captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. democrats say they are getting closer to passing a health care bill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, the leadership still has to win over skeptical lawmakers and resolve several sticking points, we get the latest from julie rovner of national public radio. >> lehrer: then, the back and forth about whether the state of the union address has become a political "pep rally." >> woodruff: kansas city shuts down nearly half its public schools. ray suarez interviews the

superintendent. >> closing schools and making the remaining schools much stronger academically is unquestionably the right thing to do. >> woodruff: and gwen ifill talks with historian ellen fitzpatrick about letters written to first lady jacqueline kennedy after her husband's assassination. >> there's a wonderful letter from a man who describes his three-year-old son. he said "i came home from work, my three-year-old son said daddy, they've killed the president." and he said "i'm a hard man, but i broke down and cried ." >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> what the world needs now is energy. the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change. what if that energy came from an

energy company? everyday, chevron invests in people, in ideas-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. ♪ ( laughter ) >> we are intel, sponsors of tomorrow. bank of america-- committed to helping the nation's economic recovery. >> and by bnsf railway.

and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. 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. >> lehrer: there were signs today that democrats are close to clearing the way for a vote on health care reform. "newshour" congressional correspondent kwame holman begins our coverage. >> reporter: indications of agreement came after days of deliberations and a two-hour briefing today for house

democrats. speaker nancy pelosi said the president's top health care adviser, nancy ann deparle, explained what's taking shape. >> she walked through the president's proposal. and members had opportunity to ask questions about it, express some of their priorities-- public option, public option, public option, as you can imagine. and, again, another step taking us closer to voting on quality, affordable health care for all americans. >> reporter: pelosi said there's now enough to move forward. and, across the capitol, senate majority leader harry reid also sounded hopeful. >> we're not going to set any arbitrary deadlines on what we're doing. we've made significant progress the last week. we had a very good day yesterday. we feel that this is something that we can do. it's not done yet, and that's an understatement. >> reporter: the reported

progress on a health care bill comes after closed-door meetings at the capitol that went late into the evening yesterday, between white house chief of staff rahm emanuel and democratic leaders. talks centered additional subsidies to cover lower-income americans, more medicaid money for states and how to ensure taxpayer funds don't pay for abortions. by today, democratic leaders-- including henry waxman of california-- conceded they'll have to try to pass something without anti-abortion democrats. but they said it's still possible to round up 216 votes in the house, a majority, even with republicans solidly opposed. the plan calls for the house to adopt the bill that passed the senate last december. a second bill would include the changes sought by house democrats. it would need only a simple majority in the senate, under the so-called reconciliation process. one key part of the equation will be cost. democratic leaders want the final tab to come in under $950 billion over ten years.

and senate republican leader mitch mcconnell urged democrats today to wait until the congressional budget office answers the cost question. >> democrat leaders are telling us their members have to vote on this latest version of the same bill by easter. the latest version of the same bill by easter. when are we going to find out how much that one costs? columbus day? americans aren't in any rush to pass this or any other 2,700 page bill that poses as reform but actually raises the cost of health care. >> reporter: white house officials today pulled back from demanding house action by march 18, before the president travels to asia and australia. and speaker pelosi said that timetable is merely an interesting date. >> lehrer: and for more we go to julie rovner, whose been covering the story for national public radio. julie, welcome.

>> thank you. >> lehrer: and these signs of movement are real in? >> i would think so. we were hold that in that meaning this morning with the speaker asked if members wanted to vote sooner rather than later and they resoundingly said sooner. >> lehrer: well, who are the targets? who are they working on and who's doing the work? >> well, the speaker and the house leadership is doing the work and i think everyone is the target. they need-- as we heard in the piece-- 216 votes. there are four vacancies in the house. basically there are a lot of members who have a lot of doubts about voting for the senate bill. and, of course, the house must first approve the senate bill before they can go on to that second bill that has the fixes in it. there are a lot of members... liberals don't like the senate bill, it doesn't have a public option in it which, as the speaker said, people really wanted. there are conservatives who still don't like the senate bill. both antiabortion members and pro-choice members don't like the senate bill, it was cast with this compromise that really both sides didn't like. so there's a lot from the house

democrats' point of view to really be hated in that senate bill. so the speaker has to work on everyone to get them to come around and, frankly, the house democrats don't trust the senate democrats at this point to pass that second bill. >> lehrer: is there... it was reported one time that some of the house democrats were going to demand that a majority of the senate democrats say, hey, we'll pass this if, in fact, you will pass it first. and they wanted it in writing. is that still alive? >> i don't know that they're going to demand it in writing but, yes, there was a lot of that. that's how deep this distrust has got than the house is so... the house democrats are so distrustful of the senate democrats. after all, the house has sent so many bills to the senate that the senate has been unable to act on. remember, there have been so many filibusters in the senate by the republicans, so many things that the senate has been unable to do that the house is worried that they may end up passing the senate bill and that will be the only thing that becomes law, that they won't be

able to get even without the chance of a filibuster, that the senate won't be able to act on this second bill. >> lehrer: so they get a double hit, then, politically. they vote for something they're not that comfortable with and it doesn't pass anyhow. >> well, if the house votes for the senate bill, the senate bill becomes law. >> couric: >> lehrer: i mean if the senate doesn't pass it, that's what i meant. well, what s there a general sales pitch that speaker pelosi has that works for everybody waivering house member or are they targeted to individuals? >> well, the general sales pitch, of course, at this point is that something is better than nothing. that the house at this point having passed a bill pretty much now is on record-- even those who voted no-- the house is on record as having voted for this health bill. if they end up at the end of this year with nothing having become law, then they will be this do-nothing congress. yet another congress that tried and failed to pass a major health overhaul bill. so that what the speaker keeps saying is that if this bill passes, once the public knows

what's in it and understand what is' in it, it will become more popular even though the polls now say it's pretty close split. you know for and against with a little bit more on the against side. when you poll the individual elements of the bill, those individual elements are still fairly popular. >> lehrer: so the speaker is not going to say "hey, billy bob, if you will vote for us on this, we'll get you so many paved roads." they're not making individual deals, is that right? >> well. >> lehrer: (laughs) okay. none that we know of. >> they can't make individual deals on this bill but that's not to say they can't make individual deal on other bills down the road. >> lehrer: but to get to 216, the last two or three or four are going to be very very well-known people when this is all said and done. is that not the case? >> well, it certainly was in the senate. it might not be the case in the house. so far they've managed to keep this pretty quiet but, yes, certainly on something like this abortion issue where they're dealing with five or six fairly well-known people, that may be the case.

>> lehrer: now, the timetable, they say they're not going to make march 18 which is just a week from today. forget that. what happens? >> they were never going to make march 18. that was when the president is leafing and that was something the that the president's spokesman threw out there. >> lehrer: going to thailand and australia and wherever. >> the real deadline they would like to make is when they leave for their spring break, which is the following week. and that's possible. no one is quite saying that it's likely but i think that's a possibility. that's what they're working towards, perhaps unveil this bill as soon as tomorrow. there's talk of getting it to the house budget committee and the house rules committee, the two committees that have to act early next week, perhaps a vote in the house as early as next weekend. so eight or nine days from today giving the senate another week to act. that would be optimistic but i think possible. >> lehrer: okay. we'll see what happens. julie, thank you again. >> woodruff: now, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our

newsroom. >> sreenivasan: home foreclosures may be easing up. the number of households facing foreclosure rose by 6% last month. but the private firm realty-trac said that was the smallest increase in four years. on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained 44 points to close above 10,611. the nasdaq rose nine points to close at 2368. in iraq, partial results from sunday's national elections showed prime minister nouri al maliki's party running neck and neck with challenger iyad allawi. maliki's followers led in two southern provinces-- in a blow to hard-line religious shi-ites. allawi's secular shi-ite group was ahead in two provinces in the north with the backing of sunnis. at the same time, allawi's coalition charged widespread fraud in the vote. afghan president hamid karzai said today he does not want any proxy wars fought on his soil between the u.s. and iran, or anyone else. this week, u.s. defense secretary defense robert gates accused iran of backing the taliban, while it seeks closer ties with the afghan government.

today, in abu dhabi, gates said again iran is "playing a double game." but he also said it is not a serious threat, yet. >> at this point, the level of their effort is not a major problem for us. level of support for taliban so far as best we can tell has been pretty limited. just trying to express hope it wouldn't get any worse than that. >> sreenivasan: iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad has rejected gates' criticism. he accuses the u.s. of playing both sides. a series of powerful aftershocks shook chile again as the new president sebastian pinera was sworn in. the strongest of the quakes measured 6.9 and sent people scrambling into the streets. pinera evacuated the congressional building in valparaiso, where he was sworn in. and he urged coastal residents to head for higher ground in case of tsunamis. the alert was lifted later. chile is still recovering from

last month's 8.8 magnitude earthquake. vice president biden made a bid to calm tensions with israel today before ending his three- day visit there. his trip was overshadowed by word that israel will expand settlements on disputed lands in east jerusalem. the vice president had condemned the announcement. today, at tel aviv university, biden played up u.s. ties to israel, and he said, "sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth." >> i realize this is a very touchy subject in israel as well as in my own country but because that decision in my view undermined the trust required for productive negotiations, i, at the request of president obama, condemned it immediately and unequivocally. >> sreenivasan: palestinian president mahmoud abbas agreed this week to indirect talks with the israelis. arab leaders backed the move, but the head of the arab league said today the talks are off. he blamed the israeli housing plans. >> we were ready, we were ready

to enter into it... into those negotiations, and we said that in very clear terms, in the statement of position which was announced on the 2nd of march. then we were faced with what israel has done. now israel bears the responsibility, not the arab side but israel bears the responsibility. >> sreenivasan: in washington... the state department said it has no information that the planned talks are in trouble. major street clashes rocked athens, greece today. it was the second nationwide strike against the government in a week. police said more than 20,000 workers marched through the city, protesting cuts in civil servant pay, tax hikes and a pension freeze. the march turned violent when protesters threw stones, and riot police fired back with tear gas. the strike grounded flights, closed schools, and left hospitals with only emergency staff on hand. the house today blocked efforts to reopen an ethics investigation involving former congressman eric massa. the new york democrat resigned monday over allegations that he sexually harassed male

employees. reports today said speaker nancy pelosi's office was told last october about massa's behavior. with that, minority leader john boehner demanded a probe into what and when house democratic leaders knew about the allegations. the house refused, on a near- unanimous vote. also today... senator john ensign faced new questions about steering lobbying jobs to the husband of a one-time mistress. the new york times reported e- mail messages show ensign tried to assist his former administrative aide. federal law bans staffers from lobbying congress within a year after leaving government. former pro football defensive great merlin olsen died early today outside los angeles. he had a form of lung cancer. olsen was a member of the los angeles rams' "fearsome foursome" in the 1960s, and made the "hall of fame". later, he starred in several television series, including "father murphy" and "little

house on the prairie." merlin olsen was 69 years old. 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. but for now... back to judy... >> woodruff: now, to the clash between the president and the supreme court. we begin with some background. it began in january when the u.s. supreme court broke with precedent on campaign finance regulations. by five to four, the court said corporations and labor unions should be able to spend freely in elections. >> with all due deference to separation of powers... >> woodruff: less than a week later, president obama also broke with tradition. he denounced the decision during his state of the union address. >> ...last week, the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations-- to spend without limit in our elections. >> woodruff: that got a rousing ovation, especially from democrats.

the six supreme court justices who were present remained seated and impassive. all except justice samuel alito, he shook his head, and appeared to be saying "not true" as the president continued. but the next morning, vice president biden defended mr. obama's criticism of the court, on a.b.c.'s "good morning america." >> the president didn't question the integrity of the court. he questioned the judgment of it. >> woodruff: and there things remained for nearly two months until tuesday. that's when chief justice john roberts voiced his own concerns to law students at the university of alabama. >> the image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the supreme court, cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless i think is very troubling, and it does cause you

to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there. to an extent, the state of the union degenerated into a political pep rally. i'm not sure why we're there. >> woodruff: in response today, white house press secretary robert gibbs again criticized the campaign finance decision. >> the president disagreed, and polls show 80% of the country disagree with that decision. the president would have said that in that room had they been sitting in that row, or not been there at all. >> woodruff: a rare instance of out-in-the-open tension between these two national institutions- - the white house and the supreme court. and to examine that tension, we are joined now by tom goldstein, a lawyer who has argued many cases before the supreme court, he's also the founder of scotusblog.com. and jeff shesol, author of the upcoming book, "supreme power: franklin roosevelt vs. the

supreme court," he's also a former speechwriter for president bill clinton. thank you both, gentlemen, for being with us. jeff shesol, to you first. how rare is it for a justice to speak out in the way that justice roberts did this week? >> it's extremely rare. you actually have to go all the way back to the 1930s in the middle of the court-packing fight with president roosevelt to find a chief justice, or really any justice, speaking out so strikingly against the other branches of government. in the middle of that court-packing fight, chief justice charles evans hughes actually not only took a couple of swipes at the president obliquely in a couple of speaks but he also wrote an open letter to the leader of the senate opposition in in the middle of the court packing fight. and in that letter took apart the president's proposal point by point by point. it had a devastating affect. and then he retreated into silence. and that's generally where most

chief justices stay: in silence. so this was a real break from precedent. >> woodruff: tom goldstein, if it's a break from precedent, what about just to see this sort of a disagreement between the white house and the high court? >> well, it's very rare for these disagreements which actually exist all the time, to break out into the open. i don't think john roberts would say that he was actually attacking the president. he's saying, essentiallying we got invited to this thing, we have to be really polite and it's turned into a political pep rally and we've been put on the opposing team. so say what you want, criticize us if you will, but maybe we won't sit there for it. >> woodruff: well, what is the thinking in the legal community about the decision of the president to take on this particular decision by the court with the justices sitting right there in front of him. >> well, the decision is very controversial, as your piece mentioned, it does reverse a significant amount of prior precedent and so the president is perfectly within his rights to criticize it.

there is some dispute about whether the criticism was actually entirely accurate during the state of the union. and i think that may have something to do with the justices' reaction, particularly justice alito's reaction. if you're really going to go after them, make sure you get every detail right. >> woodruff: so jeff shesol, some people have said to me, well, presidents and supreme courts have disagreements all the time. why is this instance different? >> well, i think that instance is different for a couple of reasons, and one is that i think you have to put yourself back about a month ago to the context of the state of the union address. the decision had just come down and it was not the first decision to come from this court and from a narrow majority of this court that indicated an eagerness to really overturn many decades of precedent and to essentially stand in opposition to the goals if not directly yet the policies of this administration. so i think that there is an

opposition set in place now that you have seen periodically over american history. what's remarkable about this moment in particular is that both branches now-- both the executive branch and the judiciary-- have decided to make this an open discussion. and that is rare, indeed, as we described earlier. >> woodruff: tom goldstein, is the fear that damage is done to one institution or the other? and if so, which one? or both? >> well, i think that's the chief justice' concern. and that is if you have the justices sitting there mute, really being part of a political fight, if the president is able to paint the supreme court as kind of a tool of corporations or maybe a tool of conservative interests, then the justices... the impression of them in the broader public as neutral arbiters, what the chief calls an umpire, is kind of lost. their credibility-- which is all that they have, really, in terms of getting their decisions enforced and followed and respected by the country.

>> woodruff: what we're really talking about, here, is the president wasn't taking on the whole court, he was taking on the five justices who voted the way he didn't think they should have. >> that's exactly right. he believes that that narrow majority on the court has kind of captured it and is taking in the the wrong direction. he's certainly entitled to that view. but the court... i think the members of the court are very concerned to be thrust so directly into the political process. you know, the congress and the president are used to going back and forth at each other, but putting the supreme court in the first two rows of the state of the union makes it a very awkward situation. >> woodruff: jeff shesol... go ahead. >> thanks. i would just add to what tom said that it's actually interesting, and i think most surprising thing to happen over these past weeks, is the chief justice's decision to reengage this political controversy. i agree with what tom said. they're not used to being drawn into this. they don't usually engage in these kind of public discussions. but this has been kind of a quiet issue for the last month since the discussion died down

after justice alito's demonstration there in the house chamber. the chief justice made a decision-- we have to assume it was a decision, he didn't say this by accident-- to get back into this. and that, i think, is a bit surprising given what tom said. >> woodruff: where, jeff shesol, do you come down, though, on this question of damage? does this have the potential to do damage to the institution of the court? >> i think it does, absolutely. i think that as tom said, so much of the authority of the supreme court flows from the fact that it is seen as being above politics. now, of course, we all understand-- much more so now than in the 1930s-- that justices are political, that they are ideological, and that often that influences their decisions. we're not surprised by this. but we don't like to think about it very much. we don't really like to believe that. we don't do like to hold on to the idea that when they put on those black robes that they separate themselves from the political fray. and so to see chief justice

roberts stepping back into it with a comment like this-- which is actually quite similar to some comments that justice thomas made following the state of the union address a few weeks ago-- is in itself a surprising thing. and i think it's very risky for the court. i think it does risk the integrity of the court for the very reasons that that tom described. >> woodruff: do you agree it's surprising? >> it's surprising. i will say he was answering a law student's question. i don't know that he was conscious of the fact that there would be video. i do think that he had made a judgment. they likely have talked about it. it wouldn't be surprising if this coming state of the union we were back down to one or zero justices. >> woodruff: how much difference does it make whether the justices continue this tradition of appearing, being present at the state of the union. >> interestingly, it's not so much of a tradition. we have only had spoken state of the union addresses since about the... 1913 or so. around 2000 to 2005 there was only one justice. in 2000 there were none.

it was in the late clinton administration and then again more recently since john roberts has been the chief that we've had the justices there. so if they were to disappear, i don't think anyone would take notice. if it's truly going to be a political event, i think they'll make the judgment that they're not a political institution, they probably shouldn't be there. >> i would add, though, that in 1937 in the middle of the supreme court fight, on the eve of the supreme court fight, president roosevelt made a very direct attack on the court in the state of the union address. this had actually been leaked to the justices in advance of the state of the union address and all nine boycotted the speech, which was very disappointing to president roosevelt. he was very eager to deliver those lines with the justices sitting in front of him. >> woodruff: well, we don't know what is going to come next in this particular episode, but i know we're all going to be watching at next year's state of the union to see which, if any justices, show up. jeff shesol, thank you, tom goldstein, thank you. >> lehrer: still to come on the

"newshour": closing half of kansas city's schools and writing to the first lady. but first, this is pledge week on public television. we're taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. >> thanks you for watching tonight's edition of "the newshour." hello, i'm david ginder with patrice pasquel. >> a program of the "pbs newshour's" calibre doesn't just happen. it takes vision, talent, planning-and money. the pbs newshour relies on financial support in part from people like you. that's because weta is public television-we're supported by the very people who watch and appreciate our programs, so that's why we're asking you to take a moment right now to go to the phone and make that pledge of support. join the ranks of members all across our community who consider weta to be an important part of their lives. just call the number on your screen or pledge online at weta.org patrice? >> thanks, david. we know that the news hour is an

important news source for you and so do our older members because during this break, all pledges of $35 or more will be matched dollar for dollar thanks to current members of weta. call the number on your screen and take advantage of this very special incentive. you'll increase the value of your contribution, which will further benefit the pbs newshour and all the programs you value here on weta. don't wait, call now. >> when you do make that call, we have some very special thank you gifts. as you know, when you pledge $75 or more, you can ask for the pbs news hour ceramic mug. >> for a $100 donation, you can ask for the pbs newshour h2go stainless steel water bottle. it will last a good long while, just like the program. >> with your pledge of $200, we'll send you an autogrpahed copy of hot, flat and crowded by thomas l. friedman.

david? >> if you are already an annul supporter of weta - thank you. because you have invested in the pbs newshour, you have helped secure its place in our broadcast schedule. perhaps you might consider making an additional gift - at any level - to show your appreciation. many of our friends give several times a year to support weta because they understand that the more financail support we have, the more work we are able to do on your behalf. of when you pledge $35 or more and become a new member of weta, you receive five gifts, a one year subscription to the newsweek magazine, a subscription to the weta magazine, and a lapel pin. >> we have the match in effect, and that's very important, but new members are the life flood

of weta. as people move in and out of the community, we have to constantly replenish our membership base. people often speak of how transient the d.c. metropolitan area is -- it's simply a fact of life. but receiving new memberships on a regular basis, helps our family of members stay stable. that's why your new member pledge is so important. when you call the number on your screen and become a new member, you will help keep weta strong and healthy for another year of great programs. don't wait any longer. join our family right now. >> weta is here to serve you because of membership support. over 60% of our operating budget comes from individual contributions. your financial support makes a difference in the "type" and "quality" of the programs we're able to offer on weta. so judge for yourself. think about the programs you enjoy here. have we earned your support by presenting superior television? when you consider the facts, i think you'll say we've succeeded, so help us continue to succeed and continue to bring you great programs. call the number on your screen with a membership contribution. be one of the distinctive individuals who values and

supports public television, or pledge online at weta.org. patrice? >> thanks. it's so easy to get involved right now. again, we have the match in place where $35 or more will be matched dollar for dollar. that's an extra good reason to support the news hour right now. why do it? you value the news hour. you appreciate having this news source for you. it's expanding and innovating. you know how innovative it is on the website too, so get involved right now. >> membership support is a critical cornerstone of the pbs newshour's ongoing health, and we urge you to call and become a supporting member of weta right now. if you have called, thank you.

if you haven't, call the number on your screen or log on to weta.org, and thank you. >> lehrer: now, drastic measures for the public schools in kansas city. ray suarez has the story. >> we must make sacrifices. >> suarez: in a five-to-four vote last night, the kansas city, missouri school board decided to close 29 of the district's 61 schools to stave off bankruptcy. the system will also lay off 700 employees, including about 285 teachers. emotions flared in the crowd of more than 200 people. some pleaded to keep schools open, and others said the closings were overdue. >> buildings don't count, children do. >> choosing not to choose is no longer an option and this district for too long has chosen

not to choose. >> suarez: councilwoman sharon sanders brooks, felt her inner city district was unfairly targeted. >> this intentional continuation of the blighting of the urban core is scandalous and shameful. ( applause ) >> reporter: early today, at a news conference school superintendent john covington acknowledged it was painful, but he said it had to be done. >> it has been a difficult and closing schools and making the remaining schools much stronger academically is unquestionably the right thing to do. we were operating far too many schools. >> suarez:enrollment in the city's public schools has fallen by half to just 17,400 students in the past ten years. overall, the schools are now less than half full. still, many parents complained their children will now have to travel much farther to get to a school. >> i'm really sad. it's a great school, my son has had a lot of success here. it's a great learning environment. >> reporter: the closings take effect at the start of the new

academic year, this fall. >> suarez: and for more about this decision, we're joined by john covington, the superintendent of the kansas city school district. superintendent how did your city come to this pass? how did it get to a point where the cuts had to be so drastic? >> ray, over the past several years, the kansas city, missouri, school district has been declining enrollment school system. approximately 20 years ago we had 75,000 students. approximately ten years ago we had 35,000 students . enrollment continued to decline and we're now down to less than 18,000. and as a result of that, we're still operating a total of 61 schools, which is far too many schools for the number of students that we have enrolled in the district. >> suarez: kansas city has roughly the same number of people that it had in 1960 when your school district was at its enrollment height.

where are all those kids? where have they gone? >> well, in 1995, the united states supreme court overturned the desegregation case and as a result of that, we lost close to 8,000 students, i think. and then in the latter part of the '90s, the missouri state legislature authorized charter schools which also caused several students and their families to leave the school district. and just recently, in 2007, there was an annexation by the independent school district that took close to 3,000 students. >> suarez: at the same time, is there less support for urban school systems from your state government? we know that a lot of state governments are underunder pressure getting declining revenues have you seen the support that you get from other places drying up? >> well, i had the privilege of meeting with our state

commissioner dr. chris nicastro two days ago and unfortunately, during that meeting she told me that school districts in the state of missouri should also expect pro ration, which means that we are going to be experiencing a reduction in additional revenue that we'd normally get from the state. >> and you heard a mother in n our tape report complaining that her son was going to have to travel fartherrer to go to school. is that going to be a more common problem in kansas city now? are there going to be some neighborhoods where the local elementary school or high school is some distance away from where a family lives? >> in most cases, that won't be the case, we took that into consideration when we identified the schools that we targeted for closure. the average riding time for students is somewhere between 35 minutes or so. in most cases in the schools

that we closed those students will be going to schools that are close to their homes. >> suarez: let's talk a little bit about the neighborhoods that have been affected in this way. a local public school is one of the central institutions of a neighborhood. is it tough to bring a neighborhood back if it doesn't have a local public school? >> in many cases that's very difficult. you indicated earlier that it was a painful decision that the board had to make. it certainly was. it was a painful recommendation that i had to make as the superintendent of schools. however, when you consider the fact that not only are we draining our... spreading ourselves much too thin and unnecessarily draining the financial resources of the school district, when you consider the fact that 75% of our schools have 25% of the students or less who are perform ing at proficiency, meaning that they are meeting

the state mandate on the state accountability test, that is shameful within itself. and as a result of that, we need to divert revenue and human resources wherever we can to make sure that we are improving the quality of education in all of our schools in kansas city for children . >> suarez: you've told parents how hard this decision was to make. is there any up side? will the kansas city schools that are now bigger also have the potential to be better schools? >> well, in most cases our schools will be bigger. but they won't be much bigger, i think , prior to the recommendation 60% of our elementary schools were at capacity. 40% of the middle schools were at capacity. and less than 40% of our high schools were at capacity. now, as a result of the closing of schools and consolidation, that will change. we'll be using a lot more capacity now than what we were

prior to the closing of schools. but the overall goal is to make sure that the quality of education that's afforded to each and every child by being better stewards of the district's financial resources, using those resources financially and the human resources as well in ways that make sense to provide the best possible education for kids. >> suarez: so in short, you'll be a smaller district, smaller number of schools, smaller number of teachers but you hope also one less you will haver in to believe bankruptcy, sir? >> oh, absolutely. before this plan we were facing a $50 million shortfall. and as a result of the recommendation that i made and as a result of the board approving the recommendation of closing these schools and reducing the amount of employees that we have, we will now break even. >> suarez: superintendent, thanks for joining us. >> thank you so much for having me.

>> woodruff: finally tonight, a look back at a treasure trove of notes from a nation in mourning. gwen ifill has our book conversation. >> ifill: letters, scribbled, handwritten, committed to paper. 1.5 million of them. that's how many letters of condolence jacqueline kennedy received in the months after her husband's shocking 1963 assassination. now, nearly half a century since john f. kennedy's death, i historian ellen fitzpatrick tells the story behind that outpouring of grief in her new book "letters to jackie, condolences from a grieving nation." and ellen fitzpatrick joins us now. welcome back to the newshour, good to see you. >> thank you, gwen, good to see you. >> ifill: one of the things that remains about that bad day in 1963 is we all remember where we were. i want to start by asking where were you? >> i was actualfully the sixth grade and john f. kennedy had come to my hometown just less

than a month beforehand. >> ifill: which was where? >> amherst, massachusetts. he came to dedicate the robert frost library at amherst college. and i woke up with great excitement that day and walked into town and i saw the first american president i had ever seen. i was tremendously excited about that and then less than a month later i was having a tour of the school library with my classmates and we heard it on a radio. and i remember instantly believing it because my parents in the morning had been talking about the climate in texas and the hostility to president kennedy. >> ifill: what made you decide to find these letters and to read all of these letters and to compile them? >> i actually stumbled across this collection. i was doing research on another book. and what i was trying to get at was how americans in the moment viewed john f. kennedy. it seemed to me that in the decades since his death, there's been so much historical revisionism-- much of it

appropriate-- that dismantled the hague i don't gofy that grew up around him and the immediate aftermath of his assassination. but it became increasingly difficult for students, for younger people, even of my own generation to recover that moment, the kind of idealism and faith that people had and the way that president kennedy was viewed in his time. so i was thinking, how can i recapture this? and i went into the archives, i asked the archivist. term condolence letters. i remembered mrs. kennedy thanking the public. we s.a.t. around in our living room and watched her two and a half minute talk on television in january of 1964. and i said "what about those condolence letters? have you got any of those?" and the archivist said most of them had been destroyed by the national archives but that a sample had been kept. and i said, "oh, well could i see a couple of boxes ?" and he brought them up. the first letter i read was from a family of eskimos writing

about their response to the death of the president. and from there every corner of the nation, every person of every background and belief was represented. >> ifill: reading this, i was struck by how many people were unified around their television. that's their memory of this. not only hearing about it but watching the ceremonies that followed. was that one of the many themes? it seemed our first national shared moment. >> i think what was compelling about the television as a variable in this whole story was the level of intimacy that people felt about the kennedy family and about president kennedy. if you think about it, this was baby boom generation, raising their many young children and the aftermath of world war ii. and they very strongly identified with this young cup until the white house who lad the youngest children in the white house in the 20th century. and so there was a sense that

they followed the kennedys very closely. they were very photogenic and they learned about them in a way that we might not have learned about previous presidential families. >> ifill: let me ask you to read some of the passages in the book. i was struck by a letter that came from the great grandson of john garfield, the former president who was assassinated in 1881. >> his great grandson wrote to mrs. kennedy in november of 1963 just after the assassination. and he says "only now have i come to have some realization of the great personal loss which grandmother garfield felt at the time of her husband's death. no longer is it only an isolated fact in history. assassination is merely a dry euphemism which applies to the outright murder of so prominent a person. the terminology does not lessen the pain of those who are involved at the time. this has been a personal loss to us all."

>> ifill: other people took it far more personally. they didn't have to be the children or grandchildren or great grandchildren of presidents. a lot of widows and widowers also wrote to jacqueline kennedy, aoeu phiing with the plight she found herself in. >> yes, and this letter from a man in oklahoma city describes his response to seeing mrs. kennedy in the midst of her loss. "mrs. kennedy, i'm just an old 73-year-old man who lost his wife in 1963 and i can feel the sorrow you are going through. my wife died in my arms, as your husband died in your arms. and when i watched you on television as you walked behind that flag-draped coffin, i cried my eyes out." >> ifill: and even children spoke up and wrote her and wrote to john-john and to caroline. but in one case there was a 12-year-old boy who sent his picture and his name was monroe young.

>> he did. and he wrote and said "in 1962, september 23, some mean man killed my daddy, too, here in dallas. my daddy was a soldier. santa claus didn't get my letter. i hope he will get my letter, i want a bicycle. when you write him, tell him my name, monroe young, jr., iii, dallas, texas." >> ifill: one of the interesting things you did in this book you tracked down, you verified these letter writers. you went and talked to their families or talked to them. let's start with monroe young. what's his story. >> he died very young, unfortunately, but he did have two children. and they're alive today and they were incredibly moved to hear that this letter existed. the most extraordinary dimension of the project for me as a historian-- because we're so often working on people who we don't really ever have any contact with-- was to pick up

the phone and call someone and say "i've just read a letter that i think your mother or your father wrote to jacqueline kennedy in 1963." >> ifill: were they aware of it? : in most cases they weren't. and many felt that it was a voice beyond the grave because often the parents talked about their children. there's a wonderful letter from a man who describes his three-year-old son. he said "i came home from work, my three-year-old son said daddy, they've killed the president." and he said "i'm a hard man, but i broke down and cried." well, i talked to the son who's now nearing 50 years old and he was extremely moved to hear his father describing him as a three-year-old telling this story. >> ifill: as a historian, what did you take away after having gone inside kind of the hearts and minds of so many people who were grieving all at once?

>> when you read these letters and you see the incredible eloquence of the american people, their decency, their compassion, their concern, their patriotism, their worries about the country, no matter what their race, their religion, their political belief, it is all very much in evidence in these letters and it was very, very moving and to me very reassuring. >> ifill: the book is "letters to jackie, condolences from a grieving nation." ellen fitzpatrick, thank you for taking us there. >> thank you, gwen. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: democratic leaders said they're getting closer to setting up votes on health care reform. home foreclosures rose again in february, but by the smallest amount in four years. and partial results in the iraqi elections showed prime minister al-maliki's party running neck and neck with a challenger. the "newshour" is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari? >> sreenivasan: we've entered the latest foreclosure numbers into our "patchwork nation" map you can see which parts of the

country are most affected county by county. ray suarez blogs about the politics of the immigration reform debate, that's on the "rundown." you can read more of the original letters to jacqueline kennedy after her husband's death. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.o every business day, bank of america lends nearly $3 billion to individuals, institutions, schools, organizations and businesses in every corner of the economy.

america-- growing stronger everyday. when someone you count on is not responsive, bad things could happen. grant thornton believes it's important to be responsive, through direct client access to our partners. grant thornton. >> chevron. this is the power of human energy.

>> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. 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 >> thank you for joining us for another evening of "the pbs newshour."

>> hello, i'm david ginder with patrice pasquel. >> we are taking just a few minutes right now to ask you to do something very important-financially support the pbs newshour and all of the public affairs programs you enjoy right here on weta. no matter what's happening in our world, the pbs newshour is sure to cover the stories of the day in an in-depth, informative manner that allows you to understand the complexities of our lives. it takes a lot of talent and commitment, but they do it everyday, just for you, and, you can feel especially proud that the pbs newshour is produced right here at weta. this great programming effort is made possible by membership support. weta and the pbs newshour depend on you to keep us on the air every day -- every year. it's no easy task, but we can do it with your help. go to your telephone and call the number on your screen to make your pledge, or pledge online at weta.org. >> when you watch pbs, the world

comes to your doorstep. history comes to life, mysteries unfold and the arts come home. when you support pbs, your gift helps everyone from all walks of life explore the wonders of the world. simply call the number on your screen. you can give by check or credit card. it's that easy. please, support your pbs station today. thank you. >> we are so proud to be the place that helps you to explore and learn about the world. >> when you do make that call, we have some very special thank you gifts. >> when you pledge $75 or more, you can ask for the pbs newshour ceramic mug. again, it has a great new logo for the news hour. >> for a $100 donation, you can ask for the pbs newshour h2go stainless steel water bottle. it will last a great long time. >> with your pledge of $200, we'll send you an autogrpahed copy of hot, flat and crowded 2.0 by thomas l. friedman. the new york time's columnist.

>> throughout the washington metropolitan area tonight, people are tuning in to the pbs newshour for an intelligent recap of the day's events, but many of these viewers are not yet supporting members of weta. if you're among the viewers who enjoy the news and public affairs programs on weta, and you're still not among those who support weta, now is the time to call the number on your screen. your support will help us bring you the best news and public affairs programs on television. that's what we do here. david? >> your contribution to weta s much more than financial support. it is a gift of the world to all people in the community. it helps us continue to bring all the insights, discoveries, controversies, cultures, excitement, and entertainment the world has to offer to our community. without your contribution, this world is inaccessible, along with all the enrichment it brings. make your gift now, and help us ensure that everyone in this community has access to the world of ideas weta provides.

patrice? >> i think that's a great point. often times we assume that people will only watch certain programs, but pbs will challenge you. >> programs like the pbs newshour reflect the values that weta holds in high esteem. programs like this are honest and of high quality -- programs like this enrich lives -- programs like this elevate the impact that television can have in our community. we know that we can provide and reenforce the value of lifelong learning. if a community resource like weta fits in with your values, then help make sure that it continues to grow and thrive. you can do that by dialing the number on your screen and becoming a member or making a pledge to rejoin for another year. it's easy. >> during these membership drives, we ask loyal viewers, like you, to support the quality programs you've come to enjoy on weta. it's really a modest request if you consider the facts. personal contributions are the single largest source of revenue for weta's local operating budget each year.

your pledge allows weta to develop new programs, acquire continuing series for broadcast, and support this organization's technical and administrative base. without your pledge of financial support, weta wouldn't be able to do what we do best, provide great television. your pledge is a critical cornerstone of weta's financial picture, so don't wait a moment longer. help weta grow and thrive. call the number on your screen with a pledge of $35, $100 or $175 dollars right now. patrice? >> that's right. it's so easy to do. i say that because i'm a member. david is too. >> if you're already a contributor to weta, please know how much we appreciate your support. it is because of you that we are not only able to sustain this service but also to continue to grow. the pbs newshour is a perfect example of a program - due to membership support - that has grown and matured into an important part of your day. thank you for making this possible, and if you have not

yet taken that step to support weta, then do it now by calling the number on your screen or logging on to weta.org, and it's so simple to do. you will feel great about it. david and i want to thank you for your support. and we want to move on to the next program hoping that you are already a member and supporter. thank you.

vo:geico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.