captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. the u.s. and russia agreed to sharp cuts in their nuclear stockpiles. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, the new accord is the most sweeping arms control treaty in 20 years. we'll get the latest on today's announcement at the white house. >> lehrer: then, jeffrey brown looks at the final vote count in

iraq nearly three weeks after the elections. >> woodruff: margaret warner reports from yemen on a popular drug that is the country's leading cash crop. >> people in the politics found it easy to control the people who are doing other things and they cannot revolt, they cannot demonstrate, they can't do anything. >> lehrer: we get an update on charges of a vatican cover-up in decades-old child sex abuse cases. >> woodruff: john merrow explores why some teachers' unions are saying no to new federal funds called "race to the top" for their schools. >> race to the top would require that we talk about making changes to our contract. and that my members are opposed to that, vehemently opposed to it. >> lehrer: and mark shields and david brooks offer analysis of the big week for health care reform. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour is provided by:

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. >> woodruff: president obama and russian president medvedev finalized an agreement today to slash nuclear arsenals by a third. mr. obama called the pact a step towards "a world without nuclear

weapons." >> after a year of intense negotiations, the united states and russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades. >> woodruff: the president sealed the landmark deal with a phone call to his russian counterpart this morning. >> we have turned words into action. we have made progress that is clear and concrete. and we have demonstrated the importance of american leadership and american partnership on behalf of our own security, and the world's. >> woodruff: together, the united states and russia possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. the u.s. has 2,100 deployed strategic warheads; russia has 2,600. >> the new start treaty makes progress in several areas. it cuts, by about a third, the nuclear weapons that the united states and russia will deploy. >> woodruff: today's deal replaces the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty, or "start", that expired in december.

and it goes beyond the 2002 "moscow treaty" signed by then- presidents george w. bush and vladimir putin. within seven years of ratification, both countries would have to lower their deployed strategic warheads to 1,550. ballistic missile launchers and bombers would be capped at 800. and of those, only 700 could be deployed. the two countries would be responsible for verifying each other's cuts. in moscow, foreign minister sergei lavrov said the agreement was an important security step for both countries. >> ( translated ): this is an absolutely honest position, which does not prohibit either side from making unilateral decisions. but it unequivocally means that strategic offensive armaments will be reduced to a degree which will ensure the security of each party. >> woodruff: for mr. obama, the agreement was essential in order to "reset" relations with

russia. >> the united states and russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. >> woodruff: defense secretary robert gates said the deal does not jeopardize the u.s. defense posture. >> the reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad, nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the united states and our allies by improving and deploying missile defense systems. >> woodruff: two-thirds of the u.s. senate are needed to ratify the treaty. many senate republicans are insisting the pact not interfere with future plans for missile defense and weapons modernization. republican john kyl of arizona. >> the point being that, if you draw down the number of weapons and weapon delivery systems-- nuclear warheads and systems that deliver them-- under this treaty, which will be done, then it is even more imperative that what you have left works and is

safe and secure. >> woodruff: presidents obama and medvedev are set to sign the pact in prague on april 8. >> lehrer: now, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman in our newsroom. >> holman: the obama administration unveiled broad new initiatives to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure. the program would make government-backed mortgages with lower financing available for those who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth. separately, it would reduce monthly payments for unemployed homeowners for up to six months. no new taxpayer money would be used to fund the program. it's expected to help up to four million struggling homeowners over the next few years. congress sent the final installment of a landmark health care overhaul to president obama today. house speaker nancy pelosi signed the much smaller bill of fixes at the capitol, after it

was approved last night. the revisions include improved medicare drug coverage and expanded medicaid funding. the president is expected to sign the bill early next week. a south korean naval ship sank in the yellow sea today after an unexplained explosion near the stern. at least 58 of the 104 crew on board were rescued, but the number of deaths was yet to be confirmed. it happened near a disputed maritime border with north korea. earlier today, the north korean military threatened nuclear strikes against the south in comments read on state television. >> those who seek to bring down the system in the democratic people's republic of korea, whether they play a main role or passive role will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strike of the invincible army. >> holman: senior cabinet ministers met in emergency session in seoul after the ship sinking, but did not blame north korea for the incident. stocks on wall street struggled to gain ground today as the south korean ship incident rattled markets.

the dow jones industrial average gained nine points to close at 10,850. the nasdaq fell two points to close at 2,395. for the week, the dow gained 1%; the nasdaq rose nine-tenths of a percent. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the newshour's web site. for now, back to judy. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: yemen's narcotic drug; the vatican's handling of abuse charges; the teachers unions' battle with school districts; plus, shields and brooks. but first, the final vote tally in iraq's parliamentary elections, and to jeffrey brown. >> brown: three weeks after iraqis cast their votes, the results produced a cliffhanger outcome today that was immediately challenged by the loser. iraq's independent high electoral commission announced that the coalition of former prime minister ayad allawi was

the winner of march's parliamentary election with 91 seats. allawi is a secular shiite who ran with sunni backing. running close behind was the coalition of current prime minister nouri al-maliki, a member of the dawa party, a shia political group. al malaki said he would challenge the count. allawi's win positions him to be the first to try to form a government, but that could take weeks. whatever happens next, the head of the election commission hailed the process that brought iraqi democracy this far. >> ( translated ): i congratulate the iraqi people for this victory, because the iraqi people are the winners who spoke on the victory day of the election on the seventh of march. >> brown: both the voting and today's announcement were accompanied by scattered violence. hours before the results were released, two bombs exploded outside a restaurant 50 miles north of baghdad. more than 40 people were killed

and dozens more were wounded. the election brought allegations of fraud from some iraqi politicians, but international observers declared it "fair" and "honest." the u.s. government has praised the election process. today, top american military commander ray odierno called on political parties to "refrain from inflammatory rhetoric or action". for more, we go to ryan crocker, a former career diplomat who served as u.s. ambassador to iraq until last year. he's now the dean of the george h.w. bush school of government at texas a&m university. and joost hilterman, deputy program director for the middle east and north africa at the international crisis group. he was in iraq during the elections. ambassador crocker, i'll start with you. is it a surprise that prime minister maliki's coalition failed to win? what explains it? >> i think it's been clear for some time that this

would be a very close contest. the fact that just two seats separate maliki and alawi is an indication of that closeness. and in a sense it doesn't matter that much who is two seats up or two seats down. there is going to be a long, difficult contentious process of forming a government. and at this point there's no way of telling who is going to wind up in the prime minister's chair. >> reporter: mr. hilter-- hiltea did-- remind us of mr. alawi and where his support comes from. >> it a little bit of surprise because it wasn't clear for a while whether mr. alawi who is a secular shiite would be able to bring in the sunni vote in addition to his normal mainstay which is sort of the secular shiite secular sunni vote. i think what happened in addition to the fact the shiite coalition we have had for the last four years that broke up, and therefore maliki was standing by himself, we also saw a swing,

probably, of some voters who would have voted for a secular candidate, and hadn't decided between maliki and alawish and maybe were in favor of m maliki because of the fact that he brought security over the past couple of years. those people in the days before the elections when a number of candidates were disqualified on the basis of deba'athification and maliki embraced that decision, may have seen that maliki after all was a shiite sectarian to the core and have thrown their support behind alawi. >> reporter: well ambassador crocker, you say it doesn't matter, in a sense, because now we have weeks of coalition forming. but how seriously do you take the challenge by prime minister maliki to the results up to this point? >> i expected whoever did not wind up in the top slot, whether it be maliki or alawi would probably take that position. the u.n. has been clear that they see this as a legitimate process.

i think there will be some inquiries into irregularities. but overall i think these results are going to stand. i would make one comment on alawi and maliki. very different personalities. but they both campaigned on a platform of iraqi nationalism. and i think that is what has resonated with voters throughout the country. and it's an important development. >> well, expand on that, mr. hilterman so, what was the election in the end, based on these results, what was it about? was it about particular issues or personalities or sectarianism? >> it was about how iraqi leaders projected themselves. that what ambassador crocker is saying as well. both alawi and maliki were projecting themselves as leaders of iraq, as a nation, as a country. and not as sectarian leaders. and i think again that maliki may have stumbled in the days before the elections by showing his true self, and may have lost votes that way.

but for a long time maliki has projected this image, for the last two years to be a national leader who rises above sectarian and ethic divisions, and had been quite successful in that. alawi has a long history of being nonsectarian. but in past elections was not able to get many votes, in part because iraq was so deeply driven by sectarian and ethnic differences which lead, in fact, to civil war situation in baghdad several years ago am but we've overcome that now. >> reporter: so ambassador crocker, as you have the results here, you look ahead now, what does this tell you about the state of iraqi democracy going forward? where do you see, do you look at this as a success or what worries you right now? >> it very encouraging, clearly. but the elections as important as they are, are really just the curtain racer for the process of government foremation. and there are a number of steps ahead.

the parliament has to con convenient-- convene, it has to choose its own leadership. it then has to choose a president of iraq and we may see some changes there because the current triad of one president and two vice presidents may not continue for the future. so a lot to be done. i don't expect to see a government in place, really, until probably midsummer. >> but staying with you, how hard will this process be and what becomes the role of key other players like muqtada al-sadr in helping to either join or not join one of these groups and therefore forming a coalition, forming a government. >> it is going to be difficult. there is no combination of coalitions right now that i would rule out. and there is also no assurance that the coalitions that came together for the elections will stay together for the process of government formation.

we may see the sadrists, for example, split with the rest of the iraqi national alliance as they seek advantage in the-- in these politics of government formation. so just about everything and everybody is on the table. the small parties may hold the critical weight in determining who gets to be prime minister. and again it's helpful to remember what happened in 2006 when the man who emerged at the end of the day was on no one's list as the process started. that man, of course, was nouri al-maliki. >> reporter: but -- is renewed sectarian violence on the table or a possibility here? >> well, i don't think it's safe to rule it out. but i hope not. and did doesn't look like it right now. but if prime minister maliki rejects the results and decides to act on it, we could get in a dangerous

situation. likewise if prime minister alawi, former prime minister alawi seeks to form a government and fails to bring together a ruling quo lis and has to give over that role to someone else, say mr. maliki, and he doesn't accept those results, you could see a reversion to violence. but so far the pressure on all the acts have been considerable from the united nations, united states and in fact from political opponents on both, especially on maliki right now, to play by the rules of the game. >> and ambassador crocker finally does that possibility of violence or whatever is ahead, does any of this have an impact on the continuing drawdown of u.s. military forces which, of course, continues and is supposed to end at the end of next year. >> the withdrawal of u.s. forces, of course s set out

in the agreements that we negotiated at the end of the bush administration in which have been embraced by the obama administration. and i think that 2011 date will stand. i think we need to be careful and we need to be flexible concerning what we do with troop levels in the intermediate period. the decision to draw down to 50,000 forces in a noncombat role by the end of august was a unilateral u.s. decision that was not part of the agreement. and i think we need to listen to the iraqis. we need to look at the circumstances and we need to be flexible if necessary between now and the end of 2011. because the reality is seven years after the beginning of the war, the process of the development of the new iraq is still in an early stage. there are going to be challenges after challenges after challenges. and are sustained engagement

increasing by political and economic means as well as that of the rest of the international community are going to be crucial for iraq's chances at success in the months and years ahead. >> reporter: am was-- ambassador ryan crocker and joost hilt everman, thank you very much. >> lehrer: now, margaret warner wraps up her reporting trip to the middle east nation of yemen with the story of its most prevalent homegrown product. >> warner: if you want to get something done in this country, try to do it before 3:00. soon after, yemeni's cheeks are bulging with the mildly narcotic leaves of yemen's number one cash crop, qat. for an overwhelming number of yemenis of all stripes, getting buzzed on qat is a daily pastime. >> ( translated ): qat in yemen existed for a very long time, and it represents one of the social traditions here in yemen. qat is a connection between family and friends. >> warner: like his family and

friends, office director abdullah al-sheik started chewing in his teens. they gather like this, with bags of leaves and bottles of water, for hours at a time, talking politics, family, and tribal matters, and sharing jokes. whatever the topics, everyone's eager contribution is fueled by what aficionados say is a gentle speed-like high brought on from chewing the leaves. the feeling has been compared to several cups of espresso, or that first glass of wine, but it goes on hours. >> ( translated ): without qat, you get bored after maybe half an hour and maybe want to leave. but with qat, you take much longer-- four hours or more-- because qat gives you the feeling you want to talk about your plans, your future. >> warner: yemeni legend has it that qat's properties were discovered by a goatherder, who tried it himself after noticing his goats were more energetic while they were grazing on the leafy plant. but it's a thirsty plant to grow, and given the drought

gripping this part of the world, that means yemenis' taste for qat comes at a high environmental cost. in the rural village of haddah, rows of cactus have taken root where fruit trees once flourished. >> ( translated ): this used to be a forest of trees. it was just like paradise. you could hardly see to the other side of the valley. >> warner: family farmer ahmed al-qadheem says haddah used to be watered by 12 natural springs and 20 wells. but after two decades of drought and heavy consumption, they've run dry. >> ( translated ): now, my farm's dried up, not enough rain and we use too much water >> warner: cities like the capital, sanaa, are endangered, too. its water table is dropping fast from the drought, an exploding population and qat farming nearby. many city residents-- the ones who can afford the sky-rocketing

prices-- now rely heavily on water trucked in from rural areas. and the world bank predicts that, within 15 years, sanaa could be the first capital city in the world to run out of drinking water entirely. but that hasn't stopped local qat farmers, who either don't know or don't care for modern irrigation methods, from flooding their qat fields as their families have done for generations. >> ( translated ): depending on the season, i water my fields sometimes six, sometimes 12 hours a day. >> warner: the view over the village of wadi dahr shows acres of trees below, bearing not fruit or vegetables as they used to, but qat as far as the eye can see. farmer kamal moath explains why. >> ( translated ): growing qat, we are able to make a lot more money, and the government doesn't promote growing fruit or much else. >> warner: with qat now

representing over a third of yemen's agricultural output, farmers are drilling ever deeper to quench their plants. and the government helps them do it by selling diesel fuel at a below-market rate. deputy finance minister jalal yacoub is worried about the trend. >> we're subsidizing the depletion of water, we're subsidizing the people who chew qat, and it's just not, it's not right. >> warner: but he acknowledges there is an economic benefit-- the lucrative qat trade keeps money circulating in the countryside, so life in poor villages remains vital. >> ( translated ): qat gives opportunity for people in countryside to have access to money without the government providing anything. >> warner: raufa hassan alsharki, who runs an n.g.o. in sanaa, expresses a view shared by many-- that the government doesn't try to restrict water use or qat consumption for another reason. >> people in politics found it easy to control people who are

chewing qat all the afternoon, instead of asking for services or doing anything. and they cannot revolt, they cannot demonstrate, they cant do anything. >> warner: the cost to productivity is an issue. though laborers use qat to keep them going, other chewers seem to spend their afternoons in a drugged-out haze. yacoub insists this is not deliberate on the government's part. but providing alternatives to qat, whether for work or play, would be a huge undertaking. >> it is a serious lack of prioritization from the government... the government's part not to focus on fighting the use of qat. but you cannot just fight qat for the sake of fighting qat; you have to give other parts of the package. >> warner: these students aren't waiting for the government. they've launched their own anti- qat campaign to urge other young people to do something else. firwas shamsan and marwa baabbab, both in their 20s, say

qat-chewing among their peers is holding them back. >> ( translated ): they say, "okay, if im not chewing, where should i go. i'll be walking on the street." they don't have awareness to tell them, "no, you can go do volunteer work, you can go to a gym." >> warner: abdullah al-sheik and his friends, their wads of qat growing with each chew, wouldn't disagree. >> ( translated ): people have to understand the damages of qat, that qat damages health, that qat wastes your time and money. i think the government has to implement some programs to eradicate chewing qat. >> warner: but this evening, qat is playing an irreplaceable role in this celebration of an upcoming wedding. without it, the music may not play as loud nor the party last as long in a country where qat

is king. >> woodruff: next, the growing questions surrounding the pope over the handling of scandals past. pope benedict xvi maintained a public schedule in st. peter's square last night, where he attended a youth rally. but in europe and the u.s., much attention was focused on what the pope knew about sexual abuse scandals and how he dealt with them. the charges of misconduct over the years have a common theme: did the pope-- then-cardinal joseph ratzinger-- fail to take appropriate actions against clergy who allegedly committed acts against children? the latest report-- a "new york times" story found that he was copied on a 1980 decision to

return a priest who was undergoing therapy for pedophilia to pastoral work in munich. that priest was later convicted of sexual abuse of children. at the time, ratzinger was archbishop of munich. he later directed a vatican office that dealt with sex allegations. a spokesman for the vatican said today the pope "had no knowledge" of the decision to return the german priest to a parish. the latest news report comes on the heels of another "times" story that said the vatican and then-cardinal ratzinger knew about a u.s. priest accused of sexually abusing up to 200 deaf boys at a milwaukee school from the 1950s to the 1970s. the priest was not defrocked, and died in 1998. jeff anderson is the attorney representing the victims. >> all trails involving the cover-up and the concealment of

sexual abuse by catholic clerics lead to rome and the pope. >> woodruff: public reaction in rome is mixed. >> ( translated ): if everybody knew about it, probably the pope knew about it, too. >> ( translated ): having read the "new york times" article, this is the umpteenth attempt to unjustly sully the name of the pope. >> woodruff: last weekend, the pope issued a letter of apology to victims of sexual abuse in ireland. and for more on this story, we are joined by david gibson, the author of "the rule of benedict: pope benedict xvi and his battle with the modern world." he covers religion for politicsdaily.com. david gibson, there are now so many allegations coming to the surface. help us understand the scope of all this. >> well, judy, this really has two aspects to it. one is the european "wired" crisis which really began several years ago and culminated last year with

several government investigative reports in ireland. and the pope recently a few weeks ago had a kind of summit meeting with all the irish bishops in the vatican to address this. but since then even in those recent weeks you've had this tsunami as an ought treean cardinal called it, this tsunami of revelations of allegations from thenet-- netherlands to switzerland, to austria and now to germany, the pope's home home -- own homeland and where he was archbishop of munich for several year approximates in the late 1970s. so now it's really this europeanwide element that has come to the pope's own doorstep. >> woodruff: so you have the sheer number of allegations and then you have these two cases in particular where there's allegation the pope was directly involved. how much is known about his involvement? >> well, there is kind of a vacuum at the centre of these allegations in the sense that in the one case, this is father peter hul

emon in 1980 when the pope was cardinal ratzinger. the pope was, they admit, had given the go-ahead to have him come to the archdiocese for treatment but then he said he was not responsible or knew nothing about that priest' immediate reassignment to a parish where he went on to abuse children from there on. so there is a lot of-- there are kind of a lot of missed connections here. as far as the case in the vatican in the late 1990s, this father murphy case from wisconsin, they're saying again, the pope was sent memos an sent reports but there is nothing, his fingerprints aren't on any of the memos coming back that then determined that father murphy should not be penalized in anyway. so one is really sure what the pope knew and when he knew it. which is the critical question. >> so the vatican has responded in essence by criticizing the media for these reports.

what more is expected. i mean how much more is do people without watch this expect that the vatican is going to need to say, have to say. >> well, i think they're really circling the wagons now. the pope when he first became pope in 2005 he took a much more aggressive and assertive stance against these pedophile priests and these abusers. not necessarily against the bishops who oversaw them. he's kind of given them a pass for the most part. but and when the cases in ireland started coming out, starting emerging. he really was, at this think proactive you could say in terms of trying to address it and he recently wrote a letter to the catholics of ireland. but the closer these cases have come to joseph ratzinger personally, the more the vatican has sort of circled the wagons and become much more defensive in their reaction. i think you can see them stiff arm the media and they are really beginning to attack the media in some really harsh terms.

that will work for some people in the church who want to defend the pope. but i don't think it's really going to play well with the majority of catholics. >> woodruff: how much pressure dow sense, david gibson, that the vatican is truly under from the outside on this? >> they're under a lot of pressure but i think they want to gut it out. the pope is to the going resign. a lot of people are wondering about that. and that's just not going to happen unless something really seismic occurs. and that would be a real crisis for the church, obviously. but i think they just want to gut it out. really the vatican is a much more insurance lar place. they are not watching-- they are not reading the internet and the blogs every day. they're not watching tv the way we do. and they just, they would not see, they don't want to see the pope capitulating to what they consider a media campaign, a campaign by secularists to tarnish the church, to tarnish the figure of the pope himself. so i really think they want to try and ride this out. will they or won't they. so much of this seems to

kind of replicate the same dynamic that we saw in 2002 with those investigative reports by the "boston globe" that started in boston. and then again spread with reverberations throughout the entire country. >> woodruff: well, is it known how much more the vatican may have, or have access to in the way of documentation to support their side of this thing? >> no, it's not really known. and they need to get this up and out. even i think their ally its are telling them you have to get all the information out. you can't have one of these kind of drip, drip, drip type of stories, a little bit more coming out every day. because that really erodes the credibility of the pope which is really his main platform, popes for decades have said i can no longer command. i have to convince. and the vatican has to get all of the information out there. the problem is if there's damaging information out there, in munich or in the files of the vatican in the office where cardinal ratzinger was head for so many years, then of course

that's going to further undermine the pope. >> all right. we are going to leave it there for now, david gibson, thanks very much. >> thank you. i >> lehrer: now, the battle between unions and school districts over new federal money. the newshour's special correspondent for education, john merrow, has our report. >> this is one of the largest investments in education reform in american history. >> reporter: when president obama announced the grant competition called "race to the top," educators across the country were eager to apply for a share of the $4.35 billion. >> finally, the federal government is really identifying... they're getting it. they're getting it. >> reporter: kerri leonard ellison, a member of the local school board in the small city of easton, pennsylvania, felt she was being heard at last. >> we want to be successful. we're determined to be successful. we need to be supported. >> reporter: with easton's one

high school failing for the past six years, and only 50% of students scoring at grade level in math and reading, ellison felt the "race to the top" money could make the difference. >> this is huge. it's a huge opportunity for each and every child that's here. >> reporter: in early march, pennsylvania was one of 16 states chosen to come to washington as a finalist for race to the top. representatives had 30 minutes to defend their plan. >> we're nervous. ( laughs ) it's that pre-game jitter, and if it weren't like that, we would not be ready. >> reporter: if pennsylvania wins, the state stands to gain $400 million. but easton, a district with 10,500 students, wont see a penny; its application was disqualified. >> our superintendent signed, our president of our board also signed, and the union president would not sign. >> in easton, anyway, we

disagree with the grant. we don't believe it's right for us here. >> reporter: kevin deely is president of the easton teachers union. >> race to the top would require that we talk about making changes to our contract, and that... my members are opposed to that, vehemently opposed to it. so they directed me to not sign on. >> reporter: union opposition prevented at least a third of pennsylvania's school districts from applying for race to the top. other finalists experienced similar resistance. in florida, just 8% of teachers unions signed on. in rhode island, only 5% agreed to participate. and in washington, d.c., where they have just one union, the response was "no thanks." union officials say a big problem with race to the top is that it seems to favor paying teachers based on their students' success, not simply on years in the classroom and degrees held, as is currently

the case. >> right now, in 50 states, in over the last 50 years, with over 15,000 school districts, they've moved to the same compensation system. there must be a reason. i believe, it's because it works. >> reporter: dennis van roekel is president of the largest teacher's union. so, you defend the current system? >> i believe it works, yes. >> i get paid based on how many years i've been teaching and how many graduate credits i have. it has nothing to do with how my students perform? >> i think, depending on how you do the... the advancement on the salary schedule, there are a lot of ways to do that. >> but some teachers are better than others. they are. i mean, there's plenty of evidence showing that some teachers actually deliver real performance gains and some don't. should those teachers who deliver those performance gains make more money than the ones who don't? it's a yes-or-no question. >> not only ... not based just on that factor, no. >> reporter: while race to the top does not require that

teacher pay be connected to student achievement, it does encourage using student performance as one measure of teacher effectiveness. that's enough to upset easton's union leader, kevin deely. >> to base a teacher's evaluation and their worth as an educator on how... how much their students grow, it... it just doesn't work that way. >> reporter: and it doesn't sit well with the n.e.a.'s van roekel, who taught high school math for 23 years. >> in a class, you know, you never know which part of a geometry lesson a class isn't going to get. if based on my assessments-- a quiz or whatever-- they didn't get my unit on slope, then what they should be watching for is, what did i do as a result once i realized that they didn't know it? did i adjust my teaching? did i find a new way of doing it? that's what i should be judged on. so it's the practice, not the test score. >> but the test scores are the measure of the practice. >> i don't believe that. >> reporter: the union president may not believe it, but another president apparently does.

>> if a school continues to fail its students year after year after year and it doesn't show any sign of improvement, there has to be a sense of accountability. that's what happened in rhode island. >> reporter: in february, the entire staff of a failing high school in rhode island was fired when their union refused to agree to state mandated reform. in easton, and in districts all across the country, the tension seems to come down to a fundamental issue. >> we don't feel that we have a good working relationship that we can sit down across the table and say, "yes, i trust you." >> reporter: kerri leonard ellison of the easton school board calls it by a different name. >> it's communication. there's obviously a critical deficiency in communication. >> reporter: of the 16 finalists competing for race to the top

funding, six are "right to work" states, which means teachers do not need to be in a union. observers are watching closely to see whether race to the top is sending a message to teacher unions-- collaborate or else. a second round of competition will take place in the summer. >> lehrer: and finally tonight, the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks.h- avid, health-care reform is now the law of the land land. what else is it? >> well, i'll tell you one thing it is, it has changed the psychology of the white house. you have to remember what it was like for them for really a year, maybe 14 months as one person put it to me, we had 2000 people who could destroy our presidency at any moment. so they've been living under this, and not sleeping through the nights under this. and now for the first time the night that thing's passed they will get to sleep through the night. they don't wake up in the

middle of the night in sheer terror. so just app ra po, it is sort of a historical event but i was struck by the sense of elation and tremendous relief within the white house. >> lehrer: do you agree, that's number one? >> not number one. number one there is nobody in the white house is on the ballot this year. i mean everybody in the house of representatives is. i mean-- the other ones who are staring down the barrel. >> lehrer: do the democrats have-- deserve to celebrate and deserve to see this in positive terms? >> yes. >> lehrer: all democrats. >> for the following reasons. just two weeks ago democrats on capitol hill were like so many sclerotic basset hounds, trudging around, with faces, this has put a bounce in their stride. it's put a smile on their face. i mean it's changed the whole dynamic of the

capitol hill. you recall when barack obama was campaigning in 2008 he gave an interview with the reno gazette newspaper out in nevada which absolutely infuriated bill clinton. he said that ronald reagan had changed the trajectory of the country as president, something that neither richard nixon or bill clinton had done. and this changes the trajectory of the country. i mean whatever anybody in the congress is ever called, no one could ever say you were a member of the do-nothing congress. they know they have done something large an important and the hyperbowl of washington, barack obama has gone from being jimmy carter, a one-term president admired but not politically successful or bill clinton reduced to bite sized initiatives after losing the congress, to now fdr or lbj. i mean tra transformational in the perception of this town. >> lehrer: is that justified, david? >> well, mark's absolutely

right, obviously, it is consequence. whether it's consequence for good or bad, you know, i don't know. it's like trying to evaluate the iraq war on the day the tanks crossed the kuwaiti board near iraq. it looks good but this tremendously complicated thing. more complicated than the iraq war. and it could go good or bad. i mean the good side obviously is the coverage. the bad side is people like me is the sense of fiscal risk involved. and i think that was underlined this week by two events. one the cbo came out with their results, their predictions of where the budget deficit will be without health care in ten years from now. and will have gone from 40% of gdp, of public debt to 90% in ten years. that's just cataclysmic. and then in the short term this week we have three bond issuings where the government is issuing debt three days in a below and-- row and it's going badly. people are nervous about u.s. government debt. in fact corporate debt is seen as less risky than government debt that is just a straw in the wind that the spending entailed in a lot of things, not just this is

going to be a real issue. and i respect that come november, health care is a huge historic thing. but i suspect jobs and debt will actually supplant it among the issues that people vote on. >> lehrer: but back to just barack obama and his presidency and leadership and all of those things, just getting this done, however it goes after today or tomorrow or whatever. what do you think about that? >> undeniable accomplishment. and i will tell you one specific reason. which is that after scott brown wins, there are all sorts of people within the white house saying you know we scale this back. you get all the credit. but at half the cost and half the risk. and a lot of people wanted to do that. and they had some logic behind them. but the president and nancy pelosi said no. we want to do the whole thing and we're going to stick with it and they deserve credit for sticking by their guns. >> now mark what about the other side, the republicans, they're angry, do they deserve to be angry about this? >> the republicans are angry, they are also frustrated. they really, they thought they a shot at winning this thing. and really --

>> taking it down and the battleground was the house of representatives, it goes down to the house of representatives. it takes with it the obama administration. i mean their principal initiative, the gang that couldn't shoot straight becomes the democratic party. so the republicans, you know there is a sense of disappointment and there is a sense of now fingerpointing. why did we pend the last week and a half when the focus of the nation was on this debate on the question of demon and past, procedural questions y were we talking with about democrats if you pass this it will hurt you in november. we should have been making a case that there is a problem in the country. we acknowledge it, it has to be addressed but this is the wrong answer. and so the recriminations are going on. as far as the anger is concerned, i mean there is an anger in the country. make no mistake about it. and it took a large form in the opposition to the health-care bill. >> lehrer: do you think,

speaking of the anger, there's been some violence and some threats and all of that. is that something to take seriously and be concerned about, david. >> yeah, i think so. i think it is a atrocious for what happened and republicans for their own decency and political survival should point that out. the leaders of the party and the leaders of the tea party movement to their cede vit condemned the violence, the rock throwing, histrionic rhetoric there was a ton of out of control histrionic rhetoric. you can oppose this without calling it total arianism or everything else hurled at it. and that is bath for government and bad politically. i would say that relationships and we've talked about this on the show, relationships on capitol hill are worse than certainly, since i have been covering politics. and a lot has to do with histrionic rhetoric and people are sick of it. and when they see republicans this week throwing around all these charges in an out of control, uncivil manner, well then they punish the party so forget the health of the country, think about the

health of the party. >> yeah, i mean i do think that one thing has changed, jim. is all of a sudden the democrats are on the offensive politically. i mean not only emboldened by the passage of this but take, for example, the next big issue is wall street reform. and john mccain made the mistake of saying we're not going to cooperate. >> lehrer: what do you make of that? >> i think john mccain was angry. swron mccain has a temper. john mccain is also embroil approximated in a primary where one poll has him only seven points ahead of jd hayworth running to his right in arizona. so i mean if he is seen as a stalwart, he has been accused of being not conservative enough whatever else, he had sarah palin campaigning for him today. but i say that because bob corker of tennessee, the senator, recognizes that this is an issue not like health care where there is division in the country. it's a-- everybody wants to go after wall street. if you want to be seen as

defender of the status quo on wall street you are really running political risks. >> lehrer: how do you see the cooperation from this, mccain's comment as side or a part of it, is it going to be a lack of it because of health-care reform. >> yeah, i think so one straw in the wind is lindsay graham. fanned there is any republican who has shown a courageous ability to cooperate, it's lindsey graham. and he said this week that on immigration, other issues he is not in the mood to. because the republican does think they were totally squeezed out on this. rightly or wrongly. they think that. and i think they have some justification, various committee hears where they were totally squeezed out. >> lehrer: on health care. >> and they took some own self-marginizing views. i would agree with mark. i think the financial regulation is the one issue that is not a clean idea lling-- ideaological divide there are issues like raising taxes for energy that are pretty clean and nothing will get done on that. i would be very surprised if anything got done on immigration but the financial regulation, you could actually see something get done. and then the big issue is, i keep harping on, is the deficit. there is no money left for anything else.

>> lehrer: . >> jim, i think you could say that not to dram aadvertise health care t is the end of the reagan era in the sense of large came legislative initiatives. this is a marked depar ture from the reagan era which was really 30 years. i mean the conservative consensus in the country. and that was-- part of that consensus was tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. and i think that we are now facing, david raises part of the case, we're facing a decade of tax increases. how it's done. but make no mistake about it. >> lehrer: tax increase whether you like it or not. >> whether you like it or not. and i want to say one thing. nancy pelosi stands today in my judgement having watched this and covered this debate, having been, barack obama the two pillars who stood tall when people were saying let's go, let's go for the little bite size. nancy pelosi delivered the house of representatives.

she is the master of that house. and she hats made herself, she did something which tip o'neill, sam rayburn could never do, not once, not twice but three times she passed health care to the house of representatives. and she stands in my judgement as the most powerful political woman in the history of this country. >> lehrer: to you buy that, david. >> i'm trying to think of alternatives. some people think edith wilson was very powerful when woodrow wilson had a stroke. but certainly this is a great accomplishment and sort of an interesting picture of what it takes to succeed in a job like this. she is not a great speaker. spokesperson, a communicator. i personally don't think she's great on policy. but she has the skills to know how to control this body which is a fractious body even when you have majority. so those skills are maybe in her blood from her father and her brother but also skills that she really opposes-- possesses and there no denying she is a very effective legislator.

>> dick gephardt said no male could have done what she did on abortion, the thorniest of all issues. she had the credibility to go to the pro-choice women on her own side. >> lehrer: and say i need you. >> this not an abortions rights bill. and when they went through the loop on the executive order that the president signed, last week, sunday to assure the support of congressman stupak and other pro-life democrats, she stood strong and tall. and i mean that was just an achievement, but it was the political timing that abortion had to come last but it was key to get it done. >> lehrer: do agree with that, without that, without that maneuver this would never have happened. >> well, in the weeks leading up to the vote, and would you would ask people especially in the white house, what are are worried about, will you get it. you expect them to come and say yeah, we'll get it. that was their public line but privately they were anxious. what is the problem. is it centrist. and they always said it is abortion. and they solved that on both

sides whether people respect bart tupac after this a separate issue. but politically, they solved it. and to be, it should be reminded that nancy pelosi made a lot of compromises. the public option was something they really cared about. >> lehrer: she through that away. >> the senate bill, they really did do what it takes to get things passed. >> lehrer: all right, david, mark, thank you both very much. >> thank you >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: the u.s. and russia agreed to sharp cuts in their nuclear stockpiles; iraqi prime minister al-maliki vowed to challenge election results that put his secular challenger ahead by two seats in parliament; and the obama administration unveiled new initiatives to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure. the newshour is always online. kwame holman, in our newsroom, previews what's there. kwame. >> holman: on "newshour plus," our science and technology series, "wired" magazine's mark mccluskey has the latest on sprint's 4-g network. gwen ifill dissects the rhetoric behind the health care reform debate.

and on "art beat," jeffrey brown talks to the publisher of open letter books, a small press focused on translated literature. all of that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

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