captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight... >> any one, any law is going to get a fair and square deal with me. >> woodruff: president trump's supreme court pick is grilled by senate judiciary committee democrats during the second day of his confirmation hearing. then, president trump lobbies republican members of congress to vote for the revised health care replacement bill, warning them their re-election is at risk. and, a denver community focuses on all aspects of early education to give kids a better start. >> healthy food is foundational to overall health and well- being. it's a very important component to helping kids to grow up, pay

attention in class, you know, be strong and active. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> it's hard not to feel pride as a citizen of this country when we're in a place like this. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.

thank you. >> woodruff: it's been an all- day interrogation for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, at his senate confirmation hearing. the federal appeals judge fended off democrats' efforts today to ferret out his views on hot- button issues. he also worked to show independence from the man who picked him, under friendly questioning from republican lindsey graham. >> had you ever met president trump personally? >> not until my interview. >> in that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule roe vs wade? >> no, senator. >> what would you have done if he had asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. it's not what judges do. they don't do it at that end of pennsylvania avenue, and they shouldn't do it at this end either, respectfully. >> woodruff: we'll have

extensive excerpts from and analysis of today's hearing later in the program. let's go to the other big story of this day, a full-court press by the president and the speaker of the house, paul ryan, to pass a new health care bill that would replace major components of the current law, the affordable care act, known as obamacare. time is ticking before a crucial vote in the house on thursday, and republicans know there may not be any democrats who will support it then. lisa desjardins reports from capitol hill. >> desjardins: witness the art of trying to close the deal. >> do you have the votes? >> i think so. >> desjardins: president trump at the capitol, pushing for votes on the g.o.p. health care bill, telling members privately their jobs are at risk if they don't pass a repeal bill. white house spokesman sean spicer summed up the argument later. >> yeah, i think there's going to be a price to be paid-- and it's with their own voters.

he's going to make sure the >> desjardins: as the white house pushes, g.o.p. leaders at the capitol are sounding more enthusiastic. >> i just got to say, editorial, the president just came here and knocked the ball out of the park. he knocked the cover off the ball. this is a big moment and i think our members are beginning to appreciate just what kind of rendezvous with destiny we have right here. >> desjardins: but destiny requires votes. to win them, speaker ryan and his team did more than invite a president, they changed their bill. adding 22 pages of policy amendments last night, geared to win key groups. for conservatives, some medicaid changes, like letting states add a work requirement for the program. and giving states the option of a block grant medicaid payment, that would likely cut the program. finally a new limit from republicans: no new states could join the medicaid expansion. add to that, again, for conservatives, faster tax cuts. this new version would repeal of

all obamacare taxes immediately instead of next year. but those changes did not go far enough for some in the conservative "freedom caucus," like ohio's jim jordan >> congratulations on the new bill. >> wasn't as good as we hoped. >> desjardins: he is still a hard "no," as the freedom caucus seems split. this is why last night's changes also offer something to a different group: moderates. for them, republicans added roughly $85 billion in tax deductions for health care, with the idea that the senate will target that money more to seniors. as a result, representative tom macarthur of new jersey is now a yes. >> the speaker, the majority leader of the senate and the president have all agreed that they will publicly make it clear that's the only purpose for which they'll support the use of the $85 billion that we put in to the bill. >> desjardins: but it's close-- freshman dan donovan is still thinking. >> i'm not saying yet. >> desjardins: it's close enough that g.o.p. leaders are looking

for votes from small groups, like members from upstate new york. last night, republicans added a provision saying billions in county medicaid costs must be picked up by new york state. representative chris collins pushed the idea. >> it shifts the burden from the local tax payer back to the state government is how its handled in every other state in the nation. >> desjardins: but new york democrat joe crowley balked: >> this will significantly hurt individuals in new york who could face a multi billion dollar medicaid short fall if amendment included. >> desjardins: another key new york democrat, senate minority democratic leader chuck schumer, railed against the bill and aimed squarely down pennsylvania avenue. >> president trump who has tried to put his name on nearly everything in his career-- ties, steaks, water-- doesn't want his name on this bill. well the president himself is here on the hill today to sell

the bill to house republicans. make no mistake this is trump care. >> desjardins: democrats hope this health care vote sinks some of these republicans in two years. and, the president in four. but mr. president trump is selling the opposite message, >> there will be adjustments made, but i think we will get the vote on thursday. it is very close at this hour. tomorrow could be a key day. house leadership expects an updated score from the congressional budget office on their bill. remember, initial conclusions from the cbo on the first bill came up with the forecast that 24 million americans fewer would have insurance under the house g.o.p. plan. we'll see if the changes affect that conclusion. judy? >> christa: lisa, that would be interesting if the congressional budget office came out with a different analysis. also striking today the president's warning to lawmakers that they could lose their seats, as you were reporting.

how close is -- do the white house and the republican leaders on the hill think this is? >> i said, is it close? they said, yes, absolutely. we know it's close. we're pushing to that thursday vote. wets let's talk about more concrete numbers. essentially house republicans could lose 21 of their members, maybe 22 and still get it across the finish line. i spoke to some members of the freedom caucus like thomasy. he told me his personal count has 30, way more than the 21. it's very fluid. are those hard nose or not, very difficult to say. it's incredibly close if not leaking away from the direction house speaker ryan wants it to go. >> christa: as you reported this afternoon, lisa, the white house called in more moderate republicans to try to persuade them. what are the arguments they're using with them? >> this is probably the full-court press. they want those moderate votes.

they are telling those moderates that they believe this whole plan will, in fact, make health care better for those in their district by bringing down premium, offering more choices. it's the core republican argument we've seen, but they have to stare straight in the face of these moderates who have heavy medicaid populations and they are concerned about what will happen to them. charlie dent is one of those moderate members concerned about medicaid. he walked out of that office. he says he still has the same reservations he had going in. >> christa: lee centennial park finally, if they are able to get it through the house, what are the early indications in the senate? >> there's trouble there too, judy. rand paul and mike lee say they are noes on this exact bill. mike lee restated his emphatic opposition in the past day. and they can't lose any more republicans than that. but not just talking about moderates, some core members of

the republican leadership over there like bob corker are questioning this bill and questioning what it would mean for health care in their state. so a lot of questions, not just here, but also on the senate side. remember, judy, this is on a very fast paste, the idea is to go through house rules tomorrow. they had a long day on the house floor thursday. then the earliest you could get to the senate is maybe even for a vote on tuesday. that's the best-case scenario for republicans. maybe getting to the white house next week. but right now it also looks like a worst case is possible, which you andry standing here talking about the house vote still next week. all to be determined. >> woodruff: and a lot of moving parts. lisa, thank you. >> woodruff: now back to examination of the second day of senate hearings to confirm

federal judge neal gorsuch to the supreme court. joining me at the table today: pbs newshour hour supreme court analyst, marcia coyle of the "national law journal." amy howe, editor of scotusblog.com. pam karlan, a professor of law at stanford university, she worked in the justice department during the obama administration, and ilya shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the cato institute, a libertarian think tank. and we welcome all of you to the program. thanks for being here. let's take a look first at just a couple of the exchanges that came this morning starting with a question from the chairman of the judiciary committee senator chuck grassley. >> can you tell us whether you'd have any trouble ruling against a president who appointed you. >> that's a softball, mr. chairman. i have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts and the particular

case require. i'm heartened by the support i have receive from people who recognize that there's no such thing as a republican judge or a democratic judge. we just have judges in this country. >> president trump and others have said you are the next scalia, so i think it's only fair to ask you, do you disagree with any of the majority opinions that judge scalia joined in these cases? >> if i indicate my agreement or disagreement with a past precedent of the united states supreme court, i'm doing two things that worry me sitting here. the first thing i'm doing is i'm signaling to future litigants that i can't be a fair judge in their case. >> then how do we have confidence in you that you won't just be for the big corporations, that you will be for the little man? >> what i think can give you

comfort in this area is, senator, i know a case or two has been mentioned yesterday. respectfully, i suggest that does not represent the body of my work. i've participated in 2,700 opinions over 10.5 years, and if you want cases where i've ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy, there are plenty of them, senator. >> president trump promised a muslim ban. he still has on his web site to this day, he's called for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. a republican conditioningman recently said the best thing the president could do for his muslim ban is to make sure he has gorsuch on the supreme court before the appeals get to that point. >> senator, a lot of people say a lot of silly things. >> that's more than silly.

he wants you on the court to uphold a muslim ban. >> senator, he has no idea how i'd rule in that case, and, senator, i am not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how i would rule in any case like that that could come before the supreme court or my court of the tenth circuit. it would be grossly improper of a judge to do that. it would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial impend dense if someone sitting at this table in order to get confirmed had the make promises or commitments about how they would rule in a case that's currently pending and likely the way its way to the supreme court. >> the president's national security determinations, are those reviewable by the court? >> senator, no man is above the law. >> woodruff: those are just a few excerpts. those were mainly this morning. there are more we're going to show you in main, but let's talk

about what we just saw. these hearings are still going on. they're expected to go into the evening tonight here in washington. marcia coyle, first, we heard judge gorsuch say he has no idea how he would rule in that case. he is basically saying to these senators, i'm not going to tell you how i'm going to do, what i'm going to think about any case. was he successful in really not sharing that kind of information? >> i think the senators are accustomed to hearing that from supreme court nominees. that is a very common response to questions about particular cases that might come before the supreme court or older decisions of the supreme court. but judy, the thing i took away from the early exchange is the emphasis in the questions and in the defense by republicans of the judge's independence from president trump, and this is a burden for judge gorsuch. i think it's entirely of

president trump's creation based on his speech in the campaign that he would appoint judges who would overrule roe v. wade as well as his criticism of federal judges. so i think the question... to me that was a dominant theme on both sides, democrats trying to show he may not be independent, and the republicans buttressing his independence. >> woodruff: ilya shapiro with the cato institute, is that how you heard what was going on today? >> well, i think he did a good job in rebutting any charges that he was a stooge of president trump of some sort. i'm not sure what a trumpian or a populist kind of judge would be. i mean, he was straight from federalist society central casting. i'm a card-carrying member of that far right extremist organization as some members called it. i think it's not going to stick to the wall, trying to call him an associate with some of the more controversial pronouncements of the president.

>> woodruff: pam karlan, same question. were these senators able to pin judge gore gore in one direction or another today? >> i think there was one place, and this is interesting given your excerpt, where he did give an indication, in having said to senator feinstein that he wouldn't say anything about which opinions he agreed with or not, he then went out of his way several times to praise justice scalia's opinion in a case called united states against jones, about g.p.s. devices about cars. he said the principles of the fourth amendment don't change but technology does. what's interesting here, as senator klobuchar made clear, what else changes? because if judge gorsuch can say the fourth amendment carries through even though james madison didn't know about technology, what about the fact they didn't know gay people can

have relationships the same way straight people. so what's the law? does the constitution prohibit the president of making xenophobic exclusion -- comments. i think that's the steak of what's going on in the hearing. >> woodruff: amy howe, what did you pick up from all of this? >> as marcia said, there was not a lot of substance. that's something senators do expect. that carried over even to some other areas where we've gotten some substantive responses from nominees in the past. senator amy klobuchar of minnesota asked judge gorsuch about his views on cameras in the courtroom, and normally what we've gotten from the last few nominees is, you know, something along the lines of well, that sounds interesting, of course i'd have to talk to my colleagues once i was on the supreme court if i were fortunate enough to be appointed, and gorsuch wouldn't even go that far. he said that he hadn't really

thought about it, which was kind of surprising, given that it has come up at the last few confirmation hearings. >> woodruff: he said he was open to it but he certainly wouldn't commit. marcia, back to you, when senator leahy was trying to get him to talk about the travel ban, the comments that president trump made during the campaign about whether he would... whether people who were muslim should be banned and trying to tie it to what's happened more recently, you spoke earlier about this effort to figure out how independent he is from the president. >> right. >> woodruff: was he successful in persuading these senators that he is his own man? >> well, i think probably a number of senators have already made up their minds about judge gorsuch and how they're going to vote or not vote for him. i think judge gorsuch did the best he could in terms of

answering the questions. senator leahy also did the best he could to get him to respond to even broad questions like is a religious test constitutional under the first amendment. he tried a back door way, a front door way, and it ultimately... the judge would only talk in broad terms. and finally said, it seems to me the facts that you're giving sound very much like cases that are now pending around the country, meaning the travel ban, and so he was not going to tip his hand on that. but you're right. this aas to do with independence. i have never seen any recent supreme court confirmation hearings so much emphasis on trying to find out if a nominee is independent of the appointing president. >> woodruff: let's listen to two other excerpts. these came this afternoon. they begin with rhode island democratic senator shell didn't

whitehouse. he raised the money of so-called dark money, this is money in the political campaigns in american politics that is spent anonymously. we don't know who is giving the money. that's how that exchange started. and then you'll hear another one. >> we have this $10 million that is being spent on behalf of your confirmation. do you think, for instance, that we on this panel ought to know who is behind that? >> senator, that's a policy question for this body, and there's ample room for this body to pass disclosure laws for dark money or anything else it wishes to. it can be tested in the court. so senator, with all due respect, the ball is in your court. >> is it any cause of concern to you that your nomination is the focus of a $10 million political spending effort, and we don't

know who is behind it? >> senator, there is a lot about this confirmation process today that i regret. a lot. >> yeah? >> a lot. when byron white sat here, it was 90 minutes. he was through this body in two weeks and he smoked cigarettes while he gave his testimony. there is a great deal about this process i regret. i regret putting my family through this. >> but to my question... >> senator, the fact of the matter is it is what it is, and it's this body that makes the laws. and if you wish to have your disclosure, pass a law and a judge will enforce it, senator. >> let's think back to 2004 election. let's look at ohio where you volunteered. ohio is one of 11 states in 2004 where republicans working to support the reelection campaign also worked to put anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot.

now, you're a campaign worker in ohio, as a lawyer and as a student of the constitution, how do you feel about the right the marry being put to the popular vote? >> senator, i don't recall any involvement in that issue during that campaign. i remember going to ohio. >> were you aware of that issue? >> oh, certainly? >> how do you feel about it? >> senator, any revelation of my personal views about this matter would indicate to people how i might rule as a judge, mistakenly, but it might. i have to be concerned about that. >> woodruff: i want to come right out of that to ilya shapiro and say, the democratic senator has made a point of noting that judge gore gore has worked in the past in republican political campaigns. does that have an effect, should it have any effect on how senators consider these nominees? >> i don't think that's unusual. justice kagan, for example, during her hearing, it came up

how she worked from her college days all the way through the clinton white house in very political roles. she wrote an article in my former newspaper, the daily princetonian, about her experiences in a conditional race, and that's not disqualifying. in fact, it would be odd for someone who wants to be involved in public life to never have expressed any sort of political views or acted on some firmly held beliefs. >> drew: what. >> woodruff: what about that, pam carlin? the judge declined to say anything about what he remembered about the role of gay rights being on the ballot in that ohio campaign back in 2004. >> well, this is everybody who is nominated to the supreme court gives exactly the same kinds of answers to those questions. but we all recognize that the justices are going to differ when tse issues come up to the supreme court, and so the real question is how do they go about thinking about those issues? i think senator klobuchar made a

major effort to get judge gorsuch to talk about originalism. he was willing to talk bt -- about it with technology, so technology was changed. movies are protected even though there were no movies in 1789, and g.p.s. devices are on cars. they constitute a search because that would be a trespass in 1789, but he didn't recognize that society changes in the same way. and i thought it was quite striking that he admits that the word he and his in the constitution now include women, but he doesn't seem interested or willing in talking about those issues when they don't involve the kinds of claims that movement conservatives have raised in the past. she also made another point that i want to get out there, and that is that judge gorsuch a number of times in some of the cases that he likes the highlight as his more liberal or little guy decisions then goes

on after the narrow pro-little guy ruling to put in these concurrents that kind of hint where he might want to go if he were on the supreme court. he said, i'm raising my hand to show my bosses what questions are out there. it's really educational what those questions are, because one of the ones that he's raised is whether campaign contributions should be subject to the same kind of strict scrutiny under the first amendment that other forms of spending get. and that's a really big issue, because --. >> woodruff: i just want the interrupt, because i do want to get to... i think that's an interesting point. did we learn something about that from him, amy howe? >> he really sort of talked about it in terms of, well, it's not my job to decide this issue. i can't overrule the chevron case, the idea you should defer to an agency's determination, but i wanted to flag it for my bosses. and on the point about politics,

i think there was a little democrats trying to have their cake and eat it, too, here, because on the one hand, one of the democratic senators was lamenting there wouldn't be anyone on the supreme court who had held public office, and on the other hand, senator al franken was essentially accusing judge gorsuch of having been involved in politics in the context of talking about judge garland, because judge gore such put off questions about judge garland earlier with a sentence about, well, that's politics and i don't get involved in politics. >> his one campaign finance case that he was on was a unanimous decision written by an obama appointee. so i don't think, you know, it just goes into he really does a good job of reading the case before him. 97% of them were unanimous. i think he has fewer dissents than his colleagues. >> woodruff: yet it's different on an appel et court. >> i think this is really hard stuff to get across in a senate

hearing. senator franken's question, especially about l.g.b.t./ same-sex marriage, he didn't say, how does an originalist view this and would you have been with justice scalia in dissent on those cases that broaden the rights? it's just very hard because he had to go in a backward sort of way to try to see what the judge was thinking. in fact, at one point judge gorsuch sort of criticized one of the senators for picking one case to show he was against the little guy. he said, if you're going to pick and choose cases, you know, i can pick and choose cases that show i'm for the little guy, but the senators said, we pick and choose because we're trying to find out who you are. and this is what they've got. they have to hone in on things like that. >> woodruff: speaking of who

he is, i thought he showed more personality than we expected to see today, and i guess a little bit yesterday. there was humor. there was a sort of jockeying with the senators a little bit. but just quickly. i want to get each one of you. we only have about a minute. do you think the senators did the job they needed to do today to pull out of him what they should? i want to ask you each in ten or 15 seconds. >> i can do it in one second. no. >> woodruff: all right. that calls for a follow-up. amy howe? >> i think they did. i think it was a little subdued in the morning, but i think senators whitehouse, klobuchar and franken tried the talk substance with him. >> woodruff: what do you think? >> i think there was not that much here that we didn't already know if you had been doing your homework and reading his opinions beforehand. i doubt this hearing will change anybody's vote on either the filibuster or the nomination side. but hopefully it educates the public about the sorts of issues that senators and judges deal

with. >> woodruff: marcia coyle. >> the last point is what i agree with. they did the job they had to do in order to lay out for the american public what some of the concerns are with judge gorsuch's nomination. >> woodruff: all right. you all were terrific. and we've got more hearings tomorrow. witnesses will be testifying. amy howe, ilya shapiro, marcia coyle, pam karlan, thank you all. >> woodruff: tomorrow morning turn to our website and social media channels to watch continued live coverage of day three of the gorsuch hearings. you can also find our live blog of news, commentary and analysis related to the confirmation proceedings at pbs.org/newshour. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, wall street took its worst losses of the year amid investor angst over the russia investigation, the health care

fight and the implications for president trump's larger agenda. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 238 points to close at 20,668. the nasdaq fell 107 points, and the s&p gave up 29. the trump administration signaled today it's reviewing the longstanding goal of a world without nuclear weapons. christopher ford, a senior official at the national security council, said the white house is evaluating if that remains "realistic." he also said that, pending a review, the u.s. will strictly adhere to the iran nuclear deal that president trump has condemned. northern ireland today marked the death of martin mcguinness, one-time commander of the irish republican army who ultimately made peace. a funeral procession snaked through londonderry as remembrances poured in. former british prime minister tony blair worked with mcguinness to achieve north

ireland's 1998 peace accords. >> the same fierceness that he bought to the armed struggle he then brought to the cause of peace and he was determined to give northern ireland a different future from the past that he had grown up in. that leadership and the courage in bringing his movement with him, was for me and will be, the defining legacy of martin mcguinness. >> woodruff: mcguinness was deputy first minister in northern ireland from 2007 until he resigned in january due to a rare heart condition. martin mcguinness was 66 years old. president trump signed a bill today that makes human exploration of mars a priority. it's part of a nasa funding bill. the oval office ceremony included senators, congressmen and former astronauts. mr. trump said the new law reaffirms the space agency's core mission. and, this was the first-ever "national rosie the riveter day."

events across the country today paid tribute to women who worked in american factories and shipyards during world war ii. most are now in their 80's and 90's. they redefined gender roles in the workplace after male workers went off to war. still to come on the newshour: checked baggage-- new rules for electronics on direct flights to the u.s. on foreign airlines from 10 cities. all in one, a preschool, greenhouse and mental health care center. the big show, recognizing the nation's most celebrated artists amid the country's political and cultural divides, and much more. >> woodruff: the department of homeland security added new security precautions to flights from ten specific airports in the middle east.

william brangham has the story. >> brangham: passengers flying out of these airports can no longer take large electronic devices-- things like laptops, or mobile gaming devices or tablets-- on board with them. those devices have to be in checked luggage only. cellphones are still allowed on board. the new restrictions apply to flights from ten specific airports in jordan, egypt, turkey, saudi arabia, kuwait, morocco, qatar and the united arab emirates. the british today announced a similar move, but included some different airports. we turn to matthew olsen for more on this. he was the director of the national counter-terrorism center during the obama administration. he now teaches at harvard university. welcome. i wonder if you could tell me a little bit, what is going on here? >> it would appear almost certainly there is some new intelligence that the intelligence community has gathered, whether on its own or from one of our partners in the region, that has given the government, in particular the

department of homeland security, increased concern about the possibility that a terrorist organization has developed some type of bomb that it can hide in a device like a laptop. you know, whether that is brand-new intelligence or maybe just new analysis of existing intelligence, it's hard to say, but certainly there is some new piece of information that has given the government more cause for concern in this particular context. >> brangham: clearly it also seems we've lost faith in these particular airports, either in their ability to screen luggage or their ability to weed out infiltrators among their staff? >> we've always had concern about airports in this region, and we've always placed additional screening requirements on flights that leave from these airports and don't stop before reaching the united states. but the truth is that the best place to stop a terrorist attack, a plot like this, is at the earliest possible stage where you can have intelligence

that allows you to identify those individuals who are responsible for the plot. the last opportunity really is at those airports, and really you are just hoping you're going to be able to stop a bomb once it reaches the airport gate. >> brangham: you were in the obama administration when these kinds of decisions were being made all the time i imagine. can you give us a sense of what kind of intelligence would trigger this kind of an action? >> sure. i mean, for one, this was a source of constant concern when i was at the national counter-terrorism center. and if you recall, there have been three plots just since 2009 to try to put a bomb on an airplane bound for the united states. so this has been an area of real concern because of the determination of terrorists to blow up an airplane bound for the united states. but the way this information may welcome to light is a number of ways. one is through intercepts or communications between terrorists talking about something like this. it could come from our allies in

the region and their intelligence sources, whether those are electronic surveillance or come from human sources, but certainly there is some new information from one of these types of sources that gets put into the system here and analysts go over it and they compare it to what they know from the past and come up with a judgment that is then applied to the department of homeland security, which ultimately makes the decision about what limitations to enforce on planes bound for the u.s. >> brangham: can you explain the distinction between carried on and checked luggage. if i somehow smuggle a bomb on to a computer or a device, what difference does it make if it's with me in the cabin or below my feet in the checked luggage. >> there are some instances where we've seen devices, think back to the underwear bombs in detroit in 2009, where the actual detonation of the device required actual human interaction. so the person had to have access

to the device in order to detonate it. so that is obviously a clear distinction between having checked luggage and why there is a greater concern with somebody who has got immediate access to, potentially immediate access to a device because they were able to bring it on to an air plane as opposed to being required to check it. >> brangham: does the fact that the british have corroborated this give you the belief it's a substantive threat? >> it certainly does. the united kingdom and united states work incredibly closely together on all these types of issues and share intelligence. it certainly suggests to me at least that the u.k. and the u.s. are in lock step in how they're reading whatever new information there may be that causes concern. >> brangham: the

administration says it's not related to the travel ban, but it's hard to overlook the timing. do you see a relation between those? >> i really don't. because this has been an issue that's been around for several years through a number of administrations going back to president bush, president obama, now president trump, this appears to be a continuation of a concern that has been in place for some time. >> brangham: all right. matthew olsen of harvard university, thanks very much. >> sure. >> woodruff: after years of neglect, parents in one of denver's poorest neighborhoods hoped a new pre-school would be built in their community. instead they got much more than william brangham recently visited and is back again with this report, part of our weekly series, making the grade. >> brangham: fish swim in giant tanks... collard greens grow in abundance

in a massive greenhouse... down the hall, there's a dentist's office,as well as a mental health center... and at the other end of the building, 3, 4 and 5 year olds run around like mad. some might say it's an unusual mix, here in the heart of one of denver's poorest neighborhoods, but not according to the woman who runs the place: >> it's taking a new approach to community well-being. >> brangham: dr. lydia prado is the driving force behind the place known as denver's "dahlia campus for health and well- being." >> my initial conversations were with two folks who had, together, they have over 80 years of residence in this community. and just floated the idea, i want to take integrated care to the next level, i want to think comprehensively about health. i want to be able to talk about mental health and went to talk to them about it, and it's like, what do you think? and, they're like, oh. but, you know, they were very honest about it. there are going to be challenges, but if anybody's going to give it a shot and, we're behind you. >> brangham: for prado, building partnerships early on was key.

heidi heissenbuttell came on board early, bringing a branch of her sewall child development center to the new campus. sewall's been a pioneer in what's known as "inclusive education"-- teaching children with special needs-- that is, kids with autism, or those with emotional or behavioral issues, and putting them in classrooms with their more typically developing peers. heissenbuttel says the evidence is clear that this approach works for all kids >> they learn to expect that every child learns differently, and they go on to their ed-, their elementary classrooms, and they become advocates for kids who learn differently, and they will tell teachers, you need to work with that child, or, why can't he participate on the playground? or, we want him in our group. >> brangham: we observed three classrooms. here the "tigers" have "circle time"... then they moved on to "center time"-- an hour when the children get to pick what they want to do, as teachers float through the classroom

facilitating vocabulary building and individual lessons. one-third of the children here have some special need, some with diagnosed developmental problems. plus, 40% of the kids here suffer from what's known as toxic stress. >> toxic stress is the result of poverty, abuse and neglect, domestic violence, just life's circumstances when you, when a family lives under stress. and, what the best treatment, so for children to have loving, stable relationships in their lives. >> brangham: arnesha poke's son, adrian, attends the pre-k, and she says this inclusive approach is important to her. >> instead of like separating the kids off and stuff they need to all be together so they can learn each other and learn each other's emotional ways, and stuff like that. >> in the community conversation, it was extremely important, this idea of inclusivity? because it was, it's parallel to

a community's desire to be included. and, inclusive. there's a lot of experience of being separated out, or having i thought she would kind of fall in with the rest of the kids and not have any problems, issues at all but she didn't and she's different. and i love this place >> brangham: diane greenberg and her daughter karai used to live in a homeless shelter. she says this preschool has been life changing. because it helps me understand how to deal with that. it helps me understand how to help her. >> brangham: the staff to child ratio here is 1 to 5-- that's double what the state mandates. >> i think we all respect each other and we all like each other enough. >> brangham: teachers trina poke and christine krall, that was >> we just kind of get so used to each other and we tend to feed off of each other and just >> i especially feel sometimes it's not easy to see what i'm doing and that's when i will share the rationale during team meetings so it doesn't look like

i'm "just playing". because there is a method to the madness. >> brangham: some of the" madness" is designed to calm children down who may be having a tough time. heather luehers is a social worker >> when kids can't pay attention to parents, when they are so dysregulated, they have problems because they move inside themselves, and i think in some of our classrooms you see that. so what i'm doing with this child is saying i'm the adult, i'm in charge, you don't need to be in charge, because these kids that need to be in charge with parents that are absent don't do well. >> brangham: a full day preschool program with all this staff does not come cheap. for a typically developing child, it's $252 a week. for a child with special needs who requires more staffing, it's $387. and 90% of the families in this neighborhood need financial help. many pay based on what they can afford.

but a recent study shows the return on that investment is high. every $1 spent on early education saves $13 in education, health, social behavior and employment down the road. in addition to being one of the poorest neighborhoods in denver, this area is also what's called a food desert. what that means is according to the u.s.d.a. if you live in a big city and you don't have a good grocery store within about a mile of your house. in this neighborhood it's over 2 miles to a good grocery store, that's about a 45 minute walk. even worse: this is what's known as a "food swamp," -- where all that's available what's available is fast food and the generally poor nutrition that comes with it. that's where those fish and collard greens come in. tilapia and catfish were the fish the community said they want. and collard greens and swiss chard were the top choices for leafy greens. >> and so you'll see the roots just hang down into the water and they can just soak it up as they need it. >> brangham: jenna smith runs this aquaponics greenhouse, which uses one continuous loop of recycled, cleaned water for

the entire operation. >> healthy food is foundational to overall health and well- being. it's a very important component to helping kids to grow up, pay attention in class, you know, be strong and active and what better way to do that than to have it right on site. >> brangham: where these greens now grow used to be the site of the country's largest african american owned mall. but the businesses went bankrupt, and the lot was abandoned for decades. longtime resident and urban farmer beverly grant remembers we talked in the huge kitchen at dahlia, a space where students sort lettuce for food boxes they take home, and where community members can take cooking classes. >> suddenly, we've, we've shifted from food desert to food oasis! we've categorically >> brangham: grant runs her own traveling farmstand and she met lydia prado early in the planning stages. >> the blessing is, that dr. prado had amazing listening ears

and a compassionate heart. and when she heard the stories of people like me, and others, she was like, 'hmm. we could probably do something about that!' you get that little nod from her. consider that done! >> brangham: as grant likes to say, "from seed to stomach." during our visit, preschoolers were learning that very lesson, planting seedlings that will later be transplanted into their urban farm, and could very likely end up on their own kitchen tables. for the pbs newshour, i'm william brangham in denver, colorado. >> woodruff: every two years since 1932 the whitney museum in new york has put on an exhibition meant to showcase cutting-edge american art, as

chosen by that year's curators. it's sometimes loved, sometimes hated. but it always gets huge crowds and attention from critics. jeffrey brown takes a look at the latest edition, which just opened in new york. >> brown: the whitney biennial: a must-see exhibition for anyone interested in contemporary art. a snapshot of american creativity and sometimes, american culture. featuring 63 artists, this was a relatively intimate show as these go. it's the first biennial at the whitney museum's new lower manhattan building, which was designed by architect renzo piano and opened in 2015, and the first in 20 years organized during a presidential campaign. so what did curators christopher lew and mia locks find when talking with artists and putting together the exhibition? no surprise, perhaps: a sense of unease and anxiety. >> it's been a tumultuous few years. for better or for worse, i think

a presidential election can sometimes be a moment when we, as a country and as a society, do ask ourselves pretty hard questions about how we understand ourselves individually and collectively. >> brown: so what do you see artists saying? >> they're thinking about the world in which they live in, and that can be defined in different ways, but they may be thinking about a specific neighborhood, or they're thinking about the city and that what they're making is intended to kind of speak back to society and it's not just a precious bubble to look at in and of itself. >> brown: in a photography series shot over a year and a half oto gillen captures some of the mood and changes brought about by income disparities in his native new york city. >> this kind of sense of anxiety to show a certain state of america that may not be visible to everyone but not in a necessarily definitive way, like

i want it to be open and for people to just be able to look at the world around them and ask questions. >> brown: other works take a more direct approach." debtfair," by a group of artists tied to the ¡occupy' movement, connects the debt incurred by college students to the poverty many artists face. while the vibrant sculptures and stained glass windows by raul de nieves, a young artist making his first appearance in the biennial, approach anxiety through allegory. what is that story that you're trying to tell? >> the idea of fear. how do we confront fear? when you realize what fear is it's like you should acknowledge it and greet it by the hand and walk away so that you overcome this idea of fear. in a sense, being a part of such a grand show is a form of fear. >> brown: fear for you you mean as an artist? >> yeah, and i'm not afraid to

say that, because it was, you're like, "what is this going to say and how do i want to portray myself and my work?" >> brown: other signs of the times? a video installation by a collective called" postcommodity", shows several miles of the u.s.--mexico border fence. some of the work here, like celeste dupuy-spencer's drawin"" trump rally," is overtly political. frances stark's "censorship no"" is a different kind of provocation, arguing that censorship, and not free expression, would empower artists by raising their profile. but overall, this biennial, as opposed to some in the past, takes a less aggressive stance. whitney director adam weinberg. >> i do see political work, but i do not think it's hectoring. i don't think it's the finger wagging, there's this sense of connection, a sense of people wanting to join together. a sense of, i think a sense of community and a feeling that

even though these are political times, this is not an us-and- them situation. >> brown: that includes artists looking hard at their own communities. deana lawson's photo series evokes a family album, presenting an intimate look into lives in her hometown. >> the reason why i chose photography is because of that immediacy of that sort of documentary feel. but it's often times very staged, so it's that dialogue i'm interested in. i do want to pay a certain honor to them, at least in a sense. >> brown: people who are not the subject of art so much. >> right, traditional art. correct. i'm from a working class family in rochester, so a lot of the subjects i'm gravitated to are from working class environments. >> brown: henry taylor's large- scale figurative paintings address the mundane-- a summer barbeque-- and conflict -- black men's encounters with police. there's a lot of painting here, in fact, much of it by first- time participants and women. aliza nisenbaum spends hours with her subjects to depict scenes of everyday life-- but

also the immigrant experience. dana schutz uses a collage effect of color and energy. and then there's 87 year jo baer. you're sort of the elder stateswoman here, right? >> apparently. who knew? >> brown: baer is a renowned veteran in the art world, still very much at it with a new series of paintings, and returning to the biennial after several decades. there's a number of younger, especially women painters in this show. >> yes. >> brown: how does that make you feel? >> marvelous. i mean, look how well these paintings to with all these younger painters. look at this installation. it is so mind boggling. it is such a joy to see that this is what i'm doing, this is what they're doing. >> brown: taken altogether, curators lew and locks present artists eager to engage in ways not always associated with contemporary art. >> even artists that are riffing on pop culture, or using more

appropriated imagery. they're doing it in a way that comes out of a certain sense of emotion, and kind of sincere interest and not just for a kind of ironic pastiche. >> we were surprised in some ways, that as the show came together there are a number of works that do point to or suggest, maybe, more healing possibilities of art, or this kind of sense of reparative practices which are, maybe that's symptomatic. maybe that's what we need of art right now. >> brown: the biennial exhibition is up through june 11th. from the whitney museum in new york, i'm jeffrey brown for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: and finally an update from the final hour of today's supreme court nomination hearing. judge neil gorsuch said in public something he has previously said only privately. when asked by richard blumenthal what he thought of president trump's tweets criticizing federal judges, gorsuch responded this way.

>> i find that disheartening. i find that demoralizing. >> woodruff: that came from this evening's portion of the confirmation hearings. we'll continue to cover that tomorrow. for all of our coverage of the hearings, you can check our web site, pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, an exclusive interview with the european i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> our tradition has been to take care of mother earth, because it's that that gives us water, gives us life. the land is here for everyone. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change

worldwide. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> 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 newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org