The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Kwame Holman and Ray Suarez cover President Bush's energy plan; Fred de Sam Lazaro reports on an AIDS prevention program in Africa that works; Margaret Warner has a Pulitzer conversation about Emperor Hirohito; and essayist Roger Rosenblatt ponders what is art. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush laid out his energy plan today. It would increase supply by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other federal lands, encourage building more conventional generators and refineries, and rely more on nuclear power. It also advocates developing solar, wind, and water power, and would offer tax credits to promote conservation. Mr. Bush outlined the proposals in a speech in St. Paul, Minnesota. He said without changes America faced a future of shortages, but many Democrats said his plan was little in the near term. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked today over Theodore Olsen, President Bush's nominee for solicitor general. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Partisan wrestling over the Olsen nomination has lasted for weeks. If confirmed as solicitor general, he would serve as the federal government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court. It was Olsen who argued Mr. Bush's Florida recount case before the High Court. But Democrats have questioned Olsen's testimony about his role in the so-called Arkansas Project, an investigation once launched against then President Bill Clinton by the conservative magazine "The American Spectator." Olsen, a former board member of the magazine, said he wasn't involved in starting the Arkansas Project, but the committee's top Democrat, Vermont's Patrick Leahy, was not convinced.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: As I've listened to his responses, and studying his responses also to written questions, I have become increasingly concerned that he's not shown a willingness or ability to be sufficiently candid and forthcoming with the Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: Committee Democrats wanted to continue to examine Olsen's role at the magazine, but Chairman Orrin Hatch said Democrats presented no credible evidence.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I wrote that any specific evidence supporting allegations against Mr. Olsen should "be brought to my or my staff's attention immediately and no later than 5 PM Tuesday." No such allegations were brought to my attention.

KWAME HOLMAN: This morning all nine committee Republicans voted for the Olsen nomination, all nine Democrats against. In previous Congresses a tie would kill a nomination, but under the rules of the 50/50 Senate, the Olsen nomination still could be determined by a vote of the full Senate.

JIM LEHRER: It was unclear today when that vote in the full Senate might come. The mayor of York, Pennsylvania, was arraigned today for a 1969 racial murder. Charles Robertson surrendered in the killing of a black woman that happened during a period of race riots when he was a police officer. In an affidavit, another suspect said Robertson gave him bullets and told him to kill blacks. The mayor denied it and said he was not a racist. He was freed on $50,000 bond. Robertson is 67 years old and seeking reelection. On Tuesday, he defeated a black city councilman in the local Democratic primary. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Bush energy plan, an AIDS report from Senegal, a Pulitzer winner, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS - POWERING THE FUTURE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman begins our energy report.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush began his day touting new energy technology at a plant in St. Paul, Minnesota, that generates power by burning coal, oil, or wood, depending on which is cheapest. He chose a local convention center filled with invited guests for the official unveiling of his energy plan and began by asserting the costs of inaction.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: For two decades the share of the average family budget spent on energy steadily declined. But since 1998, it has skyrocketed by 25 percent. And that's a hardship for every American family. If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts. If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom who do not share our interests.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President said conservation is the cornerstone of his plan.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We'll underwrite research and development into energy saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy efficient appliances. We will review and remove the obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy efficient technologies, like the combined heat and power system I toured this morning.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the President also said a major goal is to increase energy production.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our nation's energy supplies. America today imports 52 percent of all our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President calls for burning more coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear power plant capacity and drilling for new oil in new places that includes in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or ANWR. That's now banned, but the President says it can be done safely.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: In arctic sites like ANWR, we can build roads of ice that literally melt away when summer comes, and the drilling then stops to protect wildlife. ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President also wants to enhance electricity transmission by requiring private property be sold to make way for power lines.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We have chopped our country into dozens of local electricity markets, which are haphazardly connected to one another. For example, a weak link in California's electrical grid makes it difficult to transfer power from the southern part of the state to the North, where the blackouts have been worse. Highways connect Miami with Seattle; phone lines link Los Angeles and New York. It is time to match our interstate highway and phone systems with an interstate electrical grid.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Bush plan also would give new tax incentives for investing in alternative energy sources, such as wind power, solar energy, and new technologies to help cars run on non-fossil fuels. Mr. Bush concluded his speech with a message to his critics in the environmental community.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Too often, Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection -- as if people do revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about American's energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. (applause) They're dual aspects of a single purpose - to live well and wisely upon the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act. (applause)

DEMONSTRATORS: Dirty coal and dirty air - dirty coal and dirty air...

KWAME HOLMAN: But the yelling already had begun outside the St. Paul Convention Center by people protesting the President's well previewed announcement, and in Washington, major environmental groups also weighed in.

GENE KARPINSKI, U.S. Public Interest Research Group: Our message today is clear: President Bush's energy plan is dirty, dangerous, and doesn't deliver for consumers. It's a recipe for more drilling, more spilling, more nuclear waste, more asthma attacks, and more global warming.

KWAME HOLMAN: One environmental group even had this ad ready to go on the air.

SPOKESMAN: Tell President Bush his energy plan is one we just can't afford.

KWAME HOLMAN: At the Capitol, Congressional Democrats responded to the Bush plan by saying it fails to provide solutions for the current energy problem.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL, (D) Washington: The energy crisis is raging through the West like a forest fire headed out of control - rolling blackouts, escalating prices, failing businesses, and job loss. But the White House is ignoring the flames. And I'm not suggesting we sacrifice the long-term planning for short-term action. We need a balanced energy plan for the future that is diverse, that is well funded, but also we need solutions for today's crisis.

KWAME HOLMAN: Democrats also offered an alternative plan. It would cap the price of wholesale electricity on the West Coast, keep open the option of tapping the nation's strategic petroleum reserve to provide any immediate increases in supply, tighten fuel economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles, and give tax credits to producers and consumers of renewable energy. Democrats say the President's call for alternative fuels use isn't backed up in his budget proposal.

SPOKESMAN: The Administration's budget this year slashes renewable energy research and development by more than a third and substantially cuts funding for energy efficiency technologies. They can say all the nice things they want, but take a look at their budget. Even worse, what little support the Administration's putting in renewables, they hold it hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

KWAME HOLMAN: Democrats also claim the White House is not serious about conserving energy, noting that last month Vice President Cheney called conservation a personal virtue but not a solution to the nation's energy problems. But today congressional Republicans said their party does take conservation seriously.

SPOKESMAN: Interestingly enough, my own state energy department, when asked to send recommendations in to Vice President Cheney, listed conservation as its first recommendation, and it would be, I think, the first package we will begin working on.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans plan quick action on the President's plan, hoping to pass it out of the Senate by July 4th.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes it from there.

RAY SUAREZ: Here to help us walk through the Bush energy proposal are Jane Houlihan, research Director at the Environment Working Group; Michael Marvin, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, which represents wind, solar, and natural gas producing companies; Lynne Church, president of the Electric Power Supply Association, the national trade association for competitive power suppliers; Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, representing the major oil companies; Karl Rabago, managing director of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a research and education group focusing on energy efficiency; and Phil Verleger, an energy economist and president P.K. Verleger, a consulting firm.

Well, Ray Cavaney, let's start with you. An overview of the Bush, does it make sense to you?

RED CAVANEY: Well, I think the plan is both comprehensive and practical; it embraced a lot of elements that many people were interested in. I thought that of particular note was the fact that when you compared his proposal with both the Democratic and Republican proposals up on Capitol Hill, there are 11 major areas that were common to all of them. So I think that creates an excellent place where they can all start, roll up their sleeves, and work together to help the consumer.

RAY SUAREZ: Lynne Church?

LYNNE CHURCH: I would agree. He took the words just right out of my mouth. I mean, there's a lot of balance there. There's a lot of areas where I think there's a good foundation for bipartisan approach, and I think it is dealing certainly from our standpoint, it deals with a lot of the critical areas that the electric industry is facing.

RAY SUAREZ: Jane Houlihan, how about you?

JANE HOULIHAN: My first reaction to the plan was why the secrecy? It seems to me a plan that could have been pulled down from coal, oil, nuclear company websites. It's plans that have been around in history for a long time. And James Watt told the Denver Post this is my plan dusted off from 20 years ago, so this is a great day for oil, coal, and fossil fuels; it's obviously a great day for James Watt too, but it's a bad day for the consumer and the public health and the environment it's also a bad day.

RAY SUAREZ: Karl Rabago, your review of the plan?

KARL RABAGO: I agree with much that has already been said. I think the plan has a little bit for everyone in it. It echoes the kind of talk we heard during the campaign about a comprehensive energy strategy, a bit of a relief after some of the rhetoric we heard in recent weeks, and I think the real determiner will be the actions in the form of budgets and real policy changes that come from this plan.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, Michael Marvin, like electricity and petroleum, there was a special concentration on

renewable and alternative fuels. Both in the specifics and as a comprehensive plan, what did you make of it?

MICHAEL MARVIN: Well, I think it was a good start. It was an important start, and Karl made the most important point, which is either plan in and of itself, our nation's energy strategy today is the same as our energy strategy yesterday. The question is: What do you do with this plan? How does the President work with the Congress? What gets implemented? The President made some very important moves in this proposal. There are a number of important additions on virtually all technologies. I have to say there were some missed opportunities as well relating to energy efficiency that maybe we can get into later, but, for example, what are we trying to do? We're trying to tackle both sides of the coin. We're trying to generate more energy, and we're trying to use it more smartly. It's a great opportunity to incentivize consumers to use less energy. For example, tax credits for extra efficient appliances in a home, tax credits for super efficient homes from home builders - incentivize what it is we're trying to accomplish. Those were the missed opportunities, and so while I give the report some fairly good grades in a number of areas, that was the missed opportunity from my perspective.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, Phil Verleger, what did you make of the Bush plan?

PHILLIP VERLEGER: Well, I was a little disappointed. I think it was timid, and it missed an important opportunity to push for deregulation of electricity prices across the country and incorporate a windfall profit tax, take the bold move that Jimmy Carter took against the advice of his advisers in 1979. And I also was a little distressed to see them talk about energy security in terms of Richard Nixon's energy independence, rather than in terms of energy security expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We don't - we're not going to get any place from ANWAR, although it may be perfectly appropriate to develop it. But I think the most important thing is that it's a huge mistake, as we've learned from past energy programs, to propose investments in infrastructure, although we clearly do need infrastructure investment before we get places right. We made a mistake in the 70s with natural gas, and a number of companies paid for it going bankrupt in the 80s because we over invested in natural gas, and I think we're going to make the same mistake with electricity. The first thing we need to do is really fix the electricity pricing system and we did nothing there.

RAY SUAREZ: Karl Rabago, let me read you a quote from the report that was released today. "The United States is facing the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargo of the 1970's, a fundamental imbalance between supply and demand." Is that the way you see it?

KARL RABAGO: I think there is an issue of a short-term lack of supply in some markets where things have not been organized well like California. But I don't think there's a fundamental shortage of opportunity. Let me read you another important quote here. It says, "As a result since 1973, the United States economy has grown by 126 percent. Our energy use has increased by only 30 percent." In the last three decades then the fastest growing energy resource in this country has been improved energy efficiency. The technologies for that opportunity have only improved, and, like Michael said, we ought to be taking advantage of every opportunity we can to continue relying on that best resource, the one that has proven itself over the last three decades. There is one point on the supply/demand thing that, of course, bears pointing out, and that is that we really do have to pay attention to the economics. As the previous speaker said, prices are important, the projected curves in the introductory section of this report seem to imply that consumption will keep on growing and not respond to higher prices when, in fact, we know as a fact - we know that it will. Already, we've seen production responding to higher prices, as well, so we should take great care before tinkering with the system by, for example, encouraging excessive investment in supply. We'll find ourselves in a glut situation like we found in the early 90's, which was devastating to the industries that bring us our energy resources.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me hear from more of you on that. What is the nature of the problem, as you see it from your patch, and does this plan respond to the nature of the crisis? Red Cavaney?

RED CAVANEY: The big problem we have in delivering gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil to people in the United States is not the capacity to get the raw material, crude oil, but it's to actually get it through the refining system, have enough capacity and to have a distribution network and the kind of fuel base we need. Presently, we're operating all out, close to 100 percent as we can get and still provide fuel, so the good news for the consumer is that finally after five weeks of record production running at this rate, the wholesale price reached a peak, it appears, on May 4th, has been trending down now for almost two weeks. Historically, if you look at things, retail prices always follow wholesale prices, and our inventories for the first week are about last year as is crude oil stocks, so I think there's some good news here that the consumer can feel confident that if we can keep the refineries going and don't have outages or pipeline outages, we can get through the summer.

RAY SUAREZ: That tight refinery capacity, is there anything in the Bush plan in response to that in particular that's creating your current problem?

RED CAVANEY: They look at various obstacles, which are permitting problems that are there. We need to expand capacity but permits are very difficult to get. They talk about doing that, possibly expediting those. They talk about look at some of the competing regulations that actually conflict with one another in trying to provide a clear roadway or a path for investment ahead, and that's what's needed to get capital back in the business.

RAY SUAREZ: Jane Houlihan, what's the problem?

JANE HOULIHAN: One of the problems right now is the public are feeling in a big way the high energy prices, you know, California utility bills are going to be a record high next month. Natural gas prices have doubled and the prices at the pump are up. But this plan - and people are feeling this, and especially low income people - this plan doesn't address those short-term problems. And what this plan does, this plan is in its essence a plan to increase production of dirty fossil fuels. That's in the biggest picture; that's what it is. It provides little relief to the consumer, certainly no relief in the short-term, and I think the administration missed a big opportunity here to develop a long range plan that would help consumers and stabilize prices.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Lynne Church, how do you respond to that?

LYNNE CHURCH: Well, I think, look, what is very clear in the California situation is that we do have a supply shortfall. That is the fundamental problem in California, the Northwest, and increasingly in other parts of the country, and what we need is to in addition to conservation and efficiency, we do need to build new power plants, and our industry is ready to invest a lot of money to do that. But we are running into conflicting as with refineries, conflicting regulations, we're running into a lot of NIMBY opposition on - don't build in my backyard. We're running into a lot of concern, well, you can't build in my state if the power is going to be used in another state, even though having more power just generally in a region will mean a more reliable service and certainly keep prices stable, so we need to see an atmosphere that encourages development in new plants, and most of the new ones that are being built are very efficient natural gas plants that are very low in emissions.

RAY SUAREZ: As I understand it, the Bush plan lowers the threshold for construction of new nuclear plants as well. Might they become more economical, given what's in the plan, with liability protection and some other things for your members?

LYNNE CHURCH: Well, in fact, many of our members do have nuclear plants that are being sold on a competitive basis. Many of the plants are very efficient and they're increasingly efficient; they can compete. They are being now managed by companies that are buying a number of plants, which means that you have a lot of efficiencies, and it's a much better management scheme. And so I think nuclear - certainly the existing nuclear plants have a role to play. I mean, we can't afford to replace all of the existing nuclear plants; there's just no way we're going to build enough new plants to replace them in the short term.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Marvin?

MICHAEL MARVIN:Well, I guess to me the question is: Why? I am certainly not proposing that we - any sort of a ban on construction of nuclear power plants. I don't have a position frankly - but we've seen is generally speaking, the public does want them; Wall Street won't finance them; the utility executives won't build them. So the question is: Why are we looking backwards for an energy strategy - we continue to look forward - and I think the market - you see in California in particular you see the substantial price rise in the cost of electricity for the consumer. And what that has translated to is now we see reports according to the Department of Energy, you see 90,000 megawatts of new supply coming on line in the next 18 months, and that's with or without this energy strategy. That is again according to the Department of Energy - that's a quarter of all the nation's needs between now and 2020.

RAY SUAREZ: So where is the answer when it comes to alternative fuels, where would they fit in the mix in the view of your members that would - that would make it let's say worthy more of our attention?

MICHAEL MARVIN: Well, I would tell you that obviously the simplest answer there is anytime you have a higher commodity price in electricity you are going to make technology such as wind and solar and geothermal and biomass more cost competitive. Wind now is so incredibly cost effective it now can rival in the best situation - can rival any natural gas plant. We're seeing 60 percent increases in the market in wind technologies. These are tremendous technological successes; it's a very exciting story. And frankly one of the perverse benefits of an energy crisis, if you will, is an increased recognition of these technologies, where they've been, where they are now, just how far we've come - energy efficiency and renewable technologies now - combined heating power and fuel cells - very exciting stories.

RAY SUAREZ: Phil Verleger, go ahead.

PHILLIP VERLEGER: I think wind and the alternative arguments are extremely strong and what also needs to be added is that they've been frustrated by what I call manipulation by Southern California Edison; they don't pay the renewables, whether they're a cogeneration facility like the one President Bush visited today in Minneapolis or the wind producer. And they've deliberately held down the rates, and this is one of the reasons why we have to get prices right is so that - and pay all the generators - whether they're nuclear generator - or the wind producer in the Mojave Desert - at the same prices as the out of state generator - is that will bring down the spot price and that will rationalize the investment process so that we don't over investment in gas fired power plants and then discover we have too many.

RAY SUAREZ: Would the markets set the prices? You've stressed this during your remarks - that we should get the price structures, the incentives and the disincentives right. What if the Bush administration did nothing at this point? Would this take care of itself? Would some of it take care of itself?

PHILLIP VERLEGER: No, it would not take care of itself, because we have the vestiges of the 1938 federal power commission and SEC regulation of utilities. We actually need a positive action to lift the controls or lift the governance. You know 20 years ago we had old oil, which is $5 oil and stripper oil which was $30 oil, and when we deregulated the prices, it equilibrated at around $20. So the consumer actually saw prices fall. And what we need is a policy that gets the same price to all the producers. Now I'd put ina windfall profit tax on part of the increase - not all of the increase - to compensate the average wage earner and many of the people in California and Massachusetts who would be hurt for the transition period. But if you get prices right, you encourage the conservation, you encourage distributive generating, which wasn't spoken of at all on this program, which alleviates the need for some of these transmission facilities, and you actually begin to move towards a more rational energy system. We did the same thing for petroleum, and it had amazing - caused an amazing rationalization over 10 years and took a lot of excess cost out of the system. The same thing would happen at the electricity sector and we would see energy consumption drop; we'd see fossil fuel emissions drop; and the economy would actually function much better. But what you'd have to do is take the bold step of removing the price controls on electricity because they right now are causing the problems we have in California, particularly with this horrible drought in the Northwest.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, some of this plan has very long time horizons. But if it passes in its current form, how does America look different in - I don't know - 10 years?

LYNNE CHURCH: Well, hopefully we will have new power plants and efficient as well as new renewable resources; we will have a much larger and much better integrated transmission grid to move power around and to make sure that all sectors of the country are - have reliable power and have reasonable prices, and presumably - hopefully we will see new natural gas resources and new natural gas pipelines that are going to be needed to fuel a lot of these new power plants.

RAY SUAREZ: Karl Rabago.

KARL RABAGO: I have to disagree. I think that more central station power plants and more big transmission lines and more big gas pipelines indiscriminately - we need some, but the proliferation of them that is suggested by the ultimate extreme of this plan, it is antithetical to the development of renewable energy to distributive resources, I think problems like California don't get solved just by throwing a lot of supply, a lot of pipes and a lot of wires at it -- if customers don't have a meaningful way to respond with energy efficiency or any kind of demand response function. So we have to be very careful that things tend to narrow as we look backwards, and if we're going to narrow that to uneconomic nuclear power plants, excessive reliance on central station plants, and huge capital investments necessary to connect those to the grid, we will forego a very bright part of our future in clean, renewable, distributive generation resources and an abundance of energy efficiency resources.

RAY SUAREZ: Red Cavaney, same question.

RED CAVANEY: Energy investments in production need very, very long lead times and huge, huge amounts of capital, so we need to be making decisions now and in that period of four to six years down the road we'll start to have sort of a - if I can use power as an analogy to going to a grocery market where there are select oranges, there will be a lot more oranges in the bin, they'll look a lot more attractive; consumers will have more choices and with more choices you're going to get a better supply and an end balance and ultimately more affordable energy for people and I think that's the picture that we're trying to get to.

RAY SUAREZ: Jane Houlihan.

JANE HOULIHAN: Well, I hope that in 20 years we have a portfolio that pushes us a lot closer toward using a big percentage of renewable and clean energies. Another thing that I hope happens over the next two decades is that we learn to control pollution from dirty technologies as we phase those out. One of the things that's happening now - the administration has punted on some big pollution issues in this plan - mercury from coal powered - coal burning power plants, for instance - the National Academy of Sciences last year estimated that 60,000 children are born at risk from adverse neurological damage from the mercury in the fish their mothers ate while they were pregnant. Well, coal is our biggest source of mercury pollution and we need to learn to reduce that. The administration does nothing in this plan to address those kinds of problems, and that's what I hope they fix and that's what I hope we can do in the next 20 years.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: We'll be looking in detail at various aspects of the President's energy proposals over the next several days. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: an AIDS report in Africa, a Pulitzer conversation, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

SERIES - AIDS IN AFRICA

JIM LEHRER: Our series on AIDS in Africa continues now with a report on AIDS in Senegal...one country in Africa where news of the epidemic has been encouraging. The reporter is Fred de Sam Lazaro of Twin Cities Public Television, in Minnesota.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Senegal has many of the hallmark conditions of African nations that have been ravaged by AIDS: low income, high illiteracy and some traditional customs that can spread the AIDS virus. Yet this West African nation has found ways to stave off the HIV scourge... (skit) In this sketch, Mustafa marries his late brother's wife. In Senegal's polygamous society, men often marry their brother's widow or widows. Now he's just been told he has AIDS. The moral of the story... find out how your brother died... Education and awareness campaigns like this skit in the small town of Louga are one factor that has helped Senegal block an AIDS epidemic; on a continent where HIV infection has topped 30 percent in many nations, Senegal's rate is about 1.4 percent... Experts also cite a number of religious and cultural influences, as well as government programs. Even though the government spends barely a dollar per person a year in public health, this former French colony had health screening programs in place before AIDS arrived. Perhaps most importantly, they targeted the commercial sex trade, traditionally the epicenter of an HIV outbreak. In a program that started way back in 1969 to control sexually transmitted diseases, Senegal began requiring its commercial sex workers, or prostitutes, to register themselves at places like the polyclinic here in Dakar, and to come in for regular medical check ups. That program is now key to monitoring the spread of HIV in the country. About one thousand women are registered at this clinic in the capital, Dakar. Each is issued an ID card...or carnet, according to Dr. Antoine Mahe.

DR. ANTOINE MAHE: So every month she has to come in for examination, and if its okay, she has a stamp on her carnet. If the police goes to her on a case of prostitution, she has to a card, and the policeman checks the regularity of her visits...

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Mama Bambera became a sex worker eight years ago; she says the registration program has been a huge help, both in health care services and information...

MAMA BAMBERA (translated): This is a very good thing. I have learned how to protect myself. I did not know anything about AIDS. Now I am able to get the information and to pass it on to people with whom I work, and my family members.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The system isn't foolproof. There's an unknown number of unregistered sex workers, particularly in rural areas. Still, veteran HIV researcher Doctor Suleyman Mboup says the surveillance is paying off. The rate of HIV infection among registered prostitutes is a relatively low 15%...and it has remained steady since the early 90s...

DR. SULEYMAN MBOUP: I am a military by training, I am colonel in the army and I think that even in any war, you need to know first your enemy and we have been able to document very early. If you see this population as I mentioned, you can document very drastic decrease of rate of infection, both SDI or HIV. In this population we was able to document very high knowledge of this population and some behavior change, very high rate of usage of condom.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Senegal may tolerate prostitution but this is still a conservative, overwhelmingly Islamic nation. Some says that could be a reason why HIV hasn't spread as widely here as it has elsewhere on the continent. The imam at Dakar's grand mosque says the most important statistic is that Senegal is 95% Muslim

IMAM ELIMANE NDIAYE (translated): Islam is a religion that prohibits sexual deviance; it does not allow taking liberties with your sex life. As a Muslim, you are obliged to choose your wife and stay with her.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But experts say Senegal's religious leaders went beyond their admonitions based on scriptures. Unlike counterparts in other nations, they acknowledged the threat of HIV, often from the pulpit. And they joined the government in the early 90s in declaring AIDS prevention a national priority. As a result, ordinary Senegalese...workers at the port of Dakar like Ousmane Sarr, have been bombarded by AIDS awareness campaigns. But Sarr insists he's guided much more by religious principle...

OUSMANE SARR (translated): My primary consideration is for my religion, which as I said, does not permit me to take liberties with my sex life. So why should I be so frivolous to go from one woman to another? And also there is the danger that we have been made aware of.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sarr is 30, has just one wife but says he may marry again as he becomes more financially secure. Islam sanctions polygamy, but it also demands fidelity of each spouse. The Muslim religion also bans alcohol consumption, which is often associated with casual sex. In addition, Muslim men are circumcised. Studies show circumcised males are less likely to get HIV.

(Village Call to Prayer)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: However, some experts are concerned that rural areas, where more than half the Senegalese live, remain vulnerable to an outbreak. People here are less likely than their urban counterparts to talk frankly about sex, and they have more economic hardships and fewer resources. In villages like Niomre, about 100 miles north of the capital, Dakar, people pride themselves on living by Islamic family values. AIDS seems a distant problem. For example, many women we spoke to had never seen a condom... except in an advertisement.

WOMAN (translated): Only on television. You see, we have good family values, being faithful to our husbands is protection enough for us; we are loyal to each other

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The concern among health workers, however, is that many men in this village fit into a classic high risk group for HIV in Africa. Many travel away for extended periods in search of work...prime customers for the commercial sex industry. That's what happened to "Amadou", who said an affair withan undocumented sex worker he met in a marketplace led to his infection. And although his wife has tested HIV negative, Amadou feels condemned as a social pariah.

AMADOU (translated): This is very difficult. This is a taboo here. If I went to see the imam or a fellow Muslim, they would say, okay this guy was coming here in the mosque, praying with us, but he was a hypocrite; he engaged in bad behavior, shame on him!

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Religious leaders say they'll continue to preach the Koranic prohibition against adultery as the best prevention. However, they insist that doesn't condemn those with HIV.

LOUGA IMAM (translated): When I meet someone who rejects people with AIDS, I remind them that they cannot be sure that the person contracted it by cheating on his wife. There are many other ways to catch AIDS, so we have to be careful. We also have to take into account that, according to the Koran, God is most merciful. If a person repents, God will forgive, so who are we to not give assistance to such a person?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: One worry among public health workers is that side from fictional drama or TV spots, most people in Senegal have never personally met anyone with AIDS.

YOUNG MAN (translated): I'm not sure what the hype is all about, because you hear so much about this but I have never met anyone ill with this disease, so you wonder if it is real...

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Public health workers worry about the potential for complacency...a worry that most parts of Africa, overwhelmed by AIDS...would gladly trade.

JIM LEHRER: Our series on AIDS in Africa will conclude on Monday. Elizabeth Farnsworth will be back with a discussion of solutions to the crisis.

SERIES - WINNER

JIM LEHRER: Now the last of the winners in our coverage of this year's Pulitzer prizes in the arts and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: This year's Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction went to Herbert Bix for his book "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan." Hirohito was Japan's emperor for 62 years from 1926 until his death in early 1989. The prevailing view had been that he was little more than a figurehead during the tumultuous years leading up to and during World War II. Drawing on newly available papers and diaries, Bix's book argues that Hirohito was actually deeply involved in Japan's planning and prosecution of the war. Herbert Bix is professor of history and sociology at Binghamton University in New York, and he joins us now.

Welcome, Professor Bix, and congratulations.

HERBERT BIX: Thank you for having me.

MARGARET WARNER: As I said in the introduction, as we all know, the myth about Hirohito is that he was essentially a puppet, a figurehead, and that during this period leading up to the war and during the war, he was really manipulated by the militarists who were running the show. Now you conclude something quite different. tell us about it.

HERBERT BIX: Yes, indeed. He was neither a politically impotent figurehead, he was not a pacifist nor an anti-militarist; indeed, he wasn't even a normal constitutional monarch in any conceivable western sense. He was a complex and highly conflicted and stubborn and nervous man who had been educated from early childhood to play a civil and a military and a religious role. The emperor my biography presents is - rather than being a politically impotent figurehead, was an active, hands-on interventionist and dynamic emperor.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just interrupt you there and go back to some of the events that we're all very familiar with. Leading up to and during World War II - for instance the aggression against China in the 30s - did you find that that could not have happened but for his at least collaboration with the military/

HERBERT BIX: Indeed. Hirohito from the moment the China incident spread to the South of China to Shanghai urged a decisive blow be struck against the national government, Chiang Kai-shek, and thereafter, it was Hirohito who legitimized the war to chastise China, and he made it immoral in the eyes of most Japanese people.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, what about the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

HERBERT BIX: In the case of the Japanese attack on the American Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hirohito was deeply involved in every stage of decision making leading to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. He was involved through I emphasize a process of informal bringings. Now, to westerners at that time Hirohito seemed to be just a puppet of the military's, but I argue that, on the contrary, Japan never had a military dictatorship, and Hirohito - once he intervened forcefully against the wishes of his top military commanders and put down an army revolt in February 1936 - from that moment on when he began performing in his role as supreme commander of Japan's armed forces - gradually, very gradually, playing a role which accustomed him to intervening and guiding strategy. And so once the Pearl Harbor attack plan was presented to him and he understood it and was persuaded of the scenario that Japan could fight the United States to a - at least to a draw - never win but the American people, he believed, would tire of the war, and Britain would be defeated, go down, and therefore Japan would be able to secure its lines - sea lines of communications and carve out a greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere.

MARGARET WARNER: But what about the abuse of prisoners during World War II/

HERBERT BIX: As the war unfolds, on schedule for the first six months, Hirohito watches every phase and offers guidance when the Japanese army invaded the Philippines and Manila fell - McArthur and his forces, General McArthur and his forces retreated to Bataan - the army wanted to ignore the American remnant in Bataan Peninsula, Hirohito insisted that Bataan be taken and this led to the infamous Bataan Death March.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, also here in the West, the image was that, as you said earlier, he was a pacifist and that ultimately he did surrender and that he had done so maybe over the wishes of the military, and you actually fault him for prolonging the war.

HERBERT BIX: That's right. Far from being the hero who ended the war, rather than see his people suffer any longer, it's his vacillation and refusal to accede to advice offered in February 1945, before the American incendiary B-29 raids on major Japanese cities began. He refused to accede to such advice, and he missed subsequently many other opportunities to end the war until it was too late.

MARGARET WARNER: Why - once the war was over - was (a) his role not fully understood and he not prosecuted as others were for war crimes?

HERBERT BIX: This occurred - the granting of immunity to the first acts as head of state to fall into allied hands was a very calculated decision on the part of General McArthur and the United States, America's allies acceded to American wishes on this point - they believed that Hirohito could be used to effect occupation reforms. I argue that we could have had the same political outcome, a militarily - Japan militarily aligned to the United States and anti-Communists if Hirohito had been held accountable for the crimes committed under hisrule, the American rule was to protect Hirohito, shield him from the military, international military tribunal, the Tokyo trials, and we did this. McArthur granted him other immunities. This was done - these were exercises in real polity and I believe that they had the most profound consequences for Japanese democracy and I believe also that the American government obstructed the Japanese people's struggle to come to terms with their past. A seal was put on the study of Japanese and the teaching of Japanese history in the high schools, whole generations went through school and didn't learn about the history of the 30s and early 40s. Only in the 1980s when the Cold War begins to wind down does the seal break and the textbook issue arise in Japanese politics and in Japanese relations with its neighbors. I say throughout most of the Cold War the American government bettered the Japanese government as it pursued a double standard on the war, telling the Japanese people that the war fought in the name of the emperor was a just war for self defense but for foreign consumption the Japanese successive conservative governments told the world that Japan had fought and apologized for the war of aggression.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, you've been living in Japan until recently. What has been the reaction of the Japanese people to this book?

HERBERT BIX: The reaction has been amazingly positive. The book in English has been a best seller in Japan ever since it came out. The response that I've received in the form of letters and phone calls and visits to my office from Japanese elderly and middle aged Japanese and some younger people has been extremely positive. There are some Japanese who have a visceral dislike of the emperor, regard him as a moral coward who never apologized to the Japanese people and never acted to take accountability for the war fought in his name.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, Professor Bix, thank you very much, and, again, congratulations.

HERBERT BIX: Thank you for having me.

ESSAY - THE ART OF EVERYTHING

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt tackles the what is art question.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: There's an exhibition of Vermeer paintings in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art that contains a painting about the art of painting and, incidentally, about the art of everything else. In what he called "The Art of Painting," the artist, presumably Vermeer, himself, sits with his back to us as he paints a model dressed up as Cleo, the Muse of history. The model wears a laurel crown to indicate honor and glory. And she holds a trumpet to indicate fame. This is how the artist would like to paint her, posed as Cleo, the most important of all the muses in all her musey grandeur and formality. But the model in Vermeer's painting is not posing like a muse, rather, being human, she is holding the trumpet casually, carelessly. The laurel crown looks askew and she is glancing down at a crumpled piece of paper, clearly distracted. She is not what the artist wants to see but she is better than that by being herself. "The Art of Painting" then is the art of seeing what is there, not what one wishes to be there in some heightened form. This, it might be said, is the art of everything. The art of everything is to make one see what is present and real, rather than what one wishes to be monumental and ideal. The artist who seeks the ideal representation of things is likely to look in the wrong direction -- an effort to get the grand picture, he'll miss the great one. Which is of greater beauty - the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the crowd of ordinary people seated on the stone steps outside the museum? It is not simply a matter of catching the small stuff. It's about being alert to the non-ideal, the imperfect, to the accidental gesture, the distracted gaze, to the pose that is not a pose. To be alert to the emotion of the continuum, rather than to search out the single lofty moment - one needs to look in the wrong direction to find the right direction. This is the basis of nearly every detective story. The authors of Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple and Quaro - Perry Mason and Wolfe - deliberately lead us in the wrong direction to delight us with the right one. It is the basis of photography especially. Of all the billions of moments that pass before the camera's lens only one is a work of art. And that's the one no one was looking for. The Famous Family of Man exhibition of photographs in the 1950s focused almost exclusively on the caught moment, not on formally family portraits. The idea was that the family of man was a state of confusion to be represented in all its accidental magnificence. In a way, Vermeer's "The Art of Painting" is a photograph of the right event before he might have painted the wrong one. This work is the only one of his paintings he ever kept for himself...perhaps because it contained a lesson he felt he ought to teach himself repeatedly. The great folded curtain at the left of the painting could be where Vermeer enters his own work to look in upon himself and offer a correction. Again and again, to remind the artist to look for the eternal in the evanescence and not to wish life be better than it is because it's better as it is. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: President Bush laid out his plan for increasing energy supplies while promoting conservation, and the Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked over Theodore Olsen, President Bush's nominee for solicitor general. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.