captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. lawmakers hammered out details for the most far-reaching financial reform since great depression. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, a new law would establish regulation

aimed at preventing another wall street meltdown. >> woodruff: then we explore why senate republicans blocked the extension of jobless benefits. >> brown: betty ann bowser looks at the mental health struggles for crisis-weary citizens of the gulf the people who live in southern louisiana are trying to work their way through another disaster but this time the psychiatric consequences may be more long lasting. >> woodruff: mark shields and david brooks offer their weekly analysis. >> brown: and margaret warner reports on world cup fever in bra expwril looks ahead to the report she's preparing on the impact of the gulf oil daft disaster on brazil's offshore drill plans. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour.

chevron. this is the power of human energy. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. 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.

>> brown: it took all night, but key members of congress completed a compromise bill on rewrite financial regulations. the move sends the measure to the full house and senate for final action. >> i'll be very brief. i know it's late. >> brown: as many americans were waking up this morning, congressional negotiators were putting the finishing touches on reforms intended to prevent a future financial meltdown. president obama welcomed the progress before departing for this weekend's g-20 summit in canada. >> we are poised to pass the toughest financial reforms since the ones we created in the aftermath of the great depression. early this morning, the house and senate reached an agreement on a set of wall street reforms that represents 90% of what i proposed when i took up this fight. >> brown: the deal came at the end of a marathon session on capitol hill lasting more than 21 hours. >> i declare the bill passed and

the conference committee is now adjourned. ( applause ) >> brown: the compromise bill reached between house and senate lawmakers would establish a consumer protection agency within the federal reserve to regulate financial products like mortgages and credit cards. attempt to address the problem of too big to fail by giving federal regulators authority to wind downed companies. and create a 10-member financial services oversight council, including the treasury secretary and fed chairman, to watch out for threats to the system and enforce tougher regulations. two of the more controversial provisions that passed softened during the final hours of debate. for the first time, there would be federal oversight of derivatives. that's made on the future price of securities. banks would have to spin off trades of their riskiest derivatives like the ones that brought aig down, and they would be recorded on regulated exchanges. but other lucrative transaction

related to interest rates , foreign exchanges, and gold and silver would be exempt. lawmakers also approved the so-called volcker rule aimed at restricting banks from trading for their own benefit on financial markets. house and senate lawmakers hope to approve the bill before leaving for the july 4 recess, but after a near part-line vote, democratic leaders will need some republican support. in an interview today with pbs' "nightly business report," house financial services chair barney frank acknowledged ali khameni promises were made to ensure the bill's passage. >> we have the votes in the house, i believe. in the senate, senator dodd and i were both constrained by the need to get the 60 so i think we're on track to do both. >> brown: the president also expressed optimistic about the bill's chances. asked by reporters if the financial reform would have 60 votes in the senate he replied, "you bet." for more on what the new rules

would and perhaps would not change we turn to nomi prins, author of "it takes a pillage, behind bonuses, bailouts and backroom deals from washington to wall street." she's ... >> and douglas elliott spent 20 years as an investment banker, mostly at j.p. morgan. he's now a fellow at the brookings institution. douglas elliott, i'll start with you. before we get to particulars, what do you see when you put it all together, major change? >> it's absolutely a major change. as stated, it's the biggest set of changes since the great depression. and i'm quite happy, overall. in the real world, getting to maybe two-thirds of where we really should be-- which is what i think we did-- is a good thing. >> brown: nomi prins, same question, overview. what do you see? >> well, i agree it certainly is a large bill with a lot of context in it, but i don't think it fundamentally changes the nature of how wall street operates, the structure of the banking system

or effectively can mitigate the type of immense risk that still exists in the system today, that is still part of the make up of how trading versus doing more plain vanilla business for customers with deposits and lending actually operate. >> brown: all right, well let's walk through a couple of these things. douglas elliott, would how this help avoid the instability in the system , avoid another meltdown? what specifically is there? >> well, i think there are quite a lot of things. and one thing that is sometimes lost when we talk about the bill it's a very broad bill. there may be 15 important things in here, even though we tend to concentrate on a small number. but to give you a few example, there's going to be a consumer protection agency , which i think will make it less-- much less likely that we'd have the kind of abusive mortgages that became so prevalent and helped lead to the bubble and them the crisis. you also have derivatives, as

nengzed, are going to be traded to a much greater extent on exchanges , where there will be less of the so-called counter-party risk that created problems with a.i.g., and where it's much more transparent what's being done and who's holding what risk. and you can go on and on from there. there are a lot of things that work together. >> brown: all right, let's pick on a couple those, nomi prins. first, we'll start with the consumer protection agency. what does that do or perhaps not do for all of us? >> well, i agree. i think it's an important agency to have. i would prefer it to have been an independent agency rather than the federal reserve upon but i think it will depend, also upon who runs the agency and how much enforcement power they have and what they're able to look at and what they're able to actually get done. i think it's very important for consumers, for citizens of this country, to have a separate fighting agency that will take a look at the

types of predatory loans, of difficult, complex documentation that went into some of these loans and everything else. and i think that's important. i think what i hope it will do and what it doesn't currently do or isn't set up to do is take a look at some of the toxic assets that we ultimately came to know, that were created from the back of these loans, because those were really a bigger part of what became the meltdown than the loans themselves. so i think they can do a lot for consumers, but i hope they can also expand to do more for the assets and-- created from the loan. >> brown: go ahead, with derivatives. that's what i wanted to ask you about. >> in terms of derivatives-- and it ties into a little bit some of these assets, many of which were very complex-- that's the securities and derivatives and a lot of things mixed up, and the way the bill has currently been reconciled that those types of assets would be in a subsidiary away from the main sort of books of the bank but still under the umbrella of the bank holding company so they would be a part

of the institution. if they-- if that happens, if there are complex assets, or derivatives in a subsidiary from the institution and they are better capitalized, that could work for a while but to the extent they also include a lot of risks that we don't even know about yet, they could also be a problem because they're still within the bank. they're not separated from the dealings of the bank. so it's one thing to say they'll be aside and they'll be capitalized. but at the end of the day if a bank is failing because its side bets aren't working and there isn't enough capital because derivatives are leveraged securities, it can still be very hurtful to the overall institution because they're not being segmented out completely, derivative tradings, from the general deposits and lendings that a bank is currently able to do in a bank holding structure. >> brown: that leads, douglas elliott, to the ability to

unwind institutions when they do get into trouble. the major problem last go-around. what do you see here, a strukt that you are would prevent that. >> well, this was definitely a big step forward because for many years, we've had the ability for the federal regulators to deal effectively with a large bank that gointo trouble, but not with a nonbank. that includes investment banks like bare sterb stearns and lehmanns, and companies like a.i.g. what will be the case going forward, if the regulators see an organization that's important to the financial system which is a nonbank, they can stip stepin and do many of the same things they're allowed to do with banks. i think that will be quite helpful should they run into this kind of crisis again. >> brown: staying with you, for the past few years, there's been a lot of attention on the regulators themselves, the regulatory structure. has that been

dealt with? who's in charge? who oversees this? that's the area of biggest disappointment with me in a bill i quite like. i wish they had consolidated the regulation down to basically two federal agencies, one that would look after the safety and soundness of the bank and the consumer protection agency. they've really made very few changes in this regard, which means in the future there's still the potential for confusion or for having too many different regulators and have one of them be captured by the industry, and regulate in too lax a way. >> brown: what do you think of that nomi prins, the regulatory structure here? >> i agree with douglas. that is a disappointment, and having the additional layer of the 10-person financial council, which is a combination of regulators, including ben bernanke, including tim geithner and so forth, creates a situation where things can be dropped. we all know from working in different companies that the more meeting you have, the more

people you get together looking at other details, the less potential there is for thoingz get done. i agree with him on that. and it is good that there's a way to resolve potential failure in investment banks, or in insurance companies and the like. the problem is that right now the biggest institutions that still trade a lot and still carry enormous risks and assets that they themselves evaluate because there is no objective means to evaluate them, are a bank of america combined with merrill lynch. goldman sacks is now a bank holding company. so it's under the purview, but it is still a company that takes on a lot of risk and trades quite actively in terms of its own profitability-- 80% of its profits come from trading. morgan stanley is a bank holding company. so what's happened in the last two years, is we have a financial structure where we have very large, powerful, complex institutions that will stay as large and powerful and complex as they are, where

there's an integration of trading and insurance and investment bank activities. and that hasn't been touched by this bill. and i would argue, that's the main failing of a very large bill with a lot of details that fundamentally there's no change in that. >> brown: let me ask douglas elliott one more issue out of the very many that we could go through here, the volcker rule, the so-called, the-- to get the-- to restrict companies from trading on their own accounts. what is here and what is not? >> well the ended up coming through in a fairly strong way in the sense that the regulators frankly, don't like the volcker rule, and i don't , either. i don't think it will achieve what it purport achieve because it's purporting to take account of excessive investment risk and limit it, but it doesn't measure the risk, and it doesn't look at the capability to handle the risk. it goes a different direction. it goes by what the incident of

the banker was when they put the investment in place. which i think is somewhat beside the point. we care about the level of risk and the ability to handle it. but the volcker rule is being forced down the throats of the regulators. it was tightened up. originally the idea was the regulators would have a fair amount of control over how it was put in place or even potentially whether it was put in place. but the senate didn't want that. >> brown: all right, well a lot of likes and dislikes and more to come next week. douglas elliott, nomi prins, thanks very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: a financial reform bill has moved closer to passage. legislation to extend unemployment benefits stall in the senate last night. democrats were unable to overcome republican resistance to a $112 billion bill that, among other things, would have extended jobless benefits and provided federal aid to cash-strapped states. the impasse means benefits for more than one million unemployed people will expire as of tomorrow.

for more on the story we're joined by lori montgomery. she covers capitol hill for the "washington post." thanks for being with us again. >> thanks for having me. >> woodruff: first of all, tell us what was in the bill. >> it was sort of a grab bag of things that they were trying to push through that has to be done. there are an array of tax cuts that have already expired for business and individuals. they wanted to extend the jobless benefits. they wanted to fix the pay cut for doctors who see medicare patients , and they wanted to push more money out to the states, which are looking at big budget cuts or tax increases to deal with their own budget problems. it was a whole grab bag of things intended to help a number of people and to bolster the economic recovery. >> woodruff: but the main focus, then, seemed to be on the jobless benefits. >> well , that has the most immediate impact. i mean, that's what everybody is all concerned about now that the thing has failed because jobless

benefits-- emergency jobless benefits, the benefits carry you from the expiration of your state benefits at six months through as much as 99 weeks expired on june 2, and as of tomorrow, as you pointed out, 1.2 million people will have been completely cut off. >> woodruff: and why are republicans so opposed? when wh this came up a few months ago, there were a few republican votes for it. >> that's right. a few months ago, six republicans voted for a much bigger bill, but since then, anxiety about the deficit in an election year has just sort of ballooned out of proportion on capitol hill . republicans are hammering democrats on the spending issue and deficits, and so you've got democrats becoming more reluctant to vote for spending, and republicans sort of beginning to build their election-year case. >> woodruff: and you had senator ben nelson, a moderate democrat from nebrask asiding with the republicans. the democrats, though, in recent days have tried to move toward some of these concerns. >> they have. they have. they've cut the bill down dramatically. it

started out as a $two00 billion bill. they got it down to nearly $100 billion. and theor paying for a lot of this-- or proposing to-- by using unexpended funds from last year's economic stimulus package which the republicans had been calling for. >> woodruff: but you still have in here, or always have, the element of politics and each side is always thinking not only about the substance, but this is an election year. >> expectly. and the republicans, you know, we don't really know if they truly believe that we shouldn't spend this money, that we should cut the deficit or if this is trying to build a case to prevent democrats from accomplishing some of their goals. >> woodruff: meanwhile, democrats are saying we may be able to use the fact that republicans voted against it in the fall. >> well, that's the thing because they could have moved an emergency unemployment benefit piece separately, but they're choosing not to do that. >> woodruff: why not? >> because they want

to keep the entire package together. they don't think republicans would necessarily support the aid to state governments, which is very important to democrats and democratic governors. therefore, they want to keep the unemployment benefit and the tax cuts for businesses bundled together in one package. >> woodruff: meanwhile, what's the practical effect of this? we said a 1. the 2 million losing their benefits as of tomorrow. longer term. >> when benefits expired june 2, there were over five million people on emergency benefits. i think there are about four million people on regular benefits. those five million people will time out and be -- the program will end by the end of october. and the four million people if they can't find a job will not have a safety net to fall back on after 26 weeks. >> woodruff: and we're hearing there is some talk on thil hill about trying to pull this off-- just as you said-- pulling it out spraitly as only jobless benefits but no guarantee that will happen. >> well, house leaders are talking about it.

senator olympia snowe, moderate democrat, called--. >> woodruff: republican. >> sorry, moderate republican, who voted against the bill, called on reed to bring it up as a free-standing measure. but reed's office ruled it out and said senator snowe, if she wanted to support this, could have done it yesterday. >> woodruff: and the argument-- i mean, were they debating the substance as they were arguing about this? >> well, the argument was almost entirely about deficit spending, and republicans accusing democrats of , you know, they had offered an alternative that were fully paid for with spending cuts. that was their sort of position. and unless democrats paid for the whole thing and cut spend, republicans seemed completely unwilling to vote for this mix of things that contained some things that they didn't really want to support. >> woodruff: so there could be an attempt to come back, but in the time being, no jobless benefits. >> for the time being, no jobless benefits.

>> woodruff: all right, lori montgomery with the "washington post," thank you very much. >> thank you. >> brown: and still to come on the newshour, mental health concerns in the gulf, shields and brooks, and socker and other power plays in brazil. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: three more american troops have been kildz in afghanistan over the last 24 hours. the report today brought the u.s. death toll for june to 49. overall, 83 nato soldiers have been killed, make, this the deadliest month of the nearly 9-year-old war. also today, the bodies of 11 men some beheaded were found in central afghanistan. police say the taliban accused them of spying. the ongoing oil spill in the gulf of mexico has fouled more of the sensitive coastline. parts of pensacola beach, florida, were closed for a second day and crude drifted into the mississippi sound as well. meanwhile, a potential storm was brewing in the western caribbean sea. coast guard admiral thad allen said it could force a-- >> about 120 hours out of the onset of

gale -force winds we will start to redough ploy the equipment from the well site and to safe venues so they can come in after the storm to reestablish production or take part in rescue activities. >> sreenivasan: at the same time b.p. said it is on target to complete a relief well by mid-august. that operation is designed to plug the damaged well and cut off the oil flow. wall street had a mixed day. a number of stocks fell after news the economy did not grow as fast in the first quarter as first believed. the dow jones lost nearly nine points to close at 10143 but the nasdaq rose six points to close at 2223. bank stocks led the nasdaq again rising on signs financial regulation reformtz will cut profits less than first feared." the kellogg company is recalling 28 million boxes of cereal, including apple jacks, corn pops

froot loops and honey smacks. people have complained of the package liners giving off a waxy smell and flavor kellogg said the potential for serious health ze lost his second round match in wimbledon today in about 75 minutes. it was the shortest match of the championships so far, coming one day after isner won the longest match of tennis in history. after the match, isnor said he was heading home. >> i'll watch sports, i'll take in the world cup. i'll, you know, go fishing. i'll do whatever, just anything away from the tennis court . >> sreenivasan: isnorwon just five games in today's entire match. >> brown: now to judy for our weekly political analysis. >> woodruff: and that is shields

and brooks, of course. the big story of the week , general stanley mcchrystal and what he and his staff said, mark about the president, and a lot of the civilian leadership. what do you make of this? >> well, i mean, it was a totally unexpected, outof the blue crisis that hit the white house , hit the administration. and in a strange way, because the president did , i think, handle it will in a deft and surefooted way, it could actually end up enhancing his strength and burnishing his credentials which needed burn as commander in chief. i think beyond, that judy, it was an example-- to me, anyway-- of -- putting in general petrade deficit a perfect answer, and a perfect replacement in the sense that he substituted someone who

is well known, well liked, well regarded, and popular for someone who is not nearly as well known as general mcchrystal and who whose policy and practices were coming under increasing criticism. so it's bought them some time. it is not the answer to the problem. but it is a -- it's a remarkable development, and i think in a strange way, the president comes out of it stronger than he went in. >> woodruff: in terms of what mcchrystal said and the people around him said, could president obama have kept him on? >> no, it became public it became a challenge to the president's authority and i think he had to do what he did and i think he handled it beautifully. let's just say, this was not a substantive problem that stanley mcchrystal are excellent relations with the white house, excellent relations with people in the state department, the people he was complaining about, excellent relations with karzai who made a bid for him stay. in his performance of his duties he did a very good job.

he just happened to shoot his mouth off in front of a reporter sometimes while drinking. the president handled it very well, did what he had to do, got petraeus in there. but i have trouble believing that getting rid of a very successful general is in any way a good thing. it's a bad thing in that he had a very effective decision-making process in kabul, and petraeus is a great general and it's a great act of service for him to really accept the demotion to do the job for the country's need. >> woodruff: but, mark, you're saying you don't think this changes anything in terms of afghanistan. >> no, i think the policy, the policy differences between them are negligible. i disagree with david on general mcchrystal. i think what -- first of all, the president had to act. he didn't have a choice. he looked unable to act in the gulf, and understandably so, to cap that well.

so he had to act here. and general mcchrystal left him no alternative. this was an act of suburb insubordination. i disagree, in the sense, judy, to me it was a terrible indictment of general mcchrystal and his closest aides, these remarks. what they reflected was, a., a sense of their own indispensibility. secondly, it reflected incredible obturks obliviousness to how those remarks were going to be received in the civilian life. i mean, i think it showed an insularity --. >> woodruff: how is that different from what david said? >> i think it's different in the sense that general mcchrystal crippled himself as a general his -- tarnished his own reputation, credentials and credibility, by -- by allowing an environment to develop around him where his star felt totally

when he said the president looked uncomfortable, and ill at ease in the presence of military brass , his fate was sealed. >> woodruff: you don't see it that way? >> i do think the president did the right thing. i think he had to get rid of him. and i think mcchrystal-- and particularly his aides who were the worst offenders , it was immature and stupid. but people in washington, especially over a beer and in paris, say stupid and immature things and complain about people and then go out in the course of the day and work with those people. to me, we're at a stake where we ignore the official duties so much and the success of those duties and we pay so much attention to the off-hour social drama, you know, i think it's unfortunate. in this case, once it became public thad to go. the larger issue is what's going to happen in afghanistan. and mark's right-- mcchrystal and petraeus are the two authors of the coin strategy, the same approach. and it's still a strategy that is in some trouble. i don't know, i thought nominating -- or appointing

petraeus was like an apology to george bush and dick cheney, an acknowledgement finally that petraeus' strategy with the surge did work which the administration was slow to knowledge--. >> woodruff: when president obama had been critical of it. >> in private i think they knew it worked. in public they can't say it. nonetheless, there are no questions there are people when think petraeus is a great general, think coin is the right strategy. afghanistan is in trouble and it's in trouble in part because the afghans don't seem to be fighting for their country as hard as the americans are fighting and it's in trouble because karzai and many other people think, well, the americans are leaving in july 2011, they're probably not going to beat the taliban and i have to make my own arrangements. there is a failure of military success, and there are doubts about american will. and those doubts, the third issue there, comes out of the divisions in the administration are we going to stay past july '11 or are we not? and those seem to be open questions within the administration.

>> woodruff: open questions. >> yeah, i think that is a real question. general petraeus derecommit to the july 2011 date this week in an interview. but at the same time, judy , if that's when it begins withdrawing , even if it's symbolic withdrawal at that point, if it continue into 2012, it becomes not only a problem for the united states, for the troops fighting there, but it becomes a political problem for barack obama running for reelection, having made that pledge. >> woodruff: the president himself made clear it was a soft date just yesterday. >> the president had said it was a soft date. he's trying to, obviously, get some wiggle room on it. politically it would be a problem if in the summer of 2012 there is not significant, positive progress, that there isn't some sense of a governable nation, that this isn't the graveyard of empires, which we've learned from alexander the great to

gengus khan and the british and russians that that's what afghanistan has been. >> woodruff: financial reform. we're gog completely change the subject. the conference committee came out with an agreement, a consensus of sorts last nit, although it was divided on party lines. they came out with something. david what, do you mang of this? is this going to address the problem that is pretty much everybody says exists in our financial sector? >> as jeffrey's segment illustrated, it has a million working people. i guess my bottom line is i think the financial regulators in this country, along with everyone else, missed the buildup to this last financial crisis, like everyone. and expecting them to be ahead of the game next time seems illusory. no one is that smart to anticipate a coming financial crash and prevent it. and a lot of that onus is being put on regulators. second, i think the imagine markets are so complicated and so dynamic, i would like to have seen a financial reform way few simple rules-- raise the caps--

reduce the amount of leverage that can be out there. maybe shrink the size of the banks. a few simple things. but this bill is whichis so complicated goes in the last -- opposite direction. asking regulators to, a., anticipate future crises, and, b., to micromanage markets in this very complicated way strikes me as -- it's a recipe for problems and experts think there's a lot of good stuff in this bill and i accept that, but it's putting a lot of faith in regulators. >> woodruff: the banks were relatively happy with it. important expected. >> i'm not sure, sdwrudy. they fought provisions in it very hard. we don't see many good things about this congress and i think this is one where leadership in the both the senate and house, chris dodd, retiring senator from connecticut, and barney frank, unretiring

democratic house chairman from massachusetts really deserve credit. it was a dodd-frank. it was an interesting pairing, even with the wind at their backs politically because they were opposing the big banks and everything else. there was enormous political and economic power to00 dilute and diminish what they were about. and i think what they've accomplished is significant. obviously, it enhances the president's hand as he goes to the g-20 in toronto, unlike his trip to copenhagen where he went without any prospect of an energy , climate-control bill to the last conference. i think he's in an enhanced position now to request, demand, insist upon similar measures by our allies. >> woodruff: i'm referring to what the markets having gone up today and the credit being given to the fact that banks felt this is better than what they could have-- >> oh, okay. >> woodruff: does this prevent another meltdown? >> does it prevent-- i think it certainly is a vast improvement.

whether in fact it does -- doesn't guarantee a meltdown. we never-- you know, we can't do that. i think there is regulation. i'm glad there's a consumer protection element to it. i'm glad there's a requirement of the volcker rule. i think they're strong and enlightened provisions. david is right. it's not a perfect piece of legislation. if we wait forward that, it will never pass. >> the leverage, you could still go super-leverage. the banks can still take a lot of risks. and some of the hedge fund guys who want a lot of these markets brought out in the open said it brings two-thirds them out in the open but then there are some holes in the regulation , so the money will go just throw into those holes, and they'll grow, and they'll become even more potentially dangerous than before. so i still think there's a lot of danger out there. >> woodruff: just quickly, what we were just talking with lori montgomery of the "washington post" about, and that is the senate not agreeing it extend unemployment benefits. does this matter in the scheme

of things right now? it certainly matters to 200,000 a people a week who will lose it 1.2 million starting losing unemployment benefits. it's a political defeat, yes, for the administration, for the democrats, but it's also an economic setback, judy. this is part recovery . i mean if sustained, consumer demand and sustained people who are in this terrible plight. republicans have obviously made a bet, and that bet is that the concern, public concern about the debt trumps teacher salaries firefighter salaries and unemployment insurance. >> we should cut deficit. on the other hand, we should not be cutting off unemployment benefits with no jobs out there. i hope what olympickia snowe is subtling goes through, they separate that out. >> woodruff: and vote on that alone. >> right. i do think the larger concern about the debt the right concern. the debate is should we be stimulating more or is it now time for a

little austeritiy? that's a legitimate intellectual debate. i'm a little more on the austerity but on the specific matter of unemployment insurance we need that. >> woodruff: we need both of you every friday and we thank you for being here. david brooks, mark shields. >> brown : now on the mental health of the citizens still coping with the impact of hurricane katrina. betty ann bowser has two reports tonight from new orleans east. it is a partnership with the jeffrey johns foundation-- robert woodses johnson foundation. >> reporter: most mornings they start lining up before dawn. members of the vietnamese community wait patiently for emergency aid outside of the mary queen of vietnam center. many are fishermen who haven't been able to catch anything since april 28.

that's when the oil spill closed most of the areas of the gulf where they earned their living. if they're lucky, they'll get a voucher from catholic charities that will buy them $100 worth of food, but there are only 25 to 30 to go around each day. for the men standing in line to accept a handout, it's a big cultural mountain to climb. celine le is the project director at the center. >> everything is on the man. you're the man. you're strong. you have to be strong. you have to be able to earn money, provide a living for your family, your wife, your children. so taking that away from a man can be very harmful to their self-esteem. >> reporter: but le says the problem she confronts every day here are much more serious than pride. among her people who number more than 25,000 statewide. >> the stress i'm pretty sure is through the roof. people here are very worried

about their future , what are they going to do, how they're going to support their family. if they can go back to the fishing industry, what are they going to do because this is all they know all their lives. some of these people have been fishermen back in the vietnam . they moved to the u.s., and this is what they know. to do. and if they can't go back, it's going to be really hard for them to adjust and go to a different industry. >> reporter: 54-year-old hue nguyen has been a fisherman for 19 years. he told us he's been trying unsuccessfully to get a job working for b.p. on the cleanup, but so far, nothing. celine le interpreted for him. >> ( translated ): i wait at home at night. >> reporter: what do you do now that you don't have money? >> ( translated ): i just wait for them to call so i can go out there and clean up and earn some money. i don't know what to do.

>> reporter: nguyen says he's sad and frustrated. he hasn't been able to send money to his family back in vietnam for nearly three months. >> ( translated ): sometimes i think at night, and it's really hard for me to sleep. i don't have a job. i don't have money. >> reporter: linda dinh's husband is also a fisherman. he heechbt been able to get work from b.p., either, and she says she is depressed. >> work the fisherman all the time. >> reporter: to complicate matters, le says even though people here need counseling, most of them won't ask for it. ... >> the population are not aware of mental health issues, pluz -- plus they don't like, "i'm going to a mental health clinic seeing a mental health doctor."

>> reporter: it's a stigma? >> it's a stigma. they try to stay away from that. "i'm not crazy. why should i go to a mental health doctor. >> reporter: even if the people here were clamoring for mental health services they would have a hard time finding it. the one doctor who practiced in the area left after katrina. and the problem is not confined to just the vietnamese community. a shortage of psychiatric professionals can be found all over southern louisiana. after the flooding, many areas of the gulf coast lost the few doctors they had, and today, nearly five years later, most of them haven't come back. >> there's a paucity of resource >> reporter: dr. howard osofsky has been concerned about the shortage of doctors for years. he heads the department of psychiatry at louisiana state university and says the need now is greater than ever. >> we're already seeing people reporting an increase in anger, an increase in anxiety .

people describing post-traumatic stress . we're seeing people who are demonstrating signs of depression, finding it harder to get going, finding themselves withdrawing more from their family, from friends. we're seeing some arguing and fighting, even among neighbors and family members. we're seeing the indications of an increase in alcohol use, perhaps abuse, and this is normal. people are really worried is have time on their hands and are sitting around. but they really are worried about their future . it is easy to have extra alcohol to try to deal with the anxiety, to try to deal with the worries. >> reporter: after the exxon "valdez" oil spill in 1989, studies showed there was also a spike in cases of alcohol abuse, as well as domestic violence and emotional distress. there were similar findings in

the louisiana after katrina. work done by the university of new orleans found the number of people with mental illness doubled after the disaster. but experts like asof ski say the oil spill is different because it's the second major life-altering event to hit the gulf in less than five years, affecting people who were just recently getting over the trauma of five years ago. >> what is happening here, which is different from other technological disasters, other disasters, is this disaster is built on the recovery , the continuing recovery from hurricanes katrina and rita and gustav. people were still recovering-- people were feeling more hopeful. and now they're hit with an additional type of what he means which is something that , at least for limited numbers of people, could be much more long lasting. they don't know if they can have

their future back. >> reporter: although osofsky and other mental health professionals are trying to bring more psychiatric counseling to the area, federal and foundation money is hard to come by in a down economy. meanwhile, they worry what a catastrophe with seemingly no end in sight is going to do to a fragile population that is still trying to recover from hurricane katrina, which hit the gulf five years ago next month. >> woodruff: finally tonight, margaret warner begins a reporting trip from brazil, a nation going for the gold on the field and off. >> warner: the world cup is ours goes the old brazilian soccer song. we're good with samba. we're good with leather. today at the

fifa world cup viewinging area on the famed copacabana beach, it was all about the leather ball. thousands thronged to watch brazil's green and yellow canrinos battle portugal, the tiny european country that colonized this vast one centuries ago. after two earlier victories, brazil has already nailed a spot in the next world cup round, so today's match was just for brag rights. still, the crowd roared and growned at each pass, each foul, each corner kick and save. >> for brazilians, every match matters. >> 22-year-old marine felipe nascimento and his sister, who san awouldn't have missed it. >> reporter: dirceu carlini felt just as intensely. >> ( translated ): we're born with a soccer ball between our feet like american are born with a basketball. >> reporter: brazilians have an enduring love affair with

sockers, playing in streets and alleys, fields and beaches and their passion has produced an unmatched five world cup crowns over past half century. where this once desperately poor latin-american company, soccer was one of the few national adheemptz made the world take notice. columnist and cultural observer arthur dapieve says soccer also served a crucial social need bridging the chasm between the mispossessed majority and the tiny european-descended elite. >> soccer provides a feeling you can share with your neighborhood no matter whether it's rich or it's poor, gave the sense of identity , and has a sense of purpose for the country. >> reporter: so it's something to be proud of. >> yes. i think so. >> reporter: there has been pride, too, in how they won. with such daring and ballet-like artistry that

brazilian soaker was dubbed jogo bonito , the beautiful game. the world first saw it in 1958 when pele led his team to its first cup win. other victories followed in 1962 1970, and after a long, dry spell, in 1994, and 2002. but today, brazil has a lot more to be proud of with its growing economy and no national debt , it's weathered the global recession more than most. the skyscrapers keep rising and more important, so does its middle class as more brazilians emerge from the reasonings of the poor. that was on the mind of sushi restaurant opener marcos pires, who hosted his friends in his apartment in the trendy leblon neighborhood. >> brazil has been growing. people used to ask us only about, so. but today, brazil isn't just respected for, so but for lots of things.

>> reporter: brazil's growing maturity has come at a price, perhaps, for its soccer game. its team traded in the risk-taking, offense-driven style of old for a cautious , strategic-minded game. to those who complain about style, one of the top players said recently, i say nothing's more beautiful than winning. winning and style were what the fans were look for today . fans like ivone and william sabona. >> what matters is to win and play beautifully. that's what brazil know knows how to do. >> reporter: but today's work man-like effort was neither as the team ground out a goalless 0-0 tie against portugal. brazil's world cup prospects aren't dimmed. monday is the next game that counts, and maybe that explains the calm look on the faces of these rio fans as they streamed home from the arena, or maybe it's the -- that these days they and their country have a lot of other endeavors they're playing to win.

>> brown: i talked with margaret a short time ago right after she filed that report from rio. well, margaret other tell us more about the growing economy, the growing confidence. how does it show itself? what do you see there? >> reporter: well, jeff, brazil really is on a role. it's not just all the luxury apartment buildings that line the beachs, or this lagoon behind me-- which rio has always had for its wealthy. it's the new or newly refurbished neighborhoods something very, very modest where the new emergeing middle class is moving. this is still a developing country. you have tens of millions living in poverty in shant shantytowns. health and education are still a challenge here. but there have been tens of millions who have come out of what they call extreme poverty in the last decade or so, and just today it was announced brazil's growth rate for the first quarter of this year-- which the u.s. is less than 3%-- was 9%, the fastest pace of

growth in 15 years. >> brown: now one key area of growth is the energy sector, and that's what you're going to be reporting on for us. tell our viewers what you'll be lobbying at. >> reporter: well, i don't know, jeff, we always think of brazil for its pioneering ethanol industry, a renewable resource. 15% of the country's energy comes from ethanol but they have been on a head of long campaign of developing their oil reserves and they have achieved already self-sufficiency in oil. so we came down here to see if the b.p. spill has caused any second thoughts because they are now on a campaign-- most of their reserves are way out at sea in incredibly deep waters, deeper than the deep water horizon rig by far. and now that they're getting ready to develop these new fields that will lie beneath the salt layer, that, in fact, will be twice as deep as the deep water horizon well. the technology doesn't really even exist or certainly hasn't

been tested to drill there, but so far at least from people we've talked to, again it's this confidence brazillians have. they seem to have confidence in their oil company and they seem to have confidence in the of the government to manage it. >> brown: and this confidence goes well beyond domestic matters, doesn't it? we've seen it in recent months over and over again on the word stage . >> reporter : that's right, jeff. president desilva recently teamed up with turkey, for example, to come up or try to come up with a way to negotiate over iran's controversial nuclear program. when washington spurned that deal, the obama administration didn't like it, brazil voted against the u.s.-backed sanctions resolution at the security council. now, that wasn't widely or universally applauded here. there were people here who accused the president of overreaching. but president lula, neither the end of his second and final term enjoys a 75% approval rating,

he's undaunted. and i think it's clear that whoever his successor is, that in this multi-polar world we see emerging, brazil is going to be a significant player. >> brown: all right, margaret, so we'll look for your pieces next queeg. if you can get people away from their world cup matches right? >> yeah, monday could be a loss , but we'll try. >> brown: margaret warner in rio thanks a lot. >> woodruff: the major developments of the day-- congressional negotiators finished the bill to make sweeping changes in financial regulations. house and senate leaders said they hope for final action by the fourth of july. the oil spill in the gulf of mexico fouled more of the coastline along florida and mississippi. and three more americans were killed in action in afghanistan, making 49 so far this month. the newshour is always aunlt. hari sreenivasan in our newsroom previews what's there.

>> mark shields and david brooks stop by the rundown, our news blog for one more thing. check back later this evening for our conversation. on art beat, jeff talks to the "new york times" book review editor about new discoveries in the archives of writer john updike. and get a jump on next week's supreme court hearings elena kagan . here's an excerpt of our conversation with marcia coyle. >> i would say probably the nomination of robert bork was the major turning point in how we have hearings today for a number of reasons. he became quite controversial because of the position he took on how he interprets the constitution, which he felt went back to the original intent of the framers , and when he did that, he didn't find a right to privacy in the constitution. and this ignited a lot of debate and discussion outside of the judiciary

hearing room. but with thomas, there was a charge of sexual harassment. and it was something that reflected on his character. but it became a very bitter sort of confirmation. >> there is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing. >> today, everything seems more highly partisan so i don't think you can just blame supreme court confirmations for that. we see it on just about every issue and so do the american people see it on just about every issue that goes into the halls across the street. >> brown: the hearings for elena kagan begin monday. watch them live from gaffe toll gavel with judy woodruff and marcia coyle on our web site and on many pbs stations. >> brown: and again to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and

afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here in silence are 10 more.

>> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online and here on monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

captioning sponsored by 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