captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: talks today between the white house and republicans showed small signs of progress. mark shields and david brooks are here to analyze efforts to end the shutdown and avoid a government default. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. gwen ifill is off. also ahead on the program, this year's nobel peace prize went to a little-known chemical weapons watchdog hard at work eliminating syria's stockpiles. and margaret warner sits down with malala yousafzai-- the 16- year-old pakistani shot by the taliban on her way to school, now an international voice for education. >> god has given me this new life for the cause of education, and i believe that even death is

supporting the cause of education. even dead did not want to kill me so how can the taliban? >> woodruff: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's "pbs newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> my customers can shop around; see who does good work and compare costs. it can also work that way with healthcare. with united healthcare, i get information on quality ratings of doctors, treatment options and estimates for how much i'll pay. that helps me and my guys make informed decisions. i don't like guesses with my business and definitely not with our health. that's health in numbers. united healthcare. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new

york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: our lead story tonight: the truce talks in washington's war over spending went into the weekend with much of the government still closed. house and senate republicans bargained separately with president obama on ways to raise the debt ceiling and end the shutdown. "newshour" congressional correspondent kwame holman has our report.

>> reporter: after nearly two hours at the white house, senate republicans returned to the capitol this afternoon with a pledge to work on a bipartisan plan. a framework-- put forward by maine republican susan collins-- would include a short-term debt limit increase and funding to reopen the government. it would also repeal the tax on medical devices, used to help finance the health care law. and, it would give federal agencies more flexibility to manage mandatory spending cuts. collins said president obama listened and seemed receptive. >> the president listened carefully. he said that some of the elements were issues we could work on, but he certainly did not endorse them. there were many conversations on the long-term debt problem. many members expressed concern about raising the debt limit without a specific plan to deal with our $17 trillion national debt.

>> reporter: meanwhile, house republicans updated their proposal. aides said it temporarily lifts the debt ceiling, ends the shutdown and replaces some of the spending cuts with curbs on benefit programs. at the white house, press secretary jay carney said the president telephoned house speaker john boehner this afternoon and welcomed his constructive approach. but carney said the time frame is a problem. >> you know, a proposal that puts a debt ceiling increase at only six weeks tied to budget negotiations would put us right back where we are today in just six weeks, on the verge of thanksgiving and obviously important shopping season leading up to the holidays. >> reporter: back at the similar warning. there was greig evidence congressional republicans were

paying the heavier political price as the long stalemate drags on. a "wall street journal"/nbc news poll found 53% of americans blame republicans for the shutdown, while 31% fault the president. other surveys had similar findings. adding to the pressure to act, the head of the national transportation safety board deborah hersman told a senate hearing that she's had to halt safety investigations. >> in addition to the activities these delays slow our determination of probable cause and the issuance of safety recommendations; essentially delaying safety to the american public, resulting in lost lives and injuries. >> reporter: there also were smaller signs of the shutdown's toll. a senate landmark-- the ohio clock-- stopped ticking this week because the workers who wind it have been furloughed. >> woodruff: in other news, wall street racked up a second day of big gains, on hopes for a settlement in washington. the dow jones industrial average added 111 points to close at

15,237. the nasdaq rose 31 points to close near 3792. for the week, the dow gained 1% the nasdaq fell about half a percent. the agency working to destroy chemical weapons in syria won the nobel peace prize today. the norwegian nobel committee honored the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. it had been widely speculated the prize might go to malala yousafzai, the pakistani girl shot by the taliban for advocating education for girls. we'll have more on the peace prize, right after the news summary. human rights watch charged today that rebels in syria killed at least 190 civilians and kidnapped more than 200 others in attacks on august fourth. it happened during a rebel offensive in the coastal province of latakia. witnesses told of entire families being executed. human rights watch says islamist groups, including two linked to al-qaida, led the offensive.

>> the coordinated nature and advance planning that went into this operation shows that this is not just the work of some rogue fighters within these rebel groups, but rather this was a planned attack against the civilian population. for that reason, we do believe the abuses may amount to crimes against humanity. they certainly amount to war crimes. >> woodruff: the rebels are mainly sunni muslims. the victims of the attack belonged to the minority alawite sect, which supports president bashar al-assad. secretary of state john kerry made an unannounced trip to afghanistan today to help revive security talks. he met with president hamid karzai to discuss keeping some u.s. troops in the country beyond 2014. talks have stalled over how to preserve afghan sovereignty. also today, an afghan official

said u.s. troops have captured a senior pakistani taliban commander in afghanistan. a massive tropical cyclone barreled toward eastern india today. the powerful storm had grown so large-- 1,000 miles across-- it almost filled the bay of bengal. the storm is already whipping up seas, and could have winds of 135 miles-an-hour when it hits india tomorrow night. tens of thousands of residents along the coast have been ordered to flee to safety. the u.s. air force has fired the commander of its nuclear missile force. major general michael carey was responsible for the air force's 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles. he's been reassigned over alleged personal misconduct. earlier this week, the navy fired a vice admiral who oversaw nuclear weapons. he's being investigated over gambling issues. still ahead on the "newshour": a nobel peace prize for destroying syria's chemical weapons; the 16-year old who's captured the world stage to promote girl's

education; a new documentary on america's economic divide; shields and brooks and world treasures at risk in modern societies. and we return now to the nobel peace prize and the little-known group that won the award. ray suarez has more. >> the norwegian nobel committee has decided that the nobel peace prize for 2013 is to be awarded to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons- >> suarez: the announcement in oslo, norway honored a group formed in 1997, and affiliated with the united nations. since then, the organization, based in the hague, has enforced the chemical weapons convention banning the production and use of such weapons. >> recent events in syria, where chemical weapons have again been put to use, have underlined the need to enhance the efforts to

do away with such weapons. >> reporter: indeed, the events in august, the u.n. assigned the o.p.c.w. to investigate alleged chemical attacks by the syrian military. this week, the group's experts began inspecting and destroying bashar al assad's stockpile of poison gas and nerve agents with a goal of finishing by mid- 2014. the group's director-general voiced hoped today that the world will refocus on syria. >> i truly hope that this award and the o.p.c.w.'s ongoing mission together with the united nations in syria will help broader efforts to achieve peace in that country and end the suffering of its people. >> suarez: syrian rebels criticized the prize. the syrian national coalition said it misses the real point. >> it seems that the world insists on forgetting that we have over a 110,000 fallen heroes using conventional

weapons and yet the world for reasons which are obvious to everybody, focuses on the issue of chemical weapons that only killed less than 1,400 people. >> suarez: the assad government said the peace prize underscores its credibility in cooperating with the inspectors. to tell us more about this year's peace prize winner, i'm joined now by charles duelfer a former top united nations weapons inspector. is it fair to say that outside your line of work, the o.p.c.w. was not a widely known organization. >> well, it's one of these organizations with a lot of letters in it, but the key thing that they do is they implement the treaty that bans chemical weapons and they've been around for about 15 years and they've been pretty successful over those 15 years. the number of countries left with chemical weapons is very, very small. so the prize not only recognizes the work being done in syria but it works the work they've done for the last 15 years, which is quite substantial. >> suarez: since they won they

have described as u.n. associated, u.n. affiliated. what is the nature of the organization. do they get money, support, from the u.n. or are they really independent? >> it's complicated. the implementing organization for this treaty is separate from the united nations and the security council but it does have a relationship. it's important in this case where the security council, which is mandating the disarmament of syria, has elected to use the o.p.c.w. as their implementing arm. they're tied together in a common mission here. the security council iil with russia, the united states, france, china, the u.k., with veto power, and they have the ability to really make this higher law are causing o.p.c.w. to act in syria. >> suarez: what they're doing in syria, confiscating, ca can categorying and then destroying chemical weapons, is that a kind of expertise that it not widely distributed that you need an

organization like this to do. >> they aren't. in many ways this is a good thing. there aren't that many chemical weapons around. there aren't that many chemical weapons experts, so to get rid of this stuff you need chemists. you need people familiar with the safety issues and know how to respond if there's an accident. you need security people because in syria there's a lot of security issues. so there's a mix of people that they need. they're going to have to be hiring, frankly, to execute this mission. mission. >> suarez: they are now in syria because in part syria final plea became a signatory to the chemical weapon convention. is that what gives the o.p.c.w. the authority to do this work? once you become a signatory you are submitting yourself to the gaze of this outfit. >> that's right. syria made the decision largely made on advice i think from russia to join the chemical weapons convention, and in doing that they assume a lot of obligations -- to have

inspectors, to disarm. there's a long process and there's a long track record for accomplishing this that they have to now follow. the security council has laid down a very tough timeline and time schedule and have also increetsed some of the authorities of the weapons inspectors itself to execute this mission. >> suarez: as far as you know, are they doing a good job in syria so far, both sides are doing what they signed up for. the weapons inspectors are there. and the sir jans so far, laid out what they've got with pretty good credibility. you know, sometimes good things happen. so far, so good. >> suarez: when organizations like doctors without borders win the nobel peace prize thelps them a great deal in their outreach to the world, in their fund-raising, in their name recognition. is o.p.c.w. the kind of outfit that actually needs a boost tots profile along with its

contributions? >> i have to support committee, which is a norwegian committee selected them because they could make a difference at this point in time. the prestige associated with the prize, i think, will probably make it more likely that syria will fulfill all its obligations. in fact they, do need to raise money and having the nobel prize and that prestige will help them get the resources to execute this mission. i think it brings attention to a problem which has been global, which near eradication in a sense. in some ways i think i would compare it to the effort to get rid of smallpox. they're pretty close to getting rid of all the chemical weapons, declared chemical weapons by countries on the planet. >> suarez: quickly, before we go, who are the final hold outs? where can you still find chemical weapons, these weapons are that are judged as just beyond use, odious by the rest of the international community? >> there are two parts of the answer to that.

one there are the countries who declare they have them and haven't gotten rid of them all, and that's largely the united states and russia where they have massive stocks left over from the cold war and they're still working their way through getting rid of those. there are a few outliars who haven't subscribed to. egypt stands out. they have not subscribed to it. i think there will be increasing pressure on the few remaining countries to join with the rest of the world on this gl charle. >> suarez: charles duelfer, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, ray. >> woodruff: now to a closer look at one of the favorites for this year's peace prize-- malala yousafzai of pakistan. our own margaret warner spent time with the young activist in washington this afternoon and begins with this report. >> let us pick up our books and our pens. they are our most powerful weapons.

>> warner: spending her 16th birthday as no one else ever has, this pakistani student captivated the world when she spoke at the united nations three months ago. >> one child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world. education is the only solution. education first. >> warner: and in march, she became the youngest-ever nominee for the nobel peace prize. malala yousafzai's call to educate girls began in 2009 in what once had been pakistan's vacation paradise, the swat valley. just 11, she began writing a blog for bbc urdu about life under the ultra-conservative taliban, who had taken over swat. encouraged by her father-- a girl's school owner and activist himself-- she raised her voice against the taliban's brutality,

and its ban on girls' education. with the release of a "new york times" documentary that year, she became a media celebrity in pakistan and beyond, but her work drew the ire of those who opposed her message. ( sirens ) and a year ago this week, as the 15-year-old was riding home in a school bus with her friends, a taliban gunman boarded the bus and shot her in the head. the injuries were life- threatening. she was unconscious for days. but, once flown to the u.k. for surgery and rehabilitation, she made a remarkable recovery. boys and girls from pakistan and around the world rallied to her side and her cause, proclaiming "i am malala." she now goes to school in the u.k., where she lives with her family. but the awards kept coming and the demands to speak. >> we can fight war through dialogue, peace and education! >> warner: and she's now on the road promoting her just-released book "i am malala."

in the face of the world's praise, some back in pakistan are more skeptical. >> ( translated ): all this recognition may be good for her internationally. it may be good for her family. but we have not benefited from it. neither has swat gained from it in any way, nor our educational >> warner: but she continues speaking and raising money to bring education to more girls around the world, despite renewed death threats against her from the taliban. i spoke to the young activist leader earlier today. malala yousafzai, thank you for joining us. tell us what inspired you at such a young age to star start speak out for girls' education, and really in such a dangerous environment. >> first of all, my father inspired me because he's a great father and a great social activist and women's rights activists. at that time, when they were

suffering from terrorism, he spoke, he spoke out. and he spoke for women's rights because at that time, more than 400 schools, people were slaughtered, markets were closed. there were bans on women to go to market. girls were not allowed to go to school, and in that hard situation, he inspired me because he spoke and that's what i learned from him. >> warner: did you ever think, though, your outspokenness, and the fact you became a media star in pakistan would make you or your family a target? >> i think being living in such a hard situation when there are terrorist terrorists and they slaughter people every night, it's still hard. it's still a threat. so it's a better idea to speak up for your rights and then die. i prefer that one. so that's why, we spoke at that time. we said one has to speak. why are we waiting for someone else?

the governments were not take an action. the army was not taking a good action. so that's why we said that we will speak up for the rights. this is what we can do and we tried our best. >> warner: now you've been forced, of course, to leave pakistan. you've become this international symbol of bravery and speaking up for girls' education. but what has happened to the girls you left behind? what is their situation? >> the girls some pakistan, it's really hard for them t to go to school. many girls will not go to school because of poverty. and some because of child labor and trafficking. some parents don't send their children to school because they don't know it's important at all. and some girls won't go to school because of the culture's norms and tabus so there are still many issues stopping us to go to school. >> warner: why do you think the taliban-- what is their vision of islam that makes them so opposed to girls' education,

and if so, can you really change that, and can you change that culture just by educating girls. >> the first thing is the taliban have misunderstood islam. they have never studied islam deeply. i think they have not read the koran, even, because in islam it is said that it is the right of every girl and every boy to get education, to get knowledge. islam says about equality, there's no difference between a man and a woman. islam tells us to respect each other, don't judge each other on the basis of religion. so i think the terrorists have forgotteterrorists have forgott. they must read koran first, they must learn from it first, so that's why they are misusing the name of islam for their own personal benefits. >> warner: there has been a backlash against you. some pack takens say you shamed

their country or an agent of western interest who want to undermine pack stab or islam. how does that make you feel when you're out here fighting this fight? >> the first thing is it's one's right to express his feelings or her feelings. when i look at the groups that speak against me in pakistan or anywhere, it's a very small group, a very tiny group. i must look at the millions of people's prayers, and the people who are supporting me. i think i must not lose hope and i must not look at the small group. rather i must see those millions of people praying for me and supporting me in my cause of education. >> warner: there was a new threat issued just this week from a taliban spokesman who said essentially if she keeps speak out like this we will target her again and attack whenever we get the chance. do you feel you're still in danger, even living abroad? >> i think the taliban reminded

me of the threats. >> warner: is there a difference? >> the thing is that they've already threatened me when i was in swat, and later on they attacked me, but the thing is now i'm living a second life. and god has given me this new life for the cause of education. >> and believe even death is sipting the cause of education, even dead does not want to kill me, so how can this taliban kill me? i think i must not be afraid of death. i might have been before, but now they threat me, i'm not afraid of any threat. i have seen it already. so now i'm more powerful. now i'm more courageous, and i will continue my campaign. >> warner: now, do you get to go to school yourself anymore with all these public appearances? do you have any semblance of a normal life in england? >> i go to school in a car

because it's part of it. it's true when i go to a market, when gito a park, people gather around me and they want to talk to me. they want to have picture with me. some people want autograph. it is the love of people, and i think it's a great honor for me nanow people-- now i can reach people. >> warner: there was a lot of iepgz this week, the last few weeks, nayou, the youngest ever nobel prize nominee, was going to win today, and it went elsewhere. what was it like-- what did it feel like, first of all, to have all those expectations? and is it a let-down not to have won? >> if we just forget about the decision that was taken about the nobel peace prize, i think people gave me that prize. they nominated me, and that is the great prize for me. if i get an award, if i get a paper, it does not matter. because when i look at the prayers of people and their

support and how much they love me, i think that is the biggest prize that i have ever received. and then i have a prize in my mind for which i'll struggle, for which i'll do the campaign, and that is the prize, that is the reward to see every child to go to school and i'll serve my whole life for that. that is a prize i want to get in my life. and i think nobel peace prize committee, the decision they have taken, is the right decision because i need to work a lot. >> warner: malala yousafzai, thank you so much. >> nice to tuke you. >> warner: it was a great honor to meet you. >> woodruff: next, a professor and former government official who's been on a decades-long quest to combat inequality. now he's become the focus of a new film. "newshour" economics correspondent, paul solman, has

our look. it's part of his ongoing reporting: "making sense of financial news." >> my name is robert reich. i was secretary of labor under bill clinton; before that, the carter administration; before that, i was a special aide to abraham lincoln. ( laughter ) >> reporter: the improbable star of an unlikely feature film-- the chart-and graph-filled, often funny, sometimes sad documentary "inequality for all." of all developed nations, the united states has the most unequal distribution of income, resurgent or even great inequality. robert reich, welcome. >> thank you. >> reporter: what's the basic argument here? >> the argument is that inequality is bad for everyone, not just the middle class and poor. 95% of the gains, the economic gains, since the recovery began in 2009 are going to the top 1%. meanwhile median household income keeps dropping, adjusted for inflation. well, where are people going to

get the money they need to keep the economy going? >> reporter: i first met you in early 1980s and you were already beginning to talk about this phenomenon of inequality right? >> i am so boring, paul. i mean, i really, i bore myself. in this movie, i see myself talking about this same issue, and i'm in my early 30s and i'm in my 40s, i'm in my 50s and it's, you know, if you ever want to get a sense of your own personal failure, you know? look at yourself trying to get across a point that nobody is listening to and the situation gets worse and worse. >> reporter: in the film, reich reveals a very personal reason for his persistence. >> when i was a kid the bigger boys would pick on me. that was what you did. that's what is done. so i got an idea that i would make alliances with older boys.

just one or two who could be my protectors. the summer when i was about ten, one of the older boys who i depended on to be a protector was michael schwerner. the summer of '64, i learned that mickey had been in mississippi registering voters and he and two other people who had been with him registering voters were tortured and murdered. i think something just kind of shifted in my brain. i thought, "i have to make sure in whatever way i can that people have some degree of protection, that the vulnerable people of which there are many

don't suffer the economic bullies." we're the richest economy in the history of the world. for the majority of americans not to get the benefits of this extraordinarily prosperous economy, you know there's something fundamentally wrong. >> reporter: the early 1980s was when the growing divide first emerged-- the early signs of the rich getting richer while almost everyone else was falling behind. is it not plausible that what's happening is that we're living in a more and more skills- intensive world economy and that some people, perhaps because of who their parents married and their natural endowments and certainly their cultural environment just have more of those skills than everybody else and they're getting rewarded for it? >> well, undoubtedly that's part of the story but we also know that we have less upward

mobility than any other advanced country. >> reporter: so you mean natural endowments can't explain it all. >> natural endowments don't explain it all, can't explain it all. we have a school system that is not very good, particularly for poorer and working class and middle class kids. we also know that it's getting harder and harder to finance higher education. i think it's wrong to be an economic determinist, i think it's wrong to simply say well inevitably if you're poor, you're going to get a lousy education, if you're lower middle class, the cards are going to be stacked against you, you'll probably never get anywhere. >> reporter: but a lot of people think, particularly the people who have benefited, that they're entitled to the fruits of their abilities, their labor. >> what do you expect them to say? some of them like warren buffet and nick hanauer, who's in the film, say, i should be taxed more, this is crazy. but many of them say, if i'm

wealthy, i must be really smart. >> i want a shot for people like me to grow up and do something with themselves. >> reporter: like reich, director jacob kornbluth has personal reasons for his focus on inequality. >> i grew up poor. my mother raised a family of four on between $9,000 and $15,000 a year. i'm 40 years old, what i've seen my whole life is widening income inequality. but so what, so the economy's grown so unequal, what, why should we care, why should we care, that's the subject of the movie, that's why we made it. >> who is actually looking out for the american worker? the answer is, nobody. we are losing equal opportunity in america. any of you who feels cynical, just consider where we have been. >> reporter: why do you care so much? >> because equal opportunity is what this country is built on. so many people feel like the game is rigged, paul, that

they're... they're sort of giving up on politics. you know they... they... >> reporter: oh, for sure. >> they're totally cynical. well if you give up on politics, you're giving up on democracy and if you give up on democracy you're basically saying to the moneyed interests, the powerful people and institutions and society, take it all. that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, then we give up, then we are 100% plutocracy. >> reporter: robert reich, thanks very much. >> thanks, paul. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and brooks, syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. gentlemen, together again. so the government shutdown, the debate, the argument over the debt ceiling, mark, help us understand where we are withaul this. we're struggling to understand it. >> well, substantively and politically, politically, judy,

this has been an unequivocal catastrophe for the republicans. the republican party is pagan enormous price. they've got the political equivalent of halitosis right now. voters have turned against them. they have the lowest rating in the history of the wall street journal/nbc poll. it's bane disaster poop people blame them for it. barack obama now gets less blame for this than bill clt did in the 1995-1996 closing which was regarded in the retrospeck to an enormous blow to the republicans then and an advantage for clt running for reelection. there's no question, that part of it is is resolved. wherever we go forward from here, it's on the carcass of the republicans. the republicans are really in the position now of essentially suing for peace. >> woodruff: wherever we are, where are we gdavid?

>> i think we're going towards a deal, the government will reopen. it will not be a complete surrender by the republicans but pretty close. they may get the medical device tax removed from obamacare. that's not exactly what this was fought over. i suspect that i ever going to extend-- we'll have budget negotiations in the future. i don't know how long they'll extend the spending. the polls are just, as mark said, catastrophic. i'm not sure how long-standing they will be. the problem with the republicans it they're tectonic. they're catering to 28% of the country, and they're just estranged from the other-- help me here-- 62%. 72. my math girls, great. my math skills great. they're in an insular rut. and the question for me going forward with the republicans, take on the suicide caucus. if you can't take on ted cruz, then you don't survive as a

party so they have to make that's decision. short term i think the government will reopen soon. >> woodruff: it's that bleak, mark, for the republican party? >> judy it's not a great lift for the democrats. the democrats obviously are profiting from the republicans' problems but it isn't like the democrats have soared. it's a little bit like the rodney dangerfield question, how is your wife compared to what. compared to republicans the democrats look like george washington, abraham lincoln and f.d.r. rolled into one. the president's numbers have not gone up dramatically. i agree with david, it's a-- tom davis was on the broadcast last night pup interviewed him, and he made the point 80% of republicans go home to districts and all they talk to are republicans. if you only talk to people who agree with you, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that, boy, you're in the majority. i just think this is-- it's not simply a republican problem but i think right now it's a republican problem when they're

caught in this situation. the real cost beyond the political advantage right now is the erosion and hemorrhaging of confidence in government. and our ability to act collectively. we don't have the optimism or the confidence right now to build an erie canal, let alone a federal highway system or continental railroad. i mean i just-- i think that in the long run is a terrible price we're paying. >> i think that's a price for the country. it's also, frankly, a price for liberals and democrats who is the party of government. if you had told me a couple of years ago we'd have a financial crisis caused by wall street, an oil spill caused by an oil company, stagnant wages, the things bob reich was talking about. you would think we'd be in a big liberal era. why aren't we? because people don't have faith in the instrument. they don't have faith in government. and a lot of perverse things have led to that erosion of faith. some of it events like this.

i think "60 minutes--" without meaning to-- every week if you do scandals in government, ung a lot of scandals there in washington. and so there's been an erosion of support over a generation. >> woodruff: but you're not saying that's just due to what the republicans are doing? or are you? is that what you're saying, the republicans, one party has called confidence in government to drop? >> i think it's fair to say that the republican party right now is dominated by antigovernment spirit. and an antigovernment belief. and david's right. the democrats believe historically and presently that government is an instrument of social justice and of economic progress. and one of the problems-- and david made good point-- is that we have not celebrated the successes. we have 215 land grant colleges and universities in this country. we're the envy of the world. what a public educational system. we never celebrate it. we don't celebrate the fact that we've taken 98% of the lead out

of the air. i think democrats have failed to do it. i think when you just come before people and talk about a litany of what's wrong, that we are a more just, more humane and compassion at-- bob reich made very good points and veiled point, but we have had enormous progress. that's how you build confidence about doing something in the future. >> it's a generational thing. the trust begin to go down late 60s, early 70s, vietnam and watergate played a big role. but the expansion of government into all areas of life like the war on poverty and other things. i think that probably hurt. it's over help-promise and it's a case we have become a less trusting society. if you ask americans do you trust the people around you, for most of the 20th century, "yeah, i trust my neighbor. i trust the people around me." the majority now, no, i don't

trust people around me. it's hurt all institutions, media, government, law. >> woodruff: what does that mean for the future? elections, the congress will go on. the executive branch will go on. it will continue to-- what does it mean dune the road as the government tries to solve problems, the country tries to solve problems. >> costs are enormous. i'd say if we had a parliamentary system right now we'd be looking at a democratic landslide because the democrats have emerged in the "wall street journal"/nbc poll as the more popular party. and i think that-- it's going to take the republicans-- it's going to take a real cold shower. they've had a stone wall of reality they've bun runinto. the idea, judy, that a serious political party-- john boehner is speaker of the house-- would propose repealing a statute that was ratified by the definition

of mitt romney and paul ryan in the last election having opinion-- obamacare having been passed. they said the election was going to be about obamacare, both of them did, and the idea you could repeal it with one house control of the congress-- i mean, it's beyond delusional. >> woodruff: i've talked to members of the tea party this week they still believe that's the right thing to do, just because it's law doesn't mean you can't take another look at it. >> well, you can take another look, and i might be in favor of taking another look, but you have to look at reality. you have to know what country you're living in. there was never a pact for ted cruz to be successful. so part of politics is having the passion of your beliefs but the priewbs of the reality, and he might have had the passion of his beliefs, but it's demagoguery to think you can just do that without doing the practicality. he, ted cuz, mike leigh, they led the republican party on a suicide mission. the republicans know that. they knew it beforehand.

>> woodruff: why did they go along with it? >> they were all afraid of the primary challenge. i think most could beat the primary challenge, and they chose to ride it again. i investigate been told this, john boehner's speakership was fragile, but for him to have fought the fight, i think his speakership might be more secure because he can say to those people -- >> the speaker help isn't going to be secure if the republicans lose the house. >> you think that's possible. >> i do? >> i don't. >> woodruff? the next election. >> i think this has the possible of scrambling it. if the republicans continue the way they are-- this is-- if this voice remains dominant they'll go through 2016 exactly what they went through in 2012, which was mitt romney essentially beat-- used anti-immigration to isolate rick perry and newt

gingrich and his principal opponents and married himself to a policy that was unacceptable to the country but necessary and imperative to be the nominee. if it is going to be that litmus test after litmus test, they're going to be a minority party pup can't hold on as an island in congress and continue to lose national elections decisively. >> i agree with you on the national election front. the demographic problems are well nope. i think in the midterms i think it's hard for the republicans to lose the house. they're entrenched in the district. this is frankly not a big news event to people. it's not a transformational news event. most people don't notice the federal government is shut down. we had nice traffic in washington last week. i like it. some people are suffering, that's true. but as a national transformative thing, the way water gate and vietnam were. >> i couldn't disagree more. we're talking judy about going

on, passing the debt ceiling and keeping government closed. that comes to 9 million americans under women's and infant child care who will be cut off. that's nutritional. that's post-partum. that's pregnancy. counseling, and assistance for all kinds of people. that's 66 qix,000 kids in head start. >> woodruff: the white house is saying they won't go along. >> to be fair i'm not saying i approve. the polls show 80% don't notice. >> peter hart, said if you were a democratic partisan you'd look at this poll with glee. but as anybody who believes in democracy, this is an enormously serious survey, and it's one of those-- bench watermarks in political attitudes and public attitudes. i think we may be on the cusp of that. i really do. >> woodruff: under a minute-- where does the be president go

from here. what is his standing coming out of this? >> i think he need to figure out-- if this is a big defeat for republicans are, they weakened on immigration? is the tea party weakened? does he have an tune there or is that still probably not going to happen. i would be looking at the other party to stee what opportunities do i now have. he may have more. >> i think the president is very much in a strengthened position. but his own numbers don't begin to approach those of president clinton or president reagan in their second terms. i mean, he looks and withed stood really severe winds, whereas the republicans haven't. but i think he has to at the same time having prevailed in this encounter you can't say we closed the government and made people suffer for the repeal of a medical device? you can't-- that can't be the answer. at that point, there's going to be greater public outrage.

>> woodruff: mark shields, david brooks, thank you, gentlemen. >> woodruff: they're under threat by war, the environment, economic development and much more. 67 sites in 41 countries and territories are on the 2014 world monuments watch released this week. jeffrey brown has the story. >> brown: the list includes the famous and little-known ancient and modern urban and remote. among them the world renowned destination of venice, overrun by cruise ships and tourism, and mimar's capitol as development encroaches on a historic city center, with its vast real estate of temples and colonial architecture. in the u.s., six sites were singled out including the gateway arch in slaus, experiencing corrosion

threatening the symbol of expansion. bonnie burnham.. what is the criteria that gets something on this list? what are you looking at? >> we're looking at sites that are on the cusp of going in the wrong direction, where they're facing some kind of physical issue, some kind of development-related threat, sites that have been through catastrophes, and even sites that are pregnant with opportunity, and we feel that by making-- bringing more public attention, we can change the situation. >> brown: you have different examples, different themes. one obvious one we cover on this program all the time is war, notably today, syria. tell us-- give us an example of what's been happening there to cultural artifacts and sites. >> -- >> we put all of syria on our watch list because there are so many wonderful sites in the country that are in harm's way, especially the urban ones in the

city where there's been a lot of fighting. but even in the countryside now, the place is so disrupted, people are looking for places where they can camp out if they're refugees. they're staying in monuments that have not been disturbed for hundreds of years. there's a lot of looting going on. and it's just a situation of general disturbance. we're concerned about what's happening now, but we're also concerned about the future. >> brown: i mean, how much can happen while the violence continues? >> can't do much except express concern, but as soon as it's over, assuming it will be over, we like to make sure we get it right when the time comes. >> brown: another very different type of example i mentioned in our introduction, venes, which has the opposite problem from syria, i guess too much attention, right, too much love. >> venice is being loved to death, and we've been concerned about it for a long time. that huge escalation in the numbers of people that are there now, even more in a year than--

far more than the population of the city. and these giant tour boats, no one really knows exactly what kind of environmental impact they're having. >> brown: those are stunning photos when you see the cruise ship over the whole city, overlooking the city. >> they're staggering, and there are so many of them now, there's never a moment when you're in the the most beautiful city in the world when the boats are not in the harbor. >> brown: that's not a new problem and the city government has known about this. what's the status over the debate whether to somehow lighten the load on the city? >> we understand the mayor of venice is very interested in having a dialogue, and he's interesting in expression of concern from outside. he's turning to the international community and saying help me to bring this into bbs because it's not his gigz disigz alone.

there are a whole bunch of government agencies that have in voice because it's economically beneficial to the city. and at the same time, you really have to think about the impact. >> brown: speaking of economics, another area on your list of many sites is what happens when there's economic dwerntle whether there's a recognition of the cultural her cadge. and one example is mimar. it's a country opening up in a way. it's a positive development, and yet, you're citing the potential for some problems. >> that's it it. it's a very dynamic environment. there are many, many people interested in investing there. businesses can't fiend places to have their offices, and at the same time, the government with all that it has to do to struggle to get on its feet, has not really confronted the question of what will happen to this beautiful colonial city, and in fact they've moved the government agencies out of the city to a new capital, leaving a lot of very important monumental

buildings to an uncertain future. >> brown: let's take one american example, the one i citeed i citeed in the introduction, the arch in st. louis. i think a lot of people are going to be surprised, as i was, that it would be on the list. it's corrosion? >> it is corrosion. and i guess that the over-arching theme is vigilance, and knows what's happening in your community of the things you treasure and in this case it's the national park service facing a conundrum. many of these great modern monuments were built in experimental ways, and we don't have standard procedures for how to address problems of this kind. >> brown: that leads to my last question. what happens next? you create this list. what happens to these monuments and sites once they're on it. what do you hope for? >> each and every one of them

has a strategy. in some case they're looking fair higher level of recognition, in miramar, where the local heritage organization created policies but the government has adopted them yet, and that's really their main be objective. in other cases it is other kind of advocacy, as with venice. we want them ton people around the world care, and in some instances they really need money and technical support and we do what we can to provide that. >> brown: we'll continue this conversation on line and state some other examples. >> thank you, very nice opportunity. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: house and senate republicans bargained separately with president obama on ways to raise the debt ceiling and end the shutdown, but there was no agreement yet.

and the nobel peace prize went to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons- - the agency that's working to destroy syria's chemical arsenal. before we go, we share a question posed to malala yousafzai by one of our student reporting labs reporters about what's next for the education activist. >> my question for malalulaa, you're 16 years old. only four years older than me, and yet you have accomplished so much. so what are your plans for the future? >> thank you, rene. it was such a great question, and i think i have made plans for my future from now on, and i think we must start working and we set up the malala foundation, and we will educate girls, and doing work building schools, teachers, training, trying to motivate the parents and children to send their children to school and we want to recognize those girls fighting

for their rights. and in the future, when i grow older, much older, i want to do politics and i want to serve my country through politics and i want to help my people and i want to help in education. >> woodruff: students from around the country also recorded messages for malala. you can find them all on the rundown. and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen is preparing for "washington week", which airs later this evening. here's a preview: >> lots of news developments to discuss tonight tonight. as the government shutdown is poised to enter its third week, the supreme court returns, and a fed chair steps on deck. we'll have those stories and more later tonight on "washington week." judy. >> woodruff: tomorrow's edition of "pbs newshour weekend" includes a report by william brangham on uighurs, the ethnic muslim group persecuted in china, caught up in the war in afghanistan, sent to guantanamo and now displaced around the world. here's an excerpt.

then, right here on monday, the nobel prize in economics and a report on education in pakistan. i'm judy woodruff. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org 

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you in part by. >> thestreet.com. interactive financial multi media tools for an ever changing financial world. our dividend stock advisor guides and helps generate income during a period of low interest rates. we are thestreet.com. weekend watch, a critical few days ahead for invest tors as washington tries to end the standoff. there is no deal yet. what the markets are doing ahead of monday's opening bell. $2 trillion, that's the hit the nation's retirement savings could take if no deal is reached the and u.s. defaults. what can you do to lesson the risk? >> the financial sector makes up a large portion of the u.s. economy but are the big banks a good place for your investment dollars now?