The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Ray Suarez sorts through the new details of President Bush's budget proposal, King Abdullah of Jordan talks about the violence in the Middle East, Terence Smith examines the golfing miracle named Tiger Woods, and essayist Jim Fisher speaks of power in the Midwest. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush again warned China today it could hurt relations with the United States if it continued to hold the crew of an American spy plane. The aircraft made an emergency landing on Hainan Island in the South China area last week after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet. The jet crashed; its pilot is missing and presumed dead. Mr. Bush has sent the pilot's wife a letter of condolence. He commented on the situation this morning at the White House.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Every day that goes by increases the potential that our relations with China could be damaged. And our hope is that this matter does resolve quickly. We're working behind the scenes, we've got every diplomatic channel open. We're in discussions with the Chinese. It is now time for our troops to come home so that our relationship does not become damaged.

JIM LEHRER: Earlier, the President spoke by telephone to a U.S. Military attach in China. Brigadier-General Neal Sealock had had a fourth meeting with the 24 American crew members. He told reporters they were receiving e-mails, and provisions such as toiletries and chocolate.

BRIGADIER GENERAL NEAL SEALOCK: There have previously been some questions with regard to the condition that they're in. I described them earlier, both to our senior leadership and to you as officers' quarters. Perhaps I can just let you know that that includes things like air conditioning, they're very clean, it is a hotel environment, it is not anything close to anything below that. So just in an effort to give you a better idea that they under very good conditions, they've been able to clean up their uniforms and do all those sorts of things and they are being well taken care of.

JIM LEHRER: China's official news agency reported today the foreign ministry continued to insist that the United States take responsibility for the collision and apologize. The Bush administration has refused, saying it was an accident. President Bush today submitted the details of his first budget to Congress. It's a nearly $2 trillion plan for fiscal year 2002. He said it would hold down government spending, while lowering taxes $1.6 trillion over ten years. Critics said he was shortchanging important programs to pay for his tax cuts. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Minneapolis today Northwest Airlines reached a tentative contract agreement with its Mechanics Union. It would end four and a half years of deadlock over pay and other benefits. Union members still have to ratify the deal. Also today, American Airlines completed its purchase of Trans World Airlines. The $742 million deal will create the world's largest airline. Overseas today, the violence in the Middle East continued. A Palestinian man was killed in crossfire between Israeli and Palestinian security forces overnight, and Israeli helicopters attacked targets in the Gaza Strip. In a NewsHour interview, King Abdullah of Jordan said his country and the United States should encourage efforts by the Israelis and Palestinians to reduce the violence or risk it spreading.

KING ABDULLAH II: I think both sides realize the danger they're getting themselves into, that they're playing with Pandora's Box. If they continue in this cycle of violence, it could escalate beyond the borders of the Palestinians and Israelis. And therefore I think they need to feel reassured that we are going to stand with them and support them to move in the right direction. I think they need that moral support.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have the interview in its entirety later in the program tonight. The Presidential election in Peru is headed for a runoff today. Early results showed Alejandro Toledo in the lead, but he did not have the majority needed for outright victory. He'll face ex-President Alan Garcia in another round of voting in late May or early June. Tiger Woods has made sports history again. The 25-year-old golfer won the masters yesterday in Augusta, Georgia, becoming the first player to win four professional championships in a row, and all within a year. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. Willie Stargell died today in a Wilmington, North Carolina hospital. Doctors said the Baseball Hall- of-Famer had been suffering from diabetes and a kidney disorder. He played 20 years for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He was a seven-time all-star, known for his towering home runs and his clubhouse leadership. He was 61 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the President's budget details, the King of Jordan, the Tiger of golf, and a Jim Fisher essay.

FOCUS - REVEALING THE DETAILS

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the budget story.

RAY SUAREZ: People lined up along the sidewalk on North Capitol Street in Washington this morning. They weren't waiting to buy concert tickets or to enjoy a new gallery or museum exhibit. At precisely 8:00, the doors of the government printing office would open and the details of President Bush's 2002 budget would be available for all to see. Even South Carolina's John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, had to wait his turn. And when it came, Spratt wrote out a personal check for $199 to get his own copy of the five-volume set. It contains the President's specific spending recommendations for all government agencies and programs. The President discussed his budget numbers this morning with members of his cabinet and the White House press corps.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It's a budget that protects taxpayers, protects children, protects our surplus. It represents compassionate conservatism.

RAY SUAREZ: The President's budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, proposes to spend nearly $2 trillion. 65% of it already is locked in for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, interest on the national debt and other mandatory spending programs. 16%, nearly $320 billion would go to national defense. While the remaining 19% would be spent on other discretionary programs. That chunk will serve as the battleground as the President pits his spending priorities against those of the Congress.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It's a budget that recognizes there are some good programs here in Washington that need to be funded.

RAY SUAREZ: While the President wants to limit the overall increase in spending to 4%, some programs would get much more. Education spending is earmarked at $45 billion, an 11.5% boost over last year. The National Institutes of Health would get nearly $3 billion, the first down payment on the President's promise to double the NIH budget. The President has set a 10-year goal to spend 153 billion to modernize Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit. But the President also cuts the budget for several of his department heads, including the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Justice, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of President Clinton's favorite programs would be can you as well: Specifically, a 17% cut in an anti-crime program aimed at putting 100,000 new police officers on the street; cuts in funding to train doctors at children's hospitals; and cuts in a tax credit program designed to boost economically depressed neighborhoods.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Washington's known for its pork. This budget funds our needs without the fat.

RAY SUAREZ: The President's budget also makes room to trigger two of his ten-year initiatives to pay down two $2 trillion worth of debt, and provide $1.6 trillion of tax cuts. After spending several hours unearthing the details of the President's budget, Congressman John Spratt said it appears the President was sacrificing important programs to pay for his tax cuts.

REP. JOHN SPRATT: Medicaid, graduate medical education, environmental programs in the department of the interior, programs at EPA, training and employment programs, child care and development block grants. Down the list, and I'll come back to those individually, we found cuts in all of these programs, in order to make way for the President's tax cut.

RAY SUAREZ: Spratt predicted the President would have to negotiate his budget numbers with members of Congress from both parties. And he said spending for agriculture programs and defense almost certainly will be increased.

JIM LEHRER: Four experts help us through the fine print of the Bush budget: Eileen Appelbaum of the Economic Policy Institute, Stan Collender of the public affairs firm, Fleishman-Hillard, Joan Woodward of the investment firm Goldman Sachs, and Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation. Joan Woodward, let's start with you. You've had a little chance to look at this thing now. What are some of the main points for you that really show you the thrust of the Bush administration in preparing this budget?

JOAN WOODWARD: Well, clearly President Bush has laid out his priorities for fiscal policy in the next ten years. The cornerstone of that agenda really is his 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut over the next ten years. We already saw Congress scale it back a little bit last week to about 1.3 trillion dollars. Bush has some significant increases for the National Institutes of Health, a very big chunk of money again doubled by the Senate this year for Medicare prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, another campaign promise. So I would say he lived up to his campaign promises here. We have some additional spending; we have some significant tax cuts. And now the Congress will decide on the finer appropriations points.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there any cuts that take effect with the 2002 fiscal year? You mentioned tack cuts as one of the main features. What happens right away?

JOAN WOODWARD: Interestingly, Bush's tax cut is not immediate. During the campaign he did not propose tax cuts this year. The House of Representatives has taken his tax plan and made it retroactive for January 1, 2001 -- at least the low rate going from 15 to 10%. But we don't see any initial cuts in 2001. This is a budget for 2002.

RAY SUAREZ: Eileen Appelbaum, when you take a look at it, what do you see?

EILEEN APPELBAUM: Well, what I see is a standstill budget. I see a situation in which we have a great opportunity at the present time to think about what kind of country we want to have, what our vision is for the future in terms of rural economic development, in terms of economic development in the inner city, in terms of affordable quality daycare, which so many working families need, and in terms of retraining programs for workers who are displaced from the old economy to find a place in the new economy. And there's none of this in the Bush tax program. If I had to sum it up, I would say this is a budget policy of death by a thousand cuts. There are small cuts in many, many programs. There are large cuts, I think in energy, environment, which I find really shocking, and some increases in health and medicine. But these are very unevenly distributed. We have cutbacks as well as increases in these areas.

RAY SUAREZ: Dan Mitchell, your mile post in this budget document?

DANIEL MITCHELL: Well, I'm glad he's followed through with his promise for tax relief, but I actually think we're spending too much in this budget, almost 2 trillion dollars. It was only, what, 1987 when we reached the one trillion mark. I think the federal government is much too big. I'm glad that he's increasing spending by less than Clinton proposed, but it's still a big increase, 5.6% overall, much faster than inflation. So these Cassandra "sky is falling warnings" that we're getting from people about deep cuts, show them to me, I wish they were there.

RAY SUAREZ: So, slowing down from the Clinton rate of increase, or the last Clinton budget's rate of increase just doesn't do it for you. Where were the cuts missing that you would have liked to have seen them?

DANIEL MITCHELL: I think it's an improvement that we go from 8% increases down to 4 to 5% increases. But when I look at all the programs that are larded throughout the federal budget, I guess I disagree with Joan, I don't think we should be spending more on education, I don't think the federal government has a good track record. The more federal government spending has been over the last 30 years, the worst student performance has performed. I don't want more bureaucracy in Washington, and so, I'm in favor of limiting the growth of spending to as small as possible, and maybe some day when my fantasies are achieved we'll actually reduce government.

RAY SUAREZ: Stan Collender?

STAN COLLENDER: No one is going to use the phrase "dead on arrival," but this budget has already been rejected by the Congress. The Senate last week made it very clear that they weren't going to take a tax cut as big as the President included in his budget today. They also made it clear they wanted spending to be higher. And while the budget works numerically, it just doesn't work politically. Almost certainly, Dan, what you're likely to see is Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, adding to the spending in the President's budget ... and that just makes all the surplus numbers very much out of whack going forward. Now, maybe this was his strategically good move by the President to come in relatively low, knowing that Congress is going to add to it. But this budget, if it's not dead on arrival, it may be dead before printing.

RAY SUAREZ: Since both Houses of Congress have already passed resolutions that contradict the spirit of this document, what is its utility now that it's rolling out of government printing office, what is it meant to do when the President says here's how I'd like to spend the money?

DANIEL MITCHELL: I guess the first thing I would say is that the house and Senate have given Bush about 85 to 90% of the tax cut he wanted and we're not done with the process yet. So I don't think it's accurate to say it's dead on arrival. Of course there's going to be negotiation. But hopefully the President as the only elected official to represent the country as a whole will try to stop Congress from engaging in pork barrel spending, which as Stan pointed out they'll be very tempted to do, that they're going to want to shovel as much money to their switches as possible, but hopefully the President will say you can spend what you want, but keep it within this level.

STAN COLLENDER: Dan, what's he going to do? He can't veto these bills, because he'll be vetoing business from a Republican Congress; it would clearly look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Either he negotiates and probably gives Congress more spending that they want and that they're going to need to get through some of these narrow majorities, or we're going to end up with stalemates and who knows what shutdowns come fall.

DANIEL MITCHELL: If I had to predict, we're not going to keep to 4%. I'm just saying that would be better for the country.

RAY SUAREZ: Eileen Appelbaum.

EILEEN APPELBAUM: I think we have to pay attention to the fact what the increases we're talking about are nominal increases, and that in real terms and in terms of being able to provide existing levels of services to a growing population, we're going to be hard pressed in a lot of areas. Take something simple like AIDS, we've frozen the budget for AIDS grants. And yet we know that there are 40,000 new cases of AIDS every year, and we know that we have life saving drugs available that are increasingly expensive. You freeze that budget, you know that you're going to cut services that are meaningful that people are waiting for, and that are important.

RAY SUAREZ: But aren't there also increases in there? You mentioned AIDS, but NIH gets a very large bump up in funding as does education.

EILEEN APPELBAUM: Sure, but all of the spending in R and D in this country, all of the increase is going to health. We are cutting R and D spending in energy, in space exploration, in science and transportation, and all of the other areas of research that we need to have a strong economy.

RAY SUAREZ: Joan Woodward.

JOAN WOODWARD: I don't know if I would agree with that. I think the Bush budget here is, and I would agree with Dan that Congress has already given Bush about 80, 85% of what he wants just last week, even before the Congress saw the details of this budget. Now the Congress will debate over this very small chunk of the pie with regard to appropriations bills, which is where you see the pork; historically you've seen a lot of highway projects in different districts, but we're talking about a very small slice of the budget. The NIH funding we're talking about has already been increased by Congress in the budget resolution. The Senate, the 2.8 billion number is now 3.5, and going to the conference with the House we're going to even see, I think, an increase in that number. So Bush is - you know -- setting priorities, this is what a new President does, this is why you have elections. He's put out his budget based on his campaign promises; there were a few new items coming into the tax arena today. Still further we see more taxi tells coming in with pension reform and increasing the 401 K from 10,500, increasing the Roth IRA. There's overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress for a lot of these pension retirement savings items that were not included in the Bush 1.6 trillion. So I even think there will be an increase from the Senate passed version of the tax cut.

RAY SUAREZ: The ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee has suggested that the President will get arguments from both parties on the Hill, from what's in this budget. What are some of the candidates for bringing on those battles?

STAN COLLENDER: Well, there are two right up front, one is agricultural. You'll see Republicans from the heartland pushing very hard for additional spending there beyond what the President proposed. And another one just right off the top of my head would be some of the international trade issues and some of the money for economic development. You can see the Chamber of Commerce, which was pushing very hard to support the Bush tax cut also having trouble with some of the cuts that would help some big corporations in exports.

EILEEN APPELBAUM: I think energy and environment is another big area why there's going to be a battle. I think the American public have made it clear that they care about the super fund sites, they care about nuclear waste management, they care about pollution abatement, they care about clean technologies. If we're not going to have Kyoto and we're not going to have mandated reductions in carbon emissions, how can we not be spending the money that we need to spend to make sure that existing technologies that are already known to the Department of Energy and that it planned, it had planned at least to bring to the attention of businesses to advise them on how they could implement them effectively, we're cutting that program. How can we go forward thinking about energy, thinking about the environment with these kinds of cutbacks? We're left with nothing. And I think the people have made it pretty clear, the American people have made it pretty clear that these are high priority items for them.

DANIEL MITCHELL: Well, given that the President is proposing to spend 2 trillion dollars, that's a lot of nothing out there. I guess what I'm hoping is that the President will be the person who says to all the different constituency groups out there, you may want more spending in Program A, but if you want to do that, propose some off setting reductions in Program B. Because, otherwise, we'll have a situation where every single program which of course has a constituency will demand more spending and if no one is there looking at the big picture, looking after America's national economic interest, spending will go out of control and we will slowly degenerate and become more like France, with a stagnant economy, no private sector job growth, and just become an uncompetitive. America is benefiting because we're more free market than other countries, and we want to stay in that.

RAY SUAREZ: Respond to Eileen Appelbaum's point, that the public will tell researchers, yeah, we care about the environment and there's a flat funded EP A, for instance. This budget includes revenue from drilling in ANWAR when that question hasn't even been settled, for instance.

DANIEL MITCHELL: Well, I think the public opinion poll that matters most takes place on election day, or election day plus 40 days or whatever it took to determine our President. That's the one that really matters, where people actually put their money where their mouth is. When you go out and ask these public opinion surveys, do you want, you know, more health care, more day care, more this, more that, people always say yes because it's presented as a freebie. When you ask them are you willing to pay X for that, are you willing to pay Y for that, are you willing to sacrifice this to get that program, then you get a different situation. And that's what we see in elections, people actually voting and making their opinion known when it really counts.

RAY SUAREZ: Very quick response.

EILEEN APPELBAUM: But the public has said they don't want a large tax cut, they said that during the election, they said it after the election. We have to make these kinds of choices, we have to give up clean energy in order to finance a 1.6 trillion tax cut that we know is going to cost 2 trillion plus.

RAY SUAREZ: You have 30 seconds.

JOAN WOODWARD: Well, I'll tell you, it seems to me that the Kyoto treaty was killed by the U.S. Senate in 95 to zero two years ago when there was a vote, and Senators are elected by the people. Bush basically just stated the obvious, I will not endorse or go forward on Kyoto treaty. It wasn't killed by this President, it was killed by the United States Senate a couple years ago.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all, good to see you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: the King of Jordan, the king of golf, and a Jim Fisher essay.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now, our interview with the King of Jordan, but first some background from Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: Two years ago, the leaders of the world streamed into the Middle East nation of Jordan to attend the funeral of a monarch they had known well, King Hussein, and to take the measure of his 37-year-old successor and son, King Abdullah II. With a combination of caution and cunning, King Hussein had survived nearly five decades of Middle East turbulence. One of his last acts before his death from cancer was characteristically surprising. He removed his brother, Prince Hassan, who had been crown prince for two decades, and named Abdullah as successor to the throne of the Hashemite kingdom, descendants of the prophet Muhammad. Abdullah had spent his adult years as a military officer but not involved in affairs of state or diplomacy. He's the eldest of Hussein's five sons; his mother, the second of Hussein's four wives, was an Englishwoman, Tony Gardner, who took the name Muna. Abdullah was educated in Britain and at two New England prep schools. He speaks English more fluently than Arabic. Since ascending the throne, King Abdullah has remained loyal to his father's major legacy: Maintaining peace with Israel, along with strong ties to the United States. But the young monarch has also begun to plot his own course in dealing with his fellow Arabs. He has sought reconciliation with countries and leaders with whom his father had strained relations, including Syria, Kuwait, and Egypt, and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. Domestically, King Abdullah has promoted free market reforms, partly as a way to deal with the 25% unemployment rate in his country. Last year, he and President Clinton signed a free trade agreement putting Jordan on a par with Canada, Mexico and Israel in its access to U.S. markets. But the agreement has not gone to Congress yet for ratification because of controversies over environmental and labor standards. In his Bedouin Kingdom of nearly five million, more than one million are Palestinians or of Palestinian descent, including King Abdullah's wife, Queen Rania. But when he closed down offices of the radical Hamas group, Abdullah demonstrated early in his reign he is ready to crack down on Palestinian or other domestic opposition. Since his arrival in Washington last week, to push his diplomatic and trade agendas, King Abdullah has met administration officials and members of Congress. Tomorrow he meets with President Bush.

JIM LEHRER: I talked with the King this morning at his hotel in Washington.

Your Majesty, welcome.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you very much.

JIM LEHRER: Sir, what is it going to take to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, at this stage, sir, I think we're a bit further away from actually talking about peace. We're talking about now is a de-escalation of the tremendous violence we're seeing in our part of the world. Unfortunately, a few days ago there was a securities meeting between both sides, which was, from what we could gather, very successful. So it's a small step in the right direction about deescalating the violence. If we continue in this way, hopefully, in the next few months we'll be in a position where we can get back to the peace tables.

JIM LEHRER: The Israel position, as you know, has been, no serious peace negotiations until the violence ends. Is that a reasonable position from your point of view?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, there has been tremendous violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that both sides, as I said, need to sit down and create confidence building measures between both parties. That's being done at the moment. It takes the international community and all of us, really, to be able to support both sides to move in that direction. I fear that left by themselves, there will be a feeling of neglect from the international community, which will not encourage them to move in the proper direction.

JIM LEHRER: Why not? There's no motivation on the two sides to end the violence?

KING ABDULLAH II: There is motivation, and I think both sides realize the danger that they're getting themselves into, that they're playing with Pandora's box. If they continue in this cycle of violence, it could escalate beyond the borders of the Palestinians and the Israelis. And therefore, I think they need to feel reassured that we are going to Stand with them and support them to move in the right direction. I think they need that moral support.

JIM LEHRER: There are some who question the ability of Yasser Arafat to end the violence, even if he wanted to. How do you read that, his power to do that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I... there have been other countries that have been making statements that he has no power. I don't think that's the case. There's no doubt that since the start of the Intifada, his power has declined somewhat, but I think he still think that he has the ability to influence his people. And you have to remember, at the end of the day, he's still the symbol for the Palestinian course, and that does have some weight with the Palestinians on the street.

JIM LEHRER: What's your reading of the new prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, his Late Majesty had a very healthy working relationship with the prime minister. I met him several years ago when he came with Prime Minister Netanyahu to Jordan; my father always said he's always a man of his word, and in politics that's a very rare thing. So I'm looking forward to the prime minister being a very positive influence in the region.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have any plans to meet with him or go to Israel or invite him to Jordan?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, as the... I hope, as the security discussions between both sides continue, I'm sure that there will be a point in time when both the Israelis and Palestinians will want to engage with the Jordanians and others in the region so that there will be an opportunity for us to exchange views. How that will happen I don't know, but we will be there for them when they ask for us to.

JIM LEHRER: There's been much written and speculated about as far as what message you brought to the President of the United States and his administration and the Secretary of State, et cetera, as to what the United States should do to kind of ease the situation in the Middle East. What was your message?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I'm still to see the President, but in our discussions with various members of the administration and even on the Hill, there is a perception in the Middle East that America is not interested in really sticking its neck out for the Israelis and the Palestinians, which is not true. The American administration, quite rightly, I believe, to an extent feels that both sides need to sit down together and show that they are willingto take the risk to move forward, and at which point the Americans would be there to help them. I think to an extent towards the end of last year, I must admit that maybe America was taken a bit for granted in our part of the world. But, as I said, the securities meetings that developed a couple of days ago was successful and a step in the right direction. So I hope you'll see an American presence as an umbrella, at least, to support both sides in the near future.

JIM LEHRER: But is it correct to interpret, at least as we sit here, to interpret U.S. actions in the new administration as less interested in being deeply involved in the Middle East as the Clinton administration?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think there's a concern of being burnt in the peace process, and therefore, I think quite rightly, the American administration believes that we need to see that both you are willing to take this thing seriously enough to sit down and sort it out before we can get involved. As I said, taking the Americans for granted over the past several months, I think, maybe left a bad taste in their mouths. And so the emphasis now is on the Israelis and Palestinians to show that America deserves the ability to step in and help them.

JIM LEHRER: Do you feel obligated or motivated to bring that message back to the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world from this visit?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think one of the messages that I've already started to send back is that there is a sense of frustration in the United States, that we need to really put our heads together and move forward. We can't continue to expect that the Americans would step in sort of at the beck and call of the Middle East. We need to shoulder the responsibilities ourselves to an extent.

JIM LEHRER: The recent Arab League meeting over which you presided-- it was in Jordan-- many Americans were struck by the really severe anti-Israeli rhetoric that the Arab leaders used. What's the cause of that, what's behind that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think part of it, sir, you have to understand that the images we see on television every day of the violence in the territories has created tremendous frustration, not only at the leadership level, but more importantly at the street level in the Middle East. But looking back at the statement, it depends whether you want to look at the glass half full or half empty. I like to look at the glass half full. There was a negative stand towards the violence that is perceived used by the Israeli armed forces on the Palestinians, and that came out in the declaration. On the other side, though, there was a clear call by all the Arab countries that they wanted to have a quick solution, a peaceful solution between the Israelis and Palestinians, and to have peace with Israel. So that's the side I would like to concentrate on and build upon if I can.

JIM LEHRER: But is it correct to say that the Arab leaders believe that the violence and the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians are solely the result of actions by the Israelis?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think that at this stage, looking at the past and trying to point fingers at each other really doesn't get is anywhere. I think we all understand that there is a cycle of violence being perpetrated by both sides, and we need to deescalate and get both parties to break that cycle. I've been in the United States since the security meetings. I hope that on my return there's an atmosphere that gives us hope and maybe a positive move in the right direction.

JIM LEHRER: What would you say to just ordinary Americans who are watching this interview about why we should care? We've had Presidents of the United States, Secretaries of State, for years heavily involved in trying to keep the Israelis and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world from killing each other. Why should it matter to us?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, it matters, sir, because we're so close. If you look at Taba, what was discussed between the Israelis and Palestinians was very far reaching. We're on the verge once and for all to have peace and prosperity in our part of the world, and as long as there is instability and conflict in our region, because of your powers as a nation in the international arena, you're going to be dragged into it whether you like it or not. But let's look at this golden opportunity that was presented to us over the past several months. It's the closest that the Palestinians and Israelis have ever come to achieving peace. We were so close.

JIM LEHRER: The last Camp David...

KING ABDULLAH II: The last Camp David... Well, from Camp David we went to Sharm El-Sheikh, we went to Taba. We, both sides, discussed issues that were considered taboo beforehand, and so all of us could see the light at the end of the tunnel, and for some reason it fell apart, and I think it just takes one last push to push this thing through. His Late Majesty used to say, "we want peace for our children and their children." I'd like to modify that to say, "I want peace for us now and our children." This is a new millennium. Let's start it right. The idea of Israel being integrated into the region, for us to be able to break down the barriers and live in peace and prosperity once and for all-- that's why it's so important for us, and why it's so important for the United States.

JIM LEHRER: The Late Majesty, your father, was deeply involved in every peace effort. Do you feel something special because of that, to do more than others?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, His Majesty always taught us to be a voice of moderation, to always look beyond the interests of our own borders, to look at the goodness of what could be bought for the whole region in the Middle East, and it's that sort attitude that I think permeates throughout Jordan. If we can help, if we can even take risks on our own selves to help others, that is the message that His Majesty taught us, and in the type of world that we live in, the part for peace is the harder battle, and this is the one that we have to take. It's the right path, and therefore Jordan will continue to take whatever risks it takes to bring peace and prosperity for all our neighbors.

JIM LEHRER: You've been the King now for two years. Is this a major priority for you, or what are your priorities in terms of what you want to do for your country?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, for our country the priority is the economy, getting, as I've said from day one, food on the table. We have problems with poverty; we have problems with unemployment. If we are going to progress, if we are going to move forward on political reforms, economic reforms, we have to make the economy of paramount importance, and we've seen over the past two years a real improvement in that. We were the only country last year to join the World Trade Organizations. We're in the process of agreeing with, hopefully, agreement of a free trade with the United States. The indicators have been very positive. We've gone from negative growth to 4% growth in the past 18 months. The feeling, though, has not really filtered down yet to the people in the street, and we need to continue in this light, and I hope that prosperity is just around the corner. So the economy is the first priority.

JIM LEHRER: What has been the most difficult adjustment or task or challenge that you have faced in the two years since you've been king of Jordan?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think changing the mentalities of people that, no matter how difficult the future look, whatever obstacles we have in front of us, they can be overcome. There's always the attitude "it can't be done, it's too difficult." That doesn't sit very well with me. And now there's a sense of teamwork in Jordan; there's a sense that we can achieve the prosperity that we want, and that's being permeated -- all sectors of society. We're moving forward, and I think the biggest challenge at the beginning was to get people to believe that the vision I have for Jordan is possible and can be reached.

JIM LEHRER: You appear to be very comfortable in this position. Are appearances correct in this case?

KING ABDULLAH II: It's a very difficult job. I feel the frustrations and insecurities I think that anybody would in this job, but the job has to be done. You can either laugh or cry about it, but you have challenges. I have the responsibility over four million people, and I am in a position to do good, to be able to bring about a new life for my people, and I will continue to move in that direction. It's a burden, but it needs to be done, and you have to have the courage and wisdom to see it through.

JIM LEHRER: Your Majesty, thank you very much.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you very much, sir.

FOCUS - SIMPLY GRAND

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Tiger slam, and to Terence Smith. ( Cheers and applause )

SPORTSCASTER: There it is! As great as it gets!

TERENCE SMITH: With this birdie putt yesterday, Tiger Woods made history again -- winning the masters and becoming the first player ever to win modern day golf's four major championships in a row.

TIGER WOODS: I've never accomplished anything that would surpass this. It's been quite a day - a long day. It was very tough out there. Going toe-to-toe with David and Phil -that was fun. Lot of fun. Fun to know we had to come out, compete and play well, and we all did, and it was just that I was able to squeak it out at the end.

TERENCE SMITH: Tiger began his string last June, cruising to a 15-stroke win at the U.S. Open. His margin at the next major, the British Open, was eight strokes. But in the PGA Championship, it took a play-off for woods to beat Bob May. And yesterday in Augusta, Georgia, it was another tight finish. All day, Tiger was chased by David Duval, the world's best golfer in 1998 and 1999, and Phil Mickelson, currently number two in the world.

SPORTSCASTER: He's still there.

TERENCE SMITH: But while Tiger stayed steady, Mickelson faltered at 16, and Duval missed at 18.

SPORTSCASTER: Oh, what an opportunity! Oh, my gosh!

TERENCE SMITH: Minutes later, the 25-year-old champion of champions put on the green jacket of a Masters winner for the second time in his short career.

TIGER WOODS: Thank you very much.

TERENCE SMITH: Was it a grand slam, classically defined as all four majors in a single year? Tiger suggested that whatever it is, it's sweet.

TIGER WOODS: You got to have everything kind of go right, and to have it happen four straight times, that's awfully nice.

TERENCE SMITH: For more on Tiger's win, we turn to, John Feinstein, sports writer, commentator and author of the majors: In pursuit of golf's holy grail and to Ron Sirak, executive editor of Golf World, a weekly magazine.

TERENCE SMITH: Gentlemen, welcome to you both. John Feinstein, put this in perspective for us, what the accomplishment is and what it represents.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Well, it is arguably, I think, the greatest achievement in the history of golf. And to even bring up the question of whether it's a grand slam or not, because it's not -- a grand slam is winning all for majors in the same calendar year. It like saying that Mark McGwire could hit 35 home runs the second half of one season and 36 the first half of the next and that would mean he broke the record of 70 -- but to even bring that up, denigrates what he has done, which I think is the single greatest achievement ever in golf because of the competition in the year 2001, as opposed to 1930 when Bobby Jones won the old Grand Slam, which included two amateur tournaments. And it also doesn't allow it to take its place in the pantheon in the greatest sporting achievements ever, which is where it belongs.

TERENCE SMITH: Ron Sirak, do you agree with that?

RON SIRAK: I agree with that completely. I think sometimes we get a little boo too into wanting to put names and labels on things. It simply is the greatest thing that ever happened in golf, passing also Byron Nelson's 11 consecutive victories and one of the greatest things that's ever happened in sports. And, you know what, if we say it's not a grand slam, then it has to all happen in one calendar year, well, let's throw that out as another challenge for Tiger Woods and let's not be surprised if he meets that challenge too.

TERENCE SMITH: John Feinstein, the final shot, the final putt, for a birdie when he didn't even need it to win, I mean, what did that say to you about Tiger Woods?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: The one thing I will say, Terry, is that if he needed it, he would have made it too, because that's what this kid has been about since he was a teenager. He makes the shots he has to make. That's what he did yesterday. He was not spectacular this week the way he often is. He didn't overpower the Par 5's the way he did in 1997 in Augusta; he didn't make a single eagle on a par 5, which is two under pars as opposed to a birdie, which is one under par. And the exhaustion you saw on his face, when that putt came in, that was like a boxing match out there yesterday between he and Mickelson and Duval -- arguably the three best players in the world over the period of the last two, three, four years. And every punch they threw out at tiger, his head snapped back a couple times, but he never went down.

TERENCE SMITH: Ron Sirak, in addition to the exhaustion and that expression of relief we saw tears -- joy, relief I suppose. What did that tell you about this young man?

RON SIRAK: Well, I think one of the things that sets Tiger apart from everybody else, beyond his incredible shot making skills is his passion for the game. He truly, truly loves what he's doing out there, it means everything to him. Look, he's the first person who was raised to be a professional golfer, who set this agenda at a very, very young age. He's competing not so much against David Duval and Phil Mickelson as he's competing against history. He's got an agenda, he knows what he's after, and each time he accomplishes one of those things he truly appreciates what it means to him. He's got a game plan and he's living it out. And it touches his heart deeply when he succeeds at what he's trying to accomplish.

TERENCE SMITH: I think we could see that. John, he also has a tough streak in him.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: It's a mean streak, and I say that as a compliment. I think the greatest athletes, good, very good, excellent athletes go out there and they want to win, at times they'll do what they have to do. But the truly great ones, Ted Williams, Jack Nicklaus, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, not only are they willing to step on your neck to win, they want to step on your neck. They want to do anything they have to do to humiliate you if necessary in order to win. I remember six years ago when Ben Crenshaw somehow summoned the energy to win one last masters and he beat Davis Love down the stretch by one shot, and it was very dramatic. And I was talking to Davis afterwards and he said, you know, I really wanted to win. But there's a part of me that's happy for Ben. Tiger Woods would never for a second think. That he would never be happy for another golfer to win. He would be devastated that he allowed someone to beat him, regardless of the circumstances. And that's the kind of approach that as Ron said sets him apart.

TERENCE SMITH: Ron, I'm also curious about the poise this young man shows; he's only 25 years old, he has incredible appreciate on him and a unique sort of pressure. Yet look at him.

RON SIRAK: What's absolutely amazing to me is that in an era of hype and exaggeration and where reality frequently falls way short of what our expectation is, he's been better than advertised. And with all that's swirling around him, we asked him after the tournament, all right, now that it's over, tell us with the pressure on you this week, how it felt. He said actually I was quite relaxed. And, coming from almost anybody else, I'm not sure I'd believe it. But he has an ability to focus that is scary. As John was saying, that when he wants to put his foot on your neck, he has that ability to hit his most important shot, his best shot, when it will hurt his opponent the most. It's an incredible sense of timing.

TERENCE SMITH: Is that it, is that what makes him so special and so different, and apart from the others?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Yeah, I think the fact that he wants those situations. He doesn't shy away from them. Remember one thing that's important, Terry, he's been doing this since he was four. As Ron said he was raised to do this. He made his first television appearance hitting a golf ball at the age of four. And so we talked about he's only, 25 he's been doing it for 21 years. He's been in that pressure cooker, and I think what Ron said about being better than advertised is an important point, because, remember, this guy was on the cover of national magazines the day he turned pro. And came with unbelievable hype to the professional world in 1996 -- won the masters by 12 shots in '97 and we all said well he's living up to it, he's going to challenge Jack Nicklaus, but he's still done more than we expected. I don't think any of us dreamed that we'd be sitting here at any point, much less when he was 25, talking about winning four consecutive majors. Remember one thing. If you win four majors in a career, you're going to the Hall of Fame. This guy has won four in a row. It's mind boggling.

TERENCE SMITH: Ron, you know, he may be, I suppose now, in the eyes of some, the greatest golfer ever. Is he in yours?

RON SIRAK: Well, you know, longevity is one of the definitions of greatness. You've got to do it over a long period of time. Probably the only athlete who got away with a short period of sustained greatness and is considered one of the best ever was Sandy Koufax, a baseball pitcher who had a 6 year run of remarkable play. Certainly he is the best we've seen so far. He does have to pass Jim Nicklaus record of 18 professional majors and 20 total major championships to be considered truly great. Nicklaus did a remarkable thing by winning major championships 24 years apart, that's astounding in any sport. I do think that longevity is one of the definitions of greatness. But what we've seen so far, there's no reason to think that the best isn't yet to come.

TERENCE SMITH: John, I remember a conversation you and I had at this very table after Tiger Woods had had won six straight tournaments.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Regular tournaments.

TERENCE SMITH: And I said to you, is he the best ever, and you said too early to tell. Well, is he the best ever?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Well, I think he's had the most dominant period anybody has ever had in golf, over the last two years, not just the four straight majors but he's no now won five out of the last six, and he's been unbelievable for two years. But I think Ron is right. In terms of lifetime achievement, you have to see how it plays out. And if what we're seeing so far is an indication, he's going to become the greatest ever. Golfers usually don't peak until their in they're 30s; he's only 25 and he's already a dynasty.

TERENCE SMITH: That's terrific. John, Ron, thank you both very much.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

RON SIRAK: My pleasure.

ESSAY - HEARTLAND POWER

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Jim Fisher of the Kansas City Star considers power in America's heartland.

JIM FISHER: The coal trains seem almost endless: 130 cars, vexing drivers held at crossings, car after car... Train whistle blows ...Each hopper carrying 80,000 pounds of the low-sulfur fuel. One train means 12 more hours of power for one the several big coal-fired electrical generators around Kansas City and, for that matter, throughout most of the Middle West. After this long winter and cold early spring, those waiting at the crossbars have seemed more patient than in past years. The coal trains mean the lights will stay on. If you want to bring a smile to somebody's face these days in the vast middle part of the country, say "electricity" or "California." Midwesterners these days are a little smug. They've got plentiful electricity, albeit expensive; ditto natural gas, also high, but no shortages. Call it conceit born of insularity or unhealthy regionalism, perhaps a residual inferiority complex brought about by years of gazing at movies and television. Like children with their noses pressed against a windowpane, the lights of California have always fascinated Midwesterners, lights that seem never-ending; palm trees and warm weather; movie stars; jobs'; Chevy 409s; and surfboards; tanned youth; and emerging societal trends we here in the so-called fly-over country wouldn't see for years. Why the attraction of the lights? Simple. Drive through the high plains or amid the Ozark hills on a dark night still and there are only occasional pinpricks of illumination: A lonely farmstead, a solitary gas station, darkness on an empty land, a world away from the kaleidoscopic, illuminated panorama of the LA Basin or the Bay Area. Now from resplendent California we hear news of brownouts and rolling blackouts, of traffic lights, which don't work, of useless ATMs, service by flashlight, darkened computer screens, and worse to come when hot weather kicks the air conditioners on. So folks here are taking a certain gratification in the long coal trains. It's not about the discomfiture of those on the West Coast. Lord knows, most of us here have relatives out there.

JUDY GARLAND SINGING: Somewhere over the rainbow...

JIM FISHER: Reporter: Some of it, frankly, goes to all the comedic barbs about the Midwest, plus there's "The Wizard of Oz," the dust bowl, Carry Nation, the gothic black-and-white images of the movie "In Cold Blood," even the recent flapdoodle over the teaching of evolution in Kansas-- payback time for all those times our noses have been against the windowpane, yearning perhaps for that edginess the West Coast life seems to offer: Occasional earthquakes, not-so- occasional car chases, mudslides, criminal trials of the century. But power shortages? No, not that edgy. Call it Midwestern stoicism, but flipping a switch and knowing the lights will come is a valued constant in our flatland existence. Now we hear the latest news. The prestigious "Los Angeles Times" has announced that dreaded nuclear power may not be so bad after all, even for California. Hey, we've got that. In fact, there are two other nuclear plants, much like this one, within 120 miles of Kansas City, just humming along, generating plenty of power, keeping the lights on. Train whistle blows One has to wonder, could we, despite being rustics living in what one writer called that "ugly, barren space from which people come, but do not return," could we have stumbled onto a trend?

Train whistle blows I'm Jim Fisher.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday: President Bush again warned China today it could hurt relations with the United States if it continued to hold the crew of an American spy plane. He also submitted the details of his first budget to Congress. We'll see you online, and again King Abdullah of Jordan said his country and the U.S. should encourage Israel and the Palestinians to reduce the violence or risk its spreading. We'll see you on line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.