their word to not only Alaskans but to the American people that they would stick with this effort until it was really done right and instead what we see now is a backing away from that. It isn't just the memorandum that Mr. Raymond referred to. It is also statements made by Top Exxon Official. Statements made by Bill Stevens before a Congressional Sub Committee last week.

MR. LEHRER: What is his job at Exxon?

MR. RAYMOND: He is the head of our domestic operations in the USA.

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me go ahead.

DENNIS KELSO, Alaska Environmental Commissioner: And in addition to that the assurances that Exxon appears to be giving shareholders that they have basically isolated what the costs of the response are going to be but here is where what it comes down to. We are not talking about cosmetic clean up. We are still talking about gross levels of oil on the shoreline. The number that Mr. Raymond gave you are not the numbers that the Coast Guard is working with.

MR. LEHRER: What are they?

MR. KELSO: The numbers themselves are less important than the proportions that we are talking about. Less than half of the area that needs to have treatment has been done with in Prince William Sound but a much larger area exists that needs to be treated outside of Prince William Sound so perhaps a 1/6 of that has been done. So all around we are looking at only about a 1/3 that has been treated and treated is not the same as cleaned. Treated means removing the gross contamination initially with the understanding that there would be a return to do additional work. Now Exxon can straighten all of this out very easily. All Exxon has to do is say that we are committed to coming back and working again in the spring and we will do the tasks that the State of Alaska and the Coast Guard identify for us to do in order to get this clean up done right. But they have not chosen to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Raymond didn't just say that?

MR. KELSO: No he didn't. He said we'll come back and look and if we decide that more clean up is in order then we'll make the decision to do that and he has not made the commitment yet to come back and do what the State of Alaska says they should do and what the U.S. Coast Guard says they should do and that is a very important distinction.

MR. LEHRER: What has been the relationship from your perspective between the State of Alaska up to now. In other words when you say the State of Alaska believes such and such should be done or whatever. What kind relationship have you developed with Exxon on those kinds of questions?

MR. KELSO: Well our field people work closely with Exxon's field people and the Coast Guard and we also work closely with local people who have tremendous knowledge about what is going on not only in the Sound but in the other areas hit by the spill. The local folks for Exxon I think are genuinely trying to get the job done. I have talked to Exxon crews on the shore. I think that they have a tough job but I think that they deserve credit for just trying to get the job done but at the upper levels we hear something very different. We hear the suggestion that we are going to wrap it up September 15, we are going to not do any clean up type effort in the winter and we may or may not come back in the spring depending on what our survey shows. Instead what we are looking for is a commitment to work as long as safety considerations allow this fall. Winter doesn't come as a sudden curtain.

MR. LEHRER: Explain that. What happens on September 15 or what is your perspective on what could still be done after September 15?

MR. KELSO: The Characteristics of the area are different depending on where you are in the spill. This spill as the Raven flies 550 miles long. There are thousands of miles of shore line that have been effected more than 800 has been identified as significantly contaminated already. So you can do different kinds of work in different areas for longer periods depending on what the weather is and the weather in Kodiak is very different then the weather in Valdez. So we are just suggesting that they work as long as the conditions allow. We realize that they have to phase out at an appropriate time and then to join us to work over the winter. There are specific things that need to be done. Shoreline surveys. mapping of the spill movement. monitoring of the spill is doing. There needs to be an emergency strike team to protect in case oil starts moving toward the hatcheries that we fought so hard to protect this summer. Those are the kinds of things that need to be done and yet the Exxon memo says we will not do any clean up work over the winter and we will commit to only doing the survey in the spring.

MR. LEHRER: You don't buy Mr. Raymond's explanation of that that is was an internal memo that went to Mr. Harrison's workers. It was not intended as a statement of Exxon's overall policy?

MR. KELSO: Except for the fact that one day apart the memo was issued and then Bill Stevens testified along the same lines not quite a starkly but saying the same thing to Congress but that doesn't really matter. If Mr. Raymond was serious about it he should make the commitment. We will be back in definitely and we will do what the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard require us to do.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. raymond will you make that commitment?

MR. RAYMOND: Well I think if I may go through two or three points that have been raised. I think the first point that was raised was with regard to the accuracy of the Exxon and the Coast Guard numbers. The data that I have that was given to me just before I came in was Exxon reports total Price William Sound Shoreline clean up as of July 25th of a 153 miles and the Coast Guard a 167 miles. Now I think so let's put to rest the fact that the Coast Guard doesn't agree with our numbers. The second point is that people have tried to imply that I have said and the statement that I just read said that Exxon was going to unilaterally make a decision come the spring with regard to the kinds of activities that would be undertaken. I didn't say that. That is a misstatement and it is a misinterpretation. I think the key point is what we have said and what we will continue to say is that come the spring time we are going to go back and look and see what is there. I am certain the Coast Guard will be there and I am absolutely certain that Mr. Kelso will be there. And then a lot of people are going to have a lot of data. We'll share our data and I hope that Mr. Kelso will share his data. he hasn't up till now. Then some people are going to have to look at that, good science people, not necessarily Exxon and say given what is there here are the kinds of things that can be done to deal with those problems. As I mentioned earlier its not so easy to decide exactly what should be done and it is particularly not easy now because none of really know what is really going to be there next spring. And if the Coast Guard says that makes sense we'll be there to do it.

MR. LEHRER: And that is unequivocal commitment.

MR. RAYMOND: That is exactly right. Now the third point if I may raise is that some people seem to act like we have not had any thoughts about activities over the winter. We have had extensive discussions with the Coast Guard about activities over the winter. It is very likely that we are going have a number of people in Anchorage which is of course where all the equipment that is taken off of Prince William Sound as the onset of Winter comes is there and they are going to have to be working on equipment, they are going to have shoreline survey teams. we are going to have Exxon people taking data out on the Sound and I think that Mr. Kelso knows that but the other point I would make that he raises about a strike them that and I understand was raised earlier this week with the Coast Guard. They weren't enthusiastic about it but I am telling you we are looking carefully if there is anything that makes sense to try and do.

MR. LEHRER: What about his specific point that the State of Alaska is not satisfied at any given time he wants the State of Alaska to be very much involved in the decisions about Exxon and the clean up.

MR. RAYMOND: Well they are and they are today and they all through the Federal on scene coordinator which is the Coast Guard. That is the man we look to. That is the man who approves our plans. All of the various agencies coordinate with the Admiral who is located in Valdez, Admiral Loudens. And he is a tough task master I will tell you but he is also one of the reasons that we have made a lot of the progress that we have. So let's not on Mr. Kelso but all of the organization, NOA, EPA, all the people who have an interest and there are lot of people who have legitimate interests in this have access to have their views known to the Federal on Scene Coordinator and it is his responsibility to put together the plan for the clean up.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Kelso I don't understand then what the problem is. I mean did he not meet your command. He said that they will come back they will keep people there over the winter time and that they will come back and they will listen to you and they will listen to the Coast Guard and they will continue to do the work.

MR. KELSO: No he didn 't say that they would keep people over the winter and he said that they would keep them in Anchorage and that they were thinking about the possibility of may be a strike team. Let me put that in some perspective.

MR. LEHRER: Alright.

MR. KELSO: By land Anchorage is about a 6 hour driver from Valdez. you cross two mountain ranges. The weather is not always suitable for land in valdez so that means that if there is an emergency we may well be to far away if they are located in Anchorage to respond. What needs to happen is they need to make a commitment to keep a small number of people a strike team with appropriate equipment located in a location such as next to the hatchery that is most at risk during the spring and summer.

MR. LEHRER: I heard him say just now that that's under discussion with you and with the Coast Guard, you want a commitment to that no matter what.

MR. KELSO: Since we've gotten such a cold shoulder on this issue before, I'm glad to see that Mr. Raymond is having a change of heart, or at least his organization is, but what we're looking for here is some commitments, not well, we'll think about it, we'll talk about it later. Of course, we'll talk about these things later when it comes time to actually do the work in the field. That's when you put the plans together, but right now what we need is the commitment and even with what Mr. Raymond said, they are still not committing to do what the State of Alaska requires them to do. You noticed that he said we'll do what the federal on- scene coordinator suggests that we do, but the point is the State of Alaska has jurisdiction here. It's our people that are being hurt. It is the shore line that the State of Alaska owns and the people of the United States own the up lands and many of these areas. That's what's being hit, and so what we're looking for is the commitment of what the State of Alaska requires and what the federal on-scene coordinator require get done. Usually that's the same thing.

MR. LEHRER: Do you have any tools available to you, does the state have any tools available to them, if Exxon does not deliver in the final analysis? I mean, can you make them, are you in a position where you can force them to do what you want them to?

MR. KELSO: Yes, we do have legal authority and we will use that if we need to but we would much rather have this be a cooperative relationship. From the beginning, our idea has been this is a tough task. Yes, Exxon's the spiller, they're responsible for it, for getting the job done right, and we will work with them to get that accomplished. It makes it a lot tougher and it's very hard on the people who have been hurt so much by this spill to hear Exxon saying, well, we'll come back and look in the spring, and we'll do what, if I can paraphrase Mr. Raymond's statement, we'll do what the federal authorities say, but there still has not been a clear commitment that the state authorities will be able to make sure that the rest of this work gets done. Our role and the federal role are somewhat different here, but ultimately what we're trying to do is to get a cleaned up spill. That doesn't mean that every molecule of oil is going to be off the shoreline, but we need to have things as close to back to where they were before. We need to help nature do the full recovery and the only way you do that is to stick with getting the oil out of the water and off the shoreline so that we can have a completed job.

MR. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still to come politics and art and an essay on the blues. FOCUS - PORTRAIT OF AN ART CRITIC

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight a controversy over funding for art. Yesterday the Senate voted to bar government support of what it called obscene or indecent art. The proposed ban is a result of two controversial photo exhibits displayed by art groups that received federal moneys. Earlier the House of Representatives passed a cut in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the government agency that funded the two arts groups. We'll debate the government's role in all of that in just a few moments, but first a background report from Kwame Holman. Well, we thought we had a tape but we don't, so instead we turn now to two opposing views on the role of government in funding such works. Wendy Luers is a board member of the National Council on the Arts, which is the advisory board to the National Endowment for the Arts. Congressman Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, joins us from Capitol Hill. He opposed fundingfor the Maple, Thorpe, and Cerano exhibitions which you would have heard a little bit about in the tape but they are the controversial subject of some of this funding criticism. We go first to you, Ms. Luers. We've seen in recent weeks a number of efforts among politicians who don't think that taxpayers money ought to be spent going for works like those of Andre Cerano, very graphic depictions of subjects that he's chosen, and the late Robert Maple Thorpe. What do you think is wrong with those efforts?

WENDY LUERS, National Endowment For The Arts: First of all, its control of the arts by the Congress, which inevitably deals with politics and deals with an opinion that plays back home. The National Endowment For The Arts was established 25 years ago by the Congress on the basis of freedom of expression and freedom of artistic expression which is embodied in our first amendment, and, therefore, if you begin to get taste as an opinion, and over the generations of people where things that we know that are now accepted have been banned we are not representing what the United States of America is, we're not representing what our Constitution enshrines, and we're not representing what the initial idea of the Congress 25 years ago was in establishing the Endowments.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Armey, is that what you're up to, control and taste as an opinion?

REP. DICK ARMEY, [R] Texas: No. Actually what we're talking about is the normal routine oversight of a federal agency by the Congress of the United States just as you have with the Defense Department, HUD or any other agency. The whole question is whether or not this agency will be responsive to the desires and the tastes of the American people as they express a limit to avant garde, and whether or not they'll have responsible decision making procedures and accept the oversight their fiduciary responsibility for the taxpayers money.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. So that we have a little bit clearer understanding of what we're talking about, we have our videotape now, so we're going to look at that briefly and then come back to the discussion.

MR. HOLMAN: These are the photographs of Robert Maple Thorpe. These also are the photographs of Robert Maple Thorpe. The work of the late homosexual photographer seen here in a self-portrait is now on display at the Washington Project for the Arts in the nation's capital. It's the second stop in Washington for an exhibit that includes both Maple Thorpe's lush photos of flowers and his nudes of men, women, and children, including male homosexual sex acts and pseudo masochism. Those photos got the Maple Thorpe exhibit evicted from its first Washington showplace, the prestigious Corcoran Gallery. After a contentious debate, the Corcoran board voted last month to oust the Maple Thorpe photos, fearing that housing the exhibit would fuel the controversy over the $30,000 in federal funding the touring exhibit received. The Corcoran's decision was roundly criticized by the arts community around the country as a threat to artistic freedom. The photographs also got the attention of Capitol Hill, members of Congress aimed to send a message about government funding for the Maple Thorpe photographs and for those of Andres Cerano, whose exhibit includes a photograph of a crucifix immersed in the artist's urine. The House voted a symbolic $45,000 cut in the $170 million budget for the National Endowment For The Arts, the government arts funding agency. That's the exact amount the Endowment granted to support the two photo exhibits. Members took to the House floor to take both sides of the issue.

REP. RICHARD ARMEY, [R] Texas: [July 12] The question is discipline. Will this agency that has the privilege of spending the money of the American working men and women, the average working man and woman in America would have had to work 276 days of their working life to pay for Maple Thorpe and Cerano, and they would not have spent their money that foolishly.

REP. PAT WILLIAMS, [D] Montana: Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn and the predecessors of some of the gentlemen on the right and perhaps even some of them are still trying to take Huckleberry Finn out of America's libraries. Censorship is a dangerous thing. It rides on the tides of preference of the day.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, [R] California: Our taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing this type of questionable project. What private citizens choose to finance or to purchase is their own business. Decisions about what type of art should be funded should be made by private individuals and organizations that appreciate art and its beauty and have the ability and willingness to support it. Government panels should not be given the privilege to impose their tastes on both the artists and the taxpayers.

REP. NORMAN DICKS, [D] Washington: We've had only 20 -- as the chairman's report shows -- only 20 cases of some question out of 85,000 of these grants.

MR. HOLMAN: Yesterday the Senate took up the debate over how Congress should react to the exhibit's federal funding. North Carolina Republican Jesse Helms offered an amendment.

SEN. JESSE HELMS, [R] North Carolina: The amendment addresses the controversy surrounding the use of federal funds by way of the National Endowment For The Arts to support so-called works of art by Andres Cerano and Robert Maple Thorpe. This amendment would prevent the NEA from funding such trash in the future, specifically the amendment prohibits the use of NEA's funds to support obscene or indecent materials which denigrate the objects or beliefs of a particular religion.

SEN. HOWARD METZENBAUM, [D] Ohio: It's hard to oppose an amendment of this kind; it sounds so right. I do feel that there's a strong concern that I have that we're gradually encroaching more and more in the whole area of the Congress telling the art world what is art, what isn't art, what funds can be spent for, what they can't be spent for. I don't think that we'll be adding to the fulfillment of the culture of this nation if we do that.

SEN. JESSE HELMS: I'm not going into detail about the crudeness of the art in question. I don't even acknowledge that it's art. I don't even acknowledge that the fellow who did it was an artist; I think he was a jerk. And I said that earlier. And in any case, there's a fundamental difference between government censorship, the preemption of publication or production and the government's refusal to pay for such publication and production. Artists have a right, it is said, to express their feelings as they wish. Only a philistine would suggest to the contrary. But no artist has the preemptive claim on the tax dollars of the American people to put forth such trash.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right, Ms. Luers, you heard what Congressman Armey said in response to your earlier criticism that the real issue here is that this agency has not exercised discipline in reflecting the public's will, in effect.

MS. LUERS: Let me explain the process.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That is what you said, right, Congressman? I just wanted to make sure.

REP. ARMEY: Yes, that's right. Procedures are flawed and they're very difficult, recalcitrant and very difficult to work with. I've tried twice now and found them almost impossible to work with.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But your bottom line is that you feel they have exceeded their authority in making these kinds of grants right, to art that you feel that the public is not in sympathy with?

REP. ARMEY: Well, I don't know if I want to say exceeded. They have not complied with the general spirit of the Congress or the limits of the expression of purchases. I would say that we have, in fact, Congressional consumer protection agencies that would protect the private sector from spending their money on this kind of stuff.

MS. LUERS: Well, let me explain the procedure that Congressman Armey is speaking to and that one of your colleagues on the floor spoke to. Out of 85,000 grants that have been given over the last 20 years, each of which is decided upon by a peer panel of experts who work within that field, they are then, we as members of the National Council on the Arts, we are six terms, Presidential appointees, approved by the Senate of the United States. We represents what the President of the United States decides, are the people that he wants to represent us in the arts, and those peer panels in all 17 different departments, program areas of the National Endowment for the Arts, which includes opera, musical theater, symphonies, visuals, museums, folk art, et cetera, et cetera, we have to rely upon the experts, themselves, to recommend to us, and we feel that that procedure is really inviolant, because as an advisory council we have to decide upon a thousand grants each quarter.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Armey, if these people whom Ms. Luers just spoke about aren't the people who should be making the decisions, who should be?

REP. ARMEY: Well, obviously we're perfectly willing to extend to them the privilege of making these decisions. They must be equally willing to accept that they must be accountable in the process.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you say not accountable, what do you mean?

REP. ARMEY: Well, I'm saying that twice in my experience in my short term in Congress when I've gone to the National Endowment to ask them to give me an accounting for how it is they manage to fund in one case obscene poetry and in another case, this art that you're talking about, this piss Christ work, they've told me that I should mind my own business. Now that's not the way it works. We allocate the money; we do oversight; and they must be accountable to Congress. Whether or not they are appointed by the President, they are still accountable to Congress, and they must accept that process.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Luers.

MS. LUERS: I understand that and I understand that in the Senate the version has said that there should be $100,000 set aside by the Congress to investigate our process. That is something that we perfectly welcome. We believe that our process is absolutely correct. Congress and the individuals that make up Congress cannot micro manage something that covers the entire country of the United States and every part of it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And that's what you think they're trying to do with this?

MS. LUERS: That's what I'm saying is that he's jumping on 20 out of 85,000 grants. And I would like Congressman Armey or anybody else to say -- I certainly don't consider myself qualified to make a decision about a coral group in Des Moines. I mean, how could I possibly -- do you, Congressman?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that what you're trying to do, micro manage the --

REP. ARMEY: Let me first point out the 20 out of 80,000 grants is a nice plea, they've copped it before, and all that says is how much tolerance and patience we do have with the agency, but the same folks that are telling us that we cannot micro manage the National Endowment for the Arts are insisting that we more micro manage the Pentagon. Now the fact of the matter is oversight is a legitimate necessary of function. Accountability is a legitimate requirement of any agency that has the privilege of spending the taxpayer's money. That must be accepted.

MS. LUERS: But Charlayne, and Congressman, you've gotten far beyond that in what happened in the Senate yesterday. I mean in the Senate yesterday you're talking about taking aside an entire body of art that deals with class and race and sex and natural origins and class of people. I mean, there's a German artist named Hackey who did something about corporate America's support for the arts. That could not be shown because it's denigrating a certain class of citizens. In fact, that is what we are based in. We are based in freedom of expression in this country. The Soviets a long time ago started controlling their artists and their people and they're just now figuring out that it doesn't work and they're resurrecting those artists that worked in their own private freedom then.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that what it's out Congressman, control?

REP. ARMEY: No. It's about imposing limits. It's about requiring an agency to have some degree of sensitivity.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how would you impose those limits, I mean, and how would you --

REP. ARMEY: Unhappily in my initial effort on the House side when I initiated this effort by contacting Hugh Southern, the acting director of the Endowment, and asking them to produce language that would show some semblance of accountability and sensibility and sensitivity, and they gave us gobbley gook. I understand Sen. Helms' frustration. I don't necessarily agree with his exact language, nor do I want to defend that exact language, but now there's language in place that can be worked on and the agency, frankly, was not willing to respond to us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you this. I mean, musicians are traditionally thought of as neutral sanctuaries entered voluntarily by the public. If you begin to impose the kinds of limits that you want to impose on museums that are funded by the public, what do you think the result of that is going to be? There are those who say that it is going to end up producing just bland art, that it doesn't have the traditional, you know, ground breaking kind of record that other art publicly funded has had.

REP. ARMEY: You have to keep in mind that some small portion of the arts and entertainment world is trespassed against by the government by virtue of the community asking us to come on in and bring your money. Now they can ask us to come on in, furnish the house, and then accept those furnishings that comply with our taste, they can't say give us the money and then mind your own business, if they want to be free from government influence over what is or is not featured with this expenditure, then the only way they can be safe is don't take the money but they can't take --

MS. LUERS: But what I am saying, Congressman, is that we are perfectly willing to work with the Congress obviously to look at our process, but the punitive kinds of measures that were taken yesterday on the floor of the Senate, and I understand that you had wished to cut 10 percent of the Endowment's budget, which is taking money away from small folk artists, it's taking money away from local and state art agencies, which we have founded and fostered, who now far outspend the federal government in the arts, the Congress of the United States established us, and it says in its legislation that the committee affirms that the intent of this act should be the encouragement of free inquiry and expression. And we ask those peers of those people who are experts to further this intent of the Congress. And I haven't heard from you or really from anybody else except in a punitive way how you would make our process better.

REP. ARMEY: Well, that's not true. First of all, please understand, I had a meeting with Hugh Southern and with Sid Yates, and Sid Yates asked when we worked this out, I thought, and Southern told me that within 10 days he would give me language that would show me their willingness to accept their accountability responsibility and their oversight, comply with their oversight requirements. He never produced the language. We went to the floor with amendments to cut the budget after we encountered the recalcitrants of the agency and the attitude give us the money and mind your own business continued to prevail in their behavior. Now talk is cheap but the fact is a working man and woman in America who finds that $15,000 of their taxpayers went to Piss Christ are very angry and they want an accounting for it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just a brief --

MS. LUERS: One of the reasons why Hugh Southern I suspect, and I don't know this, but we are having a meeting at the beginning of August as the advisory council, as the Presidential appointees to discuss this very matter.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, maybe we'll come back to it then because we have to leave it now. Congressman, thank you for being with us, and Ms. Luers, thank you for being with us. ESSAY - FOREVER BLUE

MR. LEHRER: Chicago is known for the blues and every summer the city celebrates this with a three day festival. Essayist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune was there this year. He has some thoughts about the future of the blues. [BLUES SONG]

CLARENCE PAGE: Those notes you hear are blue notes. Blue notes are subtle notes, sometimes a bunch of notes smeared together in a way that glides, slides and flies out as a vocalized moan or cry that's hard to define but you know it when you hear it. The blues guitar generally weeps and it wails. The blues harp talks to you. Played by a Chicago master like James Cotton, it talks rough like a Chicago winter, yet smooth and sweet like the lake front in summertime. Huddy Ledbetter, a blues man better known to the world as Lead Belly probably said it best. "The blues is a feeling," he said, "and when it hits you, it's the real news.". Newport has jazz, Kentucky has blue grass, Chicago's got the blues, the real blues some say, although true blues efficiandos will tell you these days they have their doubts as to just what the real blues is any more so blurred is the line between blues, rhythm and blues, soul, rock, rap, what have you, the blues refuses to be confined to easy definition. The blues refuses to be confined. [BLUES SONG]

MR. PAGE: Take Buddy Guy and Junior Wells. Both came from the deep South where they learned to play the blues at its roots, the old fashioned way on acoustical guitars, front porch style. Then they moved to Chicago, and plugged into the electric world of the urban North and the blues has never been quite the same. Listen closely to Buddy Guy and you might hear a style influenced in recent years by the music he initially influenced. He's not afraid to changewith the times, but like the blues, he never forgets. Listen to Junior and you still hear the roots of the blues. [BLUES SONG]

MR. PAGE: He evokes a call and response style of a black church meeting, a style that works as well in a small blues club as it does in the vastness of a festival. [BLUES SONG]

MR. PAGE: It may sound like a contradiction to hold a blues festival. How, after all, can one be festive about the blues? Yet, festive it is. On stage they may be singing the blues, but out there in the audience it's just one big party. No one finds that odd. The blues always has been about coaxing good times out of hard times, drawing sweet juice from a bitter fruit, and the ironies do not end there. [BLUES SONG]

MR. PAGE: On stage the musicians and the music is mostly aging and black. The audience more often not is young and white. No one finds that odd either, but it does raise sobering questions about the future of the blues. Blacks have always been ambivalent about the blues. It was always the music of the lower income groups, the hard working classes, where the contradiction between white and black culture was most pronounced. Today many young blacks ridicule the blues. They call it handkerchief head music, country music, cold teeth music. They would rather listen to the newer music, the offspring of mother blues. So what happens when today's blues stars are gone? Where will the next generation of blues artists come from? Perhaps from here. An interesting project in the Chicago public schools may be nurturing the seeds of future blues. [BLUES SONG DONE BY KIDS]

MR. PAGE: And some of the old blues families like the Meal Family have some interesting offspring of their own. Still, one cannot help but feel the blues we hear today will never come again. So listen now to the blues while it tells us the real news. [BLUES SONG] RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, a Korean Air DC-10 crashed short of the runway at the Tripoli Airport in Libya. At least 82 people are known dead. There is no immediate indication of a mechanical failure similar to the one that caused United Airlines DC-10 to crash last week in Iowa. The nation's economy grew at its most sluggish rate in nearly three years last quarter and 29 people were killed in a fresh outbreak of ethnic fighting in Lebanon. Good night, Jim.

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