The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman looks at the coming of the new Senate; Gwen Ifill talks to Senators Leahy and Hatch about what it means for their Judiciary Committee; Spencer Michels updates the drive to build new power plants in California; Ray Suarez explores the humor and popularity of that most successful Broadway musical about Adolph Hitler; and Paul Solman displays a special NewsHour audience measurement of consumer confidence. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. Senate spent a final day under Republican control today; Democrats take over tomorrow. Senator Tom Daschle of south dakota will become majority leader, and committee chairs are to change hands. The cause of it all, of course, was Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Last month, he left the Republican Party, became an independent, and aligned with the Democrats. That gave them 51 votes to reorganize the Senate. At the White House, President Bush met with Jeffords and others on the education bill, among other matters. He said he was optimistic.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think we have an opportunity... I know we have an opportunity to show the American people that although the structure of the Senate may have been altered somewhat, that we still can get things done in a way that's positive for America. There's going to be a lot of give and take on key issues. And I think when people see the fine print of the education bill, they'll find there's been a lot of give and take, in order to get a good bill out that improves public education. So i'm confident we'll be able to work together.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The President moved today to protect American steel producers. He said the U.S. International Trade Commission would investigate whether foreign steel makers engage in unfair trade. The case could lead to stiff new tariffs. The President's action is a victory for the U.S. steel industry and its unions. They charge overseas competitors are dumping cheap steel on the U.S. market. In other economic news, U.S. worker productivity, in the first quarter, was the lowest in eight years. The Labor Department reported today it fell at an annual rate of 1.2%. The fragile cease-fire in the Middle East faced a new threat today. The Islamic militant group Hamas vowed to continue attacks on Israel. Palestinian leader Arafat declared the truce Saturday, after a suicide bombing by Hamas killed 20 Israeli civilians. We have a report from Tara Ogden of Associated Press Television News.

TARA OGDEN: Yasser Arafat met with his Fatah leadership and Hamas representatives late monday night. In a flyer released later, militants of both groups said they would stop attacks in israel. Hamas support for the cease-fire is seen as vital to its success. But soon afterwards, hamas's spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said the armed struggle would continue against israel. In an effort to shore up the faltering cease-fire, diplomats put pressure on both sides. Russia's special envoy, Andrei Vdovin, called for maximum restraint from israel and the palestinians. The German foreign minister extended his visit to the region for more talks. In the Gaza Strip, around 2,000 palestinians rallied to mark the anniversary of the 1967 Middle East War.

JIM LEHRER: The Palestinian marches were relatively peaceful, but there were scattered clashes with Israeli forces in the West Bank. And in Washington today, President Bush said CIA Director George Tenet will go to the Middle East morrow. He'll meet with security chiefs from both sides. Los Angeles voted today for a new mayor. The two candidates were both liberal Democrats, the top vote-getters in a non-partisan primary last April. Antonio Villaraigosa is a former state assembly speaker who could become the city's first Latino Mayor since 1872. He faces James Hahn, city attorney since 1985, and son of a famous county politician. He's been leading in recent polls. The winner succeeds Republican Richard Riordan as mayor of the nation's second-largest city. Rates for cancer cases and deaths fell during the 1990s, that's according to government and private studies being published in the "Journal of the National Cancer Institute." The death rate for prostate cancer fell by one-third. Rates for most other major cancers stabilized or declined slightly. The overall incidence of cancer fell for men but did rise for women. Breast cancer cases increased more than 1% a year for much of the 1990s. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to switch day in the Senate: Senators Leahy and Hatch, new power plants in California, what's so funny about "The Producers," and a special consumer confidence update.

FOCUS- SENATE SHAKEUP

JIM LEHRER: The changing of the guard in the Senate, Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords was the focus of the media's attention this afternoon as he left the capitol to pay a visit to President Bush at the White House. Jeffords officially leaves the ranks of the Republican Party at the stroke of midnight and becomes an independent. That move will tip the balance of power in the Senate to the Democrats. The power shift wasn't the reason Jeffords was called to the White House. He simply went as one of nine Senators invited to discuss progress on the President's education reform bill. Jeffords' mere presence at the meeting, however, did prompt some laughter.

SPOKESMAN: Senator Jeffords is leaving the party saying that the could no longer... Because of the conservative bent of the party, could not longer work with as well with you and other --

SPOKESMAN: Don't make the guy feel bad in front of.... ( Laughter )

SPOKESMAN: I get paid good money for it, sir.

SPOKESMAN: I see.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Jeffords' move means a historic shakeup for the Senate. The remaining 50 Democrat and 49 Republicans suddenly will have their roles reversed.

SEN. HARRY REID, (D) Nevada: i certainly don't feel giddy. I feel real sense of responsibility that the American people want to produce.

REPORTER: Is it more fun in the minority?

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON, (R) Arkansas: Well, it's less worrisome. I wouldn't say it's more fun. We'd rather be in the majority.

KWAME HOLMAN: And for the hundreds of Senate staff workers who keep their boss on issue, worlds have been turned upside down as well.

MARK BUSE: It will sink in once we actually start doing the work of the minority. I think right now, people are still a little shocked.

KWAME HOLMAN: Before Jeffords' announcement two weeks ago, Mark Buse went about his job as the Republican staff director for the Senate Commerce Committee, the majority staff director.

MARK BUSE: We were working on privacy legislation, airline legislation, telecommunications, deregulation. Those are all going to be radically changed now. I mean, our agenda will not take place the way we planned it in the past. Now, we will have to see what they want to do.

KWAME HOLMAN: They, of course, are the Democrats. And tomorrow they will become the majority party with control over the legislative agenda on the Senate floor and in all 20 committees.

MARK BUSE: I certainly think that this committee, the Commerce Committee, will do different... Will take different actions than it would have under a McCain chairmanship, when Mr. Hollings takes over.

KWAME HOLMAN: South Carolina Democrat Ernest Fritz Hollings will assume the Commerce Committee chairmanship he held for six years before Republicans took majority power in 1995. Arizona's John McCain, chairman for the past two-and-a-half years, becomes the committee's ranking Republican.

MARK BUSE: They have an excellent relationship, and they respect each other immensely. And therefore, it will make our work all that much easier here in the transition.

KWAME HOLMAN: A smooth transition also is predicted for the Finance Committee, where iowa's Charles Grassley will pass his chairmanship to Montana's Max Baucus. During the recent Senate debate on the tax cut bill, the two cosponsors, Grassley and Baucus stood together and successfully fought off attempts by Senators from both parties to rewrite the legislation.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: I worked with Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee, to produce a Finance Committee bill which has provisions that are much better from the Democrats' perspective than otherwise we'd be faced with on the floor.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY: I hope that we do, in fact, look upon the Senate being very closely divided for a long period of time, and whoever is in control, it's very important that we continue this bipartisanship that it takes to get things done in the United States Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: And most meetings of the Senate Judiciary Committee have been lightened by some good-natured jabs exchanged between Utah Republican Orrin Hatch and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Orrin and I have been friends for 25 years. No, I mean people don't seem to realize. They think I'm joking about this; I'm not Orrin Hat is one of the best friends I have in the Senate. I've served here now with 283 Senators, 284, something like that, since I first got elected. Orrin is one of my best friends.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, it's probably safe to say most Senators don't cast votes based on their friendships. The issues before them usually are decided by political and ideological concerns. And Democrats now expect to hold the upper hand in dictating which issues get addressed. And so Carl Levin, the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Joseph Biden, incoming chairman on foreign relations, and Robert Byrd, once again chairman on Appropriations, all are free to pursue agendas much different from what their Republican counterparts would have.

SPOKESMAN: I'm going to give you my version of what's the best thing happened.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Democratic control will extend beyond the chairmanship. Since January, committees have operated with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats reflecting the chamber's 50-50 split. But now, with a one-seat advantage in the Senate, Democrats will hold a one-seat advantage on each committee as well.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Of course, the one vote majority, or being in the majority regardless of how many votes one has, allows you two very important prerogatives. The first is the committee agenda, what is taken up in committees, what kind of hearings, what kind of votes, what kind of bills. Of course, the schedule of the Senate is determined by the majority in consultation-- i emphasize that-- in consultation with the minority. I hope to consult all along with our Republican colleagues and especially the Republican leader.

KWAME HOLMAN: Incoming Majority Leader Tom Daschle has been meeting in recent days with Senator Lott and other Republican leaders trying to work out the transfer of power. But this afternoon, Lott again said he wanted assurance that the Democrats wouldn't use their new powers to block the President's judicial nominees.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: Some, you know, clarification to what these comments were that were made about how this is the end of conservative judges and they're going to have a litmus test, that needs to at least be aired. I think that after a discussion, maybe we'll get some understanding of how we can go forward and get these nominations considered and hopefully voted on. That is a fair ground for discussion, you know, and it will be a part of what is talked about later on today and tomorrow.

KWAME HOLMAN: Daschle and Lott crossed paths this afternoon and greeted each other warmly. However, early this evening, there were reports that negotiations over the judicial nominations had stalled. Without an agreement, republicans threatened to filibuster the resolution reorganizing the committees in favor of the Democrats. That could prevent any legislation from moving through Senate committees.

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill takes it from there.

GWEN IFILL: Well, they say they're friends, but can they work together? The new Senate shakeup immediately changes the lives of two key Senators: Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, who will be chairman of the Judiciary Committee until midnight tonight, hands over the reins to Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. They join us from Capitol Hill.

Senator Hatch, how will the Senate be different today - tomorrow than it is today?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I think Tom Daschle summed it up. They will have control of the process and control of what comes up in committee, and what comes up on the floor, and that will be a decided change. On the other hand, they are in the majority and they have the right to do that, just like when we were in the majority.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Leahy, or Chairman Leahy, as of tomorrow, what difference does it make, as far as you can tell tomorrow?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, it won't make any difference on a lot of things. We have before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House some very significant pieces of legislation - one on drug prevention. Senator Hatch and I have cosponsored it -- others in the high-tech area. And you see a lot of other people with legislation where you have a Democrat and a Republican as cosponsors. Those will be the same as ever before. The thing to do now as soon as we organize -- I intend to start a fairly significant policy of having hearings on the judicial nomination. We've already started looking through the piles - as soon as the paperwork is completed -- a number of names have been sent up here -- we'll start having hearings on them. And I would - I would hope I could schedule some of those within a couple of weeks of the time we have the Senate reorganization.

GWEN IFILL: Well, you mentioned Senate reorganization and Kwame Holman just reported that maybe some sort of breakdown - or at least Republicans asking for guarantees that Bush nominees come to the floor; otherwise there won't be reorganization. Where does that stand?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, I think that would be, you know, a bad mistake, because we can't have and won't have nomination hearings until we have reorganization; we want to know who's going to be on the committee -- which numbers are going to be there, who leads, or who stays on, and which one will be available and know that they're going to have to vote on these nominations at some point. I think every committee, not just Judiciary, but all the other committees that have nominees before them -- but we have said - Senator Daschle has said - time and time again we want to get moving as the President's nominations come up and have hearings on them. And I would hope that the President would at some point talk to his Republican leadership and say, hey, guys, let's get reorganized so I can have some nominations on my nominees - or have the hearings on my nominees.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Hatch, where does that stand, as far as your understanding of it? Is this something Republicans are willing to tow the line on if they want a guarantee that these nominees will come to the floor?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I don't even think that's a problem at this point. I just came from a private meeting with Senator Daschle, and I have to say it was a fruitful, constructive meeting. I'm one of five who has been selected to sit down and resolve some of these problems, and I think we'll get them resolved. It took them three weeks - you know -- at the beginning, when we had the 50/50 - three weeks to come up a resolution. It was a hard fought battle, but I don't think it's going to take that much time. And I really do think, you know, much as we're concerned about judges and getting them up to hearings and then out on the floor and vote on I really believe that Senator Leahy will do a good job will be fair, and will hold regulation meetings and get the judges up and out. We have 101 current vacancies in the federal judiciary. Now, it's up to the Bush Administration to get the nominees up here so that we can go forward with them. And I'm hopeful that the two of us working together will treat President Bush as well as we treated President Clinton. We were able to get 377 judges through for President Clinton during his eight-year term - with six years of the Republican Senate. Ronald Reagan got 382 - five more than Clinton - with six years of a very favorable Republican Senate -- and so we treated President Clinton very well, but there are always some disputes, always some problems, and I've really tried to resolve those problems through those years. Some I could; some I couldn't, but by and large, we did a very good job. And I'm counting on Senator Leahy doing an equally good job, if not better.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Leahy, when Senator Hatch says he expects you to treat the nominees that come from the Bush White House as well as they were treated coming from the Clinton White House, do you see that as reassurance or a threat?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, I think frankly some in the Bush White House might consider it a threat, because I don't think they'd want us to threat their nominees the way some of the Clinton nominees were treated, but I look at this as a future thing. We have a lot of very substantial things before the Senate Judiciary Committee beyond this. I don't know - I'm not sure what the fuss is in reorganization; we've been doing the same things forever in the history of the Senate; when one party goes in the majority, as opposed to the 50/50, so when one party's in the majority, I think you have a process you follow. We've always done that. Eventually, we will do the same thing here. But there are a lot of other issues besides just the judges. We know, for example, that there's been some real concerns about the FBI. We've been moving forward. This is going to be a really non-partisan top to bottom review of the FBI - we want to know what happened when FBI Director Louis Freeh gave a very clear order to - on the Timothy McVeigh case - it turns out he didn't. You saw what happened in the pursuit of the wrong person after the Atlanta bombing - during the Olympics. Wen Ho Lee - all these other issues. And there are some problems there. The FBI could do some very, very good things. But they've also got an attitude where they make mistakes - nobody seems to really want to correct it. We've got to look at that because we have to have credibility in the justice system. We have to know that judges are impartial; that they're not - by the right or the left; that they're going to give impartial justice. But they also have to know that our law enforcement agencies are going to do - are going to be impartial, irrespective of what they do, so they don't have people, for example, on Death Row that suddenly get released a few hours before they're going to be executed because, whoops, we got the wrong person.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Hatch, I'm curious about your take on your working relationship with Senator Leahy. You heard him say in Kwame Holman's piece the two of you are just friends. Yet, you're working right now in a situation where Senator Lott has sent out this memo saying the Democrats lack the moral authority to lead this Senate. What's your reaction to Senator Lott's contention on that point?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: That was a rally the troops memo that happens around here all the time. I don't think there was any - I don't think anybody should read that the wrong way. He's just saying, look, let's get in and fight for the causes we believe in, the process that we believe in, and hopefully - hopefully he'll get all the Republicans, you know, to work together.

GWEN IFILL: But I guess what I'm wondering is how do your personal friendships influence exactly how this Senate is going to be able to work together.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, you know, in the case of the Judiciary Committee I think Pat summed it up pretty well. You know, when it comes to intellectual property, information technology issues, well, we're almost totally together on everything. I mean, we've set the standards throughout the world in many respects with the legislation we passed. We've passed all kinds of legislation, very technical, difficult legislation that we've both worked on together. We both take a tremendous interest in that legislation. On criminal law we've done a number of things together that really are going to make sense. One of our most important bills this Congress will be the Hatch-Leahy - Leahy-Hatch bill on anti-drugs that will provide alternatives to prison for some of these young people who make a mistake the first time, rather than going to prison, and we'll resolve some of the inequities there, and there are so many other areas where we can work together. And I think we can work together on judges as well. I know that Pat recognizes how important it is to have the federal judiciary filled. And there have always been gripes, no matter who's been chairman, whether it's been Joe Biden back in the Bush years, where at the end of the Bush Administration there was some 67 people left hanging - at the end of this Clinton Administration there were 41 left hanging. I mean, and there's always some real tension over that, but it's just part of the process and part of the problems that committee chairmen have, and I'm going to assist Pat; I'm going to get him every bit of help that I possibly can; I'm a half-glass full guy. I think that, yeah, we're in the minority, but I know how to function in the minority too. And I intend to work very closely with him and see that this Judiciary Committee does its job.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Leahy, how about an issue on which you clearly disagree, like the death penalty, how will that play out? We're all waiting to see what happens with Timothy McVeigh in the next week or so. How will that be different with you in charge of this committee?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I just want to make sure that here's credibility when the death penalty is going to be imposed. For example - I'm a former prosecutor. I prosecuted successfully a number of murder cases. I don't support the death penalty but I have legislation in now that is co-sponsored by a number of people, including a number of former prosecutors, who strongly support the death penalty, which would say, let's make sure if somebody is going to be prosecuted for a capital crime that they're given adequate counsel, not somebody who sleeps through trials, somebody who is drunk at the trial - who is being disbarred in the middle of the trial - all which are things that have happened in the middle of murder cases with assigned counsel. And secondly, that if there's evidence available, whether it's DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, electronic evidence, that it's available to both sides. The whole system of justice breaks down when you see person after person on Death Row about to be executed and find whoops, we've got the wrong person. I think that if you're going to have the death penalty in this country, it's going to be zero tolerance for mistakes; the American public has got to have confidence in their law enforcement and in the criminal justice system, which means you've got to have judges beyond reproach, law enforcement that's above reproach, and a criminal justice system that's fair to everybody, whether they're poor or rich, white, black, conservative, liberal, or whatever. That's what I want - my legislation to bring.

GWEN IFILL: All right. And finally, Senator Hatch, what is - what do you anticipate the relationship to be now with the White House and this new Democratically-led Senate?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I hope it'll be good because it has to be for this country to work. This committee is too important and people have finally come to the conclusion this is one of the most important committees and some of the most important work in Congress. With regard to the death penalty, of course, let me just say that Pat and I aren't that far apart. I believe in order to have a death penalty, number one, you have to have absolute perfect guilt and number two, there should be basically no evidence of any discrimination, and number three, the crime has to be so heinous as to justify it, and I do agree with Pat, that we need to make sure that DNA evidence - that DNA evaluations are used in every case where it's appropriate and that the federal government should assist the states in getting that done. Now we do differ on some aspects that may make it impossible to enforce the death penalty but I think we can work together and I'm going to do the very best I can to assist him and to help him.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, thank you very much for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: More power for California, what's funny about "The Producers," and what is the latest on consumer confidence.

FOCUS - POWERING THE FUTURE

JIM LEHRER: Now building new power plants in California; another in our ongoing look at the nation's energy problems. Spencer Michels reports.

SPENCER MICHELS: On 20 acres of undeveloped grazing land, a dozen miles south of downtown San Jose, California, one of the state's largest energy companies, Calpine, wants to build a 600-megawatt electric power plant. It would be the only major plant in the Silicon Valley, a voracious consumer of electricity in an era of scarcity, an era when some politicians and economists say the long-term solution is more power plants. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have quoted the same statistics:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The Department of Energy estimates that America will need between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants over the next two decades.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: That averages out to more than one new power plant per week every week for the next 20 years.

SPENCER MICHELS: In the past decade California has had to get by with old power plants or with power bought from out of state. No major power plants were built in California for a dozen years. No one expected the huge increase in demand and generating companies were reluctant to build, given the uncertain regulatory climate under deregulation. Now, with demand soaring and rolling power blackouts convincing many residents of the need for more power, 15 new big plants, plus several smaller ones, have been approved, and some are already under construction. Calpine says its proposed San Jose plant, called Metcalf, would supply enough power for 600,000 homes and would be more efficient and less polluting than existing plants, and it's located where it's needed. In Silicon Valley the demands for power are growing fast. Server farms, buildings packed with computer equipment that serves the Internet, use up to 20 more times electricity than conventional offices. Peter Cartwright, Calpine's CEO, argues that Metcalf plus three other plants his firm is building are important to the state's economic health since electricity demand is rising 4 percent a year.

PETER CARTWRIGHT: Silicon Valley, as everybody knows, is well aware - is one of the fastest growing demand centers in the state, and we have very - hardly any power generated in this area. Metcalf is really ideally suited; it's right at a large PG&E substation, so we can get power directly into San Jose and Silicon Valley.

SPENCER MICHELS: But three miles away from the Metcalf site some residents have been saying the new plant won't help the energy crisis and will, in fact, harm them. In addition, high-tech manufacturer, Cisco, which has plans to build a campus with 20,000 employees near the Metcalf site, has opposed the power plant, saying it should be located elsewhere. Last November, residents and Cisco successfully lobbied the San Jose city council not to allow the plant.

SPOKESMAN: Opponents of theCalpine proposal please stand.

SPENCER MICHELS: Among the arguments - that the plant will pollute the air.

ELIZABETH CORD: The power plant would be the number one most stationary source of emissions in the city of San Jose both for nox emissions and particulate matter.

TIM ALTON: If Calpine is approved for Pearly Valley, it is unlikely that Cisco and other prestigious high tech companies will spend tens of millions of dollars in an area blighted by a power plant.

SPENCER MICHELS: The city council and the mayor listened and voted to turn down the Calpine plant. Normally, that would have been final, but Calpine has taken the issue to the state energy commission, which can reconsider it. Elizabeth Cord helped organize her neighbors against the plant, and she thinks they should have the final word.

ELIZABETH CORD: We already live in an area that's highly impacted for air pollution, so it's really going to be a very significant impact; the particulate matter alone, the emissions from the project, are going to bring this area to over 247 percent of the clean air standards, so that's over twice what the maximum level is supposed to be; we're very concerned about that.

SPENCER MICHELS: But state officials faced with tremendous pressure to alleviate the shortage of energy appear ready to override the local decision. The state's recently appointed energy czar, Richard Sklar, says the objections are another case of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, NIMBY, as it's called.

RICHARD SKLAR: Spencer, NIMBY, NIMBY, you and I have watched this for years. If you're going to need energy, if you're going to create waste someone's got to live with it. The new plants, yes, they are not something you'd like to have; you'd rather have Golden Gate Park next to you, but you can't. We've got to get some new power plants because California is most marginal in terms of the balance between supply and demand. We've not built plants for a number of years.

SPENCER MICHELS: One of Sklar's jobs is to ease the permitting process for new power plants. And Metcalf was one of his first assi------

FOCUS - WHAT'S SO FUNNY?

JIM LEHRER: Laughing about Hitler, and to Ray Suarez. (Cheers and applause)

SPOKESPERSON: And the winner is... "The Producers."

SPOKESPERSON: Gary Beach, "The Producers."

SPOKESPERSON: Susan Stroman, "The Producers."

SPOKESPERSON: They've broken the record-- "The Producers."

RAY SUAREZ: It was that kind night for "The Producers"-- the Broadway phenomenon that took a record 12 Tony Awards including three for the musical's creator, Mel Brooks.

MEL BROOKS: I am going to have to do the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, act humble.

RAY SUAREZ: Since it opened in April, the show has smashed box office records on the way to becoming the hottest show on Broadway in more than two decades. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, the show's costars, joked about the success at Sunday night's Tony Awards ceremony.

MATTHEW BRODERICK: This is a megahit. This is a juggernaut.

NATHAN LANE: Really?

MATTHEW BRODERICK: There will never be a bigger hit and I will never be more powerful. I'm the king of the world! Woo! (Laughter )

NATHAN LANE: Please, please, a little humility might hp.

MATTHEW BRODERICK: That word is no longer in my lexicon. ( Laughter )

NATHAN LANE: Really?

MATTHEW BRODERICK: This is a Matthew world and you're just living in it.

RAY SUAREZ: All this for a show that's more a throwback to vaudeville and old-time Broadway, than the kind of lavish productions that are now the mainstay of musical theater.

WOMEN SINGING: Wewant to be a producer we cry ouch... Yoo-hoo! Oh! Ooh!

RAY SUAREZ: The show is based on Mel Brooks' own 1968 movie starring Zero Mostel as the conniving producer Max Bialystock and Gene Wilder as the feckless accountant Leo Bloom.

ACTRESS: Well, talk about bad taste. ( Singing )

PEOPLE SINGING: Springtime for Hitler and Germany...

RAY SUAREZ: The pair, played on Broadway by Broderick and Lane, who took home the best actor Tony, scheme to produce a show that will bomb, so that they can bilk their investors.

MATTHEW BRODERICK: The two cardinal rules of being a Broadway producer are: One, never put your own money in the show. ( Laughter )

NATHAN LANE: And two?

MATTHEW BRODERICK: ( Shouting ) Never put your own money in the show!

RAY SUAREZ: To their surprise, their tasteless creation called "Springtime for Hitler" is a smash hit, and the two are sent up to Sing Sing for their transgressions.

PEOPLW SINGING: Good day for bombs good time for bombs but we're still prisoners, we're still prisoners, we're still prisoners...

RAY SUAREZ: Brooks, whose trademark is manic wit and creative shtick, won Tonys for writing the score and the script.

MEL BROOKS: I want to thank Hitler... (Laughter) ...for being such a funny guy on stage.

RAY SUAREZ: He crafted a farce that satirizes everything from Nazis, to sex-crazed widows, to stereotypes of gay culture.

ACTOR: Italy

ACTOR: keep it gay...

ACTORS: Keep it gay...

RAY SUAREZ: Even with a top admission price of $100, "The Producers" has confidently moved ahead with advance sales through Christmas 2002. (Cheers and applause)

RAY SUAREZ: So, what's so funny about "The Producers"? We get three views: Bob Mondello is the arts critic for National Public Radio's "All Things Considered"; Thane Rosenbaum is the author of the upcoming book "The Golems of Gotham," a professor at Fordham Law School where he teaches a course on law and literature. He wrote about "The Producers" in the Los Angeles Times." And Daniel Mendelsohn is the book critic for the "New York Magazine" and a lecturer at Princeton University. He wrote about "The Producers" for the "New York Review of Books." Well, there we saw Adolph Hitler, guests, author of some of the greatest crimes in history, the man who may have single-handedly destroyed Europe. Thane Rosenbaum, is it okay to laugh?

THANE ROSENBAUM: Well, Mel Brooks is -- in some ways insists on it. I guess the idea and very much the paradox of the original film and now the play is that there is the idea of having a play, a musical, that is supposed to be so revolting that everyone would be turned off and that ultimately it would lose money. But the paradox is that it didn't lose money in the film and it's a huge success now on Broadway as a musical. And I suppose the idea is that as a culture and a society, we are no longer shocked by atrocity -- and maybe that's Brooks' original prophetic vision, that we would become inured and desensitized to shock and horror and that Hitler would eventually become funny to us as he was in the film and now even more so in the play.

RAY SUAREZ: Bob Mondello?

BOB MONDELLO: He was actually funny before that. He was funny when Charlie Chaplain did something about him in "The Great Dictator." There's a long history of making fun of Nazis. It started in Germany. It has developed since. I mean, for heaven's sakes, Benigni's "Life is Beautiful" just two years ago, I guess, won the best foreign film Oscar for doing much the same thing. I thought rather... I mean, if you had questions of taste, that one really sort of bugged me. This is vaudeville shtick. This is a fun show.

RAY SUAREZ: And Daniel Mendelsohn?

DANIEL MENDELSOHN: Well, I tend to agree. I think that the problem here is, is anything taboo anymore? And I think that what the real question is, is this as funny or funny in the same way as the original film of "The Producers" was in 1968? And I think that's the really interesting sort of cultural barometer, which in 1968, Brooks who himself fought in World War II was, you know, making a musical about Hitler, a movie about a musical about Hitler, for people who had fought in the war and to sort of sing "Springtime for Hitler" in 1968 had a kind of a different value. And I think, if anything, the success of this show just shows that you can sort of reprocess everything into something that, in fact, is not outrageous, but quite safe. I mean after "Life is Beautiful" and after the Leni Riefenstahl coffee table book, how outrageous is it to think about a musical about Hitler?

RAY SUAREZ: So the function of time here is to move it from being truly transgressive in 1968 to something that no longer has its ability to shock now and is sort of funny, fun?

DANIEL MENDELSOHN: Yeah, I think that it is about not moving things along. I think that we are not shockable, really, anymore. I think that the Mel Brooks that people, in a kind of nostalgic way, are going to see, I mean, that's one of the big reasons that this is a huge thing. People love Mel Brooks because he's so outr and crazy. I think this is such a not Mel Brooks production because it is so smooth and processed and it's... it was a sure thing a year ago when the buzz started. There's nothing provocative about this.

RAY SUAREZ: Thane Rosenbaum, you were trying to jump in there.

THANE ROSENBAUM: Well, I think that the movie itself was much more provocative and the nazis played a larger role in the film in terms of the sense of revulsion and outrage. Here in the musical, everything is up for grabs. Brooks is unsparing in taking shots at all kinds of cultural artifacts, political correctness issues and that perhaps for me, Ray, it's not so much that the passage of time makes Hitler more humorous. It's just the way our culture has progressed and advanced and the way in which we process images in a kind of second-to-second moment through Jerry Springer programs, the "Survivor" realistic television programs, we've become very much desensitized and inured to shock and atrocity and horror. And the... I was noting, I was mentioning to Daniel that the shot that you showed of the film which people begin to leave the theater doesn't even exist in this musical.

RAY SUAREZ: Not at $100 a head anyway.

THANE ROSENBAUM: Exactly. You would never see anyone get up and leave. It's because nobody believes that anymore today. There's no real distinction between theater that is meant to entertain and theater that is meant to offend. It's all ultimately the same. Everything is fair game for satire and mockery.

RAY SUAREZ: Bob, do we make a mistake if we concentrate too much on Hitler? Isn't this just as much making fun of showbiz and its convention?

BOB MONDELLO: It's all about showbiz. You saw in the clips that it's vaudeville shtick. They're really doing old-time vaudeville. It's about, you know, "never put your own money in the show" -- that kind of thing. That's what they're doing about everything; you have seig-heiling pigeons in the... pigeon puppets, which are hysterical but hysterical, I guess, because we're distant from it, but also partly because a puppet of a pigeon raising its wing on cueis hysterical. What we're dealing with is the way that - the way that theater makes these things, I guess, less dangerous. I mean, isn't that the point? If Mel Brooks is trying to do a serious show about Nazis, then this is a totally unsuccessful effort here. This is a showbizzy, splashy musical that people are paying a fortune to go and see so that, you know, they know in advance they're not going to be insulted if... or annoyed or anything else by the show. I don't think it's an issue while you're watching it. It would be much easier to be offended by the gay stereotypes, I should think. There's even a black stereotype in one of the segments. And they are being received in much the same way by the audience, that this is... it's obvious Mel Brooks is being a hoot, as he always does.

RAY SUAREZ: And there was not a great deal of comment, Daniel Mendelsohn, about that. As I went through all the clips over the last six to nine months, there wasn't a lot of hand wringing over this. It finally culminates in the Tony Awards with him holding part of a comb under his upper lip.

DANIEL MENDELSOHN: Right. Well, again, I don think it's... You know, the gay stuff I think -- I agree -- I think there's certainly a lot more ranting about gays than there is about Hitler in this musical, but, again, I just think that we're past the point... Look, I mean, this is... Certainly at this point in the evolution of the performance history of this, this is being seen by New Yorkers, right, and there are in-jokes by Nathan Lane in the course of the performance about his own homosexuality. This is not an audience that is going to freak out because there's a drag queen onstage dressed up as Anastasia, right? So I think that we're just past the point. But just to go back for a moment to what was just said about, isn't that the point making it safe? I would have to say that what this really tells us - the success of this -- is that to generations of the musical, this is really about Broadway in a kind of deep sense as a real vehicle for expressing anything interesting or serious about, you know, American culture other than its ability to eat its own products and spit them back out in a shinier way. You know, there's another revival on Broadway right now, and that's "Follies" which is Stephen Sondheim's musical about musicals. It's a sort of interesting parallelism. And that's a musical that is really about something that is sort of disturbing and upsetting in a lot of ways and also musical and wonderful. And I think it's interesting to sort of pair these two things. Yes, they're both vaudeville; they're both about musicals and how they get produced, but it just shows that you... You know, maybe it's impossible. Maybe the musical a forum for really expressing something is kind of over it by now, and this is just rehash, which is, you know, what Broadway is really about at this point. So it has kind of been processed and made safe. And, you know, I don't think that's such a wonderful thing for an art form, but maybe that's what's happened.

RAY SUAREZ: Thane Rosenbaum, is Daniel Mendelsohn right? Is that art made safe? Is it really no more complicated than "42nd Street" which is also in revival on Broadway right now?

THANE ROSENBAUM: Well, the thing is -- Daniel is absolutely correct. It's just the question is -- and that's the central question that you're asking here today -- is Hitler different? Is the Third Reich different? Is there the capacity or the potential for farce, the same ideas of recreation and reinvention and art, the same when you're dealing with a mass murderer as well as a madman? I mean, the thing that is just somehow lost in this entire narrative and this incredible adulation about "The Producers" is that - and I think Bob Mondello is right when he says there's a long history of satire about the Nazis, and perhaps they were always hilarious. They were, in fact, less hilarious after the Holocaust than when "To Be or Not To Be" was made, or when Charlie Chaplain made "The Great Dictator." There was perhaps more justifiable humor about the absurdity of Hitler before we realized who he really was and what he was really capable of doing, which is why the sensitivities became more profound, which is precisely why the film, the original film was, in fact, so controversial and I believe, neither a critical nor commercial success. So here you have the incredible irony that the film that was not much of a success and that did get criticism for the fact that it trampled on profound sensitivities, today in making the musical about the musical that was supposed to close after one night's performance, in fact, is the greatest hit in the history of Broadway. And I think it says a lot about us, it says a lot about popular culture and it says something about Mel Brooks.

BOB MONDELLO: That's a little scary. The greatest hit in the history of Broadway only a few weeks after it opens is unnerving. If it runs as long as "Chorus Line," I'll give you that. I think this show - this is a nice little show, you know, and there was a time when it would have run for a couple of years. It is now going to run for more than five. People are going to go crazy over it for awhile. It's cute. It's funny. It's not trying to be anything terribly serious. I'm thinking about... There was a letter to the editor of the "New York Times" not too long ago about someone asking, would you write a hysterical musical right now about Columbine? Could you get away with that?" And the answer, of course, is right now, absolutely not. There's no way. We're too close. And I don't know that you could ever do such a show in a high school, but it isn't inconceivable to me that someone would find a way to do a satirical piece about - I don't know -- the NewsHour and develop a skit that had to do with Columbine that was legitimately funny within the context of the NewsHour, because you've taken it one step away. What "The Producers" does is take this notion of Hitler and put it inside a show and then make fun of the show. That's safe. And actually the movie originally did that too, because otherwise you could never do that. And I think you could do the same thing today with other subjects.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Mendelsohn?

DANIEL MENDELSOHN: Well, I have to say that it's very interesting to hear that because I think the... There's something else that's going on here about the evolution of the career of Mel Brooks. I think that the old Mel Brooks, you know, would have made a funny musical about Columbine three years after it happened. I mean, that's the whole point. I think, you know, so much of what Brooks was about was just pushing the limits of tastelessness. I think as a kind of form of humor traditionally, having your face rubbed in the extreme kind of drecky kitsch that he loves to throw out is a form of release for audiences. You know, we don't have to worry about how good or tasteful it is. And that's what so much of his humor was about. You look at these old movies of his and they're just these sort of strung together, outrageous skits, really, in which he just pushes everything to the limit. And I would say that 30 years ago, Mel Brooks would have looked at Columbine and found something to, you know, to stick into his next movie. And that is very different now. You know, I think this is a guy who has done a lot and he's relaxing now and having a good time and it doesn't, you know, I don think he would do , but I think he would have done it.

RAY SUAREZ: Daniel Mendelsohn, Thane Rosenbaum, Bob Mondello, thank you all.

UPDATE - CONFIDENT CONSUMERS?

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, how happy are you about the economy? Our economics correspondent, Paul Solman, of WGBH-Boston, has a NewsHour/NewsHour update.

PAUL SOLMAN: Last Tuesday, New York's Conference Board released one of the country's leading economic indicators, the Consumer Confidence Index. And in the story last Tuesday night we invited you, our viewers, to fill out roughly the same survey yourselves on-line. By noon today more than 1500 of you had replied, so here are the results: One, How do you rate current business conditions? Good - 14 percent of you; Normal - 51 percent; Bad - 34 percent. How do you rate the current employment situation? 24 percent of you said good; 43 percent normal; 34 percent of you said bad. What are your expectations for business conditions in six months? 29 percent said better; the same - 39 percent; worse - 32 percent. What are your expectations for the general employment situation in six months? Better - 21 percent of you; 40 percent of you said the same; 38 percent of you said worse. And what are your expectations for your personal income in six months? Higher - 30 percent; the same - 50 percent; lower - 20 percent. Now, as it happens, these results differ significantly from the actual 3500-person Conference Board Survey. Those people were selected randomly, scientifically. Statisticians would call those of you who responded a biased sample. But what were the differences? Here are the actual Conference Board results next to yours. How did they rate current business conditions? Good - 31 percent; Normal - 57 percent; Bad - 12 percent. In other words, they were much more positive about this than you. The current employment situation - well, Good - 39 percent; Normal - 46 percent; Bad - 15 percent. Again, they were more sanguine than you were. Now, their expectations for business conditions in six months: Better - 17 percent; the same - 70 percent; worse - only 13 percent. Your forecasts were much more extreme. Their expectations for the general employment situation in six months: Better - only 14 percent; the same - a hefty 66 percent - again many more of them in the middle - worse - 20 percent, compared to your 38 percent. And finally their expectations for their personal income in six months: Higher - 25 percent; the same - a whopping 68 percent; and lower - a mere 7 percent, compared to your gloomy 20 percent. Thus, as the current conditions NewsHour viewers - at least those of you who responded - are far more negative about the economy than a random sample of Americans. But when it comes to expectations, as measured by the last three questions, you're both more pessimistic and more optimistic. In fact, compared to the normal population, statistically you're sort of bipolar, which raises one last question: Why do NewsHour viewers differ so from other Americans? Is it (a) NewsHour viewers are more prone to economic mood swings; (b) watching the NewsHour makes people bolder economic forecasters; (c) the Internet attracts economic extremists; or (d) something else entirely? We don't know. But, in any case, these NewsHour data do support something both we and you have long suspected: You're an unusual group of people.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.