captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight... >> you change the nominees, you don't change the rules. >> if they won't confirm gorsuch, they won't confirm any nominee of this president. >> woodruff: in a historic move, senate republicans invoke the so-called "nuclear option" to clear the way for president trump's supreme court nominee. then, as the president hosts china's leader in florida at his mar-a-lago resort, a look at the cost of protecting the commander in chief, his family members and their residences. and, with republicans aiming to loosen or undo strict obama-era banking regulations, we sit down with an outgoing federal reserve

board governor to talk about what he thinks should be changed. >> i don't really expect that there's going to be a dismantling of some of the major accomplishments that we've had. and i don't think it's something the american people would want to see, democrats or republicans. >> 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 by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the well-being of humanity around the world by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at rockefellerfoundation.org >> 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.

>> woodruff: there is growing talk tonight of possible u.s. military action against the government of syria. that comes as new evidence has emerged that an attack that killed more than 80 people this week involved chemical weapons. william brangham has our report. >> brangham: the images themselves left little doubt that this was a chemical weapons attack. now, turkey says post-mortems on three victims who were brought across the border, confirm it. >> with this scientific examination, it has been determined that assad has used a chemical weapon. >> brangham: but in damascus, syria's foreign minister again denied responsibility. instead he charged that militants linked to al-qaeda had the toxic agents in a warehouse, which was then hit by a government air strike. >> ( translated ): i confirm to

you once again that the syrian arab army has not and will not use this type of weapon against our people and our children, and not even against the terrorists >> brangham: russia has been syria's main ally, and today, president vladimir putin warned against assigning blame, until there's a "thorough and unbiased" investigation. meanwhile, putin's spokesman seemed to suggest that moscow's backing for syria's assad may not be permanent. >> i don't think it's correct to say about unconditional support; unconditional support is not possible in the current world. >> brangham: earlier this week, the white house said removing assad was no longer an option. but today, secretary of state tillerson said there is no role for assad in governing syria, and russia should re-consider its support him. and, asked if the us was organizing a coalition to remove the syrian leader, tillerson said: >> those steps are underway. >> brangham: and on air force one today, president trump said of assad:

>> and he's there, and i guess he's running things, so i guess something should happen. >> brangham: officials say defense secretary james mattis may discuss military options with the president this weekend in florida. for the pbs newshour, i'm william brangham. >> woodruff: the day's other major story came in the united states senate, where the stage is now set for the united states senate to confirm judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. republicans swept aside the main obstacle today, as partisan tensions peaked. lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> desjardins: as a dark downpour hit outside, inside, a long-brewing manmade storm burst. >> on the nomination of neil m. gorsuch to be an associate justice of the supreme court. >> desjardins: first republicans tried, and failed, to get 60 votes needed to end a filibuster blocking gorsuch. >> the motion is not agreed to. >> desjardins: with that, republican leader mitch mcconnell launched a series of historic parliamentary acrobatics to remove that 60- vote requirement altogether.

within 90 minutes, republicans voted for the so-called "nuclear option"-- to reinterpret the rules and change precedent so that a simple majority could guarantee a supreme court spot. mcconnell insisted republicans were in the right. >> it's part of a much larger story, another extreme escalation in the left's never ending drive to politicize the courts and the confirmation process. >> desjardins: republicans stressed that former democratic leader harry reid opened the door to this, by lowering the threshold for all other nominees four years ago. current democratic leader chuck schumer argued the supreme court is different. >> the nuclear option means the end of a long history of consensus on supreme court nominations. it weakens the standing of the senate as a whole, as a check on the president's ability to shape the judiciary. >> desjardins: the shift today

came after a constellation of conservative groups spent millions on ads supporting opponents ran fewer ads and instead turned out calls and emails. california democrat diane feinstein said she received 112,000 calls on gorsuch, overwhelmingly against. in the end, it exposed a senate not just divided, but bitterly so. delaware's chris coons. >> we simply do not trust each other anymore. without trust we will not rebuild what's necessary to sustain body. everyone likes to point finger, there is abundant blame to go around. >> desjardins: even republican johnny isakson warned this could lead to changing the 60- vote consensus required on most legislation. >> if we move towards a body that's a rubber stamp of the house or unicameral government of legislation, we'll never be the united states of america our founding fathers intended us to be.

>> desjardins: democrat coons and republican susan collins, are gathering signatures on a letter to protect the 60-vote threshold for legislation. as for judge gorsuch the next vote will be final confirmation. that is expected tomorrow evening. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins. >> woodruff: china's president xi jinping arrived in florida today for a high stakes summit with president trump. secretary of state rex tillerson greeted xi and his wife. mr. trump arrived later and went to his mar-a-lago estate, where the meetings will be held. north korea's nuclear effort could top the agenda. mr. trump said today he thinks china "will want to be stepping up" to deal with that. house intelligence chairman devin nunes stepped aside from leading a probe of russian meddling in last year's election. he's now facing ethic complaints of mishandling classified information. in a statement, nunes said: "the charges are entirely false

and politically motivated," but that he's acting in the best interests of the committee. house speaker paul ryan met with nunes last night, and said today he agrees with the move. >> i think chairman nunes wants to make sure that this is not a distraction to a very important investigation. so he wants to clear himself while this investigation continues on without any kinds of distractions. >> woodruff: the committee's ranking democrat, adam schiff, had accused nunes of placing his loyalty to president trump before the needs of the investigation. >> i just want to express appreciation for what the chairman decided to do. i'm sure it was a very difficult decision for him. but as he mentioned i think it is in the best interest of the investigation. >> woodruff: three other republicans, mike conaway, trey gowdy and tom rooney, will take charge of the russia investigation. nunes will remain as chair of the committee. on wall street today, stocks managed small gains.

the dow jones industrial average gained more than 14 points to close at 20,662. the nasdaq also rose 14 points, and the s&p 500 added four. john glenn, the first american to orbit the earth, was laid to rest today at arlington national cemetery. his flag-draped casket was wrapped in plastic, under a steady rain, as it was carried on a horse-drawn caisson to the graveside. the former ohio senator died in december at the age of 95. his wife annie, now 97, and family scheduled the burial on what would have been the glenns' 74th wedding anniversary. and, the grandmaster of insult comedy, don rickles, died today at his los angeles home. from standup stage to late shows, rickles used everything from ethnic humor to sex jokes on everyone from presidents to fellow entertainers, including sammy davis, jr. in 1975. >> i love the italian people.

i'll never forget the words of cama inganganaza, who said to me in brooklyn on a saturday night... (laughter) no, you're catholic, and i'm a jew, and sammy, you're black. i'm sorry. (laughter) >> woodrff: don rickles was 90 years old. still to come on the newshour: i talk with two senators about the showdown over supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. the house intel chair steps away from the russia investigation. the cost of protecting president trump, his family and their residences, and much more. >> woodruff: as the fight over neil gorsuch continued to play out in the u.s. senate, i sat down with democrat patty murray, the four-term senator from washington state, who is opposed to gorsuch becoming the next

supreme court justice. >> what concerns me at the end of the day is a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. someone's judgment and their beliefs and terms of protecting people's rights in this country is extremely important and, for me, he did not pass the test. >> woodruff: you made a particularly point about speaking about his position on reproductive rights. why is that so important to you? >> this supreme court will consider cases coming to it that ultimately could overturn roe v. wade which means women could lose their constitutionally protected right to make their own healthcare choices. that is an issue i've seen in my own lifetime. eth has made a real impact on women, their person, their health and the economy and i do

not want to see this country go backward. >> woodruff: you spoke of your own awareness in your college life. >> roe v. wade was not the law of the land many years ago, and i remember as good today as i did then, a friend of mine, very close to her, lived with her in the dorm, who went out on a date like many young people and was what we call today date raped but we didn't have a term for it then. ended up getting pregnant. there was no place she could go, no protectionings of law, ended up finding what we would now call a back-alley doctor who performed an abortion and, as a result of a botched procedure, she, at a very young age, lost her ability to ever have a family. i don't want to go back to that. we now have a time when women can get the healthcare they need when they need it for whatever reason and they have the protection of law to do that. >> woodruff: cheers terrible individual situations, and

you've just described one of them, at the same time you know that there are many americans who feel strongly in the other way. i think the latest pew poll showed 37% of americans don't believe in abortion under almost any circumstances. how do you respect their point of view? >> well, i do respect that. for a deeply religious purpose, there are people who do not personally believe that abortion is acceptable. i understand that. but this is a country where we don't impose religious beliefs on the entire country. this is a country where we accept differences of opinion. >> woodruff: you're not only opposing judge gorsuch, you and other democrats are mounting a filibuster to do all you can do to prevent a vote. that could as you know could lead to significant change in the rules in the senate which will have a more long-lasting effect. why go that extra step? >> well, this is not our choice. this is the republicans' choice. normally, our supreme court justices do get over 60 votes,

and that's important in this country. if you don't get 60 votes, it means you're not a justice that can really be a justice for the entire land so it's an important hurdle. there are not 60 people in the senate today who believe we should have this nomination, and i can't vote just because mitch wants me to. that's -- my vote is really important to me. >> woodruff: there is the argument at the same time even made by other democrats who are sying democrats shouldn't push this to the wall on this vote, the argument being the democrats should wait to cut a deal with the republican leadership to say we are going to go along with this one but the next time we are going to preserve the rule as it is now. >> that's a nice conversation but i think mitch mcconnell showed his cards over a year ago. i think he sent a very strong signal then thatñi his goal waso put someone on the supreme court that he felt was much more conservative. so i don't expect that if

somehow a deal could be made where democrats could get over their feeling that this was not the right person and get a "yes" vote that, in the next instance, he wouldn't change the rules anyway. so you scanned up for your principles and that's what we're standing up for. >> reporter: we're learning this morning that the chairman of the house select committee on intelligence stepping aside from his role running the investigation into russian interference in the u.s. election last year, what did that say to you? does that now give you confidence that this investigation will be conducted fairly on the part of the congress? >> well, i think it's a very important step in the right direction from what i know at this point because this is a very important topic in this country today. if we have a foreign country, which it appears that we do, interfering in an election in any way, we need to know that, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that never

happens again. if the bigger questions of collusion or whatever from this administration are true, this country needs to know it and action needs to be taken. it has to be done in a bipartisan way for it to be credible in this country, and nunes was standing in the way of that because of his actions. >> woodruff: finally, you worked closely with speaker ryan in the past on a number of difficult legislative issues. how dining he's doing right now? >> i think he has an incredibly difficult job. i don't envy him his job, but my advice to him would be, do what you've done in the past that helps you be successful. reach out and find democrats and find bipartisan solutions to the challenges that you have, and that's how you can get things done. >> woodruff: senator patty murray, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now for an opposing view on the confirmation of neil gorsuch, i spoke with republican senator

john thune of south carolina who defended his party's need to change the senate rules. >> we didn't have a choice. the senate democrats decided the filibuster this nominee, something that hasn't been successfully done in the 230-year of the country. at least by one party. the only way we were going to get an up and down vote on him, the tradition of the senate, was to make the rules change that enabled us to get to the up and down vote which will occur sometime tomorrow. but had that not happened, we wouldn't get this vote and i'm not sure we could get any vote. if we can't get neil gorsuch across the finish line, i don't know what supreme court nominee the democrats would be willing to vote on in the next four years. >> woodruff: as i'm sure you know the democrats are saying he's not a mainstream candidate and they say what's really unprecedented was the treatment republicans gave last year to president obama's supreme court nominee merrick garland.

so they're saying that what they are doing is no worse than what republicans did last year. >> well, garland, of course, you know, that issue got litigated during the campaign. the argument was people were already voting last year, it was a presidential year and we ought to let people weigh in and have their voices heard and let the next president pick the supreme court nominee which happened. i think in terms of him being mainstream, it's pretty hard to argue he's not main trm rstrom if you look at his time on the tenth circuit. he's been part of 2700 cases heard, 99% of the time he was in the majority, 97% of the time the vote was unanimous. so the democrats were hard pressed to come up with an argument to make against him. i realize part of it goes back to garland but i think, at the end of the day, we've got to move forward not backward and we have a vacancy to fill we just don't like this judge deserving an up and down vote.

>down. >> woodruff: do you think the house of representatives is changing going forward? >> my view is people are assessing what's the impact on the senate. i think by and large this was baked in. the democrats changed the rules in 2013 on lower court and appellate court nominees and basically signaled last fall during the presidential campaign that if they won, if hillary clinton had been elected president and they had gotten the majority in the senate that they were going to change the rules on the supreme court. so for the most part, people on both sides realized this was likely to happen and i think now it's a question of getting this behind us and moving forward on a legislative agenda where i think we can find hopefully bipartisan cooperation because i think more than anything else ththe american people want to se us get results and that's what we intend to do and it's going to take cooperation on both sides for that to happen. >> woodruff: you don't think that after this it's going to be harder to work with democrats to

move forward in the senate? >> it's not my sense. i think the democrats did what they had to do because, obviously, there's a lot of -- they are activists, their political base was energized on this issue, but i talk with democrats all the time, i work with democrats all the time on legislation and, like i said, i think, for the most part, the assumption has been all along that irrespective of who won the presidential election last fall, this is where we were going to end up, and particularly given the fact 2013 they had initiated the first stage of this by doing away two the 60-vote threshhold with respect to amount court noms. >> woodruff: the other story we're following is the chemical weapons attack in syria the trump administration is laying at the feed of the assad regime. we now have president trump suggesting that perhaps there needs to be some sort of action taken. we are told the pentagon is going to be briefing the

president on possible military moves that could be made. are republicans in the congress prepared to get more deeply involved militarily in syria if it comes to that? >> i think there's pretty strong sentiment on both sides of the aisle up here that this warrants a response. you know, assad has denied it and, of course, the russians denied it, but it's clear the intelligence -- that he is responsible for this attack and the use of weapons of mass destruction, of chemical weapons on your own children is just something that's an horrific act and i think that the international community, i hope, responds aggressively and i believe that the united states will be looked to for leadership in terms of that response, and i don't think we ought to take any options off the table, but i think this warrants a clear message from the international community and the united states that this kind of behavior is just not acceptable and, ultimately, i believe he still has to go, but i think they're

looking at their options, and we'll see what they ultimately decide to do. >> woodruff: it certainly sounds like they're considering military steps. >> if they did, i suspect it would be something that would be a limited strike designed probably to ground the air force, the syrian air force to take out some air strips and that sort of thing and a lot of that could be done, i suppose, with cruise miss also. i'm not exactly sure what all is in the discussion, i don't want to speculate about that, but i think there are ways we can respond in that we can limit sizability to do these sorts of things to -- assad's ability to do these things to his people in the future and i think there is a humanitarian reason to respond in light of some of the images we've seen. >> woodruff: inter, thank you for talking with us. >> thank you, judy. nice to be with you.

>> woodruff: we turn now to the shakeup in the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. for more on what led house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes to step aside, we're joined by robert costa, national political reporter for the washington post. robert, thank you very much. the last we heard, devin nunes was not going to recuse himself. you talked to him today. what changed? >> i spoke with the chairman by phone and he does remain the chairman. he told me he wants to keep that gavel but he will step away from the investigation into russia. there is an ethics complaint about him that's rising inside of the house, and this has caused some problems for him as chairman about how he has handled classified information and, so, he's going to hand off the the reins to other republicans on the committee and let the senate intelligence committee do its work as well. >> reporter: now what is that ethics committee, what is the nub of their concern, do we

know? >> the focus of it is on how chairman nunes went to the white house, associated himself with different intelligence officials and white house employees, as he looked into not only russian interference with you the obama administration's activities and efforts on the russian issue during last year's election, and how he proceeded in dealing with the white house in terms of having a quiet meeting there where certain officials has raised eyebrows on capitol hill and caused him problems in terms of other members raising questions about his ethics. >> oodruff: you are referring to other republican members, is that right? >> democrats are raising concerns and so are republicans. republicans in general judy are skittish about nunes and believe that the russian matter is not a political winner and that the way nunes has handled it has left a lot of republicans vulnerable to mounting questions as they head home to recess. >> woodruff: quickly, robert, what do we know about

representative mike conoway of texas who will be stepping in to overseeing the russian investigation? >> he has looked into the russian matter before, he has worked closely with nunes so you have a nunes ally. adam exphif of california, ranking member on the intelligence committee, there is still concern on the d. j. side about the integrity of this committee moving forward. even with nunes gone, he's still chairman, he's still influencing coconway and others on the committee. can it be judiciary. >> woodruff: i want to ask you whether there is been any progress on the part of republicans in trying to resurrect a bill, a legislation to overturn and replace obamacare? >> as a reporter, i'd refer to it as incremental progress if anything. you had speaker paul ryan head to the white house, he met with

reince priebus and vice president pence and they talked about the president's demand to do something about healthcare. yes it fell apart but the message of this group was do something, so they're looking into high-risk insurance pools, reforming that aspect of the affordable care act, right save some costs, at least from the republican view, as you look for different tweaks that could get some kind of g.o.p. consensus. >> woodruff: so you're saying as they go into recess they'll continue to work on that? >> it's about talking about working on it more than anything. this was only a rules committee hearing on friday that looked into making these kinds of changes in terms of how insurance is structured with pooling. but there is no legislation that's headed to the floor soon. why? the answer is simple. there are just not the votes there yet among house republicans to get much of anything through on healthcare. >> woodruff: robert costa reporting from "the washington post." thank you, robert. >> thank you.

>> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: the financial regulations president trump could roll back. singer valerie june explains her unique voice. and a brief but spectacular take on the power of a photograph. but first, president trump's trip today to his mar-a-lago resort for the summit with the chinese president is his sixth since taking office. but some are asking about the stresses and strains being placed on the secret service to protect him and his family at their multiple residences. john yang has the story. >> yang: in the more than a century that the u.s. secret service has protected presidents and their families, rarely has it had so many places and so many people to guard than under president trump. not just the white house, but

also trump tower in the heart of manhattan, still home for first lady melania trump and their son, barron, although the president has not been there since taking office. and mr. trump has requested protection for his adult children and their spouses, white house advisors ivanka trump and jared kushner and the president's eldest sons, donald jr. and eric, who travel the world on family business. evy pompouras is a former secret service agent who helped protect four presidents. you really had to worry about the white house itself. with these three different sides, you're almost having to re-create a permanent protection residence. you're going to have to double your resources, your efforts, your manpower. >> yang: while the secret service rarely breaks down the costs of protecting presidents and their families, media

reports and past government estimates offer some clues. a single weekend trip to mar-a- lago costs is estimated to cost taxpayers around $3 million. the "washington post," citing internal documents, said the secret service requested $60 million in additional funding for the next year-- nearly $27 million of it to secure trump tower. >> i'm deeply concerned that the secret service is being stretched to its breaking point. >> yang: senator claire mccaskill is the top democrat on the senate homeland security committee. >> i'm concerned about the secret service and the unprecedented challenge of protecting the president and his family at numerous locations-- the white house, trump tower and mar-a-lago as well as the international travel by the president's sons. >> yang: white house press secretary sean spicer defends says president trump's trips. >> president bush traveled to crawford; president obama went to hawaii often-- this is not something that you can control. there is a security aspect that the secret service determines when the president and the family travels. that's not dictated by the president of the united states.

>> to then with this demand in manpower, you tend to go outside of the normal presidential protective detail, then you pull in agents from across the country. you are, though, in fact, pulling them away from other duties. >> yang: in florida, local law enforcement is feels the strain, especially when mr. trump meets foreign leaders like the chinese president at mar-a-lago. palm beach county sheriff ric bradshaw. >> if we were just doing the president up at mar-a-lago its 60 to 70,000 a day, you can double that right now and that's not including all the other security measures we're taking with fencing and some barriers and stuff like that that's additional cost. >> yang: for more on what it costs to protect the president and how this commander in chief compares to his predecessors, i am joined by ken vogel, the chief investigative reporter for politico. and presidential historian michael beschloss.

gentlemen, thanks to you both. ken, let me start with you. we heard in the spot the the former secret service agent talking about the challenges in terms of manpower and planning or protecting three residences, essentially. what are some of the other challenges the secret service has to deal with in not just the white house but trump tower and mar-a-lago? >> well, trump tower in the middle of manhattan one of the most densely populated areas in the country, a lot of challenges around there related to not just the president's own security but interfacing with the community at large that they stop traffic fairly regularly outside trump tower, but mar-a-lago is the big one, when i talk to law enforcement and secret service, they repeatedly raise concerns that stem from having a private membership club where members continue to come in and out and interface with the president including during some of these

incredibly sensitive forums where you have foreign leaders coming in. we saw the example with the japanese prime minister and the north korean sort of mini crisis there where they were handling it in the middle of sort of an outdoor porch typesetting because these people took pictures of it and tweeted them. it was jokingly referred to as an open-air situation room. so you had people who were coming and going there. you don't have normal types of background checks required to get into a sort of closed space where you potentially would rub shoulders with the president at mar-a-lago. then additionally you have, you know, the risk of people that you have, you know, charity functions there where you have people who are not even members who are coming in and potentially sitting down at a table right next to the president to eat from the same buffet that the president is eating from. i mean, that's really unheard of and that creates a lot of potential risk that the secret

service cringes at and they have to work with the local police as well as the private security at mar-a-lago and it's just an unprecedented situation that adds a number of layers of risk you don't typically see. >> yang: michael, put this into context. how does this compare to other presidents? president nixon had homes in california, florida, presidents bush and johnson had ranches in texas. how does this compare? >> none of them had a private club of the kind that can be described with the open-air situation room. but, you know, you did have, for instance, john kennedy went to palm beach to his parents' house or another house in palm beach every weekend and went up to hiian thinks port, too. the general public had the feeling it's important to protect the president and his family especially against kidnapping or black mail and, so, therefore, people generally feel you have to spend whatever is necessary especially in a time of terrorism. but the time that there was the

beginning of the backlash was 1973, richard nixon and watergate. there were revelations that nixon had had the government pay for improvements to his house in california, san clemente, his swimming pool allegedly for security reasons and, actually, that really hurt him because a lot of persons who did not understand the fine points of obstruction of justice, they certainly understood government money to improve your pool. so ever since then there is been a lot of sensitivity. also with president trump, he has grown children who have business interests around the world, and they're traveling for those business interests. how does that come if? >> that's the problem and there is a view, you can even hear it on talk radio these days of these sons going around the world swaggering with their big secret service detail, making a lot of money. the problem with that is, god forbid, you know, let's not talk about them, rest see if you had

a presidential family member who was kidnapped for ransom making demands of a president to do certain things to get his child out, that's a situation you never want and that's why we probably want presidential families protected pretty closely. >> yang: ken, what about the staff? there are a number of staff members who have requested details by the president. reince priebus, kellyanne conway, people like that? >> yeah, and while there are those decisions about whether to grant the protection are driven by very legitimate security concerns and a very careful assessment of the necessity of this, nonetheless, there is a sense, particularly washington, where we're completely status conscious that this is something, a detail is sort of the ultimate status symbol. so you have jealousy and resentment among other white house staffers, some very recognizable folks in their own

right who do not have the secret service protection. we saw sean spicer the white house press secretary at an apple store accost bid a woman who filmed herself kind of asking atag n.i.s.ic questions of sean spicer. does that warrant secret service protection? spars -- spicer didn't think. so i agree with michael that in situations like this, the protection of having and ensuring the safety of both the president, his family and in some cases key staffers who face threat are the most important thing, but you talk to the former agent in the intro piece, there are concerns about spreading the service too then. there are only so many people who can have protection and the protection would stay at the consistent, excellent level the secret service is asking for. >> yang: and secret service is asking for more money. ken vogel, michael beschloss,

thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now, a conversation with outgoing federal reserve governor daniel tarullo. as republicans set their sights on major changes to obama-era financial reforms, our economics correspondent paul solman sat down with the fed's point person on bank regulation, who played a major role in putting them in place. it's part of our series "making sense" which airs every thursday. >> reporter: federal reserve governor daniel tarullo has been called "one of the most powerful u.s. banking regulators since alexander hamilton." appointed by president obama in 209, tarullo was central to the implementation of the 2010 dodd- frank act which imposed tougher regulations on banks in the wake of the financial crisis. under his watch the fed has sought to curb banks' reliance on short-term loans and to

increase the amount of capital they must keep on hand. but president trump is expected to try to scale back much of what was put in place. on our visit to the fed last week, tarullo's wasn't the only empty office we found. since senate republicans refused to vote on two of president obama's nominees, there are now three openings on the seven- member board of governors. that means president trump will have a chance to put his mark on fed policy going forward. daniel tarullo, welcome to the program. >> good to be with you. >> reporter: your appointment's through 2022, right, so why are you leaving now? >> well, you know, eight years is a long time. i came here along with other people with a sense of the need to rebuild the financial regulatory system. i think we've made a lot of progress towards that end, and i think there comes a time where everybody individually wants to do something else, and where it's time to let other people

try their hand at the job you've been occupying. >> reporter: in this case, try their hand at dismantling what you in particular have been doing. >> well, i don't really expect that there's going to be a dismantling of some of the major accomplishments that we've had. i certainly hope not. and i don't think it's something the american people would want to see, democrats or republicans. particularly with respect to the additional requirements that we and the other banking agencies have placed on the largest, most systemically important financial institutions, those that almost failed during the crisis. i think there's a broad base view that stronger capital requirements and better oversight is something that's needed there indefinitely. >> reporter: but the criticism has been that you so regulated the system that banks and other financial institutions are not lending as they would have lent in the past, and that that's made the economy a lot less

vibrant than it would otherwise have been and could have been. >> sure, we could go back to a time in 2004, 5 and 6 when there was lending against no collateral, no down payments for houses. sure, that is a lot more lending, and in the short term it feels good, but it's not sustainable lending. it's not sound lending. and of course we saw the results. so i think you both find today that the problem that banks see is not that they have too little capital in order to be able to make loans. the problem they see is still not enough demand to make more loans. >> reporter: were you afraid as you put all these regulations in place that there was going to be another crash if you didn't? >> i don't expect that in the near term, because of course everyone is still adjusting and making their balance sheets sounder and more healthy in the wake of the crisis. >> reporter: they're still remembering the crisis. >> yes.

but we do see memories start to fade. and i do worry that even now, but a year or two or three from now, it'll be too easy for people to forget the situation that some of our biggest banks were in- where they needed taxpayer funds in the fall of 2008 in order to stay solvent, and then retreat from the fairly rigorous set of regulations we've put in place. now look, some things will need to be changed, reconciled with each other, and certainly with respect to the smaller banks, we'll want to ramp back on some of the regulation. they're kind of caught in the snares that were set for the banks that do involve the integration of capital markets and traditional lending. >> reporter: what would you change about the regulation of the financial system now that you might even have been instrumental in implementing when you first came in? >> i think we do need it to be

somewhat simpler than it is now. one very good example is that of the volcker rule. we're sitting here in the shadow of former chairman volcker's portrait. he proposed a very straightforward idea. >> reporter: the idea: bar commercial banks from making certain risky investments with their own funds, so-called" proprietary trading." but tarullo thinks the rule is simply too complicated to apply. >> first off, dodd-frank had five different federal agencies involved in implementing the rule, and so we really had four or five different volcker rules rather than just one. and secondly, the way that we tried to implement it, by trying to discern the intentions of the traders-- do they mean to be engaged in proprietary trading- i think has just shown itself not to be feasible. we, the agencies, could go back and try to find simpler ways to enforce the volcker rule. and perhaps someday congress would reconsider some of these

rulemakings that have three or four or five or six agencies having to do everything simultaneously. >> reporter: what do you expect to happen now that there are three vacancies on the board of governors, which president trump will have the opportunity to appoint, and presumably can redirect, or have a substantial influence on redirecting the fed, and if he were to not reappoint chair yellen, even more of an impact. >> well, i don't think i want to speculate about what appointments the president may make. i think we've got a good tradition in this country of people being appointed to the fed who take their job seriously and who try to work with one another, even when they have different views. and my hope and expectation would be that that's what would continue on into the future. >> reporter: are you not worried about the pendulum swinging too far the other direction towards deregulation once again? >> i am concerned about that.

there is certainly the potential for making some changes to regulations, particularly as they affect smaller banks, which i think would be just fine. i do have concerns that with respect to the largest, most systemic institutions, people not forget the reason why we put these higher capital requirements in place in the first instance. >> reporter: so then why didn't you stay and fight the good fight? >> you can do the job you do. you try to put something in place. and then one moves on. and i don't think anybody can ever tell themselves that they are the most important cog in a particular position. it's just not the case. >> reporter: daniel tarullo, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now, another

installment of our occasional series, my music: tonight we hear from valerie june, a singer-songwriter from memphis, tennessee, who says inspiration comes to her in all forms and at all times of the day. the newshour caught up with june at her recent show at washington's sixth and eye synagogue. ♪ ♪ i always loved my voice. but i did know that my voice was different. ♪ ♪ but that didn't stop me from singing at the top of my lungs around the house and really, really having fun with songs.

i'm valerie june, i'm an american singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist. voices are beautiful things because voices change, and i just think that is so beautiful how voices age, how they make it through a day, how it's different in the night than the morning. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> these songs just come when i'm in the house or walking through the grocery store or while i'm doing other things. when the songs come, i can't tell them what to do. they are what they are.

♪ ♪ >> and that's what i'm here to do, to work in the spirit way with music more than anything else, letting the spirit write the songs. ♪ ♪ >> sometimes it just wants to dance. other times it wants to go inside with all the emotions. maybe it's lost. or maybe it's like love or maybe it's just a happy moment.

♪ ♪ >> woodruff: now to another in our brief but spectacular series where we ask people to describe their passions. tonight we here from the photographer platon who has taken portraits of many world leaders and well known figures. his latest book is called "service" and he runs a non- profit foundation, "the people's portfolio." >> a portrait to me is about closeness, it's about truth. sometimes someone's fame and power and success actually becomes a prison, and the person knows better than anybody that they can't live up to that that ideal. my job is not to be disrespectful, but to be

authentic to say, "who are you really?" the first american president i ever came into contact with was bill clinton. the magazine said, we want a nice dignified headshot. i thought to myself, "look, it's a fluke i got this far, i'm never going to be in front of another president ever again anyway, so i might as well do the picture that i was born to do." shouted out, "mr. president, will you show me the love," and there was silence in the room. i think his chief of staff leaned forward and said, "mr. president, whatever you do, do not show him the love." but clinton then says, "shut up, shut up, i know what he means." he puts his hands on his knees, and gives me that clinton charisma, it became an icon of controversy. dubbing it as the crotch shot, that it's all about sex, that the tie is actually an arrow, that the face is smiling saying

i got away with the biggest sex scandal ever. it wasn't about any of those things. it was about charisma. he's a rock and roll president. i was led into mark zuckerberg's office where we were going to do the picture his neck was tense, his eyes were wide open, and he almost resisted every opportunity i made to connect with him. and then i said to him, "you know, you've succeeded more than any other person i've ever met on the planet, but you must have failed along the way, and when you fail, how do you cope with failure. he looked at me, and he said, "there is no failure, i just love what i do." so, i said, "show me," and everything changed. it's extraordinary what a simple question can do that connects with his value system. with putin, i think it was the first moment i ever had to deal with this sense of intimidation.

he walks in with this giant entourage that makes p. diddy look like mickey mouse right. i nervously said, "mr. president, it's a great honor to be in your fine country, i have a question for you." before we take the picture, i want you to know that i'm an englishman and i love the beatles, and i would like to know if you like the beatles." he says, "i love the beatles." i said, "oh my god, i didn't know you spoke english." he said, "i speak perfect english." i said, "well, who's your favorite beatle?" and he said paul. "wow, what's your favorite song, is it 'back in the ussr?'" he said, "no, it's 'yesterday,' think about it." i ended up an inch and a half away from his nose. and that's how i got the truth. the truth is that this is the cold face of power in russia. so, i worked with donald trump quite a while ago, but even back then there was this chaos and madness that surrounded him.

so, i remember saying to him, "donald, how do you weather the storm, it's madness around you wherever you go, whatever you do, whatever you say, there's this so frenetic energy?" and suddenly, this quiet calm came over him, and he said, "i am storm." that all this sort of frenetic crazy energy and sense of chaos is very easy for donald to navigate through that because he created it. and it's actually us that can't cope with it. my name is platon, and this is my brief but spectacular take on speaking truth to power. >> woodruff: you can find additional brief but spectacular episodes on our website, pbs.org/newshour/brief. 100 years ago today, the united states entered world war i by declaring war on germany. starting monday on pbs, american experience presents a three- night series about the war that

claimed more than 100,000 american lives, a fraction of the 1.5 million of lives lost across the globe. "the great war" explores the experiences of african-american and latino soliders, the crackdown on suspected german supporters in the u.s., the reluctance or president wilson to join the war effort and how it led to transforming the united states into a dominant player on the world stage. >> world war i showed americans the best and worst the country is capable of. >> they're still ironing out everything that war unleashed. >> this was a period of deep paranoia. >> you became a public enemy if you refused to support the war. >> it's probably the greatest suppression of free speech the country has ever seen.

>> it was embarrassing these protests were happening. >> these are women who were resilient and would not give up. they're the radical voice. >> woodruff: actually, 15 million lives lost around the world. "the great war" begins monday night on most pbs >> woodruff: "the great war" begins monday night on most pbs stations. on the newshour online right now, we visit a baltimore artist's home which is more museum than residence, crammed with a collection of thousands of works of what's known as outsider art. that and more is on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshour for tonight. on friday, just in time for passover, a new joan nathan book explores jewish cooking from around the world. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks. 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. >> 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. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. >> rose: welcome to the program, we begin this evening with another look at the trump administration and a conversation with jennifer jacobs of bloomberg news. >> i was told by three administration officials that his authority in the white has not changed, his influence with the president trump has not changed and if you look at all of the members of the inner circle no one is closer to trump and doing more with president trump than steve bannon, i mean he tags along with him in the limo to these different meetings and on marine 1 and air force one and be there in florida for the next couple of days for, you know, the first meeting with the president of china, so steve bannon still has an enormous amount of influence with the president and that did not diminish. >> rose: and we continue the conversation about the trump administration with glenn thrush of "the new york times". >> the funny thich