The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight, U.S.- Russia relations in the wake of the spy scandal and subsequent diplomatic expulsions, Terence Smith reports on the demise of the Mir space station, Kwame Holman wraps up a week of campaign finance reform debate in the Senate, Margaret Warner gets political analysis from Shields and Gigot, and senior producer Jeffrey Brown profiles dancer/choreographer Mark Morris. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: Russia notified the U.S. today it's sending home a number of American diplomats. The total was expected to be 50, matching the U.S. expulsion of Russian diplomats this week. The U.S. action followed the Robert Hanssen case. He's the FBI agent accused of spying for Moscow. In Maine today, President Bush again defended the decision to expel the Russians. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell suggested Moscow's response would end things.

COLIN POWELL: The Russians have indicated they'll be taking action. We don't really know the specifics of that yet. They haven't identified anyone or any names yet. So we'll have to wait and see how that plays

out. As far as we're concerned, the action we took the other day was all we are planning in this matter.

RAY SUAREZ: Powell said the U.S. and Russia still have a broad, cooperative relationship. And Russian President Putin said today he did not think there would be big consequences from the expulsions. We will have more on the state of U.S.-Russian relations right after this News Summary. The 15-year-old Russian space station Mir successfully fell to Earth today. Controllers sent it into a fiery plunge over an unpopulated area of the Pacific Ocean, 1,800 miles East of New Zealand. Its fragments, some weighing nearly a ton, lit the sky. Russian authorities said all fell within the target area. We will have more on this story later in the program tonight. In economic news today, Motorola announced 4,000 more layoffs, about 3% of its work force. They'll come from its broadband and wireless communications sector. Last week, the company said it would eliminate 7,000 positions in its cell phone division. In all, Motorola has announced cuts of 22,000 jobs since December, as it tries to cut costs and increase profits. On Wall Street today, stocks rallied after a roller-coaster session on Thursday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 115 points at 9504. On Thursday, it had lapsed into bear market territory before partially recovering. The NASDAQ Index today was up 30 points at 1928. President Bush said today he'd favor a quicker income tax cut than he's proposed so far. On Thursday, Senate Republicans called for cutting $ 60 billion this year. That's on top of the President's planned reduction of nearly $ 1 trillion over ten years. Most of that relief does not begin until next year. But during a trip to Maine, Mr. Bush said he's confident it can be accelerated without adding to the cost.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: That's what we're going to work with the Congress on, is to make sure that we come with a size of the package that fits into the budget, and at the same time get money into people's pockets as quickly as possible. There are ways to do that. You could delay one aspect of the total tax relief package for one year, for example. I mean, there are ways to get it done. The key thing is that good people are coming together to try to affect good, sound fiscal policy, and to stimulate the economy.

RAY SUAREZ: In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Daschle said quick tax relief would be good for the economy, and could be passed before Congress takes its Easter recess. He said it should be considered apart from the President's plan.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: We take the 60, because that what is we need to get out quickly. We need to do that soon. We need to be sure that from a fiscal stimulus point of view, we have the opportunity to really provide some help. Then we take the second piece under a budget resolution or without a budget resolution reconciliation construction, regardless, take up the larger piece at a later date. What I'm saying is we shouldn't hold hostage the $ 60 billion that we might really use for fiscal stimulus purposes to the larger package that the administration has proposed now for sometime.

RAY SUAREZ: The President's overall plan totals $ 1.6 trillion. In addition to income tax cuts, it includes relief from the marriage penalty and repeal of the estate tax. The suspect in Thursday's school shooting in California will be charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. That word came today from prosecutors in San Diego County. The gunman was identified as 18- year-old Jason Hoffman, a senior at Granite Hills High School in El Cajon. The district attorney said he appeared to target the vice principal. Hoffman was shot by police and remained hospitalized. Five other people were wounded in the attack. On March 5, a school shooting in nearby Santee killed two people and wounded 13. Cartoon pioneer William Hanna died Thursday at his home in north Hollywood, California. He collaborated with Joseph Barbera for more than 50 years, creating "The Flintstones," "The Jetsons," Yogi Bear, and a long list of other animated characters. Their "Tom and Jerry" series of movie cartoons won seven academy awards. Hanna had been in declining health for years. He was 90 years old. As it happens, Barbera will be 90 tomorrow. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: U.S.-Russia relations, Mir's last voyage, the Senate debate on campaign finance reform, Shields and Gigot, and choreographer and dancer Mark Morris.

FOCUS - BIG CHILL?

RAY SUAREZ: The U.S. And Russia in the Bush administration; we start with some background. Moscow's action today to evict 50 American diplomats was in response to Washington's expulsion earlier this week of 50 Russians. Speaking today in Maine, President George Bush said that the expulsions won't have a long term effect on U.S.-Russian relations.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: They'll just understand that my administration is one that takes firm positions and when we think we're right. That doesn't preclude the ability for Mr. Putin and me, for example, to meet at some point in time and have a good honest discussion about common interests, areas where we can work together.

RAY SUAREZ: Russia's President Vladimir Putin, in Stockholm for a European summit, also downplayed the dispute. A news agency quoted him as saying: "I don't think it will have big consequences." Washington's expulsion of the Russian diplomats, the biggest since the Cold War, came in the wake of the arrest of accused FBI spy Robert Hanssen last month. Hanssen's been charged with spying for Moscow for 15 years. Secretary of State Colin Powell said today removing the diplomats was the right reaction to the Hanssen case.

COLIN POWELL: There was a problem this week, a problem that had to be dealt with, a problem that was not found out about because we were around one night saying, you know, let's find out some way to poke the Russians in the eye. Quite the contrary, we found a problem having to do with a spy by the name of Mr. Hanssen, an American spy. And as we examined that case, and as they also examined a continuing problem that we have had with Russia concerning the level of their intelligence presence here, we decided that we had to respond. And we did respond. We responded in a way that was measured, realistic, practical, and as far as we are concerned, that ended the matter. And we'll get through this, because the world needs a good relationship between Russia and the United States. The world needs us to explore all of these issues together.

RAY SUAREZ: The diplomatic fallout is the latest turmoil to erupt in U.S.-Russian relations since the Bush administration took office. In an appearance on the NewsHour last month, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signaled a change in U.S. policy toward Russia.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Let's be very honest about what Russia is doing. Russia is an active proliferator; they are part of the problem. They are selling and assisting countries like Iran and North Korea and India and other countries with these technologies, which are threatening other people, including the United States and Western Europe and countries in the middle East. So why they would be actively proliferating and then complaining when the United States wants to defend itself against the... the fruit of those proliferation activities -- it seems is me -- is misplaced.

RAY SUAREZ: Russian officials denounced Rumsfeld's comments. One General said: "Ill-considered statements may only do damage to the relations between the great powers in the delicate sphere of nuclear non-proliferation." Meanwhile, the Bush administration has opposed recent efforts by Putin to maintain relationships with U.S. adversaries such as Iran and Iraq. U.S. officials were sharply critical of Putin's agreement last week to resume arm sales with Iran.

RAY SUAREZ: For more, we go to, Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at New York University. He is author of the recently released book "Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia." Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively about Russia. They are not related. And Roy Godson, professor of government at Georgetown University and President of the National Strategy Information Center. He is author of "Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards: U.S. Covert Action and Counterintelligence."

Well, we heard from Secretary of State Powell and the Russian foreign minister and the Russian President saying okay, it's done response, counter response, case closed. Is it really over?

ROY GODSON: Well, for now I think it's probably over. We've seen this replayed before. But I think we should realize that we shouldn't get too overly concerned with this particular problem. I don't think there will be any lasting damage to U.S.-Soviet relations from this particular incident. We should recognize that in the world people in politics, like in other competitive activities, have secrets to keep and secrets that they want to exploit. And they want to get other people's secrets. And they, the Russians and many others around the world, will continue to spy and use intelligence to achieve various purposes of foreign policy. I don't see anything really new in this situation.

RAY SUAREZ: But what about the size of the expulsion? I was looking over a log of the recent ones. They were all pretty small. Three here, one there. You have to go back to the second Reagan administration for one as large as this.

ROY GODSON: Well, between the U.S. And Soviet Union that's true. Actually some of the former Eastern European allies of the former Soviet Union have had relatively speaking some sizable expulsions. Bulgaria and Poland, for example, have expelled ten and 12 each in recent years. I think one makes these expulsions based on a number of cost benefit calculuses. One is to send a message. The second, though, is to level the playing field. Washington, there is a playing field between spy and counter spy in Washington, the Soviets -- the Russians now. The Soviets in the past - the Russians have gradually increased their presence in Washington. During the Reagan years, the playing field was leveled a bit when we expelled 80 some spies. The Russians have been increasing. We had hoped we wouldn't have to put the same resources into watching and neutralizing Russian espionage. They also got some advantages with the Hanssen case, teaching them a lot about how to recognize and deceive American counterintelligence as well as American intelligence. So we wanted to level the playing field here in Washington. We had to make a calculation about what this would cost us when they retaliated. And we presumably decided the cost benefit was in our favor.

RAY SUAREZ: Stephen Cohen, when you look at the expulsion and its response, can you look at the Hanssen case and its fallout in isolation, or is it part of a wider momentum in U.S.-Russia relations since the arrival in Washington of the Bush administration?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I was in Moscow for ten days this month. And whateverwe think, in Moscow they think that all this is part of a broad anti-Russian, anti-Kremlin Bush set of initiatives. Now they don't know what it means. They don't know if it is just the American ritual of being tough before they begin to talk. They don't know if it's President Bush demonstrating that he's not President Clinton. But they're worried. And I think we ought to be worried, too, because these things do have ramifications. One ramification is that there's a struggle in the Kremlin between a faction around Putin that wants to cooperate with us, with the United States, and a faction that says we, the United States, are hopeless, impossible and that Russia's destiny and Russia's foreign policy priorities are elsewhere.

RAY SUAREZ: Ariel Cohen, is it a question of setting a marker, we're a different administration from the one that just left?

ARIEL COHEN: No, I think the Hanssen case made a lot of people in Washington very miffed and we want to make sure we're sending a message to Moscow that there will be a price to what were the implications of the Hanssen case. People were killed because of, allegedly killed because of Mr. Hanssen. This was a disaster comparable with Aldrich Ames's case in '94 or maybe going back to the 50s with Ken Philby. We cannot pass over that easily. However, there's a broader context of U.S.-Russian relations. When things were swept under the rug under the Clinton administration, the things like Iran, Russian-Iranian cooperation in ballistic missile - in nuclear areas -- were not addressed by the Clinton administration. When Russia repeatedly and intensely arming China, when Russia is supporting Saddam Hussein, when Russia is throwing a French fit over our involvement in Kosovo, and then it turns out that we can cooperate with Russia beautifully in Kosovo, taking enemy fire together from the Albanian extremists now. So the relationship is in trouble in a broader sense and it didn't start with Bush. It even didn't start with Putin. It started under Clinton and Yeltsin.

RAY SUAREZ: Would this be a predictable part of a transitional time in the life of Russia? This is a country that has to get used to a different place in the world. We heard during the tape report a Russian general referring to relations between great powers as if they still can't let go of a certain part of the past.

ARIEL COHEN: Ray, I went over some figures. The Russian GDP, National product, is 3%, a little bit above 3% of the U.S. GDP. Russian GDP per capita is about $ 2,000 a year versus U.S. GDP per capita of $ 24,000 -- by the factor of 12 -- so while we should respect the rusting old Russian nuclear arsenal and its huge geopolitical importance in size in the eastern hemisphere, we are not talking about too superpowers anymore. We're talking about an economically weak country with a lot of dangerous toys it can sell to china, Iran, Iraq, et cetera, and the Russian foreign policy national security elite has not made a real choice. Are they going to be with the Euro Atlantic community, with the West, or are they going to be building something else in what they call Eurasia in Eastern Hemisphere with China, maybe with India, Iran, Iraq and others. Until such time that Russia is clearly not a friend and maybe not yet a foe, we have to treat them carefully, with respect, we shouldn't stumble into a new Cold War, but they have to pay the price for bad things, sometimes some people in Moscow do.

RAY SUAREZ: Stephen Cohen, how do you respond to that?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, I think we overlook the main issue in what is our own main national security concern. We live in a new era. If we were to have a new Cold War, it would be very different from the old Cold War because during the old cold war, the Soviet regime was in control of all of its nuclear devices. The Kremlin today is not in control of all of its nuclear devices. The economy has collapsed, and with it Russia's nuclear infrastructure. Russia is the only other fully nuclearized country in the world other than the United States. And as such, it has devices that it created over 40 years that are now obsolete and disintegrating. That is our number one national security concern. It's more than proliferation. It is, for example, the danger of accidental launch, therefore, I think that when we from through the rituals of being tough and expelling 50 instead of the usual four Russian diplomats, we made it all the harder, we make it all the harder to do what I think the United States has to do, which is to work with Russia to secure its nuclear weapons. That is the number one national security interest of the United States. All the rest, being tough, showing the Russians they aren't a superpower anymore, all that seems to me to be secondary.

RAY SUAREZ: But you heard Ariel Cohen read out a list of particulars demonstrating in his state of view, that the Clinton approach, a more softly, softly approach, wasn't the proper one. Wasn't it time for a change of tone?

STEPHEN COHEN: I would go farther, the book that you mentioned, "Failed Crusade" is an indication that the administration was catastrophic -- partly because it watched as Russia disintegrated and Russia's disintegration meant the disintegration of its nuclear infrastructure. Yes, we need a new policy. The good news in my mind is that the Bush administration is not going to repeat the Clinton policy. The bad news is either they don't know what they're going to do or that they're going to lurch back into a Cold War policy. Both bad.

RAY SUAREZ: Roy Godson, let's try to understand where continued spying fits in the range of bilateral problems, challenges, things that the United States and Russia have to talk about.

ROY GODSON: Well, I would say that for the Russians and the Soviets before them, intelligence has been a force multiplier. That is to say ever since the Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviets now the Russians have been at a disadvantage in terms of economic power, often in terms of military power and political influence in the world. And they have found intelligence, both collecting information through spies and technical equipment, as well as exploiting the secrets of others, as a very important tool of foreign policy -- a tool of state craft. And I think we would be mistaken to believe that they're going to abandon that particular instrument. Now they're in a relatively weak state in many ways. They do have this nuclear power that Stephen Cohen speaks of, and there is an important priority for us. They know that. They can expect that we're going to want to know about the state of readiness of the force, the state of decay of that force and who controls the nuclear weapons and how many loose nukes are leaving the Soviet Union, if any. We are going to be wanting to need to know about that. And they're going to be watching us and wanting to see and try and understand what we're about just as they were in the past. They're also going to want to use their intelligence to make up for their economic and their military and political weaknesses. I expect them to continue. I don't-- they may interpret this as part of a pattern. But we have a much broader context. The way Putin talks, I don't see him really interpreting this part as the beginning of a new Cold War.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, given what Roy Godson just said, is a tougher line an appropriate one -- given the things that remain to be settled with this foreign country in?

ARIEL COHEN: I believe that the major security concerns of the United States should be articulated and clearly communicated to Moscow. And I was in Moscow this past November, and there was almost a unanimous welcome extended by the Putin crowd to the Republicans. And I couldn't understand for the life of me why they're so happy. Now they got what they wanted. So, you know, let's put the cards on the table. They have concerns about NATO enlargement, about our missile defense. We have concerns about proliferation. I tend to disagree with Stephen. I think selling of ballistic missile technology and nuclear arms technology to Iran, and they're very open and blatant about it. I did an Internet search about, you know, what the Russian generals and members of parliament say. They're in full support of that. If Iran can fire a nuclear missile at our allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, et cetera, this is a major headache for the United States. So we have to put things on the table. If the Russians want rescheduling of $ 150 billion debt, $ 100 billion from the Soviet era,150 billion from the Yeltsin era. They have to take our concerns into account. This is the quid pro quo that the Bush administration is fully justified to expect.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all.

FOCUS - END OF AN ERA

RAY SUAREZ: There was another major story from Russia today: The end of Mir. Terence Smith reports.

TERENCE SMITH: Fiery debris streaked across the morning sky today. 15 years after its mission began, the Russian space station Mir plunged to earth to complete one final assignment, its suicidal descent into the South Pacific. Before that fall, this was the last image of the planet that Mir broadcast before transmission broke off for good. The symbolism for the moment struck Americans as well as Russians.

FRANK CULBERTSON: The Mir was an incredibly important project and incredibly successful. You know, who would have thought it would have lasted this long and accomplished so much -- had so many people visit it from so many nations? No one foresaw the joint activity between NASA and Russia. I mean, the first time I saw the shuttle dock to the Mir, I'm thinking, I never in my lifetime expected to see something like this.

TERENCE SMITH: To bring down Mir, which means "peace" in Russian, space officials orchestrated a controlled burn. As shown in this simulated animation from Russia, Mission Control fired engines on the cargo ship docked with Mir to stop its orbit. That in turn sent Mir hurtling toward the Earth at thousands of miles an hour. Most of the 143-ton station burned up on reentry. But some 20 tons of debris landed in the ocean roughly 1,800 miles East of Wellington, New Zealand. The Russian space agency took pride in the fact that the operation went smoothly.

YURI KOPLEV (Translated): I would like to say that today the Russian space program proved that it can carry out unique tasks because firstly, carrying out tasks in space are so complicated. But we controlled the flight precisely until the last minute, the descent and flight down were completely under control.

TERENCE SMITH: When Mir was first launched in 1986, Soviet officials planned to keep it aloft for three years. But Mir's tour of duty was extended, making it the longest- serving spacecraft ever. It has circled the planet more than 87,000 times, conducting numerous scientific experiments over the years.

RICHARD CROWTHER: They've achieved many goals, many goals that the Americans weren't unable to achieve with the previous sky lab. And without Mir, it wouldn't be possible now to have an international space station in orbit.

TERENCE SMITH: Mir served as a temporary home for 104 crew members. Including forty-two Russian cosmonauts and seven American astronauts. The first Americans were warmly greeted in 1995. Most importantly, Mir has provided a window on what it might be like to live in space on a day-to-day basis -- living in space, that is, in quarters not much bigger than a greyhound bus. No one knows that better than Cosmonaut Valery Polyakov, who spent more continuous time in space than anyone: 438 consecutive days-- sometimes taking advantage of a small sauna on board. Scientifically, the ongoing Mir mission has led to advances in technology, space medicine and biology. Astronauts completed more than 16,000 experiments in the ship's labs. American John Blaha grew wheat when he was on board.

JOHN BLAHA: I just planted some new seeds and already they're about three centimeters long, the sprouts.

TERENCE SMITH: But funding for the mission evaporated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the late '90s, crises on Mir became routine. Some critics called it a flying deathtrap.

SPOKESMAN: The fire was basically in this region here, with the flames shooting across this way.

TERENCE SMITH: There was a fire on board, occasional problems with lifesaving systems and then a collision with an unmanned cargo ship in 1997, damaging solar panels and modules. After various attempts to find new funding, including a proposal from the producer of "Survivor" to create a reality- based TV show on board the craft, crew members sealed the hatch for the last time in June. Experts believe that the end of Mir effectively ends Russia's long commitment as a leader of in space exploration. But Russia is not abandoning space travel altogether. It is a partner in the new international space station.

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Senate debate on campaign finance reform, Shields and Gigot, and choreographer and dancer Mark Morris.

FOCUS - DEBATING REFORM

RAY SUAREZ: Campaign finance reform took center stage in the Senate this week. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate's much-anticipated effort to rewrite the laws that regulate funding of campaigns for federal office has reached the midpoint. Today, members completed the first of two weeks of scheduled debate.

SEN. RUSSELL FEINGOLD: We've had good debate on a number of amendments this week. It's been very pleasant to finally to be able to cover a lot of ground. I think we've made some good progress on the bill.

KWAME HOLMAN: McCain-Feingold is the primary bill. Its main feature is a ban on unregulated, unlimited soft money contributions given to political parties. So far, that provision has remained intact. But several significant additions to the bill were made this week.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI: I believe it is in order now for me to send an amendment to the desk.

KWAME HOLMAN: On Tuesday, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment by New Mexico's Pete Domenici aimed at helping candidates compete with wealthy opponents who may spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their campaigns. The amendment increases the $ 1,000 limit individuals are allowed to contribute for a candidate based on how much personal money a wealthier opponent spends.

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: The Senate now turns its attention to what is the other half of the campaign finance problem.

KWAME HOLMAN: On Wednesday, New Jersey Democrat Robert Torricelli's amendment also passed with broad bipartisan support. It requires broadcasters to sell air time to candidates and political parties at their lowest rates. It also bars TV stations from bumping political ads in favor of more lucrative ads.

SPOKESMAN: All those in favor say "aye."

GROUP: Aye.

KWAME HOLMAN: And yesterday the Senate approved an amendment by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and Maine Republican Susan Collins, targeting negative political ads. It would require candidates to identify themselves clearly in their political ads in order to qualify for the lowest broadcast rates. But the Senate turned down amendments as well. Two of the most notable were offered by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch. The most controversial would have required unions and corporations to get permission from union members or shareholders before spending on political activities. The other defeated amendment would have required corporations and unions to disclose their political expenditures to stockholders or union members.

SPOKESMAN: The motion to table passed by a vote of 60-40.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, at least two big hurdles still lie in front of the McCain-Feingold bill as it moves into its second and decisive week. Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles wants the Senate to double, maybe triple the current $ 1,000 so-called hard money limit on contributions to candidates by individuals. But this morning, Minority Leader Tom Daschle said such an amendment could jeopardize Democrats' support for the overall bill.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: We may be going from campaign finance reform to campaign finance replacement. I think we have got to be concerned about that, and I think that as the amendments are taken up next week, many of us are going to be raising that concern and expressing the hope that we don't replace one bad system with another.

KWAME HOLMAN: And some Senators may try to attach a provision that could cause the entire campaign finance reform bill to collapse if the courts find any element of it unconstitutional. Bill sponsor John McCain warned colleagues against adopting this so-called non-severability clause.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Most Americans, probably 999 out of 1,000, don't know what severability means. Well I'll tell you what it means. It's French for: "Kill campaign finance reform." Okay, that's exactly what it is.

KWAME HOLMAN: And this morning, as Senators wrapped up their first week of campaign finance reform debate, McCain expressed concern about getting the bill finished.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I think we have had an excellent debate and a ventilation of this issue which has, I think, been educational, not only to members, but to the country. I also want to emphasize that we need to get this done.

KWAME HOLMAN: Majority Leader Trent Lott assured McCain the Senate would work late into the evenings next week in an effort to complete work on campaign finance reform by next Friday.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

RAY SUAREZ: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Shields and Gigot with analysis of the campaign finance reform debate and other political news of the week. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot.

So, Paul, does this week one is down, is it moved McCain and Feingold closer to their ultimate goal which is to get the ban on soft money passed?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I thinkit's moving closer. The coalition has stayed together. They haven't had the difficult amendments yet, the ones that really threaten Democratic votes. But it has surprisingly held together. We do know, we have learned, though, that the one thing there is a bipartisan majority for in the Senate is making life easier for Senators. With the two big amendments that passed, the only two major amendments that passed overwhelmingly are the ones that allowed members to spend more money which was opposite of the bill and the other one is stick it to the broadcasters, the networks, the commercial networks, I guess I should say for allowing them to charge a certain amount for ads. So there is an incumbent protection majority in the Senate. We know that.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, Mark, the votes we've had this week show that the coalition is holding together or has the coalition really not been tested?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it has been tested. I would take exception of Paul's analysis of incumbent protection. I mean, if we are talking about the status quo, that's the greatest friend of incumbents. Over the last decade 95% of House members have been reelected...394 out of 400 in the last election - 90 percent of Senators. So I think the system as currently constructed has worked terribly well for incumbents and now we're in an area of uncertainty. Margaret, what has impressed me the most from being up there and watching the debate is that for the first time in eons, Senators are actually on the floor. They're legislating. They're listening. I'm not saying this is the greatest moment since Mr. Smith comes to Washington. But this is an issue that obviously engages them. It's one they have personal experience with.

MARGARET WARNER: Close to their heart.

MARK SHIELDS: It does, but they also have personal experience, and they're not relying on staff. But they are listening. They are debating. And I think what has impressed people is the coalition has held I would say this week there's a little mo, not big momentum but little mo. The reason they haven't brought up the Hagel amendment....

MARGARET WARNER: The Hagel amendment being the one that would cap....

MARK SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel wanted John McCain's three closest friends in the Senate has a competing, limiting soft money, caps it but does not eliminate it. They don't have the votes for it. The opponents do not have the votes right now but Paul is right. The real rubber hits the road this coming week when, in fact, the question of severability comes up that john McCain talked about in Kwame Holman's piece.

MARGARET WARNER: Before we move to next week though, Paul, the conventional wisdom used to be one of the classic poison pill amendments would be something to limit the labor union's ability to raise and spend money for political activities this. This week two or three or maybe four amendments designed to do that in different guises all went down sometimes by huge margins. What happened?

PAUL GIGOT: I always thought they would fail. It is a poison pill for Democrats. They would never support it. What happened is an attempt to peel off some Democrats. The Republicans tried to address one of their criticisms and said we'll include corporate disclosure to shareholder money as well -- to shareholders. And the Democrats didn't peel off, but some Republicans did. So it went down to a crashing defeat. But I never thought that would pass because this is a center left coalition. I mean, this is mostly Democrats and a very small handful of Republicans. And McCain is trying to keep that coalition in tact.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, explain something else. Tom Daschle today, there is talk there might be a compromise that hard money limits, the regulated ones you have to register could be raised in return for reducing or eliminating soft money. Tom Daschle said today, we just ran the quote, he wouldn't go for tripling the hard money limits. What is happening there?

PAUL GIGOT: The simple answer to that is that Democrats feel Republicans have an advantage and they're probably right in hard money. But just a little history -- in 1974 when this first campaign finance reform passed, the limit was imposed at $ 1,000 because people thought that that wasn't corruption. That wasn't a corrupt amount. If you just adjust it for inflation in the intervening years, it would be worth about - that $ 1,000 -- $ 3300. So tripling the amount is hardly some great vast increase but the truth right now is that Democrats feel they can't have-- they don't have the same number of $ 3,000 donors and they're going to lose Democrats and Democrats will be blamed for killing the bill.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see this playing out?

MARK SHIELDS: I think that's an accurate appraisal -- that there is a fear that the coalition will come unraveled if they go over $ 2,000. $ 2,000 is sort of the magic number.

MARGARET WARNER: They can double but they can't triple.

MARK SHIELDS: Just so our listeners understand, Margaret, right now, under the law I can give you if you're a candidate for the Senate, $ 1,000. That's hard money. That's all the can I give you as an individual to an individual. I can give hundreds of thousand dollars to the Margaret Warner for the Senate committee. What we're talking about is eliminating that and maybe increasing that to $ 2,000 that an individual could give you. As far as, you asked the question and good question it was, about the poison pill, one of the reasons that it ceases to be important, the labor union, if you eliminate soft money, you've eliminated labor's major playing field in this election. I mean-- they're the ones that stand to lose most heartily. That's why quite frankly the poison pill was, you know, important.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think is the biggest, just the one biggest potential poison pill next week?

MARK SHIELDS: The biggest one is whether the Democrats who have voted for this when they knew it wasn't going to pass. John McCain talked about severability. That's very simple. We have a bill that's going to pass but we want to sabotage it. So we stick in an amendment that requires school prayer in every school in America. Okay. Everybody votes for it. If it's part of the bill and that is not severed, it goes down, the whole bill goes with it. What they want to do is add some amendment, the opponents do, that goes to the Supreme Court and the whole thing sinks. That will be the fight. Watch Democrats if they try to sneak over on the severability issue.

PAUL GIGOT: Gigot: A lot of people think this bill doesn't need an amendment to sink in part in the Supreme Court. The AFL-CIO no less thinks a good part of it is unconstitutional. That's why they oppose some of it.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me ask you about another topic. Yesterday the White House announced that they would no longer go to the American Bar Association and let them pre-screen judicial nominees, nominees for the federal bench. Conservatives have wanted this for a long time. Big victory for them?

PAUL GIGOT: Sure. I don't know how big it is but it is a victory. It reflects the change in the Republican party and the legal community since it was first, the ABA was first called upon by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, in the early 1950s. He brought the ABA in the process because most lawyers then were a lot of white shoe, corporate attorneys who voted Republican. What's happened is the Republican party has gotten more conservative, less white shoe lawyer, more populist. A lot of the lawyer, legal community, has moved left, Democratic. And the ABA, in particular, I think in the eyes of many Republicans, has become a liberal interest group and they don't want them vetting their nominees, particularly with the experiences of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas where they damaged their nominees

MARK SHIELDS: As far as the populist Republican Party, I'll look forward for them coming out for worker safety standards - and beefing up OSHA --

MARGARET WARNER: The ABA, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: ABA more populist than Daddy Warbucks.

PAUL GIGOT: Please.

MARK SHIELDS: Mistake made. The ABA provided not only a very useful vehicle for Presidents. I mean you could screen out embarrassing potential nominees before....

MARGARET WARNER: Before their names were public.

MARK SHIELDS: Didn't embarrass the nominee - didn't embarrass the President. The President could use it as an effective means of not nominating some people who could be embarrassing. And as far as Clarence Thomas is concerned there was nothing ideological about him. 15 across the board Democrats and Republicans all voted qualified. There was an ideological decision made on Bork and I think the ABA paid for it and that's what the revenge is about and it is a short sighted move on the part of the administration.

PAUL GIGOT: I think two members of the ABA standing committee said Justice Thomas was not qualified.

MARGARET WARNER: Aren't the Democrats on the Hill saying they won't consider a nominee or vote on one until they hear from the ABA?

MARK SHIELDS: They're saying they want that ABA stamp of approval, which is a way of -

PAUL GIGOT: The protesters give away the game. I mean, the people who are criticizing the President and the administration are the same people, Pat Leahy, the ranking member of the judiciary committee and the "New York times" and so on are not going to like the judges that President Bush sends up anyway.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally before we go tonight, one of the most enduring figures in our business columnist Roland Evans died this afternoon. Your thoughts, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: Rollie Evans was a giant. There truly will be a lonely place against this guy. He and Robert Novak co-authored the longest running joint byline column in the history of American journalism. He was a tireless reporter, he was relentless, he was always working as you know, I know, everybody who ever saw him work. And his-- he will be missed. And he made that transition from print to television. He was a colleague on CNN on a show together, always a generous and helpful colleague -- and as devoted a husband as I know to his widow Kay. We send our best.

PAUL GIGOT: Puts a lot of modern day columnists to shame because he believed and understood and worked understanding that you can't just have opinions. You've got to-- he understood the persuasive power of facts, even for a columnist, even for a guy who is on a soap box. And he always was working around town. You could see him in this restaurant, in this bar, in this squash court, working his sources, and, you know, throughout the Cold War, really was one of the premier foreign policy correspondents in Washington.

MARGARET WARNER: Roland Evans, colleague and friend, we'll miss him. Thank you both.

FINALLY - MOVING MAN

RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, a man who moves modern dance, senior producer Jeffrey Brown reports.

MARK MORRIS: Attention! I'm Mark Morris, and I'm a choreographer and a dancer, and this is my dance company. We all work together to put on shows for people like you.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mark Morris, explaining dance to a group of fifth graders.

MARK MORRIS: It's about the things that words can't really express very well. ( Music playing )

JEFFREY BROWN: Later that night at George Mason University's Center for the Arts outside Washington, D.C., Morris offered his more customary statement on what dance is all about-- through dance itself, at a performance of the Mark Morris Dance Group. ( Music playing ) Morris grew up in Seattle studying folk and other forms of dance. He then worked with several modern dance companies in New York and started his own group in 1980, at just 24.

MUSIC: Duck duck duck duck duck duck duck duck duck down...

JEFFREY BROWN: Sometimes bizarre... Often baroque... Always brash, Morris quickly gained audiences and attention for his artistry, innovation, and flamboyant personality. (Baroque music playing ) In the early '90s, Morris was awarded a Macarthur Genius grant and co-founded the White Oak Dance Project with ballet superstar Mikhail Baryshnikov.

MIKHAIL BARYSHNIKOV: He gave me wonderful pieces to dance, and he inspired me to go on with my... With my career. (Cello playing )

JEFFREY BROWN: He also collaborated with cellist yo-yo ma on the dance, "Falling Down Stairs," set to Bach's Third Cello Suite.

YO YO MA: Mark Morris is it. Now, this is coming from a guy who does... Knows very little about dance, choreography, but he just gets to me, every time.

MARK MORRIS: Move your neck here. Now, don't pull your arms behind you.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, as he celebrates his company's 20th anniversary season, Morris is widely seen as one of the world's leading dance artists. He's one of just a handful able to bring in audiences who, like Yo Yo Ma, know little about modern dance.

MARK MORRIS: Very often people don't think they know how to watch it, or they're... they're I think bullied into thinking that it's, like, over their heads.

JEFFREY BROWN: I read a quote by the dance critic of the "New Yorker," and she said, "to this day, one of the most frightening things you can say to some is, 'let's go to a modern dance concert.'"

MARK MORRIS: (Laughs)... That's good. Yeah, I agree with that. I avoid a lot of them. (Classical music playing )

JEFFREY BROWN: So how does Morris connect with audiences? It all begins, he says, with music.

MARK MORRIS: I always start with a piece of music. I'm not doing, like, a musicological analysis and writing a paper or anything, but I'm figuring out in my mind what makes that particular piece work. So my intention is to say through dancing exactly what I think is being said through music. ( Music playing )

JEFFREY BROWN: The dance, "Grand Duo," for example, uses a piece for violin and piano by contemporary composer Lou Harrison. Morris was taken by its final movement, called, strangely enough, "polka."

MARK MORRIS: Because I heard that "polka," I said I must choreograph this right now. And to me, it sounds very, very ancient. And so I wanted to make up a dance that was evocative and a little mysterious and seemed like maybe people had been doing it for hundreds or thousands of years. That was my assignment.

JEFFREY BROWN: Who gave you that assignment?

MARK MORRIS: Me. I gave me that assignment, based on what I gleaned from listening to the music and studying it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Reporter: In addition to his use of music, Morris is known for the rigorous structure of his dances. ( Playing Vivaldi's "Gloria" ) George Mason University professor and dance critic Suzanne Carbonneau says he brings a classical approach, more typical of ballet, to modern dance.

SUZANNE CARBONNEAU: Well, Morris is a classicist in the sense that he is interested in formal patterns and structures-- the architecture of space, the architecture of the human body, the way that dance relates to music, that this kind of formality of the work is classical.

JEFFREY BROWN: The dance, "Deck of Cards," shows how Morris uses a basic pattern or structure and adds variations to build his dances. On its face, it seems simple, and funny, enough.

SPOKESMAN: The deuce tells me that the bible is divided into two parts, the old and the new testaments...

JEFFREY BROWN: With a country western score, three solo performers dance three separate movements: A woman playing the part of a solider, Mark Morris in a wig and red dress as a lovelorn gal...

SINGER: And each night she leaves with someone new...

JEFFREY BROWN: ...And a remote- controlled toy truck.

SINGER: I was shaking like a sinner -- I'm a gear-jammin' buddy live on short-order dinners...

MARK MORRIS: Whether you see it or not, it's the exact same pattern of action. And so that has a certain sort of coherence that I think helps it. If you're going to take something home with you, you don't have to necessarily see what I did to build a piece so that it's satisfying or inevitable seeming. But that's why it is. (Music playing )

JEFFREY BROWN: One thing Morris does want you to see is that dance is an intensely visual form of theater. (Chopin playing) in a new dance, "Sang Froid," to the music of Frederic Chopin, Morris carefully places his dancers on the stage, like a series of framed paintings. In fact, at one point, the dancers literally freeze, emphasizing the visual element of the dance.

MARK MORRIS: My favorite part in that dance is where nobody moves for way too long. And then when they start dancing again, it makes it fuller. Dancing is absolutely a visual art. It's not just how you feel or what you look like moving, it's also where you are in depth.

MARK MORRIS: Duh-um pa-padda da-dee...

JEFFREY BROWN: To make all this happen, Morris works with the 18 dancers in his group. June Omura and David Leventhal say Morris makes demands both physical and mental.

DAVID LEVENTHAL: I find all of Mark's works I've done extremely difficult. There's both a muscular and a musical and an intellectual challenge that is surprising.

JUNE OMURA: A little bit of mark's aesthetic is about us looking human. He doesn't want us to look like, "oh, it's so easy to kick my leg up and you can't do it, but I can because I'm special." So a lot of time, what you see is... does concern struggle in a certain way.

JEFFREY BROWN: Reporter: Both Omura and Leventhal dance in "My Party"-- to the audience at least, a joyful romp.

JUNE OMURA: We're almost sort of reimagining our adolescence when we're having a wonderful time, so you have to make it look light and joyful, even though you're dying.

MARK MORRIS: Dancing is very hard. Yes, it's very hard. My work is hard in a particular way. It doesn't incorporate a lot of the sort of fireworks or spectacular superhuman feats that some dancing does. There's much more of difficult rhythms, poly rhythms, and coordination. And you have to go the wrong direct... What seems organically the wrong direction. I'm very demanding on the dancers and on the musicians and on me in order that the rigor of that work pays off in making a bigger, more thorough result for an audience.

MARK MORRIS: This is just some genius Romanian music that I love. It's kind of new to me. So I'm just listening.

JEFFREY BROWN: Minutes before the concert, a coke and cigarette in his dressing room may seem unlikely preparation for a rigorous evening.

MARK MORRIS: This is the scene where I'm supposed to, like, turn into a sad clown or something, right?

TERENCE SMITH: But onstage a short time later, accompanied by nothing but a toy piano, the 44- year-old Morris still makes it look easy, dancing a new piece called "Peccadillos." (Circus music playing )

MARK MORRIS: When you're 24, you're different from when you're 44. And you also, like, will do anything in order to show that you feel more deeply than anybody else who's ever lived. And that's true, I think, of most people who are young artists. You think it's the last piece that you're ever going to do, so you put everything you can think of in. In my later work, I want to pare down. Instead of doing everything, I try to see if I can do as little as possible and get a really streamlined, efficient result. I don't mean that to sound cold, I just want it to be clear.

JEFFREY BROWN: As part of their anniversary celebration, Mark Morris and his group will soon move into brand-new studio space in New York. It will be their first permanent home. (Music ends ) (cheers and applause )

RAY SUAREZ: For much more on Mark Morris and his work, including an online forum with the choreographer, please visit our web site: Www.Pbs.Org/NewsHour.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major stories of this Friday: Russia notified the U.S. Today it's sending home a number of American diplomats. The total was expected to be 50, matching the U.S. expulsion of Russian diplomats this week. And the 15-year-old Russian space station Mir successfully fell to earth, 1,800 miles East of New Zealand in the South Pacific. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.