The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of today's news, a Newsmaker interview with King Abdullah of Jordan, some perspective on the traitor traitorous espionage of Robert Hanssen who was sentenced to prison today. A Paul Solman report on what energy prices and a Broadway musical have in common, the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay on why this year's post 9/11 Mother's Day is different.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Palestinians in Gaza stocked up on food and blocked streets today, bracing for an Israeli military assault; it would be in retaliation for a suicide bombing this week that killed 15 Israelis In Washington, King Abdullah of Jordan warned against such a strike at Gaza. In an interview with the NewsHour, he said it would set back chances for peace. He also said Yasser Arafat must end terror once and for all or the Palestinians could lose their future. We'll have the interview in its entirety in just a moment. The standoff in Bethlehem ended today. Israeli troops and tanks pulled out hours after Palestinian gunmen emerged from the Church of the Nativity. We have a report from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: At dawn today, the deal was done. After enduring nearly 40 days and 40 nights imprisoned in the church, priests, civilians, and fighters began to emerge from the doors of humility into Manger Square. European and CIA negotiators had persuaded both sides to compromise. The Palestinian gunmen were loaded into buses, 13 to be flown to Cyprus from where they'll be taken into exile in several different countries. Yasser Arafat praying in Ramallah today has been criticized by Hamas and other extremist groups for agreeing to the deportations. The 26 gunmen from the other group arrived at the crossing point into Gaza. They're meant to be imprisoned, but initially they were taken to a hotel. (Machine gun fire) They were greeted as conquering heroes by the people. Inside the Church in Bethlehem, the debris of the siege. Nearly 200 people were sleeping here; at the end they had very little food. The Israelis said the Palestinian gunmen vandalized the sacred places. There's some damage, but no evidence of wanton destruction.

JIM LEHRER: In Rome, the Vatican issued a statement saying the siege had a happy conclusion. In this country, President Bush said it was a positive development. Former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen was sentenced to life in prison for spying for Moscow. He appeared before a federal judge in Alexandria Virginia. Last year Hanssen pled guilty to selling secrets to the Soviet Union and later Russia over more than 20 years. In court today he said: I apologize for my behavior. I'm shamed by it. I have hurt so many deeply. Later Attorney General Ashcroft had this to say.

JOHN ASHCROFT: Robert Hanssen was trained and trusted by Americans and by our American government to sustain support and secure the safety of America. He used the training and abused the trust in a way, which threatened the safety and security of America. And I'm pleased to -- that this chapter in American history has been closed on this day.

JIM LEHRER: Hanssen was spared the death penalty after he agreed to cooperate with investigators. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. Activists in Cuba demanded a referendum today on major changes in the Communist state. They delivered petitions with more than 11,000 signatures to the National Assembly. The referendum would ask if voters favor basic civil liberties. The challenge to Fidel Castro's rule came just two days before a visit by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The U.S. House passed a defense spending bill early today worth $383 billion, the largest increase for the military in decades. Among other things, it pays for the development of new stealth fighter jets, speeded up work on unmanned surveillance planes and more military personnel and benefits. It also includes money for the rapid fire Crusader cannon. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said this week he wants to cancel that project. The bill now goes to the Senate. Inflation retreated last month at the wholesale level. The Labor Department reported today wholesale prices fell 0.2% in April. The decline was led by the largest group in food costs in nearly 28 year. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the king of Jordan, the sentencing of Robert Hanssen, a musical story, Shields and Brooks and a different kind of Mother's Day.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: An Arab leader's perspective on the situation in the Middle East. It comes from King Abdullah of Jordan who is in Washington this week meeting with President Bush and other U.S. officials. I spoke with him this afternoon at his hotel.

JIM LEHRER: Your majesty, welcome. What do you think of the Israeli decision to launch military strikes in the Gaza Strip?

KING ABDULLAH II, Jordan: Well, I'm concerned that a new round of military activity against the Palestinians would really set us back, especially where we have to remember that there is a meeting in Cairo, as we speak, being pushed forward by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, hosted by President Mubarak of Egypt, with a series of Arab countries, including, we hope, the Syrians to be able to articulate even more the Arab position of the Arab Summit in Beirut; i.e., extending the olive branch to Israel and meeting 100 percent of what the Israelis have always wanted. So while there is a meeting of peace and future hope in Cairo, to have Israeli tanks going into the Gaza I think would be very detrimental.

JIM LEHRER: Of course, this is in retaliation for the latest suicide bombing. If not military action in the Gaza, what should Israel do?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, I believe that we're all exerting tremendous pressure for Arafat to do more. I think that there has been a tremendous negative reaction towards the suicide bombing that happened several days ago simply because it's been so counterproductive to moving people forward. I just hope that Prime Minister Sharon can use as much patience and restraint as possible. As you said, retaliation, that's the unfortunate word that we have had to be living with in the past several weeks, is retaliation from Israel, retaliation from the Palestinians, and we really have to move beyond that.

JIM LEHRER: What would you say to him-- that, if the Arab world, if the Palestinians cannot stop the bombings, I, as the Prime Minister of Israel, owe it to my people to do something.

KING ABDULLAH: I understand, and again I can't pass judgment on what the Israelis are going to do, but I just hope that it is as limited as possible, keeping in mind the bigger question at the moment, which is trying to get people back to the peace table. I understand that there is hurt, as there has been on both sides, that the Israelis feel that they need to react for this heinous crime of the bomb that went off in Israel several days ago, but to what extent do the Israeli incursions, whatever they are, destabilize the bigger picture, which is trying to get people back to the table.

JIM LEHRER: Now you say the suicide bombings, particularly the last one, have been counterproductive-

KING ABDULLAH: Well, they always have --

JIM LEHRER: Isn't it always counterproductive?

KING ABDULLAH: Always counterproductive, from my point of view, and I think the majority of us believe that they are counterproductive. But, again, I think most Arabs, seeing Prime Minister Sharon, sitting with the President of the United States, the United States trying to find a way forward at a very important meeting, and a bomb goes off while they're sitting together, I think there was a-- all of us put our hands to our heads and shook our heads to say that this is crazy.

JIM LEHRER: What is it going to take to stop those bombings?

KING ABDULLAH: At the end of the day, if you want to move away from violence, peace is the only option, getting people together. There is so much mistrust at the moment that there's a feeling that the confidence has broken down in between the people, the Israelis and the Palestinians, that does the international community, do our leaders really want to be able to push us out? In other words, we need to be able to reach out to Israelis and Palestinians and say that there's something tangible and something that's tangible soon. I know that there's discussions of interim agreements and open-ended procedures on how to get the Israelis and Palestinians together, and I think that has been really the destructive element of getting the peace camp moving forward, because there is noreal tangible hope. And I hope that the Americans will be able to articulate a series of steps, a vision in the next several weeks that actually answers the Israeli equation; in other words, peace and security supplied by the Arab countries and a hope of a Palestinian state to the Palestinians, but it has to be articulated soon within a reasonable timeline. Otherwise why risk sticking your neck out for peace?

JIM LEHRER: And so you think the step-by-step approach isn't going to work any more?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, you're going to have, obviously, on the ground a step-by-step approach to dealing with, whether it's the economic problems or those of security or the political one, but what I am saying is that you have to identify the political end game as quickly as possible. In other words, yes, there will be a Palestinian state within a reasonable time frame so that human beings can have something to hold onto, but at the same time, Israelis, and this is being addressed by the Arabs as we speak, will have all of their security concerns met, as well as their future integration into the Middle East. And so I think those have to be articulated so that the Israelis know they will have a future, and the Palestinians will have a future within a reasonable time frame.

JIM LEHRER: Now what you have just outlined, everybody, in general, more or less agrees to it; is that not correct?

KING ABDULLAH: No, unfortunately that's not the case. There are those in Israel, and I've even heard that view in Washington, that let's keep it as a slow step-by-step process, without identifying the end game, interim agreements that keep everything open-ended, the future of the Israelis and the future of the Palestinians. And there's even the views in Washington of let's just solve the economic suffering of the Palestinians, but how are you going to get people to get beyond that? How are Israelis going to feel that they have a vested interest to risk for peace? If the Palestinians are not going to have a future, why would the Palestinians risk to move forward if there is no vision in sight? So I think you have to articulate a future for the Israelis, a future for the Palestinians and move the process along.

JIM LEHRER: When you talked to President Bush the other day, did you tell him what you just said?

KING ABDULLAH: I did, as I did with the Secretary of State. I think that the President fully understands where we're coming from. I don't want to be in a position right at this moment to put words in people's mouths, but I did articulate that there is a need for sequential steps to be identified as quickly as possible. Hopefully, from my point of view, that there would be at least an initial low-level conference in the early summer that would address the vision for economic security and political answers as quickly as possible.

JIM LEHRER: A lot of the American commentators have been saying the last several days that there's some confusion about where the U.S. Administration is on this; whether they favor what you're saying, which is an overview somehow defined and some steps to get there or just step-by-step. And you've talked to everybody -- you've talked to the President, you've talked to the Vice President, you've talked to the Secretary of State, you've talked to the National Security Adviser. Haven't you also talked to the Secretary of Defense?

KING ABDULLAH: The Secretary of Defense and to all of our colleagues on Capitol Hill--

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

KING ABDULLAH: That this is the way to move forward, and-

JIM LEHRER: What is your reading of the American position, as we sit here now?

KING ABDULLAH: Again, there is a feeling that there is two points of view. I have a feeling, I hope, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the view that we've put forward, that is the view of the Secretary of State and others in Washington, is the one that is going to take the momentum, and I believe--

JIM LEHRER: His view is closer to yours.

KING ABDULLAH: The Secretary of State's view is much-- I would say, identical, and I was as articulate as I hope I could have been with the President, and he listened to me favorably. And, again, I think at the end of the day, that the Administration has to decide which way it's going to go. I want to be optimistic that -- what I'd like to see, the common-sense approach that we have put forward, is the one that is going to be the one that's going to win the day.

JIM LEHRER: Meanwhile, you go from here to discuss this with your fellow Arab leaders. What message are you going to give them about the U.S. position, what the U.S. is prepared to do, what the U.S. should be counted upon for doing, et cetera?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, I think that my first message to my brethren in the Middle East is that the President is obviously very committed to finding a solution, that he is articulating a vision, with the Secretary of State. Therefore, we, as Arabs, have to do our share; in other words, beat down the skeptics, especially those in the Israeli public. Therefore, if the Palestinians are going to have room to maneuver with the Israelis and whether the Americans will have the ability to move forward, we, as Arabs, have to really articulate to the Israeli people that we are prepared to meet their demands, but we do expect from the Israelis to meet us halfway at the same time.

JIM LEHRER: As you know, President Bush has a rather low opinion of Yasser Arafat. What's your opinion of Yasser Arafat?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, I think that he is now in a position where he really has to commit his full resources, not only to take apart the terror mechanism because, as I said, it's not getting him anywhere. It has been completely detrimental to the Palestinians; i.e., the suicide bombing, their cause, and that really he, he has to deliver, and I think he's beginning to realize that, and I think the message from not only myself, but other Arab leaders and those in the Palestinian constituency is that, Arafat, this is, that you have to step up to the plate, and if you don't deliver this time, then there's a serious chance that the Palestinians will lose a chance at their future.

JIM LEHRER: Is that message being delivered to the Palestinian people as well, that this is a moment of truth for them, as well as for Arafat?

KING ABDULLAH: I think that the message is being delivered to them by different circles, but I would also put it to you that I think the Palestinians are delivering that message to their leadership, that this is a golden opportunity, and that if they don't get it right this time, more Palestinians are going to have to suffer and, in turn, more Israelis and more Arabs.

JIM LEHRER: Is there any reason, you can either tell me the reason or not, but is there-- have you been given any reason, while you've been here in the United States, to be the least bit hopeful that this thing is going to get resolved sooner, rather than later, and on whatever course in a way that there is going to be peace over there?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, all of us are pushing that it has to be solved sooner because if we start talking in a language of later, it's not going to happen. And so I am optimistic that, at least at the administration level, and with the President, he understands the human dimension that not only are Palestinians and Israelis suffering, the whole region is suffering. And as the region suffers and has the potential to slip into the abyss, whether we like it or not, we drag America with us. And so I think that there is a renewed vigor with the President and the State Department to get something sorted out this summer.

JIM LEHRER: Have you considered, because you do have relations with, with Israel, have you considered going to see Prime Minister Sharon and talking to him about this?

KING ABDULLAH: I will see anybody anywhere in the world if those visits will achieve peace and prosperity in the Middle East. And I think that we have to, as I said, articulate a strong Arab position, offering what Israel needs, but at the same time, I hope that we start getting the right messages from Israel, dealing with the Palestinian question, which in turn opens the door for Arabs and Israelis to solve their differences.

JIM LEHRER: I asked you about Arafat, what's your reading of Ariel Sharon right now?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, Sharon was here. His visit was, unfortunately, cut, cut short because of an awful incident with suicide bombing. And when I saw you several days before, I said that I had hoped that Sharon's message to President Bush was as far-reaching as what the Arabs are trying to do at the moment, reaching out to the Israeli public. In other words, that it is not interim, that it is a vision for the Palestinians, which in turn gives a vision of hope to the Israelis.

JIM LEHRER: So, in other words, the Sharon approach, if he has not changed it, which is an interim step here, an interim step there, you don't think is going to cut it?

KING ABDULLAH: I don't think it's going to cut it, and I think, at the end of the day, it's Israelis and Palestinians who suffer, and if there's any message I think we need to, whether it's the Arab position or hopeful position for the Israelis, we need to reach out to the peoples. I put it to you that there is a slogan that is being built up in the peace camps, whether you're Israeli, Arab, Palestinian or here in the United States saying, "Enough is enough." And I think that's a good slogan to remind the politicians that the people on both sides have had enough and that they need to have something tangible to hold onto.

JIM LEHRER: How do you see your role in this? You're-- clearly, this is of vital concern to you. It's clear to everyone. What can you personally do? What do you plan to do that you hadn't plan to do otherwise to resolve what's going on?

KING ABDULLAH: It's of vital concern to Jordan, as it is to any human being who is living in the area because we want to get on with our lives. That is our selfish, vested interest at the end of the day. What can we do in Jordan? Be a voice of reason and common sense. This is something that I think we inherited from the late His Majesty King Hussein, to articulate because we have a relationship with the Israelis, because we have a relationship with the Palestinians. We're maybe in a unique position that we know what both sides can give and what both sides can achieve. So our job has always been to smooth the edges, so to speak, and be able to push either side just that little bit further, where we know that they can actually give and articulate, also, the extent of what the Israelis can-- Palestinians can do in front of an American audience; i.e., at this stage, the American administration, but more importantly I think now reaching out to the American people. This crisis has taken eight presidents into the fray and will continue to bring American administrations, we will continue to suck them into the problems of the Middle East unless it's solved. So it's not only Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs suffering, I put it to you, especially in the aftermath of the 11th of September, America has a lot to lose in this, and you have to come in, in a fair ... nonbiased approach to be able to solve the problems.

JIM LEHRER: Your Majesty, thank you very much.

KING ABDULLAH: Thank you very much.

FOCUS - DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

JIM LEHRER: Now Robert Hanssen and the FBI. and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Robert Hanssen today called him one of the greatest traitors in America's story. Hanssen was sentenced to a life term without parole. He is a 25-year FBI Veteran who sold secrets to Moscow for two decades. What did his portrayal cost the American intelligence community? An assessment from Elaine Shannon, law enforcement and national security correspondent for "Time" Magazine, and co- author of "The Spy Next Door: The extraordinary life of Robert Hanssen." And Susan Rosenfeld, a former historian at the FBI, she is now an adjunct professor of history at Wayne State University. Elaine Shannon, you were in the courtroom this morning. Take us there.

ELAINE SHANNON: It was packed. And it was quiet. There were no Hanssen family members there as far as I know -- only Hanssen's lawyers and a few old friends. He was brought out at promptly 9:00 in his dark green prison jumpsuit. He looked like he had lost about 40 pounds. He looked very drawn, his hair was very neatly combed, but otherwise you would not have known he was an FBI Agent. The prosecutor said a few words, then he was asked to speak. He said he had done a shameful thing and he was sorry and he was very sorry about what had happened to his wife and children but significantly he didn't say he was sorry about what he had done to the institution of the FBI Where he worked for so long.

RAY SUAREZ: And that's it? After a few minutes it's over, and he's off to prison?

ELAINE SHANNON: Yes, the judge agreed that the sentence, life without parole was fair, especially in view of the trust that he betrayed. The U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty made a special point, talked about the cruelty of having a traitor in your midst give away people's lives. He called it merchandise for his own gain. And he is going to Allenwood where Aldrich Ames, the previous notorious traitor, is, also.

RAY SUAREZ: Susan Rosenfeld, that description, one of the greatest traitors in America's story. Is that a fair description?

SUSAN ROSENFELD: I think it is a fair description. What he did has hurt, personally, I think, FBI agents. He in some sense has destroyed a culture of trust, and that has hurt the American people as well as the tremendous damage that he did in giving secrets to the Russians.

RAY SUAREZ: He was working at a time when it turns out there were several people working for American intelligence who were traitors to their country. How does he rank when you compare him to Aldrich Ames and some of the others who were caught in the '80s and '90s?

SUSAN ROSENFELD: From what I know of Hanssen, I don't think he can compare to the others. I think that the damage he did was far greater, and perhaps his motivation was... it was, of course, financial, but there was a lot more to it. And I think he personally hurt a lot of people besides his family, as well as, again, the tremendous damage that he did to America's secrets.

RAY SUAREZ: Elaine Shannon, maybe you can catalog some of that damage. What kind of secrets are we talking about?

ELAINE SHANNON: Well, we're talking about, first of all, the names of about 50 people within the soviet system that were either recruited by the U.S. to spy for us, or were being recruited. At least three of those were executed, including Dimitri Polyakov who was the greatest agent the U.S. ever had inside that system and did invaluable service for the U.S. during in the missile crisis with Cuba, up through the Vietnam War. This is the first thing he gave up on his first trip to see the Russians. The second time he went in to see Russians in 1985, he gave up two more men who were working within the KGB in Washington, it was the first penetration the FBI had ever managed of this. He gave away technological secrets at the very moment when there was a coup of... Gorbachev was detained in the Soviet Union, some old liners in the KGB were trying to overthrow him. They had their hands on a nuclear football, and he was blinding the United States to the military and government communication that would tell us what was going on.

RAY SUAREZ: And the value, just in the amount of money we spent in the country on developing the systems, the satellite surveillance. For what he was paid, he was a pretty good value for money, wasn't he?

ELAINE SHANNON: Oh, absolutely. He gave... one of the most shocking things is he told the Soviets about a vulnerability in one of their communication satellites that the national security agency was using to drop down their communication, their military and government communications, so they could close that. The NSA - the budget is huge, billions and billions of dollars. Hanssen, over 21 years, was paid... he actually got about $100,000, which is peanuts for this kind of information. He actually gave the Russians the information first, and let them pay him what they wanted to.

RAY SUAREZ: Susan Rosenfeld, this shock to the system you talk about, the betrayal to those working for the bureau today, are they able to change inside the FBI, to sort of harden themselves as a target against people like Robert Hanssen?

SUSAN ROSENFELD: I think they're certainly trying to. In his testimony on Wednesday, Director Mueller described some of the reorganization they were doing, some of the response to the study in security that Judge Webster, former Director of the FBI and former Director of the CIA, had done on their various security failures. And I think that they're making that effort, but also now there's just that betrayal that, you know, is your friend that sits next to you in the car, that carpools with you, the person you have trusted for so long, could he be another Robert Hanssen? That's always going to be in the back of somebody's mind.

RAY SUAREZ: In the Director's testimony to a Senate committee that you were discussing from earlier this week, were steps to harden the security inside the FBI talked about openly?

SUSAN ROSENFELD: Well, some of them have come out. For example, they are now polygraphing people that have access to the highest secrets. And in doing that, about 10% there has been something questionable that has come up in the polygraphs, and they just will study that further. The FBI, unlike the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, has resisted polygraphing all its people. And Hanssen, for example, as far as I know, never had a polygraph.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Elaine Shannon, the things that he was charged with often carry a capital offense there, considered capital offenses. He was given life in prison. Why?

ELAINE SHANNON: He gave away so much that they don't dare put him to death, and then ten years from now say, "oh, we need to ask him about so and so." His interrogations did not go particularly well. The polygraphers weren't very happy with him, the Justice Department and CIA weren't happy. He was very forgetful for a man of his intelligence. This is pretty suspicious and whether it's a true forgetfulness because of shame or just a game playing, either way they want to keep him alive so they can talk to him.

RAY SUAREZ: And yet, his wife will also get service pension, they will lose the house. This is part of the bargaining that goes on with someone like Robert Hanssen?

ELAINE SHANNON: Absolutely. The day he was arrested, one of the FBI people said to me, you know, "we don't have very much leverage on this man. About all we've got is the wife and the fact that she needs the money and the kids and the pension." They desperately, desperately wanted to know all of the things that he had given to Moscow. They had a partial list, but the things he had access to were the crown jewels. They know some of it, they don't know all of it.

RAY SUAREZ: Elaine Shannon, Susan Rosenfeld, thanks so much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a major Tony nominee, Shields and Brooks; and a Mother's Day essay.

FOCUS - IN TUNE WITH THE TIMES

JIM LEHRER: Two new stories this week, Broadway's Tony nominations and Enron's market manipulations in the energy crisis. Only our Paul Solman of WGBH Boston could make the connection.

PAUL SOLMAN: One of the hottest and oddest shows on Broadway. The perversely titled "Urinetown."

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES: Urine town this is urine town we'll keep that dough.

PAUL SOLMAN: The success seems almost preposterous given its preposterous premise that the world running out of water, turns to the company Urinegood company forcing folks to ante up to, pay to pee.

CHILD: And you can't just go in the bushes; there's laws against it.

OFFICER: That's why Sally is counting her pennies.

CHILD: I'm very close, officer. Only a few pennies away.

OFFICER: Aren't we all, little sally, aren't we all.

PAUL SOLMAN: Producer Michael David.

MICHAEL DAVID, Producer: It's about a town with a water shortage, and a multibillion dollar conglomerate that takes advantage of the shortage by feeding off the little man, the little person. It's also about having a wonderful time with Broadway references on stage.

PAUL SOLMAN: The Broadway musical references come fast and furious. Take offs on everything from Fosse to Fiddler.

PAUL SOLMAN: Three penny opera.

SINGER: I'm a business gal, you see I sell the privilege to pee.

PAUL SOLMAN: "Les Mis".

SINGER: From every hill every steeple

PAUL SOLMAN: But the show never dances far from its deep, dark theme. That the end is near. In plots terms you, water is running so low, if you haven't got the tin to tinkle, you get dumped. Playwright Greg Kotis, 36-year-old political science from the University of Chicago and Improv Theater got the idea in 1995, when he ran out of money touring Europe.

GREG KOTIS, Playwright: They had the pay per use toilets. Whether to use them was a big issue for me. Hi to part with the 70 cents. I wouldn't go into the bushes because I was too timid. And when I went to the cafes, they would kick me out unless I bought something, and that would be more expensive.

PAUL SOLMAN: Amid such prevails the muse suddenly and improbably descended.

ACTRESS: This man ain't comin' in withoutpayin', not this time.

GREG KOTIS: And the idea sort of popped into my head in a world where the public amenities controlled by one sort of malevolent corporation, sort of a like a turn of the century Carnegie-style corporation, they're rich. They have this influence and with the money they buy the politicians to make sure that everyone goes to their amenities. I thought this is a terrible idea for a show. It's so bad that it's, maybe it could be really good.

PAUL SOLMAN: Urinetown began as a satire of capitalist indifference - the CEO, a self-maximizing monster

SINGER: A little bunny in the meadow in the grass without a care he's so delightful as he hops through

you say hi bunny and he stops you pull his trigger and he stops for you. Good-bye bunny boo, hello rabbit stew.

PAUL SOLMAN: John Cullum paying the evil monopolist, Caldwell Teed Cladwell.

JOHN CULLUM, Actor: Don't be the bunny. There are so many fun things and so many evil things in it, too. Obviously he's saying, crush them, squeeze them to death, kill them. Eat them.

SINGERS: You are from Mr. Strong you and your socialistic throng

PAUL SOLMAN: Despite the rationale, only the market can ration a precious resource like water, Cullum's character clearly earns his fate being pushed from a rooftop. Producer Michael David is a tough minded businessman but--.

MICAHEL DAVID: I'd push him off, too. But do appreciate that somehow behind the nefarious spin he gave to a problem, there is a problem, and he noted the problem.

PAUL SOLMAN: On the other hand, says this musical, the antidote for kill the bunny businessmen may be even worse than the poison because in the musical's second act, the revolutionaries prevail led by idealist Billy Strong and the new love of his life, Cladwell's daughter hope. The rebels are hopeful all right but also bumbling, bloodthirsty and politically naive. Composer lyricist Mark Hollman also hails from the U of Chicago.

MARK HOLLMAN, Composer: I think I started out in my high school and college years very much siding with this show. The capitalism was bad and in fact at one time I was a social democrat. But then as I've gotten older, I've just found that I've become more and more conservative in my views. So I actually-- I really don't think capitalism is bad, and I actually take some pleasure in what a couple of conservative friends of mine call the neo--con ending of this show, which is that, you know, the liberal do gooders out there, they actually, when you put them in power, they don't know what to do and they actually mess things up.

WOMAN: If only I had a cool tall glass of water, maybe I'd have a fighting chance.

WOMAN: But don't you see, Mrs. Strong, the glass of water is inside you.

PAUL SOLMAN: By the end of the show, urine town's revolutionaries have not only flushed idealism down the drain. Their reign of error, just as a neo conservative might predict, brings on ecological disaster.

ACTRESS: Oops. Oops, we ran out of water. Shucks.

PAUL SOLMAN: Spencer Kayden plays the show's street urchin, little sally whose message of love and understanding seems, for a while, that it might save the day.

SPENCER KAYDEN, Actress: You think everything is on course for a happy ending and it bashes it down. Maybe the bad guy wasn't that bad and maybe the good guys don't end up being that good and we're left with not an easy answer for what a solution is.

PAUL SOLMAN: When it comes to the traditional economic solutions then, the attitude of this show is a plague on both your houses. And the author seems to have written a tunefor the times.

GREG KOTIS: We know that revolution, you know, pick one. The Bolsheviks or Castro in Cuba or, you know, pick any of them and they start with a wonderful exuberant, romantic hope. And they lead to disaster. But at the same time, like the older, you know, systems, our system, where there's an elite at the top, they're also leading us to disaster but maybe at a slower pace or maybe they really know what they're doing or maybe they don't know what they're doing. And so as far as a message, I think of it more in terms of how much time do we have time as a society? Is it 20 years, is it two generations? And the way we consume things and the way we produce things and the way that we build our cities and the way that we consume our resources, in the way that we treat the high and the low in this country, in the way that we treat the low around the world.

SINGERS: Rowing for freedom

PAUL SOLMAN: In fact, Urinetown seems so over the top, its fluky appeal may lie in its real world resonance. With the current drought in the northeast, for instance.

SPENCER KAYDEN: Somebody recently asked me, you guys must be really happy that there's a drought. Yeah, we love the drought.

PAUL SOLMAN: The show's top topical topic though may be its take on business ethics. Initially that's what peaked our interest, CEO Cladwell as a stand-in for Enron.

ACTOR: Give me the puppy, give me the shoe the one who steps is you

PAUL SOLMAN: Caught up trying to describe Enron's escapades, however, we could never find room for the bunny routine in any of our stories. The more details came to light, however, the more timely Urinetown seemed, and not just to us.

GREG KOTIS: I got phone calls saying, your show is all about these things. You're, what do you call it?

PAUL SOLMAN: Prescient.

GREG KOTIS: My responsibility-- prescient. I said not really. If you read the newspaper, Enron is the latest example of what has been happening always.

ACTOR: Run away--.

PAUL SOLMAN: But says author Greg Kotis, Urinetown's doomsday scenario should serve as a wakeup call.

GREG KOTIS: You say to yourself, no, the end is not coming and what am I going to do about it to keep that from happening? So people leave the show inspired to sort of, to confound that prediction.

PAUL SOLMAN: If anyone voices that sentiment in Urinetown, it's Spencer Kayden's character, little Sally.

ACTOR: Not that girl. Killing people is wrong.

PAUL SOLMAN: But Kayden herself is as skeptical as anyone.

SPENCER KAYDEN: I think that little Sally believes if everyone loved each other, we wouldn't have these problems. What about this. Wouldn't that be sweet? Nah, it doesn't work that way.

SALLY: What kind of musical is this? The good guys finally take over and then everything starts falling apart?

OFFICER: Well, like I told you little Sally. This isn't a happy musical.

SALLY: But the music is so happy.

OFFICER: Yes, Little Sally, yes, it is. ( Laughter )

SINGERS: On with the show

PAUL SOLMAN: The music is so happy, and so is the ensemble of the think darkly musical "Urinetown" nominated for ten Tony awards.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks who are with Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: That syndicated columnist Mark Shields and David Brooks of the Weekly Standard. Gentlemen, welcome.

David Brooks, the Bush Administration complains that the Democratic controlled Senate will not act on its judicial nominees and says there are-- there is a 10% vacancy in the federal bench. Do they have a beef?

DAVID BROOKS: They do as muchas the Democrats did. Both parties are now raising placards saying you didn't give our guys when Clinton was President or Bush was President, you didn't give our guys a hearing. George Bush nominated eleven people to the circuit court a year ago and eight are hearing less. But you have to be a fine connoisseur of atrociousness to discern which party is worse, because they both are equally bad at suppressing the other guy's nominees, not giving them any chance. And I have to believe deep down they don't want hearings, both parties don't want hearings because this is the way social policy is fought now. Remember the big issues here are abortion, affirmative action, gun control. Neither party really wants to have big public fights about that. The Bush Administration -- their compassionate conservatism has been to downplay abortion, downplay affirmative action, not be aggressive on that. In the Democratic case, they don't really want to fight about it either, because they don't want to have to defend abortion in the ninth month; they don't want to have to defend abortion without parental consent. So both parties are happy to crush the other's nominees by not even giving hearings. And they don't want to fight right now.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark, is that it? Is it ideology, or is it partisanship?

MARK SHIELDS: I have never heard such cynicism in my life and insightful cynicism at that.

TERENCE SMITH: You're shocked.

MARK SHIELDS: I'm shocked. It is an ideal political fight because what you do if you are a Democrat, you stand up there and say we are saving the republic and especially our wonderful people who support our side from these terrible right-wing judges who, once in power, would try and execute, legislate their own social agenda. And the Republicans say we are fighting for strict constructionists and against these secular no-nothing Democrats. And so the core constituencies on both parties are catered to, excited, are pleased; it's a great fund-raiser and I think David makes an awful lot of sense. One little point though, and that is that President Bush's decision to forgo the American Bar Association test and recommendation of attorneys gave the Democrats an opening to delay the process because the ABA's endorsement process, usually they would come up and they would say this person is highly qualified, they would be hard pressed then to, shilly-shally on the hearing. John Roberts is a perfect example, Deputy Solicitor of the United States under the first President Bush, nominated for the court of appeals here in Washington. If he had an ABA selection, it would probably be highly, highly qualified. But because the President forewent that-- forgo or forewent-because he skipped that process, they're without that credential to make the case stronger, and the Democrats are saying, look, what you did in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Southern circuit, the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, not a single judge approved, three nominees never got hearings. It's gotcha politics.

TERENCE SMITH: Sounds like gotcha politics.

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, and if I could switch from cynicism to goo goo idealism, when you look at the nominees, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owens, Michael McConnell, they're really outstanding human beings. When you get to be nominated to circuit court, you are a pretty impressive person.

MARK SHIELDS: Except Priscilla Owens, whom the President's own counsel accused if absolutely - just two years ago before we got this status of outrageous judicial activism--.

DAVID BROOKS: We could have the hearings right here.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark, there was a lot of talk in Washington this week about fast track and talking about the Kentucky Derby, they were talking about a trade bill or an understanding between the Senate leadership and the White House on the trade bill. What is in it and how important is it?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it's important. It is very important to the President and I think how important it is to the President -- the President wanted that fast track argument. What it does, Terry, is it gives the President the right to negotiate a treaty with any other foreign entity and then present -

TERENCE SMITH: On trade issues.

MARK SHIELDS: On trade issues -- up or down for the Senate and House's acceptance or rejections, no amendments. So it is a power that every President from Gerry Ford forward had until President Bill Clinton when it expired in 1994 and those good old Republicans deprived him of keeping that. George W. Bush does want it. I mean he ran as a free trader in spite of his steel decisions, his lumber decisions once in office. So it was important to him. How important you could see in the concessions he was willing to make to the Democrats in the Senate. And they were considerable. I mean, 75% of the insurance workers idled by foreign competition will be paid now under this. It is a tripling of the federal involvement and the federal payments to these displaced workers. And I think what it says more than anything else is that George W. Bush wants this desperately. He's really willing to just about do anything. And he could have some real restlessness and restiveness on the conservative side. It only passed the House by one vote and it was a much more modest and much less generous bill then.

TERENCE SMITH: What are the prospects, David?

DAVID BROOKS: The prospects are tough actually for the reasons Mark said. The President really wants to restore the U.S. role as the free trader of the world, which has been hurt by the steel tariffs and has been hurt by the farm bill. He gave a lot. I thought there was actually -- this is the way politics is supposed to work. Both sides came with their thing - with their ideas. The President came in at the end of the day and they crafted a compromise - and after the brinksmanship - and it really worked. I believe the people in the Administration believe that they will lose some Republicans who are not happy with the expanded treatment that is being given to displaced workers. They'll say why should a guy who loses his job for domestic competition have to pay taxes to subsidize somebody who loses it for foreign competition -- that's not fair. On the other hand I think they're going to pick up a lot of Democrats who want to vote for free trade but can't because of pressures within their party.

MARK SHIELDS: One thing that's interesting, Terry, is how the pressures have changed. I mean we think of the American labor movement, we think of it as a blue-collar worker male with bulging biceps and an autoworker, a steel worker, a machinist; that's no longer the case. The American labor union is a domestic group. It's teachers, it's service employee unions, it's food and retail workers. It's government employees, and Teamsters, the great industrial unions have shrunk to an amazing size and they don't have the clout they once had.

TERENCE SMITH: But they're still concerned about jobs.

MARK SHIELDS: They're still concerned about jobs, but it isn't the top priority. They don't have the clout in the Democratic Party that they once had - that the autoworkers did is a premier industrial union.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Briefly now, the House passed a defense bill that -- a tidy $383 billion, the biggest increase in nearly 40 years, but it includes a weapons system, David, the Crusader, that is very controversial; that the Defense Department says it doesn't want and the White House says it doesn't want. Why is it in there?

DAVID BROOKS: It's in there because it's in Oklahoma and there are powerful congressmen from Oklahoma and the army wants it. Donald Rumsfeld doesn't want it. This was a weapons system in the President's defense budget. Now the President is saying he will veto the bill if the weapons system that was in his budget is still in the bill. And what happened is Donald Rumsfeld. When there is Donald Rumsfeld is in the room, there is no process. Donald Rumsfeld makes a call and he wants it obeyed. So we were in the Senate mark-up, which is the very end of the process, and all of a sudden Rumsfeld says no Crusader weapon system. Well, the Army went ballistic, as it's good at. The members of Congress go ballistic from Oklahoma. And so you have them calling Donald Rumsfeld an oriental despot for intervening at the last minute, and then you have this real fight. And if I had to lay bets, it's 50-50.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. In the short time left, your bet?

MARK SHIELDS: This one -- Rumsfeld might be an unguided missile, to pick up on David's line, and that is this, Terry: You never, as a rule in politics, you never put your principal, whether it's the Speaker of the House or the Senate leader or the President of the United States, in a situation publicly high profile, controversial, unless you're sure that your principal, your guy is going to win or your gal is going to win. That's not the case right now. And I think that that could be a real problem. Democrats, ever since 9/11, have been told they've got no daylight between themselves and George Bush. Clench and stay close with him on national defense. That's why you see no debate on $383 billion. Democrats are totally for it, war against terrorism, committed to national defense as anybody.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Well, we are committed to getting out of here. Thank you both.

ESSAY - MOTHER'S DAY

JIM LEHRER: Sunday is Mother's Day, and we close tonight with essayist Anne Taylor Fleming's thoughts about why this one is different.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: This is what we think of when we think of Mother's Day-- certainly what we

like to think of-- moms, happy moms; moms a-swoon in brand new motherhood, dazzled by what they just put on the earth, the cord just cut. Moms pushing toddlers in strollers, or later, standing encouragingly beside sandbox slides or swimming pool edges; or later still, paling around in malls with their adolescent daughters or exhorting from the sidelines their sons' soccer games. Moms smiling pridefully at graduations and weddings in their decorous "I'm not the star here" regalia. And finally, older moms, vital and handsome, faces marked by generous lives, arms around their midlife children, a grandchild or two crowding into the frame. The arc of the maternal life. It is all of them we think about, all the mothers getting their Hallmark card due this day in early May, no less celebratory for its obvious commercial tinge. But how not, this Mother's Day, think of them, the grieving moms of ground zero for whom this is forever hallowed ground-- make that sorrowed ground-- and for whom this day is another first in their calendar of reckonings -- the first Mother's Day without. The mothers of the firemen and policemen who lost their lives here, so too many, taking the country's heart with them. The mothers of the feisty, on- the-rise bond salesman and female executives. The mothers of the secretaries and service people, the waiters and waitresses; the mothers of the pilots of the planes and the passengers and the flight attendants. The mothers who have given birth in the months since September 11 to fatherless children, marking today as their very first Mother's Day. Single moms, married moms, widowed moms losing their children-- hundreds of children. The permutations of the loss can go on and on. But where do we stop our Mother's Day reckoning? Because it can be flipped and be just as painful the other way; the children in this city and in other cities whose mothers died here-- babies, toddlers, girls and boys, young women and young men now motherless. And what dare we say, even in the next breath-- not the same, but the next-- what of the mothers of the terrorists or of the Taliban? What do we think of them today, say to them, the mothers of the men in those prisons in Guantanamo? What an amazing, complicated, huge undertaking is motherhood, about as far in reality from the racks of syrupy greeting cards as anyone could imagine. We look stunned, we in this country, at the mothers of the Palestinian suicide bombers. We've seen all too many of them in the past months saying they are proud of their martyred sons-- now daughters, too-- and would happily see their other children follow in their self- immolating and murdering steps. How can they mean this? Do they mean this? Mothers give birth to children who can hurt them or the world in ways no doubt unimaginable to the mother of the newborn. Who is this I have put on the earth? What will he or she become? Fireman, terrorist, bond salesman, waitress. See, I hold it all in my hands-- the beginning, the sweet beginning. Check with me later, years down the road, to see how it all turns out. Stand beside me, if you can, at my child's graveside, death site. Say nothing. Offer no homilies, no sentiments, no remarks-- banal or lofty. Nothing. Not today. Today is Mother's Day. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again the major developments of this day: Palestinians in Gaza braced for an Israeli military assault. It would be retaliation for a suicide bombing this week that killed 15 Israelis. On the NewsHour, King Abdullah of Jordan warned against an Israeli strike and he also urged Yasser Arafat to stop terrorism. Former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen was sentenced to life in prison without parole for spying for Moscow. A reminder: Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.