captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight... >> aye. >> woodruff: a dramatic return for john mccain, as republicans muster just enough votes in the senate to move ahead on health care, but the future of replacing obamacare is far from clear. then... >> i am disappointed in the attorney general, he should not have recused himself. >> woodruff: president trump takes aim at jeff sessions, publicly airing frustrations with his own attorney general as talks of a replacement ramp up. plus, mr. trump's son-in-law and top advisor jared kushner heads back to capitol hill. we talk to two members of congress who were asking questions about russian meddling.

and, feeding children after the school year-- how a food bank is helping fill in the gap during summer so kids don't go hungry. >> there's always a "phew" when we get it out the door. and then we just hope that it's getting to kids in need, and that they're enjoying it, and we do it all again the next day. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and friends of the newshour. 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: the united states senate tonight has begun debating what to do about obamacare, after weeks of waiting. republicans finally mustered the votes to proceed in a showdown today, with the aid of a cancer patient and a vice presidential tie-breaker. lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> reporter: in the senate today, high stakes politics with high volume drama. as the health care vote began, protesters chanted "kill the bill" and "shame" from the senate gallery. after they were removed, the vote itself was in doubt. republican senators susan collins of maine and lisa murkowski of alaska voted no. one more no and the debate would

be blocked. all eyes were on wisconsin republican ron johnson, who did not did not initially vote at all, and spent minutes speaking with g.o.p. leader mcconnell before he finally voted yes. >> on this vote yeas 50 nays 50- - senate being equally divided-- vice president votes in the affirmative, and the motion is agreed to. >> reporter: vice president pence cast the tie-breaking 51st vote. majority leader mitch mcconnell: >> we've wrestled with this issue. we've watched the consequences of the status quo. the people who sent us here expect us to begin this debate. >> reporter: adding to the emotion, the return of arizona senator john mccain following his diagnosis with brain cancer. he voted for debate. >> i voted for the motion to proceed. i will not vote for this bill as it is today. it's a shell of a bill right now. we all know that.

>> reporter: it's still far from clear what-- if any-- bill will ultimately emerge from the senate. the multiple versions include: the original senate bill, with dramatic reductions in medicaid and an end to most of "obamacare's" taxes. the congressional budget office said it would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026. last week, came talk of a full repeal bill with a replacement to be determined later. that would mean 32 million more uninsured if no replacement is ever enacted. and finally, what's called a "skinny repeal" ending obamacare's individual mandate, but not much else. it would likely add another 15 million uninsured. democrats remained uniformly opposed, and their leader-- chuck schumer-- condemned republican maneuvering. >> now the best the majority leader's been able to cook up is a vague plan to do whatever it takes to pass something, anything to get the bill to a house and senate conference on health care.

my colleagues, plain and simple it's a ruse. the likeliest result of a conference between the house and senate is full repeal of the affordable care act or something very close to it. >> reporter: from the other end of pennsylvania avenue, president trump hailed the vote to start debate. >> i want to congratulate american people because we're going to give you great healthcare. and we're going to get rid of obamacare, which should've been terminated years ago. disaster for the american people. >> we will be on call. at any time the senate is able to pass as healthcare bill -- it was already passed once -- we will call the house back in to finish the job.

>> reporter: but when that day might come-- if it comes-- remains a mystery. again, the vote today was simply to "start" debate. it means the next few days will be spent on scores of amendments related to health care. any senator can offer one. democrat chris murphy alone says he has 100 ready to propose. >> woodruff: so lisa, tell us more about how this is going to work. the republicans are saying, for example, there is going to be a vote on straight repeal. when would that be? >> this is going to be important to follow the process. votes could happen as soon as tonight. i'm told by sources in both parties that's unlikely. here's how it's likely to work: you will see two large amendments being proposed near the top of this voting scheme. one will be the straight repeal bill. the other will be some version of the senate bill we've seen crafted recently. both of those are expected to fail. after that, we will see perhaps a day or many hours of a flurry of different amendments. those will generally require 60 votes. it will be hard for those to pass, and in the very end, judy,

we will see probably this skinny repeal, a pared down version of the bill. it's not clear how they will get the votes for that. >> woodruff: so this was an extraordinary day. as you showed in your piece, you were there. what does this drama say about the state of the senate, this debate, and the state of governing. >> judy, i have to tell you, it was breathtaking. it was rather unbelievable to be in that senate today. for one, as susan collins and see is a murkowski cast those no votes, they stood up and they were emphatic. at that time, it was clear that republicans didn't know if they were going to pass this bill and, i looked down below me and i saw vice president pence write on a piece of paper, "the senate will be in recess." when ron johnson came in to vote yes, they weren't sure how it

would end up. that's an indication of where they are in general. they don't know how they finish. this they're glad to open 2 process, but we also don't know if anyone is willing to compromise as senator mccabe asked for today on the floor. >> woodruff: so much to watch. lisa desjardins with another long day at the capitol. thank you, lisa. we'll talk to montana senator jon tester about the day's drama, right after the news summary. in the day's other news, president trump today kept sawing on the tree limb where he's recently placed his attorney general, jeff sessions. he charged sessions has been "very weak" on investigating hillary clinton, and needs to be "much tougher." as for whether sessions will keep his job, the president said, "time will tell." one of mr. trump's advisors said he probably wants sessions to resign. we'll have a full report, later in the program. the state department denied today that secretary of state rex tillerson is increasingly frustrated in his job. several news outlets reported

that the former exxon-mobil chief is chafing at curbs on his independence. the reports said he's told friends that he may not last a year. but spokesperson heather nauert rejected any such talk. >> that is false. we have spoken with the secretary. the secretary has been very clear he intends to stay here at state department. we have a lot of work that is left to be done ahead of us, he recognizes that he is deeply engaged in that work. >> woodruff: nauert said tillerson is currently taking "a little time off". the u.s. house of representatives today voted overwhelmingly to impose new sanctions on russia, partly over its meddling in the 2016 election. this bars president trump from relaxing the penalties without congressional approval. meanwhile, in the russia investigations: the president's son-in-law jared kushner met privately with the house intelligence committee. and, former trump campaign manager paul manafort spoke with senate intelligence committee staffers. we'll return to this story,

later in the program. in jerusalem, muslim clerics urged worshippers to keep up protests and avoid entering a contested holy site until further notice. they had objected to israel installing metal detectors at the temple mount/noble sanctuary site after an attack on police. overnight, the israelis dismantled the metal detectors, in favor of high-tech cameras, but protests continued and palestinian officials remained adamant. >> ( translated ): we condemn all the israeli measures that take away our people's right for worship. we reject all obstacles that hinder the freedom of worshipping, granted by international laws. and we demand that we return to the situation where things stood before. >> woodruff: palestinians warned the new cameras could see through clothing and embarrass female worshippers. israeli police said they will not use cameras that violate anyone's privacy. an outbreak of cholera in yemen was set to reach 400,000 cases today.

it has struck a population already ravaged by war and hunger. we have a report from neil connery of independent television news, but be aware: some of the images are graphic and disturbing. >> this baby barely has the strength to cry. she's 12 years old. for months yemen's children have paid the highest price in a war now in its third year. zara is 15. this is what hunger has done to her. and now a cholera epidemic is spreading with more than 5,000 cases every day. at the hospital, they're overwhelmed by cholera victims. more than 40% of those affected are children. yemen was already on its knees, but now a disease which should have been left in the 19th

century is in every part of the country. in the villages, this water-born infection is claiming lives. as one father who lost his four-year-old son ali told us. >> ( translated ): my son died of cholera because the water is contaminated and we do not have a solution for this well. we need a solution to stop this illness that has killed our children. >> in the nearby clinic, tagrid is finally receiving help, but across yemen hunger and cholera cast the darkest of shadows. >> woodruff: so hard to watch that report of neil connery of independent television news. the u.s. and iran have had a new confrontation in the northern persian gulf today near an iranian vessel.

an american patrol ship fired warning shots today near an iranian vessel. u.s. military officials said it ignored warnings and came within 150 yards. iran's revolutionary guard charged the u.s. vessel provoked the incident. there's word that north korea could field an intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry a nuclear warhead to a target-- by next year. "the washington post" reports the new pentagon estimate shaves two years off the previous forecast. u.s. intelligence analysts say the north could conduct new missile tests this week, during a national holiday. upbeat corporate profits pushed wall street higher today. the dow jones industrial average gained 100 points to close at 21,613. the nasdaq rose one point, and the s&p 500 added seven. and: barbara sinatra died today at her home in rancho mirage, california. she became frank sinatra's fourth wife in 1976, and the union lasted until the legendary singer's own death, in 1998. with his help, the former showgirl-turned-socialite raised millions of dollars to help

abused children. barbara sinatra was 90 years old. still to come on the newshour: what's next for the nation's health care, the president's public criticism of his own attorney general, jeff sessions, we talk to members of the house intelligence committee about jared kushner's contacts with russia, and much more. >> woodruff: as we heard, it was a dramatic and consequential return for john mccain to the senate floor-- his first public appearance since being diagnosed with brain cancer. while his vote helped republicans open up debate on health care, he laid out the difficult road ahead to replace the affordable care act and called on his colleagues to change the tone and behavior of the senate more broadly as well. >> our deliberations can still be important and useful, but i

think we'd all agree, they haven't been overburdened by greatness lately. right now they aren't producing much for the american people. both sides have let this happen. let's leave the history of who shot first for the historians. i suspect they'll find we all conspired in our decline, either by deliberate actions or neglect. we have all played some role in it. certainly i have. sometimes i've let my passion ruin my reason. sometimes i made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh i said to a colleague. sometimes i wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy. i hope we can rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to, learn how to trust each other again, and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. stop listening to the bomb --

bomb pastic loud mouths on the television and the radio and the internet. to hell with them. [applause] they don't want anything done for the public good. let's trusted each other. let's return to regular order. we've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. that's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires. we're getting nothing done, my friends. we're getting nothing done. and all we've really done this year is confirm neil gorsuch to the supreme court. our healthcare insurance system is a mess. we all know it. those who support obamacare and those who oppose it. something has to be done. we republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it

with something else without paying a terrible political price. we haven't found it yet. and i'm not sure we will. all we've managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. >> woodruff: we asked more than 20 republican senators to join us tonight. none accepted our invitation. we stay on capitol hill for a democrat's perspective-- senator jon tester of montana. he has served in the senate since 2007. senator, we're very glad to have you join us. what did you make of what john mccain had to say today? >> well, i think he was spot on. john's a statesman, and he certainly has respected from both sides of the aisle, but this place is broken. we this need to work across the aisle and compromise should not be a dirty word. and we need to negotiate and we need to take everybody's input and come up with the best possible legislation. and that's certainly not what happened with the healthcare

bill that we have dealt with over the last seven months, the various ones that have come out. the bottom line is this, judy: this country is built by people working together. washington, d.c., is far, far, far too partisan. and we need to start working together. and i think john mccain is right on that. >> woodruff: is there any sign that's going to happen? one senator's speech on the floor, is that going to make a difference? >> i think it's going to take more than that, and i would just tell you that i am blessed to be able to work with a guy named johnny isaacson along with a republican and a democrat on a good committee to pump out some good bills the president has been able to sign. we've done that by communicating with one another, not embarrassing with one another, but working for the best interests of our veterans. i think if the senate would take a look at the successes we've had over the last many years, it's been people communicating and working together and negotiating and compromising. i think we start to do that more

and more. and there is no better place than to start with a bill that impacts one-sixth of our economy, this healthcare bill. >> woodruff: let's talk about that healthcare bill. republicans have been able to get it on the floor. debate has begun. do they have the votes to get it to a point where they repeal the affordable care act and come up with a substitute that they like? >> i have no idea, because i don't know of anybody that voted today that knew what they were voting on. they were voting on potentially a house bill that was going to be replaced with something else, but we don't know what it is. and i'll go back the john mccain's words. let's go back to the committee process and start working together. but that's going to have to be something that mitch mcconnell requires rather than trying the craft something with a limited number of people and a limited number of input that actually doesn't move the healthcare system forward and make it more affordable, especially for folks in middle america, because we really get pounded by proposals

like the house bill or what's even worse the senate healthcare bill that came forth. i mean, it could literally shut down healthcare facilities. and that's what they've told me as i've gone around the state and visited face-to-face with these folks. >> woodruff: well, senator, what we're hearing now is that the version that may have the best chance is what they're calling "skinny repeal," which wouldn't do away with everything, but it would do away with the individual mandate. it would do away i gather with employer mandate penalty and the medical device tax. is that something that comes any closer to a concensus? >> i don't know that's the kind of reform that we need in our healthcare system. i think it may be more of a bait-and-switch to get a bill that you can get a number of votes to pass it out and take it to conference and replace with it really bad bill. that's my concern. >> woodruff: so you don't think that version, which some republicans are saying would make them happy, bring some conservatives on board and perhaps entice moderates, you're saying you don't see that as

moving the ball? >> i don't think it's going the move the ball. i think there is another agenda here. and the agenda is to do some really bad things with medicaid expansion and the block out medicaid, which really hurts rural states. i think it hurts the whole country, and not to address preexisting conditions and lifetime caps. and if that's the direction we're headed, then that's not the direction i want to go. i think that that skinny bill, that bait-and-switch bill, whatever you want to call it, trojan horse, repeal bill, that bill is not where we'll end up at. an i don't think you get the conservatives with that bill. and i don't think you get the moderates either. so i think what's happened here is you've got mitch mcconnell, who got us to vote today on something we don't know where it will end up, and him crafting another bill to put it up to change the bill in conference. that's all very convoluted, but that's where we're headed. >> woodruff: so senator, you mentioned medicaid expansion in

your own state of montana. i'm reading an associated press report that talks about the number of medicaid enrollees having far exceeded the number expected. a number of people in you state worrying this program can't be sustained. they were expecting 30,000 to sign up. 80,000 have signed up. there's worry that montana can't continue this. isn't this the exact sort of thing that republicans say is making this whole process unsustainable. >> i think the medicaid expansion has been an incredible success in montana and has really helped people get healthcare for the first time in their life, the working folks out there that couldn't afford healthcare before. i think this is about priorities. and if our priority is to make sure that people have access to affordable healthcare, then we need to move forward. but we have 77,000 folks that signed up for medicaid expansion in the state of a million and 50,000 people. i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

i think it's a good thing. because now we have people that are going to school that are healthy, that are going to work that are healthy, that own small businesses that arier, and i think it's an important step to take. but i think it's about priorities. we need to make healthcare a priority in this country. >> woodruff: democratic senator jon tester of montana, we thank you very much. thank you. >> woodruff: the escalation of president trump's criticism of jeff sessions exposes a rare public divide between a american president and his attorney general. jeffrey brown reports. >> i'm disappointed in the attorney general, he should not have recused himself. >> reporter: the president's latest salvo came this afternoon, at his news conference with lebanon's prime minister. that followed a morning broadside on twitter, declaring:

and yesterday, another tweet that called sessions "our beleaguered a.g." and plaintively asked why he's not investigating hillary clinton. so, what next? the president said this, today: >> i want the attorney general to be much tougher on leaks from intelligence agencies, leaking like rarely have they leaked before. we will see what happens, time will tell. >> reporter: sessions was a veteran republican senator from alabama, and in early 2016-- became the first in that body to endorse the trump candidacy. after he won, president-elect trump nominated him as attorney general. but less than a month after sessions' confirmation, it emerged that-- despite earlier denials-- he had, in fact, met with the russian ambassador during the campaign.

>> i should not be involved in any campaign investigation. >> reporter: in early march, sessions he recused himself from russia-related investigations. it's now clear that decision still angers the president, as he made clear to "the new york times" last week. >> reporter: the next day, sessions said he has no plans to resign. >> we love this job. we love this department. and i plan to continue to do so as long as that is appropriate. >> reporter: the attorney general has not been heard from since, but several republican senators have rallied to their former colleague. today, south carolina's lindsey graham called the president's rebuke of sessions for not prosecuting hillary clinton "highly inappropriate." and utah's orrin hatch said he was "surprised". >> jeff has been very loyal to the president and i think he deserves loyalty back. >> reporter: democrats warned

that forcing out sessions would spark a new firestorm. >> many americans must be wondering if the president is trying to pry open the office of attorney general to appoint someone during the august recess who will fire special counsel mueller and shutdown the russia investigation. >> reporter: even so, the new white house communications director, anthony scaramucci, told conservative radio host hugh hewitt that the die may be cast. >> reporter: the "level of tension" may have been in play appeared evident last night, at the boy scouts' national jamboree.

the president brought with him cabinet members-- and former scouts-- ryan zinke and rick perry, but eagle scout jeff sessions was nowhere to be seen. a very high-level rift out in the open. we get more from our own john yang, reporting from the white house. and sari horwitz, she covers the justice department for "the washington post." john, you were at that press conference today. where does this leave things as far as jeff sessions holding on to his job? >> well, you know, the president rejected the session of a report they're he had been leaving jeff sessions slowly twisting in the wind to use an old watergate phrase, but at the same time, as you heard in your report, he said he's got no time line for when he's going to make a decision. it is clear that the president sees a direct line from jeff sessions' recusing himself from the russia investigation to the appointment of robert mueller as the special counsel and this investigation that is dogging

him still. he told the "wall street journal" in an interview before that news conference, if jeff sessions didn't recuse himself, we wouldn't even be talking about this subject. so it's clear he is still very frustrated, very, in his words, disappointed in his attorney general. >> brown: and sari horwitz, is there anything more coming out of the justice department? do we know how the attorney general is taking all this? >> well, you know, it's just been an extraordinary spectacle playing out here in washington. i have been at the justice department all day, and all indications are that jeff sessions is not going to resign and that he's moving forward with his conservative agenda. he really more than any other cabinet member has been putting many place, moving quickly, methodically, to undo holder, eric holder and obama policies at the justice department, and he's moving forward on that. he's compartmentalizing these disparaging comments by the president, which i'm being told by people at the justice department he's been doing since

he got in as attorney general in february. you know, he recused himself in march, and this has been going on since march. >> brown: sari, you and your colleagues reported today on discussions within the white house about replacing jeff sessions and how that might happen. so those discussions are taking place? >> we heard they had been taking place up until now, but it's interesting today, the conservative media, breitbart, rush limbaugh, conservative senators came out and said we like the policies jeff sessions has been putting in place. actually today, late afternoon, jeff sessions announced another new conservative policy to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities and tie very important federal grants to local cities and states, to tie those grants to restrictions, like if the states seem to be harboring illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, they won't give them the money. and what we're hearing is tomorrow, or the next day, he's

going to be announcing that the justice department is indeed doing leak investigations. >> brown: john, what do you make of the support that has been ever more vocal today in fact nor jeff sessions from friends and allies? >> well, i think it really is one of the conundrums of this is that he is extremely popular among mr. trump's base, largely was of what sari has just been talking about. his stand on illegal immigration, on sanctuary cities remember he was actually steve bannon's first choice to be a presidential candidate because of his immigration policies, but it became clear he was not going to run. so i think that... and one of the outside people that president trump talked to, has been talking to about this tells me that this is something he did remind him, that jeff sessions is very popular among his base, and you heard it from a lot of particularly southern conservative democrats on the hill today.

>> brown: and john, we did hear also at the press conference the president again raising the issue of leaks today. so that remains connected to all of this. >> and you also have to wonder if what he's talking about with his tweets, and by the way, you know, as sari points out, he is going after a member of his own cabinet as if he was one of his primary opponents in last year's election, if this constant pressure on sessions isn't some sort of leverage to get the justice department to act on these leaks, which have been his real bugaboo in all these stories coming out of the russia investigation. >> brown: sari, just in our last 30 second, what about the leaks connected to this public furor we're hearing? >> we know trump is angry about the leaks, and as i've said, we've been hearing late afternoon at the justice department that within the next day or two attorney general sessions is going to make an announcement that the justice department has been doing leak

investigations. maybe showing his tougher side to the president, and indicating that along with illegal immigration and criminal justice policy, he's also moving forward on finding the leakers. >> brown: sari horwitz of the "washington post" and our own john yang, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: the difficult task of feeding low- income students when school's out for the summer, and seattle's new seawall that doubles as a science experiment. late today the subpoena to former campaign manager paul

manafort was rescinded. negotiations continue on when and how he will testify. earlier it was round two for jared kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser answered more questions on capitol hill about his interactions with russian officials during the campaign and idea. william brangham has that. released an 11-page document >> reporter: yesterday, kushner released an 11-page document detailing several meetings he had with russian citizens and officials while working on his father-in-law's campaign and transition. kushner said there was absolutely no collusion, and no improper contacts, even though he initially failed to disclose these meetings as required by law. for more on this, we talk with two lawmakers who questioned kushner today in that closed session. first, earlier today, i spoke with republican congressman chris stewart of utah, who's on the house intelligence committee. i asked him what questions he had going into today's meeting. >> you know, we wanted to know some of the details about obviously his meetings with some of the people associated with russia and who set up those meetings, what he knew about those meetings, what came out of

those meetings. i got to tell you, though, for those who are hoping and looking for the impeachment of donald trump, jared kushner is not that guy. i mean, he's not going to tear that cord. he's very sincere, very honest, and he just didn't have much to add to this story for those looking for evidence of collusion. >> brangham: one issue i know came up yesterday and i'm assuming today was his federal disclosure form, where he as an incoming member of the administration is supposed to disclose all these meetings he may have had with foreign officials. apparently he had to update that document three different time, saying he forgot initially, he chalked it up yesterday to something of a rookie mistake. did your questions to him today assuage any doubts you might have about that particular issue? >> yeah, you know, that was one thing we did want to talk about, and it really was answered to all of our satisfaction and it's very simple. the document is very complicated. i had to do one as an air force pilot.

you go back ten years and in some cases more than that. you have to provide in some cases hundreds of pages of information. and it's not at all unusual for someone to update or to modify that document. in fact, they expect that you will. they expect that as you kind of dive into this process you're going to remember things. and in this case the explanation was even more simple than that. it was more than it is a complicated document. they admit that they fired that come by mistake and didn't have some of this information on. but they recognized that immediately, and within a day they had updated it. so it wasn't just russian officials that they didn't include. there were officials or meetings with king abdullah, a meeting with some other, benjamin netanyahu, people that they clearly would have remembered, they just didn't have it on that form, and when i say within 24 hours, they already corrected it. >> brangham: there is also a question about whether kushner had participated in or asked the russian ambassador to help set up this back channel line of

communications with the russians. did you talk with hip about that today, and what did he say about that? >> our conclusion is that he didn't intend for there to be any back channel communications. it was just to fulfill what they thought was one conversation that some russian officials wanted to have about, you know, developing relationships with the incoming administration. they didn't have any secure phones, and so they simply asked, do you have a secure phone. that conversation didn't take place, and that was really the kind beginning and end of it. so it is one of those things when you do wonder when you hear about this and you hear the press reports and then you have a chance the talk to kushner, there is a very reasonable explanation for it and there isn't much more to pursue. >> brangham: some of your colleagues and some others have said given the questions swirling around kushner, he should not have a security clearance to see top secret national security information. do you think that's... do you think he should lose his

privileges. >> no, i just think that's nuts. if he's this done something wrong and someone has evidence that he did something wrong and we can say, okay, that's a security violation or a security concern, then we'll deal with that, but if your only objection is saying that he had to add additional information to this form they requested, then i think it's inappropriate for someone to say that would preclude him from holding a security clearance. >> brangham: lastly, congressman, shifting gears a tiny bit, the president as you know has been quite tough recently on his attorney general. i'm just curious for your take on that. as a member of his own party, what does that atmosphere do to this ongoing investigation? >> well, you know, i support our president and i defend him when it's appropriate, and i think that he's being, you know, unfairly taxed or criticized, but on the other hand, there are times when i disagree with him. this is one of those times. i think as the attorney general and as one of the most honorable, sincere men in government, that's certainly been my interaction with him. when you see him testify and

others, i think most american people feel that that way. i don't understand why he wouldn't, and i in fact expect that he should continue as our attorney general. >> brangham: congressman chris stewart, thank you very much for being here. >> reporter: and now, for a view from across the aisle. i'm joined by congressman adam schiff of california-- he's the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. congressman, you had chance to talk the jared kushner today. what were your questions going, in, and do you feel like he answered them satisfactorily? >> we had a variety of questions certainly about the four meetings that he disclosed in his public statement the other day. but about a lot of other areas, as well. we're looking at any of the russian active measures that may have been employed here that we know they employ in other places. we're looking at allegations concerning the social media campaign, whether there was any kind of cooperation or coordination through cambridge analitica. we're looking at some of the financial issues, because one

thing russians do is use financial will leverage or sometimes they develop what russians call compromise, by a way of engaging in transactions to hold that over their head. we went through with him as we do with all over the whole range of our concerns to do the best we can to get to the bottom of these allegations. >> woodruff: let's talk about some of those particular allegations. one was this issue of this federal disclosure form where he failed initially to reveal that we had these meetings with dozens of foreign nationals, including these meetings with russians. jared kushner said this was an men mistake, basically a rookie error? do you buy that as an excuse? >> well, he doesn't strike me as a rookie. i think he's quite sophisticated. i don't want the characterize his testimony. we don't go into the details of testimony. i was surprised that my colleague was willing to do that. i will say this: the holder of

that clearance i do believe needs to investigate this to find out whether mr. kushner's explanations are satisfactory, what the circumstances are, what was disclosed, what was not disclosed. we have not yet obtained the fs-86s. so we're not in a position to evaluate what and when he disclosed different things, but i do believe other individuals, not the son-in-law of the president if they were to fail to disclose a meeting that they attended that was with people acting on behalf of the russian government, promising dirt on a political opponent or a meeting that was not disclosed that involved setting up a secret back channel at a russian diplomatic facility, it is very unlikely that an in order their individual would be allowed t3 keep their clearance. >> brangham: let's touch on a few other issues swirling in washington right now. obviously as you have been hearing in our broadcast, the president has been very tough on attorney general sessions. many people believe that the president would like him to either leave or would like the fire him.

if that were to happen, what would that do to these ongoing investigations? >> well, i think you're right. in this case the president is being very transparent, at least as far as his intentions are concerned. he wants to force jeff sessions to resign, and therefore he left his fingerprints on hit less than if he fired jeff sessions. i think the motivation is quite simple. he wants to appoint a more mall usable attorney general when it comes to the russia investigation who is not recuseed who can tell bob mueller, you will look at this but you won't look at these other areas that are evidently so concerning to the president, including whether there was any money launder going on with the trump organization. what should we do about it? if there is any effort to interfere with robert mueller's investigation, we may need to re-enact the independent counsel law and make sure that bob mueller has a completely free hand to look at anything relevant to the russia investigation or that arises from it, which is his charter

now, but something clearly the president is uncomfortable with. the president needs to understand, this is not his prerogative to determine what the investigators are investigating when it involves his own organization. >> brangham: i'm curious what you think, though. the president has said what's really relevant here is probably what the g.o.p. would do. if sessions were fired, we heard today many, many senators and congressmen supporting jeff sessions, but we also heard speaker ryan saying that in essence it is the president's job to determine who is in his cabinet. do you think if this... if sessions were to be let go, that the g.o.p. would... that there would be a revolt in his own party? >> i would certainly hope that would be the case if he either pushes jeff sessions out or if he were to fire bob mueller, that both democrats and republicans would rise to their institutional responsibility of insisting that an independent investigation go forth. i think it would be a

constitutional crisis. and i have to say, i'm deeply disappointed once again to hear the speak soar downplay the significance of this, because that only encourages the president to engage in conduct which is i think very seriously at odds with our system of checks and balances. when we meet with emerging democracies, we always emphasize a couple things. we emphasize,when you win an election, you don't jail the losing party. and here one of the gripes apparently the president has is that jeff sessions is not acting to try to investigate and prosecute his political opponent. that is something you see in a banana republic, not in the united states of america. so members of both parties need the speak out. we shouldn't wait until there is a crisis to do so. and i hope those people will think better of what he just said. >> brangham: lastly, quickly, congressman, the president clearly still chafes at this russia investigation, and his new communications director today seemed to indicate that the president still does not

believe that russia was actually involved in trying to meddle in our election. given that hughes chasm between what our intelligence agencies believe and what the president believes, how can this really go forward? >> well, look, there is only really one person in america that doesn't believe the russians were involved in hacking our election, and that's unfortunately the president. even vladimir putin knows exactly what he's done, so russia is under no illusion about this. what does this mean going forward? it means of greater significance to the country that we are not taking the steps to prepare ourselves when the russians intervene again, and this is very serious. there is no software patch here. we're not going to be able to make the dnc or rnc immune from russian hacking. they're too good and it's too difficult to defend. the only real defense the country has is to bring the country together to, forge a consensus with no matter who it helps or who it hurts. we will reject foreign interference and our president is simply not doing that, and

this is exposing us to further harm. >> brangham: congressman adam schiff of california, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: for american children, summer is supposed to be a time of fun and games, but for many it is also a time of true need. during the school year, 22 million children get free and reduced-price lunch. in the summer, those numbers drop dramatically: just under 4 million have access to subsidized meals. there are 50,000 locations providing summer meals, but reaching those who need the food can be a challenge. special pbs correspondent lisa stark, of our partner education week, traveled to nebraska to see how one food bank is trying to fill the gap. >> reporter: it's a scorching

summer day in plattsmouth, nebraska, about 40 minutes south of omaha, as the food truck lumbers into view. despite the heat, families are lining up for lunch at what's called kids cruisin' kitchen. >> they get milk, they get fruit and vegetables, it's really a nice program. >> reporter: becky ham and her children rely on the food truck a few times a week. >> we started doing this about three summers ago when my husband lost his job, right before the end of the school year. we were really panicked about how we were going to make everything work. >> reporter: ham's husband has a new job, but the budget remains tight. the family still qualifies for free school lunches, and is thankful for the summer help. >> it's really helping kids out. it's really helping families out when they need it. >> reporter: kids cruisin' kitchen was launched six years ago by omaha's food bank for the heartland and salvation army, with four food trucks and 10 fixed locations, it serves 1,300 children a day.

do you get enough to eat at the food truck? >> they give us a lot of meals. >> reporter: a lot of meals and a lot of food? >> yeah. >> reporter: susan obgorn is the food bank president. who are you trying to help? who's your target for the summer meals? >> primarily the children of the working poor. they are the folks who won't tell you that they need help. they are the folks whose children qualify for free or reduced price-lunches and >> reporter: preparing these meals begins early in the morning in an industrial kitchen run by an omaha area school district. they make meals for kids cruisin' kitchen and other summer meal programs. >> we do about 3,000 meals a day during the summer. >> reporter: in less than three hours on this morning, corn dogs are cooked, bananas packed, chocolate milk readied, sack lunches bagged, chicken patties, fruit and veggies prepped for later in the week. >> it's the five food groups-- it's grains, meat, fruit,

vegetables, milk. >> reporter: meals are paid for by the u.s. department of agriculture-- $3.83 each, and must meet government nutrition standards-- which are a bit looser in the summer. jackie cambridge manages this summer meal service. >> there's always kind of a "phew" when we get it out the door. and then we just hope that it's getting to kids in need, and that they're enjoying it, and we do it all again the next day. >> reporter: shortly after 9:00 a.m., the kids cruisin' kitchen truck pulls up to load its food. hot meals to go, this truck makes four stops each weekday during most of the summer. after that first stop at plattsmouth, it's off to a public library, followed by a public housing project, then onto an affordable housing development-- areas where more than half of children quality for free and reduced-price lunch, although anyone is welcome. >> you got corndogs today? >> yes, and bananas!

>> reporter: summer lunches are an outgrowth of subsidized school lunches, which expanded in the 1960s as part of president lyndon johnson's war on poverty. >> children just must not go hungry. >> reporter: the programs have grown enormously. today 85% of all breakfasts served at schools and 73% of school lunches are subsidized by the u.s.d.a.-- 12 million students-- depend on breakfast, 22 million on lunch. nationwide, nearly 20% of children under age 18 live in poverty-- that's 14.5 million children. >> sometimes schools are providing the only meals that kids get during the week. >> reporter: laura hatch is with no kid hungry, a national advocacy group trying to reduce childhood hunger. she says school meals make a big difference. >> we know that kids that eat breakfast do better on math

tests. we know that serving breakfast as part of the school day can actually keep kids in their seat and lessen absenteeism. >> reporter: serving school meals is easier, students are all in one place. summer meals are tougher, the food has to get to where the children are. to make it work, the food bank hires 10 temporary staffers, and relies on 200 volunteers from mutual of omaha. this is gary hering's third year helping out, he understands hunger. >> there were times when, as a family i know we struggled and we'd go visit relatives just to eat, you know, have good every day. >> reporter: do you think that's true for some of these kids? >> yeah, so that's the best part about it. today these kids aren't gonna be hungry at lunch. >> reporter: despite all the efforts of this food bank and others, nebraska ranks near the bottom of all 50 states in providing summer meals. for every 100 children who depend on the school lunch program, only eight are getting help during the summer. that's according to the food

research and action network-- which found that last year, nationwide that gap between filling the need during the school year and the summer got wider. it's especially difficult to reach children in rural areas, they are spread out, and u.s.d.a. rules require all summer meals to be served and eaten in one place at one time. >> you guys gonna eat it over here today, okay? >> reporter: regulars, like michelle brown and her sisters are well aware of the rules. >> you have to eat here, and you have to come on time. >> reporter: u.s.d.a. has a pilot program in seven states and two tribal areas, to help families in need during the summer by temporarily increasing food stamps-- advocates would like this program offered more widely. agriculture secretary sonny perdue, who recently visited a summer meal site in washington d.c., says he's open to the idea. >> i don't think any of us want to fast over the summer, so just because school stops doesn't

mean that the needs for good nutritious healthy food and a good environment doesn't stop, right. >> reporter: the food banks' susan ogborn is eager to see regulations relaxed to make it easier to expand summer meals. >> the problem is children are hungry every day. we hope that secretary perdue and the rest of his team at u.s.d.a. get their rules and regulations figured out pretty quickly. >> reporter: for now, the food bank will continue to roll along with its current program, hoping one day to reach many more children, but committed to the mostly satisfied customers it already has. what do you think about the food truck? >> i like it, but i would love it if they added donuts. >> reporter: maybe next summer! for the pbs newshour and education week, i'm lisa stark in omaha, nebraska. >> woodruff: we love donuts, too. now to our newshour shares,

seawalls help to protect developed shorelines, but they can also destroy crucial habitat. one project in washington state aims to fix that. ken christensen of kcts's "earth fix" explains. >> reporter: the seattle waterfront is changing, right beneath your feet. >> when you walk along seattle's sidewalk, you'll be walking on glass panels. >> reporter: but look deeper, and you'll see that the changes aren't for tourists. they're for natives. >> their function is to provide light to help thousands and thousands of little baby salmon. >> reporter: it's one feature of seattle's new seawall, a $400 million infrastructure project that's doubling as a really big science experiment. the biggest of jeff cordell's career:. >> nothing has ever been tried on this scale. you're walking on foot after foot after foot of new habitat. >> reporter: cordell wants to see if cities can better coexist with fish. for 80 years, seattle's seawall

was like most-- a flat, concrete slab that held back the sea, but destroyed shallow water habitat that many species thrive on. every spring, young salmon would migrate from seattle's duwamish river to the ocean, and they're hardwired to stay close to shore, which means they run right into this. in the inky darkness under the pier, life can get confusing for a fish. >> there's a good example of a shadow line from a pier. they don't want to cross the shadow line so they just mill about here. >> reporter: the new seawall should make life easier. not only by providing a naturally lit corridor for fish to pass through on their way to te ocean. but also by featuring overhangs and rocky surfaces along the way for fish food to grow on. >> look at the brown scum here, we love to see that. that's where the little crustaceans grow that the salmon feed on. you can't count out brown scum. >> reporter: most seawalls still get built like seattle's was back in the 1930s.

and construction is expected to increase. >> there's going to be much more need for coastal infrastructure and a lot more thinking about how we can best create habitat for the organisms we're removing it from >> reporter: once the seawall is complete, cordell plans to begin a decade-long monitoring project to figure out if it does what it's supposed to. >> even that brown stuff needs a good amount of sunlight to grow. >> reporter: if the experiment succeeds, the seattle waterfront's biggest change could be the change it inspires in seawalls around the world. >> woodruff: for the newshour tonight. i'm judy woodruff. thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> 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.or

>> rose: welcome to the program, we begin tonight with a look at jared kushner's testimony on russia an we continue with an assessment of president trump's first six months in office. we talk to frank bruni, susan page, hugh hewitt and robert costa. >> as an american i'm concerned because he tapped into a great deal of anger in this country, legitimate anger about the broken ways of washington, about broken promises. what happens to that anger if after two years or four years of donald trump, washington looks exactly the same, the sorts of priorities that we have been paralyzed about and that haven't vnsed have not advanced any further. what happens to american's alreadyive schriff eled faith. this concerns me not as a democrat or republican but as an american. >> and we conclude this evening with a voice from within the white housement is he sebastian gorka deputy