captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, with a few of their members threatening to vote no, republicans scramble to iron out the details of their sweeping tax overhaul and how to pay for it. then, russia's vladimir putin weighs in on the ongoing investigation of interference in the american election, and how russian-americans view the current anti-russia climate here. >> a lot of older russians who are trump supporters, they think that this is left fake news >> woodruff: and, today marks five years since the tragedy at sandy hook elementary in connecticut-- how one parent remains dedicated to preventing gun violence. >> it's the only way i can think

to honor dylan. it's the only way i can think to honor his death and provide his legacy, as well as protect my surviving child. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> 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: house and senate republicans are rushing to finish their sweeping overhaul of the tax code, as they press to hold a final vote next week. as william brangham reports, details of the compromise are still emerging, as are some potential roadblocks. >> brangham: congressional republicans raced to keep their promise of sending a final tax overhaul bill to the white house by christmas. house speaker paul ryan:

>> this tax cut will means less of a paycheck going to washington and more for the hardworking people who earned it. >> brangham: yesterday, g.o.p. lawmakers announced they reached a compromise in principle to bridge the house and senate bills. that clears the way for final votes on legislation that would cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade. today, president trump again championed the bill, what could be his first, major legislative victory. >> i think we will get there it will be in a very short period of time it will be the greatest christmas present a lot of people have ever received. >> brangham: late changes to the bill include a corporate tax rate of 21% starting in 2018. that's a major reduction from the current rate of 35%. and for the richest americans, a lowered top individual tax rate of 37%-- that's down from the current rate of 39.6%. house minority leader nancy pelosi lambasted the changes, charging that they tip the scale even more towards the wealthy.

>> it's daylight robbery and at every iteration, the g.o.p. tax scam becomes even more cowardly, outrageous, dishonest, brazen theft from middle class families, giving money from them >> brangham: the bill also reduces popular tax breaks like the ability to deduct state and local taxes. that deduction will be capped at $10,000, which can be split between property, income or sales tax. in a break from the house proposal, the revised bill would still let taxpayers claim a deduction for medical expenses, and expand it for two years. the revised bill will repeal the obamacare individual mandate, double the estate tax exemption and scale back the deductibility of mortgage interest allowed on loans up to $750,000. still, there are some issues looming for republicans. for one thing, the health of republican senator john mccain of arizona-- he's been diagnosed with brain cancer and is currently in the hospital.

and there are some holdouts: senator bob corker of tennessee already voted against a senate version because of the bill's impact on the federal deficit. senator marco rubio of florida is threatening to vote against a bill unless it raises the child tax credit. >> we'll see how it plays out. i want to support tax reform, i think it's important for the country but i think this needs to be part of it. >> brangham: the white house has vowed to work with him. republicans can only afford to lose only two senate votes. for the pbs newshour, i'm william brangham. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, the federal communications commission rolled back obama-era rules that safeguarded equal access to the internet. the so-called "net neutrality" guidelines were repealed in a three to two vote along party lines. the decision grants more power to internet providers, allowing them to prioritize certain websites over others. f.c.c. chairman ajit pai said the move will also increase competition.

>> by removing heavy handed regulations that stand in the way of deploying digital infrastructure, especially in rural and low income urban areas, i'm also confident that more consumers will enjoy better, faster and cheaper internet access. >> woodruff: new york's attorney general said he'll lead a multi- state lawsuit seeking to reverse the f.c.c.'s decision. the devastating "thomas fire" in southern california is now the fourth largest in the state's history. the wildfire has already scorched more than 242,000 acres, and still threatens communities north of los angeles. it's now 30% contained. and today it claimed a second life, a firefighter, who died battling the flames. texas republican congressman blake farenthold says he won't seek re-election when his term ends next year. the announcement comes amid a swirl of claims from former staffers accusing him of sexual misconduct.

he's now the fourth member of congress in two weeks to announce resignation or retirement over sexual harassment allegations. television host tavis smiley says pbs "overreacted" in its decision to suspend distribution of his show, after investigating misconduct claims against him. in a facebook post, smiley denied the allegations. he said: "this has gone too far," and vowed to "fight back." a pbs spokeswoman said the public broadcaster stands by the investigation's integrity, after finding a "pattern of multiple relationships with subordinates" and other conduct inconsistent with pbs standards. meanwhile, documentary filmmaker morgan spurlock confessed in an online post to sexual harassment, infidelity, and being accused of rape. spurlock said, "i've come to understand after months of these revelations, that i am not some innocent bystander, i am also a

part of the problem." u.n. ambassador nikki haley called today for a strong international response against iran's, "destabilizing behavior." she accused iran of "fanning the flames of conflict" in the middle east, flouting a u.n. resolution. haley spoke against the backdrop of a missile she said iran supplied to houthi rebels in yemen, and fired at a saudi airport. >> this is terrifying, it has to stop, it's not just about the nuclear program, it's about everything else they're doing. they believe they're being given a pass. we have to show they're not given a pass, actions have to stop immediately. >> woodruff: iran's mission to the u.n. claimed the missile on display was "fabricated."

a "doctors without borders" investigation has found at least 6700 rohingya muslims were killed in majority buddhist myanmar, in august and september. more than 620,000 rohingya have fled to bangladesh since august, to escape the brutal military crackdown. the aid group said rohingya men, women and children were "routinely and systematically targeted because of their ethnicity." >> military soldiers, armed militias would come to their villages. some people would say that they would then come and shoot people, individuals or in groups but also, that then there was elements of sexual violence that was occurring as well or they would set fire to the houses and the people living inside those houses would burn to death. >> woodruff: meanwhile, the united nations' secretary general is demanding the release of two reuters journalists. they were arrested by myanmar's security forces while documenting the rohingya crisis, and could face up to 14 years in

prison. back in this country, house speaker paul ryan proposed a way to save the social safety net in the u.s.: have more children. ryan said entitlements like medicare and social security were strained as millions of baby boomers retire or pass away. the u.s. birth rate plummeted to a record low in 2016. former "apprentice" star omarosa manigault newman spoke out today about leaving her position as a senior white house aide. on abc's "good morning america," she alluded to situations at the white house that concerned her, as one of only two african- american members of the senior staff. she denied reports she was fired, and teased that she has a "story to tell." >> i have seen things that have made me uncomfortable, that have

upset me, that have affected me deeply and emotionally, that has affected my community and my people. and when i can tell my story, it is a profound story that i know the world will want to hear. >> woodruff: when asked about manigault newman's concerns today, white house press secretary sarah sanders said, "it's something that we take seriously and something that we want to see improve." and on wall street today, stocks took a downward turn over lingering worries about the tax compromise bill. the dow jones industrial average lost 76 points to close at 24,508. the nasdaq fell 19 points, and the s&p 500 slipped nearly 11. still to come on the newshour: what russians living in brooklyn think of the heightened tensions with the u.s. disney's plans to buy another major media company-- 21st century fox, and what it could mean for consumers. making sense of the tax overhaul's benefits to corporations, and much more.

>> woodruff: russia's president vladimir putin held his annual news conference today in moscow. always lengthy, today's lasted nearly four hours. among other things, he was asked about relations with the united states and about president trump. putin made a point of lavishly praising his american counterpart's accomplishments. and then, in words strikingly similar to mr. trump's, he again denied interfering in last year's u.s. election and scoffed at charges the trump campaign colluded with russians. >> ( translated ): this has all been invented by the people who oppose trump to deligitimize his work. this is strange for me, to be absolutely honest with you. this is being done without understanding that by doing this, i mean, the people who do this, they are dealing a blow to the domestic politics in the country. it means that they don't respect the voters who voted for him.

>> woodruff: late today, the kremlin said putin and president trump spoke, discussing bilateral relations and north korea. before that news, i spoke with greg miller of the "washington post," who co-authored a detailed report today on mr. trump, and his routine denials of what u.s. intelligence agencies say was vast russian interference in the 2016 election. i asked him just how clear the evidence is. >> well, i think that vladimir putin and president trump are among the few that i've encountered who really doubt it, frankly. i mean, in our interviews for this story, we spoke with more than 50 current and former officials, many of them very close to trump, and we found only one other senior white house official who sort of sided with the president on this issue. most of his members of his cabinet believe the intelligence, even though the c.i.a. director sometimes complicates that or muddies that in some of his public

statements. i don't think there's much doubt about the russian interference in the 2016 election. >> woodruff: well, we've seen some of president trump's refusal to accept this this public, but you found there were many more instances of it behind the scenes. >> yeah, that's right. i mean, in-- and we're all very aware, as you point out, of trump's hostility to this idea, his rejection of this case publicly, but even behind the scenes, right, we did interviews with aides who even in the weeks leading up to his inauguration, were pleading with him, staged what amounted to impromptu interventions with him in his office at trump tower, trying to persuade him, just accept this, boss, just so we can get past it. if you can't say this publicly and get it behind us, this is going to continue to follow us and impede your ability to do what you want to do as president." and even then, he just gets agitated and denies it, and strikes out, lashes out at the

intelligence and insists that it's not real. >> woodruff: and the one time, i guess, he came the closest to saying he thought it had happened at that news conference at the white house, you write that almost immediately thereafter, he said it was a mistake. >> yeah, this was-- this was a press conference at trump tower in the lobby, january 11, about two weeks before his inauguration. and he's-- you know, his aides are prodding him, leading up to that moment, "just say it. just get it out there." he does. he says, "it might-- i think it could be russia." but then he sort of backs away from that. but afterwards he goes after his aides and says, "that's wrong. i shouldn't have done that. that was a mistake. that's not me. i don't believe that." >> woodruff: why do the people around him think he is so insistent on not acknowledging this happened? >> i think some of his closest advisers are sympathetic. this is somebody who just-- the reporting on this, the constant

reminders to trump that russia interfered, russia interfered, are taunts in his ears. they are reminders that, "you didn't win this election legitimately," and i think that's what he rejects. i think there are other factors at work here, too. other officials told us he really believes that if he could only have this relationship with putin that he wants, if that were only allowed to happen, they could solve a lot of problems. so it's a-- it's a beginnings of things, but, really, it boils down to his personal insecurities about the election. >> woodruff: so to some extent, this explains why he seems more conciliatory toward russia, toward putin, than he does even towards u.s. allies. >> right. i mean, in our story we write about the striking contrast in the way he handles, encounters in meetings with counter-parts like the german chancellor angela merkel, than with putin. every time we see him with

putin, they're very chummy, they're joking other shaking hands, they've had private conversations without any other u.s. officials present. and, you know, when he's meeting with merkel, or even others from europe, you really can see this sort of hostility come across in his demeanor. >> woodruff: bottom line, greg miller, why does it matter that the president acknowledges this? is it enough just to have intelligence fors and others say, "okay, it happened?" why does it matter? >> i mean, that was the fundamental chequeen elizabeth we set out to answer with this story and the answer is it really ask does matter. when the president rejects the rationale, when he rejects this conclusion from his own intelligence agencies, it reverberates across the government. it affects the state department. it affects the c.i.a. it affects the pentagon. it affects other agencies. it is-- it impairs their ability to pursue policies. they can't even bring these policies to him.

the president has yet to have a single national security council meeting on the russian interference in the election last year. how can you have a coherent strategy to deal with it if you don't have leadership from the top? >> woodruff: some excellent reporting. greg miller with the "washington post." we thank you. >> thank you so much. >> woodruff: new york city and the surrounding area is home to the largest russian-american community in america. so, how has the crisis in u.s.- russia relations, and the fallout from the election- meddling story, affected them? we sent special correspondent ryan chilcote, who lived in russia for 20 years, to brighton beach, brooklyn, to find out. >> reporter: the start of "here in america" should be the give- away. but that's not the only clue ari kagan is not an america-bashing russian talk show host isn't the american talk show host you might be expecting. >> i'm anti-putin person. i'm-- i strongly believe that

putin love dictatorship, i have a statue of liberty on my tv show for 17 years. >> reporter: this is not the kremlin-funded channel rt. >> rt is a clear, clear absolute example of kremlin propaganda. >> reporter: kagan presents a weekly show for the russian television network of america, out of a studio in south brooklyn. >> this is the only american- based, american-russian language tv station. everything else is just probably 90% or 100% rebroadcasting from, kremlin, basically. it's only one point-of-view, kremlin point-of-view. so, if you just disagree with putin, you can do it here in the studio. >> reporter: the day he moved his young family to america, is second only to his birthday in its importance. and yet... people have accused you of hating america? >> because they don't know who is russian? russian federation citizen, russian-speaking american. like, as american as american pie. >> trump is treason. trump is treason. >> reporter: has america

stumbled into a new red scare? >> we have been attacked. >> reporter: brighton beach is where brooklyn meets the atlantic. it's also the first stop for many of the some three million immigrants that come to the u.s. from russia and the rest of the former soviet union. president vladimir putin isn't very popular, but many of them also feel they and the country they left behind are being scapegoated, accused of supernatural powers. >> they blame russia if you miss a plane, if you miss a boat, if you miss something, so it's russian. >> reporter: you don't believe that russia meddled in the election or... >> the country, they didn't have such a power to influence american votes, american life. they can bark. that's it.

>> reporter: elena vishnevetskaya is kicking off her call-in show at a russian radio station in brooklyn, one it's friday the 13th and that's michael jackson's thriller. our topic: are russians the new bogeymen? what do you think about the hysteria? what do you think about russia's influence on our elections? >> ( translated ): the russians didn't have anything to do with the elections. this is all the democrats making excuses for losing the election. >> reporter: caller after caller blamed the democrats for putting all the blame on the kremlin. >> reporter: they love president trump. >> a lot, a lot. >> reporter: over 80% of the brighton beach voted for president donald trump. first-generation russian- americans tend to despise left- leaning politics and by extension the democrats after

their experience in the soviet union. anna katsnelson came here as a schoolgirl. >> a lot of older russians who are trump supporters, they think that this is, uh, left fake news, and which is, you know, trump reiterates that every time he speaks about the "washington post" or the "new york times" >> reporter: katsnelson is a member of the facebook group" anti-trump soviet immigrants." >> my dad voted for trump and it was very traumatic. so, we stop speaking for several weeks. i almost lost my babysitting. >> everyone who supports me please stand behind me. >> reporter: when ari kagan ran for new york city council in 2013, a heckler disrupted one of his campaign events, accusing him of being a foot soldier of the k.g.b. >> ari kagan was a journalist in the soviet union. he is a graduate of the lvov military academy from 1988. in order to get into a school of

that status, you had to be cleared by or be a member for the k.g.b. >> reporter: kagan is a card- carrying democrat. he doesn't like president trump or president putin, but he says the way many americans talk about russians and russia can be harmful. >> americans are proud people, but russian people are also very proud. each time they feel as someone stomping on them, calling them names, thinking they're irrelevant, they're starting, you know what. we are relevant. we are players on the world stage. so we have to be careful even in our language. >> reporter: are we amidst a red scare? maybe not, but in brighton, they see plenty of red flags. for the pbs newshour, i'm ryan chilcote in brighton beach, brooklyn, new york. >> woodruff: a giant deal today

in the world of entertainment. the disney kingdom is on the verge of getting a lot larger buying a huge chunk of rupert murdoch's 21st century fox for $52 billion dollars. that includes film and television studios. hari sreenivasan is in our new york studios about what it could mean. >> sreenivasan: some of the biggest franchises in the business-- superheroes, the star wars films and pixar blockbusters-- all would now be under the disney roof. and that may signal some big breaks with netflix, amazon and other companies. this all is coming on the same day that the f.c.c. voted three to two on party lines to end so-called net neutrality. instead, many experts say companies will be able to create a kind of fast lane on the web for the traffic and content they want you to choose or that you're willing to pay a higher rate for. david folkenflik who covers this for npr joins me now. first of all, what does disney want with fox? >> disney right now is looking at a big, big winter coming, and it's in the form of netflix,

it's in the form of amazon, and it's even probably going to be in the form of apple. these guys are going to be able to spend billions of dollars a year creating content they can give to consumers on demand. disney says let's ramp up. let's get the tv studios at fox. let's get the movie studios at fox. let's get their back catalogs, and the executives in los angeles and let's do that. then they're interested in international distribution, european satellite provider, sky, is in control by murdoch. >> sreenivasan: there are reports that they spoke yesterday, this deal is announced today. any concerns? >> well, the real interest, of course, is trump's concern. the president has forged an alliance with rupert murdoch, who has been the acting and leading c.e.o. of the fox network since they tossed ow the founder over sexual harassment concerns over 18 months ago.

trump's real concern is somehow rupert wouldn't be controlling fox news, wouldn't be keeping fox news, saying, hey, is that going to stick around? fox news in some way has served not only as a cheerleader but an enforcer and message creator for the president and for those whroas to him. it's been a closed loop for him and a vital part of him holding to that base even as controversy swirls around the white house. >> sreenivasan: what happens to general viewers like us, so to speak. are there going to be dinks in how we get these movies and where we get them from, especially if we're watching at home? >> right, so there's a real interesting thing here. you would expect-- and i certainly do expect-- federal regulators either at the f.c.c. or in the antitrust division division in the u.s. justice department to take a very close look at this. tis is like with like. disney and 21st century have been real competitors for decades and absorbed a lot of the folks they're competing with. this should have antitrust

concerns. at the same time, the question is, if they're competing with stream of streaming forces will this provide an extra competitor in the streaming realm? disney already announced it intended to have a major streaming service for its entertainment offerings and a separate one for sports offerings, with certain espn offerings on there. having fox regional sports elements to supplant, that fuse that in there, could help. you could have additional fox viewing things on the entertainment streaming service. could thee be more of a competition for amazon and apple and netflix? that could be a benefit to the consumers. what i don't think is somehow it's all going to be cheaper for us. i think there are going to be other elements that could be viable. disney wants to survive. >> sreenivasan: this is happening on the same day the f.c.c. changes these rules on net neutrality. a lot of people, you know, fighting against these changes that are happening today. is this the kind of consolidation that the people who didn't want these changes to happen are worried about, that there's going to be so much power in the hands of a new

disney, if they're also a streaming competitor, they can decide, well, guess what? you get to have this disney movie at a great rate of speed, versus what i-- you know, how i distribute this elsewhere? >> well, i mean, i think we have to think about the enormous consolidation that's happening all over the technical landscape, as well as the content landscape. and in some ways, these moments are blurring. you know, netflix are creators. they're going to spend, i think, $8billion next year in content. disney wants to get more into the platform business. you've seen already extraordinary consolidation in those people who provide internet service. i think you're look at comcast. you're looking at spectrum, which absorbed the old time warner and charter. and you're looking, also, at at&t and verizon is in that mix as well. you're looking a very small number of companies controlling the content information that is created and the ways in which we consume it. it's hard at certain points if

you're looking at one group of titans to root for that group, and it's hard to root for another group of titans if you look at that. i do think there are questions about-- i mean, rarely does it seem to me the consumers are better off. >> sreenivasan: nooep's david folkenflik, thank you for joining us. >> you bet. >> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: on the anniversary of the newtown school shooting, a mother who made it her mission to reduce gun violence. an effort to identify out fake prescription drugs in kenya. and a brief but spectacular take on making the internet a level playing field. now, back to the republican efforts to pass an overhaul of the tax code, and specifically tonight, our economics correspondent, paul solman, looks at some key questions surrounding it. it's part of our weekly series, "making sense," and part of our

ongoing coverage to break down the potential impact of the bill. >> reporter: let's slice off the corporate tax cut, the largest and most permanent of the cuts in the bill. to spare you mind-numbing numbers popping up next to my arm here, let's keep the math super-simple. the official top u.s. corporate rate for all firms making taxable profits in america: 35%, before deductions, some of which the bill would get rid of, while dropping the rate to 21%. the idea: companies, enticed by a tax rate that would now be lower than before, and lower than in many developed countries, would build more plants in america instead of elsewhere-- more asian auto factories in the south, say, while fewer american companies would set up shops abroad. the supposed result: more investment at home; more american jobs; higher wages. so, what's not to like?

well first, suppose other countries retaliate? in the past few days, for example, there's word out of china that it may now accelerate its adoption of a v.a.t., a sales tax, to completely replace its corporate tax. so maybe the tax bill triggers a global tax cut war, and america becomes less attractive to companies, not more. a second objection is less speculative. a corporate tax cut from 35 to 21% will certainly cost the u.s. treasury a bundle. even after cutting some corporate deductions, the reconciled bill is so new, the cost of the corporate tax cut hasn't been officially projected yet, but at 20% it would have cost $700 billion or so over the next 10 years. so at 21%, let's just say several hundred billion dollars or tens of billions a year, going from individual taxpayers to corporate taxpayers. and since there are no offsetting tax increases... that's tens of billions the u.s.

will have to borrow, which means tens of billions added to the annual budget deficit, from business tax cuts alone, tens of billions a year added to our cumulative national debt, tens of billions on which we have to fork over maybe an additional billion or more in interest until we pay it back. the big question, then, is pretty simple: will the tax cut be worth the cost? will companies use the billions and billions in tax incentives to invest in america and create jobs? that's the question put to a group of c.e.o.'s during a "wall street journal" interview with the director of president trump's national economic council, gary cohn, last month. >> if the tax reform bill goes through, do you plan to increase investment-- your company's investment, if the bill goes through? a show of hands. >> why aren't the other hands up? >> reporter: well, given how much money firms have in the bank these days, several

trillion dollars in the u.s. alone, why would c.e.o.'s invest more in america anytime soon? so then to whom would the tens of billions a year go well, all the money would go to the owners of the firms and none to workers, unless companies suddenly were graced with more of the christmas spirit along with their tax cut. but kevin hassett, the head of the president's council of economic advisors, told the yahoo! finance forum that the corporate tax cut will spur so much new investment, it will lead to $4,000 more in family income a year. >> firms will start locating in the united states right away. >> can you put this in a timeframe? >> if you go to the optimistic side of the literature it would be about three to five years and if you go to the pessimistic side it would be double that. >> reporter: hassett's $4,000 figure is in dramatic contrast with published estimates that workers would receive, at most,

something like 20% of the cost of the corporate cut. again, the new projections aren't out, yet, but they're not likely to be a whole lot different than the old ones, which implied something more like a $100-a-year rise in income. in any case, the bulk of the benefits would go to investors. this is economics correspondent paul solman for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: five years ago today, families in newtown, connecticut suffered an unimaginable tragedy. a troubled 20-year-old shot his way into the sandy hook elementary school and killed 20 first graders and six educators. nicole hockley lost her six- year-old son dylan that day, and since then has been a strong voice to stop gun violence before it happens. special correspondent lisa

stark, with our partner "education week," sat down with hockley recently to reflect on the last five years. >> when the shooting at sandy hook school took place, i knew absolutely nothing about gun violence, or how to prevent it. it was not on my radar in any way shape or form. >> reporter: now that has become nicole hockley's life mission, after losing her son in the massacre at sandy hook. >> i feel it's my moral responsibility to do this, it's the only way i can think to honor dylan. it's the only way i can think to honor his death and provide his legacy, as well as protect my surviving child. >> reporter: hockley's sons were best buds. her oldest, jake, was not harmed that horrible day and is now 13. dylan is forever a six-year old first grader. >> he was just pure love. he was a boy that loved to cuddle, loved a good firm cuddle.

he was just the glue that held our family together. i can't believe it's about to be five years since i last hugged-- i can't comprehend that. >> reporter: yeah. >> probably never will. >> reporter: hockley has poured her grief, and anger, into sandy hook promise, a nonprofit she and other newtown families started just one month after the killings to fight gun violence. >> i don't want to be someone sharing my experience and consoling another parent next time, i do not want there to be a next time. >> reporter: these days hockley has a different look, but the same determination. >> sandy hook promise exists for one reason: to prevent gun violence. the way we do this by teaching people how to know the signs of someone who's at risk of hurting themselves or someone else. >> reporter: but massacres such as texas and las vegas are constant reminders of how pervasive gun violence is.

>> it's devastating when i hear of another mass shooting, and i won't lie, it hurts even more when there are children involved. the saddest thing for me, personally, after some of these mass shootings, is when i wait a day or two, a week, to hear about the signs and signals that were missed because then i know yet again, this was another preventable act of violence. >> reporter: hockley believes there is only one way forward. >> it's important to re-frame the conversation around gun violence prevention because unfortunately as soon as you mention the word "gun," people start taking sides. this isn't about taking away guns, and this isn't about mental illness either. once you get past that barrier, then the doors open, but there's a lot of people that we need to have that conversation with. >> reporter: is that a tough space to be in, given how polarized this issue has become? >> it can be tough, but we know that is the right way to do it, and this is something that is going to have a tangible impact.

there are 300 million guns in this country and a second amendment, that is not going to change. >> reporter: at its beginning, hockley and sandy hook promise did try to change gun laws, pushing for universal background checks. when the bill was defeated in the senate, it was devastating. now the group is backing extreme risk protection orders, which allow a judge to temporarily ban someone from having guns if they're a danger to themselves or others. >> i want politicians not to be afraid to have this conversation. there are some special interest lobbyist groups whose voice has too much power and i think politicians should be leaders and listen to the people. >> reporter: hockley is also involved in a lawsuit against remington, the manufacturer of the gun used to kill her son. the lawsuit accuses the company of negligent marketing. >> we see them do advertising directly to potentially violent prone young men using military

style messaging and images to say to young men, if you don't have an ar-15 you're not a man. >> reporter: remington argues that under federal law, gun makers cannot be held liable if someone uses their product in a crime. despite the stiff odds, hockley is undeterred. i'm going to ask you to look five years ahead, where do you want to be? >> i would love to make sandy hook promise go out of business because we're not seeing these deaths happen anymore, but i think that's unlikely in five years. i know these changes are going to happen, but just not fast enough, and every day that we waste more people are dying, and i will never accept that. >> reporter: for the the pbs newshour and "education week," i'm lisa stark in newtown, connecticut.

>> woodruff: the deadline for buying health insurance in the federal marketplace for the coming year is tomorrow-- just one day away. the demand during each week of enrollment has been higher this year. last week, more than a million people signed up. but the enrollment period is just half of what it was in previous years. and enrollment seems quite far behind. so far, 4.7 million people have signed up this year, compared to nine million-plus last year. mary agnes carey of kaiser health news has more and joins me now. mary agnes carey joins us now. welcome back. the pace has been picking up, is that right? >> absolutely, it has been. it's ahead of last year, new enrollment, for example, is up about 17%. overall enrollment, about 650,000 people more than last year. but we have to remember, your

point about the open enrollment period is a lot shorter. it used to go to january 31 for everyone. now, for the 39 states that are served by the federal marketplace, that deadline, as you know, is tomorrow. so that is really a big difference. >> woodruff: cut way back. and you were telling me, that's not the only factor out there that is going to be an incentive for fewer enrollments this year. >> right. when you look at this year, things were very different. the federal government spent 90% leson enrollment and outreach. they are doing outreach now on text and email to get people to come back to the marketplace. the on-the-ground assistance, the navigators, was cut by 40%. the insurers have been out there advertising to try to counter-ashcroft that, but that has been a bit of an issue. >> woodruff: you were saying some of this may be countered by automatic and re-enrollment, which is going to happen once this ends. >> right. a very important thing for people ton, if you're currently enrolled in the affordable care exact you're on the federal exchange and you don't act before tomorrow, you will be

automatically re-enrolled, either in your current plan or another plan. either one of those might be something you should not be enrolled in. you should get online. if you qualify for assistance, what's your subsidy? can you get a better deal? can you get a better plan? >> woodruff: to remind people what the government was doing under the obama administration was much more out there. >> you had cabinet secretaries out talking about this. you had president obama out doing all sorts of videos and outreach. that has really changed. part of the reason for the trump administration has thought, you know, it's the fifth enrollment year. people know what the inn rolement is, what this plan is. they feel that email and texts are more effective outreach, but that has been part of the thinking. >> woodruff: finally, mary agnes, this tax bill working its way through congress, we know in the final hours and days, part thereafter bill is rolling back individual mandate in obamacare, requiring individuals to have health insurance. how is that seen as affecting this sign-up?

>> well, some people are confused. some people wonder if the law still exists. they wonder if the individual mandate still exists. but an important thing to think about is if the individual mandate would be rolled back, the budget office has said that could increase premiums 10% more. 13 million more people may be uninsured, and it may mean the people enroll read the sicker people who absolutely need coverage. if you have sicker people in your riesk tool expool not healthy folk folks to balance i, price will go up. >> woodruff: so much to think about as we watch that clock wind downing to the last day. mary agnes carey, thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now, a glimpse into the vast, global, and criminal business of fake pharmaceutical drugs. special correspondent fred de sam lazaro reports on how some medical providers in kenya are

trying to ensure patients receive genuine prescription drugs. its part of his series, agents for change. >> reporter: catherine karimi has been a nurse for 30 years. but for the last nine, she's also been a businesswoman. she owns a franchise in nairobi of a c.f.w. clinic, owned by a u.s.-based group called the health store foundation. so business is good? >> yeah, i can't complain. >> reporter: much like a fast- food chain, health store supplies karimi and all franchisees with lab equipment, training, marketing and standardized procedures. perhaps most importantly, it also supplies clinics with genuine drugs, continuing what's on the original label. >> they feel that our drugs are original. that's why they come here. >> reporter: 23-year-old edah mokua came here after the drugs she bought at a nearby pharmacy failed to cure a urinary tract

infection. >> they did not work at all. >> reporter: so-called "fake pharmaceuticals" are a multi- billion dollar problem around the world. they are made and packaged to look like real drugs, but contain a fraction of the active ingredients needed to be effective, sometimes containing nothing but chalk. thomas woods, a consultant to the world bank, worked on this issue while serving in the george w. bush administration. >> these are major global crime syndicates with far reach. these guys are killers. they're murdering people and taking something we all rely on and they're callously and cynically putting out fake medicines. >> reporter: a newly-released report by the world health organization found that one in ten medical products in developing countries is substandard or falsified. a lancet medical journal study found that 20% of malaria drugs

were fake. james owour is with kenya's pharmacy and poisons board that regulates drugs. he complains his agency is hampered by too few inspectors, only 16 for the entire country, and no legal muscle. there's no law against a pill made out of chalk? >> not in our acts. >> reporter: it must be a real frustration? >> sure it is. the other challenge is porous borders. sometimes people smuggle things including medicine through places that are not manned by inspectors. >> reporter: in response, many providers and wholesalers have developed their own methods to ensure quality, testing products inspections are regularly conducted at c.f.w. clinics, for example. abraham orare explained what he looks for. >> we look at the source. i'm looking at the stock card

and also checking the delivery sheet to make sure this is exactly what is being supplied. >> reporter: their supplier is a not-for-profit group called meds: "mission for essential drugs and supplies." it was founded 30 years ago by faith-based groups, which are major health care providers in kenya. meds now distributes 40% of all drugs in kenya from its giant warehouse on the edge of nairobi. >> we have about 1,300 items that pass through here. >> reporter: some of the most commonly prescribed are also most commonly counterfeited, says meds director jane masiga. >> antibiotics, painkillers and medicines for chronic diseases because they know that's a regular supply patients will continue taking those medicines. >> reporter: meds begins its process by inspecting the pharmaceutical factories themselves, in kenya. but also in india and china--

two of the biggest sources of drugs, both legitimate and counterfeit. stephen kigera is in charge of quality assurance for meds. >> we're able to pick out the non-conformaties that are found in some of these factories so >> reporter: meds randomly tests the drugs that it buys. those that fail are destroyed to insure that only genuine products leave this warehouse for clients' shelves, but kigera says there are other complications. many small, storefront pharmacies buy from unauthorized distributors, and are staffed by unqualified people dispensing drugs without any pharmacy training or a prescription. >> those pharmacies and chemists run by quacks and non- professionals. those are the chemists where there is a high likelihood that fake medicines will actually be sold. >> reporter: does the average patient have any awareness that this is a problem? >> chances are no. because, assuming i'm from a poor

neighborhood, if i see someone standing behind the counter wearing a white lab coat, i assume the person is a professional. >> pop open a capsule . >> reporter: technology may provide some answers-- everything from bar coding to chemical markers to weed out fakes. here at the moi hospital in eldoret, a team from purdue and notre dame universities is in the early testing phase of a chemically coated paper strip. it's cheap, just 50 cents a card, and easy to use by a clinic to test its drugs: spread it on the card strip, dip in water and check for color changes. >> if there are any differences between the image and the control image, you can say it's suspicious. >> reporter: suspicious means it doesn't contain the active ingredient or has only a tiny fraction of it, as often happens, says dr. mercy maina >> counterfeiters are smart. they know you're going to run a qualitative test to just test a

presence of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. they will make sure that some of it is available for it to pass the test, to get away with it. >> reporter: the new test is designed to weed out products with those smaller doses of active ingredient, which she says are a giant threat to public health, especially with antibiotics which the bacteria learn to resist. >> you're increasing superbugs. so we will run out of antibiotics because you're being exposed to lower quantity of medicine than you should. that has consequences. >> reporter: thomas woods agrees, and says that's why the >> i think it's a system failure if we are not able to equip partners in places like africa with some of the same tools that we use to protect ourselves: technology, field-based technology, stronger laboratories, rapid authentication devices, things

our f.d.a. has at its regular disposal. let's put them in the hands of african regulators and save african lives. >> reporter: part of his job at the world bank is to convince rich countries to step up such efforts. it's not just african lives at stake, he says, but the safety of the global supply of pharmaceutical drugs. for the pbs newshour, i'm fred de sam lazaro in eldoret, kenya. >> woodruff: fred's reporting is a partnership with the "undertold stories project" at the university of st. thomas in minnesota. >> woodruff: as we reported earlier, the federal communications commissions voted to roll back obama-era net neutrality regulations. in tonight's brief but spectacular episode, we take a step back to hear about the importance of creating a free, fairer, and safer internet from entrepreneur martha lane fox. she is one of the nine current board members of twitter and the

founder of dot everyone, an organization that champions "responsible tech." >> the internet at its best is the collective experience of humanity that moves us on in a positive way. the internet at its worst is the collective experience of humanity that moves us on in a negative way. for me, as a young woman who started my career working in technology, it felt as though this was going to be the most incredible, redistributive, democratic, empwering force for good. people, wherever they were in the world, were going to be able to share information, you were going to be able to set up a business in your bedroom even if you had no experience, you were going to reach the whole world's population, you know, that children were going to have access to the collective knowledge that we're all going to put on the internet, to a degree that absolutely been true. you know, you can go on your computer and have things

delivered to your front door in the next few hours. how amazing. but it has not all been good. it has also brought with it, unintended consequences that no one in those early days imagined, you know, the internet is basically a duopoly right now. it's a duopoly between two big platform businesses, facebook and google. amazon, microsoft, apple, yes, sure, but those are the big two and that still takes my breath away. i don't really blame any one group of people for what's happened to the internet. i think it's a process of lots of things and also rapid growth of scaling of platform based businesses, so called platform based businesses that just happen do quickly they became more powerful than national governments. so the idea that you could put boundaries around them or regulate them or keep them contained in some way was sort of impossible pretty quickly. for me, a safer and fairer internet revolves around a few different axis. we must make sure everybody is able to use the internet in a safe and equitable way, have access to it. we also need to keep questioning and being curious about technology. we must make sure we own it, it

does not own us. the second thing is about the diversity and inclusion more broadly in the products and services that the sector creates. the internet is basically designed and created by men. i'm a young woman-- was a young woman, not anymore, who was lucky enough to fall into the technology sector. and i believe deeply that we need to encourage all kinds of people to take part, create, and build the future. and at the minute it is looking terrifyingly like the hierarchies of industry of old and i feel that's very disappointing when this is a sector and a world that didn't even exist 30 years ago. the question of our own data and the trail that we leave and the economics of the web and the internet are extremely vexing. shouldn't be that complicated. i should be able to know what's out there about me. i should be able to make a more tangible contract with the other side, so, i think these things are solvable, but i think it's not well understood by people and i think if they knew the scale of the challenge, it would be a bit more alarming. my name is martha lane fox, and this is my brief but spectacular take on creating a fairer internet.

>> woodruff: you can watch additional brief but spectacular episodes on our website, pbs.org/newshour/brief. on the newshour online right now, a new study suggests that babies infected with the zika virus in utero endure complications long after birth, like motor impairments, seizures, difficulties with sleeping and feeding and more. all that and more is on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshour for tonight. on friday, a roundup of the year's best movies. 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: >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the well-being of

humanity around the world by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at rockefellerfoundation.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

elyse: we're the history detectives, and we're going to investigate some untold stories from america's past. gwen: in this episode, we uncover the moving story behind this revolutionary war era poem. "come pity the downfall of poor daniel goodhue. in prison he is cast and therefore to stay." wes: we discover if this watch once belonged to one of america's greatest writers, mark twain. i learned a good lie can travel twice around the globe before the truth gets its boots on.