captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: fighting the mandate. the debate over vaccine requirements takes shape in congress, as even some democrats push back on the president. then, religion at the court. the justices hear a case about whether government funding can be used for religious education. plus, abuse in the ranks. history is made, as a congressional deal takes the reporting of sexual assault out of the military chain of command. and, on trl. the police officer who shot daunte wright during a traffic stop in a minneapolis suburb sees her case go to court. all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> fidelity wealth management. >> consumer cellular. >> johnson & johnson. >> financial services firm raymond james.

>> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention, in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: there is potentially encouraging news tonight on covid-19.

pfizer says that its double-dose vaccine-- plus a booster-- may offer significant protection against the omicron variant. the initial two doses by themselves appear much less effective. meanwhile, the f.d.a. authorized a new antibody drug for people with serious health problems who need more protection than a vaccine provides. we will turn to the issue of vaccine mandates, after the news summary. president biden today underscored his warnings to russian president vladimir putin not to invade ukraine. leaving the white house, the president said sending in american troops is not on the table, but moscow would still pay a high price. >> economic consequences like none he's ever seen, or ever have been seen. but the idea that the united states is going to unilaterally use force to confront russia invading ukraine is not in the cards right now. >> woodruff: the president said

he is "confident" that putin got the message. germany officially has a new leader. olaf schultz became chancellor today, marking the end of angela merkel's 16-year tenure. schultz took office as leader of a progressive coalition of parties. they say they will focus on modernizing germany and combating climate change. canada and britain are the latest to join the u.s. diplomatic boycott of the winter olympics in china. they announced today that they will not send government officials to the february games in beijing, but their athletes will still compete. canadian prime minister justin trudeau spoke in ottawa. >> we are extremely concerned by the repeated human rights violations by the chinese government. that is why we are announcing today that we will not be sending any diplomatic represtation to the beijing olympic or paralympic games this winter. >> woodruff: australia is also

taking part in the boycott. french authorities have released a man they arrested yesterday in the murder of saudi journalist jamal khashoggi. they say that it was a case of mistaken identity. khashoggi had criticized the saudi crown prince, and was killed after entering a saudi consulate in turkey, in 2018. back in this country, a minneapolis jury heard opening statements in the manslaughter trial of a former police officer who killed daunte wright last april. prosecutors said kim potter betrayed her mission. the defense said she mistook her gun for her taser, and that wright should have surrendered. we will get details, later in the program. a jury in chicago has begun deliberations on charges that the actor jussie smollett faked a hate crime against himself to gain publicity. in closing arguments today, the defense said two men, who claim smollett hired them to stage the attack, are liars.

the prosecution accused smollett of lying. the c.e.o. of instagram called today for creating an industry body dedicated to keeping young people safe online. adam mosseri testified at a u.s. senate hearing amid growing criticism of how instagram affects the mental health of young users. democrat richard blumenthal questioned how new standards would be policed. >> would the attorney general of the united states, or the attorney general of a state like connecticut, where i was attorney general, have the power to enforce those standards? >> senator, we believe in enforcement. specifically how to implement that enforcement is something that we would like to work with your office on, and other offices as well. >> well, that's a simple yes or no. enforceability has to be part of your proposal. >> senator, i agree. enforceability is incredibly important. >> woodruff: mosseri also did not commit to permanently terminating plans for a version of the platform for kids under 13.

those plans have been suspended since september. former white house chief of staff mark meadows is suing the congressional committee investigating last january's assault on the u.s. capitol. he says that the committee's subpoenas are overly broad. the committee warned today that meadows will be held in contempt of congress for refusing to testify. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 35 points to close at 35,754. the nasdaq rose 100 points. the s&p 500 added 14. and, authorities in saudi arabia are cracking down on cosmetically-enhanced camels at an annual beauty pageant. more than 40 camels have been disqualified after breeders used botox injections, face lifts, and other alterations to enlarge their lips and noses, and boost muscles. the camel pageant is highly popular, and offers $66 million in prize money.

wow. still to come on the newshour: the new u.s. envoy to afghanistan discusses the worsening humanitarian situation there. we examine the many facets of the debt ceiling debate in congress. a tennessee pastor gives his "brief but spectacular" take on caring for seniors. plus, much more. >> woodruff: the senate is set to vote this evening on repealing president biden's vaccine mandate for businesses with 100 employees or more. the measure, which needs 51 votes, is expected to pass, after democrats joe manchin and jon tester announced their support. but the bill faces an uphill

battle in the house, and president biden is likely to veto it, should it land on his desk. i spoke about this moments ago with senator john thune, the second highest ranng republican in the senate. senator john thune, thank you very much for joining us. let me just ask you flat out, what is the argument for not having the government require large employers to make sure that they're employees are vaccinated or tested once a week? >> well, i think several arguments, one is just the impact it would have on the workforce. all of us have heard from our employers in the states. i think the number in south dakota is on the order of 30% of workers wouldn't be able to go to work if this vaccine mandate were put into place, and i think the belief that a lot of us have -- and i'm pro-vaccine, i'm vaccinated, i encourage people in south dakota and everywhere else i go to get

vaccinated all the time -- but i think it's hard to have a federal government have you a regulatory agency impose this manhattan and i don't think they have the constitutional authority to do that. we're putting congress on record and i think tonight will have a bipartisan vote in favor of overturning this manhattan. >> woodruff: senator, there's more evidence coming in every day, these vaccines are effective. in fact, there's more evidence today that, with a boors, they are very very effective in preventing covid. why wouldn't you want to see everything possible done to see that people don't get this virus and save lives? >> well, and i think that's why we should do everything we can to encourage, persuade, whatever it takes to get people, you know, in a volume tear way to exercise their individual freedom of responsibility to get that done. i honestly think, judy, that, in some respects, mandating this

will have the countereffect. i think it will push people away you might otherwise be able to persuade get this vaccine. i don't think people sometimes understand when you have government in washington, d.c. issuing requirements and mandates like this the effect it has on people who view these issues to be personal issues and in some cases religious and in some cases medical issues, and sometimes you can work through that and encourage them and get them vaccinated, but some cases you can't do that, and i just think that, in cases where you can't do that, a lot of these employers, and i know a lot of them, are working really hard to keep their workplaces safe and, by requiring and mandating this vaccine, it's going to cost them a lot of jobs, and i can tell you, and i've talked to employers in south dakota where they're talking about 40, 50% reduction in workers as a result of this, and that has a crushing effect on the economy, and in some cases these are employers that are doing important work

like healthcare workers and people caring for people's health. >> woodruff: i saw a report healthcare companies in south dakota, when they require their employees, something like 97-plus percent of their employees got the vaccination, and there's an option of being tested every week. people have been urged to get the vaccine ever since the vaccine came out. you still have people resisting, and it's been pointed out that fewer republicans, a significant percentage, fewer republicans, people who identify as republicans, are willing to get the vaccine. does listening to republican leaders like you and others say mandates are wrong, does that end up discouraging people from getting the vaccine? >> you know, i do't think that's true. in fact, like i said, i think mandating it actually discourages the people who we're trying to reach with this. that being said, the point that you make, there are healthcare

providers in south dakota, but they've done that on their own volition, it hasn't been a federal government mandate, and i respect the right of an individual employer, if they decide to do that at a business, i'm not saying you can't do that. it's a free country, if you want to do that. i just don't think the federal government ought to be mandating it, and i think we all want to encourage the maximum amount of people to get vaccinated, i think that makes us all safer, and we're seeing good success in our state of south dakota and across the country, but i think the mandate is something that -- and people in rural areas maybe are different this way, but, you know, i look at the vote we're going to have today is going to be a bipartisan vote. my neighbor from montana jon tester is going to be voting against the mandate as well, and i think it's partly the perception people in some states and a lot of people across the country have that when big government tells you do do something like this that steps

on their personal rights and freedoms and sense of personal responsibility. i think there's a better way to do this than the mandate and i just think this will have a bipartisan vote tonight to overturn this manhattan, but a lot of that, as i said, was already happening in the urts, because i also think the courts have found this to be unconstitutional. >> woodruff: and a defense question about all this, and that is about the politics, on the one hand, the republicans saying they oppose president biden, democrats saying a mandate is a good thing to do, but, on the other hand, republicans are saying president biden is responsible for covid not being under control. does that compute? >> i think, in politics, both sides will try to take advantage of a situation and perhaps, you know, politicize it. i don't think that's what we ought to be doing with an issue like a healthcare crisis. i think we ought to be encouraging people to make the right decisions and giving them the science and fact and data and informing them the best we

can about what's the best way to protect themselves, their families, their communities. and, so, i would hope, at least on this, that we could kind of keep the politics out of it. i think that president trump, you know, to his credit, worked really hard to get a vaccine in place. president biden, to his credit, has worked hard to get people vaccinated. but i don't think mandating it will accomplish that objective, and i think it's backfiring on them, i believe, and i think that's why you're going to have a bipartisan vote today to overturn it. >> woodruff: senator john thune, second ranking republican in the senate, thank you very much. >> thanks, judy, appreciate it. >> woodruff: the supreme court grappled once again today with the issue of church and state. as john yang reports, today's arguments about whether taxpayer

funds can be used to pay tuition at religious schools in maine comes on the heels of recent cases in which the justices sided with religious freedom advocates. >> yang: olivia carson lives in a maine town so small that it doesn't have its own high school. in this largely rural state, more than half the school districts don't have high schools. those districts help pay tuition at state-approved private schools, if that's what parents want. olivia's parents chose bangor christian schools, which both of them hadttended as well. olivia's mother, amy. >> really good academics. small classroom size. pretty much a family atmosphere. you didn't worry when they went to school. >> yang: they also liked what the school describes as a high school curriculum “designed from a biblical worldview.” >> it's the same kind of atmosphere we have at the house, is the se atmosphere she has at school. and the same teachings, and the same, kind of guidelines and structure. >> yang: but that faith-based

teaching is also why the state wouldn't allow tuition payments for olivia, who graduated earlier this year and is now in college. so the carsons, backed by the institute for justice, a libertarian group, sued, saying that violated their first amendment rights to free exercise of religion. >> you see kids that can't-- or families that can't afford to send their kids where they really want to send them, that should be able to. to exclude the school solely based on its faith-based academics, it's not right. >> yang: last year, the supreme court ruled that a state can't exclude schools from a tax-credit-backed scholarship program simply because they're affiliated with a church. in this case, the justices are being asked whether taxpayer money may go to schools providing religious instruction. >> the government should not be in the religious sphere. >> yang: tom cunniff is general counsel for the nation's largest lutheran denomination, which filed a brief supporting the state of maine.

>> because religious education is fundamentally different, it is appropriate for the state of maine to say, "we do not want to be involved in-- entangled in religious education." >> yang: in today's oral arguments, the ideological differences between some of the justices was evident. justice stephen breyer, a liberal, warned against government choosing among religions. >> there are 65 religions, or more, in this country, and they believe a lot of different things. and what's worrying mes that if the school-- if the state must give money to the schools, they're going to get into all kindof religious disputes. >> yang: but justice samuel alito, a conservative, suggested that maine's restriction on sectarian education could do just that. he posed a hypothetical to maine's lawyer about a religious school teaching non-discrimination and universal respect. >> these are principles that we think our students should keep in mind, consistent with

the religious outlook of our community. would that school be disqualified? >> i think what-- what-- what the defining feature, or what are-- or what would make the difference, is whether children are being taught that your religion demands that you do these things. that your religion-- >> but then you really are discriminating on the basis of religious belief. >> yang: today's case is one of three dealing with religious rights the court is considering this term. >> this is a court that not only is very interested in how religion is being treated, but also feels very strongly that the free exercise clause in particular in the first amendment should be aggressively enforced or implemented. >> yang: marcia coyle is chief washington correspondent for the "national law journal." >> i think the court fell into something of a familiar pattern with these cases. you had the court's conservative majority being very skeptical of the state of maine's arguments.

and then, you had the three justices on the liberal wing of the court, who feel that, "now wait a minute. this is almost, if we strike down this program and require a state to fund religious schools, that's almost a step too far," in terms of what the court has been doing, that there still is separation of church and state. >> yang: the justices will deliver their decisions in each of the three religion cases by the end of june, 2022. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. >> woodruff: lawyers presented opening arguments today in the trial of former minnesota police officer kim potter. last april, she fatally shot daunte wright, a 20-year-old black man, during a traffic stop in a minneapolis suburb. special correspondent fred de

sam lazaro has this report on the events that lead to today's trial. it's part of our ongoing series, "race matters." and a warning-- some of the images in this story are disturbing. >> reporter: in downtown minneapolis last week, protesters rallied for the family of daunte wright. they took to the streets outside the hennepin county courthouse, as jury selection got underway in the manslaughter trial of kim potter. >> kim potter is a killer cop, and she needs to be imprisoned for a long time. no justice, no peace. >> reporter: perhaps underlining the simmering tensions here: a car forced its way through the crowd. no one appeared seriously injured, and the protest went on. the minneapolis-st. paul area has been on edge for more than 18 months, since the police killing of george floyd and the unrest that followed. but that anxiety intensified

last april, in the waning days of derek chauvin's murder trial, when wright was killed during a traffic stop in the minneapolis suburb of brooklyn center. potter, a veteran of the force, and two other officers pulled wright over for expired tabs and a hanging air freshener. the officers then discovered wright had an outstanding warrant, and when they went to arrest him, he tried to get back in his car. >> reporter: the killing set off days of protests outside the brooklyn center police department. there were violent clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement, who deployed rubber bullets, flash-bangs, and tear gas. meanwhile, wright's family grieved publicly. >> there's never going to be justice for us. the justice would bring our son home to us, knocking on the door with his big smile, coming in

the house. justice isn't even a word to me. i do want accountability. 100% accountability. >> reporter: potter resigned from the department, and was later charged with first and second degree manslaughter. during today's opening statements, prosecutors laid out their case. >> she was trained to be aware of the differences between her gun and her taser. this case is about an officer who knew not to get it dead wrong, but she failed to get it right. >> reporter: but potter's lawyers argued, mistakes can occur despite training, and that she acted swiftly to protect fellow officers. >> mr. wright can stop. all he has to do is stop. but he goes. she can't let him leave, because he's going to kill her partner.

and so she yells "taser, taser, taser," and she pulls the trigger, believing that it was a taser. >> reporter: potter will take the stand in her own defense. >> some people want the criminal system to speak to really broad issues of-- of justice and morality, and they want the trial to be about, was kim potter wrong? >> reporter: rachel moran is a law professor at the university of st. thomas. she says the trial may be dissatisfying for members of the community clamoring for systemic change. >> the trial is going to hinge on, can the state show that she- - not that she meant to kill him-- but that she disregarded her training; that her act of grabbing the gun instead of the taser was so beyond the pale of what any reasonable officer would do that it could be considered reckless. those are tough questions, actually, to answer, and that's where the nuance exists. >> reporter: in the meantime, officials and residents are grappling over what's next for brooklyn center.

the killing of daunte wright seemed to bring to the surface issues around race and policing that had lurked just below, in a city that rapidly has become minnesota's most diverse. >> i feel very much personally responsible for what happened with the killing of daunte wrig. >> reporter: mike elliott is the mayor of brooklyn center. he's pushed a number of public safety reforms, including using unarmed civilians for certain traffic violations, and moving funds from police to mental health specialists and social workers. >> when we looked at our 911 call data, we saw only 22% of the calls were criminal, or crime-related. almost 80% of the calls were either-- 43% general call for help; about 11% medical and mental health. we saw that there was a great

need for us to have, you know, this alternative response system. >> reporter: but it's been a tough sell for you, hasn't it? >> it has. you know, as you know, anything new is a tough sell, right? >> reporter: after police unions warned the proposal would threaten public safety, the city council this week approved a compromise, taking less money than originally planned from the police department. for now, all eyes are on the courtroom. >> i, along with everybody in our community, wants to see justice served. justice doesn't just, though, mean what happens in the courtroom. it is preventing the kind of conditions that can lead to a daunte wright being shot and killed. >> reporter: a plea that wright's mother, the state's first witness today, has repeated since april. for the pbs newshour, i'm fred de sam lazaro in brooklyn center, minnesota.

>> woodruff: it is now nearly four months since the american withdrawal from afghanistan, the collapse of the afghan government, and the taliban takeover. the country is now widely seen in free fall, with millions in danger and a spiraling humanitarian crisis. here's nick schifrin. >> schifrin: afghanistan is on the brink of mass starvation. every single afghan province is considered food insecure, or even in crisis. 23 million afghans need food assistance. 8.7 million are nearing famine. one million children face severe, acute malnutrition, and could starve and die this winter-- far more than died in 20 years of war. schools have no money to pay teachers, because the banking system is inoperable. and the health care system is near collapse, because international assistance that was the source of funding has been frozen. to talk about u.s. policy, i'm joined by tom west, recently named the u.s. special

representative for afghanistan, in his first broadcast interview in this role. tom west, welcome to the newshour. the u.s. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, but it's frozen all other assistance and kept in place pre-existing sanctions on the taliban that have beco basically de facto sanctions on the afghan government. why? >> nick, thank you for having me. let me first say the humanitarian crisis unfolding and worsening in afghanistan is at the very center of policymaking. it's $474 million in american humanitarian assistance, that's in addition to 4.1 billion since 2002. we have issued two general licenses that aim to provide for u.n. organizations, humanitarian actors, n.g.o.s to scale up and meet the needs of a coming crisis this winter through outreach to particular corporations, we've managed to stitch together an operation that now is trucking in many

millions of dollars explicitly to help humanitarian organizations scale up. we talked to the taliban at great length about the magnitude of afghanistan's dependence on foreign aid in the many months leading up to their takeover on august 15. they chose a military takeover. i think they knew the consequences, and they made that decision anyway, and, unfortunately, the afghan people are suffering as a result. >> reporter: the u.s. made those consequences clear but today we are witnessing state collapse in realtime. the u.s. says if the trends continue, 97% will be in poverty, that is a level of poverty never seen before in any conflict anywhere. do you acknowledge u.s. policy is exacerbating the crisis even if the u.s. didn't start it? >> i would say collectively the international community has not yet decided to pursue, for instance, sanctions relief. there are a range of things we want to see from the taliban

when it comes to establishing a record of responsible conduct. >> reporter: what are you waiting for? what is it exactly that you expect the taliban to do right now? >> so we are not conditioning humanitarian assist on anything that the taliban moves forward with. that 474 million is moving, and i would add there are about $1.5 billion stalled at the world bank, the afghanistan reconstruction fund that used to support about 45% of public expenditures. >> reporter: as you well know, this is well beyond humanitarian assistance, emergency humanitarian assistance. this is what the government calls humanitarian-plus assistance, the idea of a healthcare system, the idea of a education system. the very idea of getting cash in this society, people's salaries being paid without all of which they cannot live, they cannot actually survive throughout the day. do you acknowledge that this is a question more than morality? it's a question of national security? if the afghan state collapses,

do you acknowledge you could have migration crisis that could destabilize the region? >> you know, my first stop abroad in this job was to brussels where i conducted with our allies. yes, i think the possibility of a repeat of 2015 and 2016 rooms very large in their minds and that is why, you know, on behalf of our allies i think that is reason enough to do more, to mitigate this humanitarian crisis underway. >> reporter: let's do specifics and get into the healthcare system. to do that, i want to show a clip from a hospital in kabul that my colleague jane ferguson filmed just last month. >> son of sadam written on a piece of tape stuck to this child's chest is all that identifies him. with each shallow breath, his chances of making it grow thinner. this ward is packed, frail, sick babies lined up next to one another in beds meant for one. almost a third don't make it. that means four or five of the

babies in this room will die. >> reporter: what is the u.s. doing to help those children? >> well, like i said, the urgency of a policy response is underway, but, look, nick, those images are just absolutely heartbreaking for anybody who cares about afghans. i think, as a society, a lot of us in america still care about the afghan people, about the 38 million people who remain there. >> reporter: let's talk about education a little bit. 222,000 teachers. can the u.s. help pay the salaries, again, salaries that have not been paid, frankly, for much of the year. >> i would sketch for you two areas of strong consensus within the international community when it comes to potential support to teachers, again, through the world bank. one is we want to see a serious and rigorous academic curriculum, and we received strong assurances from the

taliban that they have no interest in revising the curriculum of e last 20 years. second, we want to see some quiet efforts to, in effect, monitor and give us confidence that, when the taliban say women and girls are back in school, they tell us back in 12 provinces. we want independent monitors to let us know the same. we've seen positive public statements in this regard from a range of officials with the taliban, but we want to follow through and see a monitoring arrangement in place as well. >> reporter: is that follow-through worth risking the lives of a million children this winter, given those million children need more than emergency humanitarian aid, they need structural assistance that the u.s. is currently freezing? >> so, when i say follow-through, i mean specifically on education in the matter of salaries. i mean, unfortunately, providing

200,000 teachers their salaries, even that is not going to be enough to truly meaningfully mitt fate the suffering underway. i think the scale of the intervention is going to have to be larger. >> reporter: tom west, special representative for afghanistan, thank you very much. >> thank you, nick. >> woodruff: late last night, the u.s. house of representatives passed its version of the annual national defense authorization act. the bill-- which still needs senate approval-- contains a number of changes to how the military deals with its long-standing problem of sexual assault. but, some members of congress say the reforms don't go far enough, and could even exacerbate the problem. amna nawaz has more. >> nawaz: judy, for decades, there has been a debate among military experts and on capitol hill about how to improve the way the military

investigates and prosecutes allegations of sexual assault in its ranks. one major issue is the role and influence of military commanders in deciding how cases are adjudicated. with me now is new york democratic senator kirsten gillibrand. senator gillibrand, welcome back to the "newshour". always good to have you. a lot of folks have been hailing this new agreement as a see change, a giant leap forward for sexual assault survivors. you say it has major reforms but doesn't go far enough and you plan to vote against it. why? >> well, it's a missed opportunity. we had such a groundswell of support to create a prosecutor that functioned outside the chain of demand, highly trained, independent, no bias. unfortunately the house and the conference committee chose to retain enormous. a of authority within the chain of command. the chain of commander is the convening authority. at the beginning of the trial it

will say this trial has been convened by x, y, z commander. the commander retains authority to choose some of the witnesses, to give permission for certain expert testimony, to entirely dismiss someone from the military. so there's a lot of authority that is still in the commander's hands and, so, from the perception of a survivor or a plaintiff, i don't think they will believe this process is independent of their commander who may well be in their own chain of command or the chain of command of their perpetrator and the person they're accusing of sexual assault. >> reporter: commanders lost some power in this, right? they had no authority to decide if the accused should be prosecuted in the first place, they were stripped of that authority, and the lead trial counsel reports to the secretary of each military branch. there's tracking instances of retaliation. do you think all of those will have any kind of impact?

>> so all of those changes would seem to be positive, but about a third of service members who are assaulted in the military don't report because they don't believe the chain of command will have their back. 44% when surveyed said they would be more likely to report if the decision-making was not within the chain of command. so, yes, they made some changes. i just don't know if those changes will work because they didn't meet the need of an independent military justice system. >> so, senator gillibrand, what happened? i recall in the summer you were confident this bill would move forward, you decided all the support it had, we should note the final text was done by chairman and ranking members of the house and senate armed services committee, so you were not in that room, but what happened? how did it get removed? >> senator jack reed and his ranking member as well as congressman smith and his rankingmember chose to take it out. it did pass in the senate armed

services committee, the entire profession, and we thought it had sufficient support, but these four men have enormous power and behind closed doors they chose to put their will in front of the will of all those members of congress. the other form they chose not to take is a bright line that all serious crimes that are nonmilitary. our bill, for example had 38 crimes removed from the chain of command. this bill chose to remove 11. it didn't remove assault, and it didn't remove child abuse, things that clearly should have been removed from the chain of command because a lot of crimes can be shoved right under those two crimes. when you have just a small number of crimes being removed and given to a special prosecutor, you run the risk service members will see this as special treatment particularly for crimes that disproportionately affect women. women are marginalized enough in the armed services. we don't want them seen as getting special tratment and further marginalized. we call that a pink court. that's why we recommended a

bright crime at the serious crimes, one that held more an a year of punishment excluding the military grimes. >> reporter: i want to ask about the reports that top military lawyers and even austin himself lobbying congress against your legislation. why would they do that. >> i'm aware secretary of defense austin was calling around including calling the majority leader and others to be heard, and that's obviously his right, but everyone wh serves in the military knows the convening authority is determinate for the projection of power in these cases, and, so, service members know if the convening authority is the commander, the commander holds enormous weight in the outcome of these cases. >> reporter: democratic senator from new york kirsten gillibrand joining us tonight. kirsten, thank you so much for your time.

>> thank you. >> nawaz: and for a different perspective, we turn to rhode island democrat jack reed. he is chairman of senate armed services committee. mr. chairman, welcome back to the "newshour". always good to have you here. you heard senator gillibrand talk about the broad support her more expansive had. many wand more broad reforms. so why did you cut them out of the bill. >> well, wectually expanded the reforms that the house had proposed and, indeed the, the house did not consider senator gillibrand's legislation either in the committee or on the floor. so what we managed to accomplish in the conference was to expand and include crimes that are not specifically related to sexual behavior. so it's no longer a pink court. indeed, it offers the possibility of further changes to expanding that list. so we have, i think, gone a long way to recognize the problem. and this is the problem that has

been undercutting our miller for years. the expectation, the hope was that there could be a military solution, but i think we need it, and i would commend congresswoman spears and senator gillibrand and earnest for what they've done. i've had the opportunity to go to forthood, talk to have it soldiers, female soldiers, especially, get a sense of what they need in restoring trust. this legislation will do that and provide fair and justice. >> reporter: mr. chairman, let me ask you about some of the spifics. many argue it does not go far enough, that you may have created a special system for some crimes but this military commander still has extraordinary influence over how sexual assault cases are processed. they retain authority to convene trials, choose jury members,

grant immunity, approve witnesses and defense experts. so why should military commanders retain that kind of power. >> the military commanders have the authority as the convening authority to select a jury pool, just as in civilian courts the selection of individual jurors is the choice of the defense lawyer, the special trial lawyer, the prosecutor and the judge. in fact, under senator gillibrand's proposal, it would be solely the authority of the prosecutor to pick the jury, and that, i think, would raise serious constitutional questions and due process questions about fairness. >> reporter: well, i think if i may, her case is that would be an independent prosecutor rather than a commander who has a connection to both the accused and the accuser. >> well, i don't know if there's any civilian court in the world in which the district attorney or the federal attorney gets to pick the jury because they have an incentive to pick people who will be on their side. i think what we want is

fairness, and what we've achieved by allowing the convening authority to establish the pool not to select the jurors but to establish the pool, we give the opportunity for the judge, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to exercise jury selection through a series of challenges for cause or preemptive challenges. that's the way it's done in every court in america and to turn it over to the prosecutor, i don't think it would be accepted by any civil authority. >> reporter: well, let me to you about how this is being received because there have been some former military lawyers who have said there's really no way a prosecutor can be independent in this system, that the military commanders would still exert enormous influence and survivors groups have a rale problem with this, they say it does not go far enough and feeds the mistrust everyone greece exist in the system. the service members do not feel comfortable ofenders will be held accountable in the system.

what would your message to the survivors be especially the military members who don't believe this goes far enough? >> well, all eke say is the most prominent group who supports reforms protect our defenders has called this the most transformative legislation in the history of the military justice system. so we have made extraordinary strides. we have signaled to all of the men and women of the armed forces that we have heard them, that we are creating a system in which the special prosecutor will have the sole right, not the commander, to prefer these charges. they can't be overruled by a commander. we have, though, maintained the ability we believe to have a fair and impartiality jury. ultimately, this is going to be coupled with also significant preventative initiatives that we put in the legislation. yi think one to have the pre-- i think one of the presumptions is this is the only remedy.

the best remedy is prevention, not simply just adjudication, and we've also done that and that's in this legislation. so we're trying and i hope we'll succeed, we'll do what we can to succeed, to create an environment in which, you're exactly right, troops trust their commanders, and commanders know their troops and care for those troops, an that's not only a basic tenet of human behavior but the glue which holds combat units together -- individual responsibility and an individual sense of protecting your subordinates, protecting your comrades. that's what we're striving for, and i think we'll achieve it. >> reporter: that is senator jack reed, democrat from rhode island, chairman of the senate armed services committee joining us tonight. mr. chairman, thank you for your time. >> thank you very much.

>> woodruff: u.s. senators are deciding how they will vote on a deal to raise the debt ceiling, after the house passed the first piece of the plan last night. leaders in both parties are projecting confidence, but the stakes are high. our lisa desjardins helps us understand why the debt limit has become so political, and what exactly it does. >> desjardins: the debt part is easy. the u.s. government is the largest spender in the world-- everything from the military and social security benefits, to school lunches, and even feeding animals at the national zoo. but the u.s. spends mo money than it takes in-- a lot more. for most of the past 100 years, we've operated off red ink. all of that government spending: salaries, agencies, weapons, parks and zoos-- it's funded in good part by debt. the debt limit, or ceiling,

cuts off how much government can borrow at any time. but, u.s. spending is already in motion. planes have been ordered, government jobs in place. so, the debt ceiling doesn't mean our debt or bills will stop-- it only stops the u.s.'s ability to borrow right now-- and pay for those bills. someone who's testified about our debt, maya macguineas, of the committee for a responsible federal budget, explains. >> the purpose of the debt ceiling, i believe, is to make sure that we aren't borrowing unlimited amounts, but instead, we have a check, and we consider, are we borrowing the right amount of money, and are we borrowing for the right things? >> desjardins: when first introduced in 1917 under president woodrow wilson, the overall u.s. debt limit then was set far above government spending needs. it left room. but now, the debt limit is routinely set at or near what we spend, so congress-- both parties-- has to lift the debt ceiling regularly, like in the agreement this week. >> we've cleared the path, hopefully, for addressing the debt limit.

>> desjardins: or two years ago. >> we think it was the best possible deal under the circumstances. >> desjardins: to address the debt ceiling, congress has two options: they can either raise the debt limit, by setting a new dollar figure for total borrowing. or, they can suspend it, by just punting the problem to a future date. but what happens if the u.s. hits the debt limit and defaults-- can't pay its bills? that's never happened, so this is uncharted, but it's a likely financial disaster. to help understand, think of u.s. government as the world's largest airport. planes-- like money-- come in, and planes go out. think of borrowing as what powers the airport. freeze the borrowing, and that cuts main power to the airport. so, most air traffic stops. now, imagine this happened to every u.s.irport. the travel-- or financial-- problems would ripple across the world in profound ways. >> without knowing exactly what

>> that amount of uncertainty thrown into the economy, thrown into the country, when we've never had it before, could easily push us back into a recession. >> desjardins: the dollar, and u.s. treasury debt-- bonds-- are a cornerstone of global trade. money flies in and out constantly. so if the u.s. can't take on debt, and can't pay its bills, it would affect interest rates and stock markets around the world. and here, it also could quickly affect things like mortgages, car payments. again, it is not clear-- including to those in the business. >> i put little faith in my ability to predict what would happen in something like this, other than volatility. and markets don't like volatility, so i know it would be incredibly negative. >> desjardins: for government agencies, there would be some kind of a shutdown-- and one worse than usual-- because so-called mandatory programs like social security, usually protected in shutdowns, could see funding cut or frozen. the treasury department would ration out where the nation's limited cash goes.

so, why hasn't congress just raised the debt ceiling? for one, we are at historic levels of red ink. only world war ii was higher. and, for lawmakers, there is both real concern and political maneuvering over that. >> we always know the debt ceiling is ultimately going to be raised. the question is, how much of a political game of chicken will we have to go through? >> desjardins: the issue is this-- we are in a time of gridlock: close margins, sharp divide, and big spending. the must-pass debt ceiling has become a piece of political leverage and policy warfare. in other words, the debt limit, which was aimed at financial stability, now threatens the opposite, and it largely serves as a mirror of our political instability. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins. >> woodruff: terrell scruggs is

a tennessee native with a strong sense of his “life's calling.” he is a preacher and caregiver, providing services to seniors in his nashville community, even throughout the pandemic. tonight, he gives his "brief but spectacular" take on living a life of service. >> the caregiving is not a job. you have-- you do a job to make something for yourlf. but caregiving, you have to give something back from within yourself. >> my mother and my father raised us to be good samaritans. we don't look at color. we don't look at wealth. we don't look at money. we look at the individual person and if we can help them, we do. i was raised in church. about church. i breathe church. i live church. we are religious by choice, and we teach folks how to treat one

another as human beings. not because of what you have, what you own, what you possess. it's just who you are. at 15 years old, i prayed to god that if he ever gave me a brother, i would take care of him for the rest of my life. i was 20 years old when i found out that i had a brother, and when i went to visit my biological father, he introduced me to him. and from then on, i decided that i wanted to be a part of his life. my brother is highly challenged. he does not speak. he does not chew. and i told my father that whatever you need, let me know. and i will help-help you with him. later on in years, my biological father passed, and we found his mother a couple of years later, in the-- on the kitchen floor. aneurysm. so her-- her daughter took her

with her to another county and took care of her, and i took my brother with me. that's how i got it. so i took-- that's why i took him in. and it's been lovely ever since. he lived better with me than he did with them, because they was ashamed of him. i'm not thsame. i don't go nowhere that he cannot go. your caregiving, it's a calling. you have to want to help somebody. you have to look beyond your self, your problems, your disposition in life, and see that you can lend a helping hand. i'm in my second church, and i've been there for 16 years. if you want to help somebody, you can start with the person next door to you. we're all in this together. this pandemic has brought us together, one way or another. the people that you can help, please help. even if it's just taking out

their trash to the curb, so the trash man can come by and pick it up where they can. it's this simple stuff that you can do. it don't cost nothing, but a little bit of guilt tag. it ain't what you do for yourself that's going to last, it's what you do for others. my name is terrell scruggs, and this is my "brief, but spectacular" take on helping people. >> woodruff: you can watch all our "brief but spectacular" episodes at www.pbs.org/newshour/brief. thank you terrell. on the newshour online right now, medical historian howard markel shares an excerpt from his new book, "the secret of life," which explores the story of rosalind franklin. the female scientist was key to the discovery of the d.n.a. double helix, but was left out of the history for years. read that on our website, www.pbs.org/newshour. and that is the newshour for

tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of no-contract plans, and our u.s.-based customer service team can help find one that fits you. to learn more, visit www.consumercellular.tv. >> fidelity wealth management. >> johnson & johnson. >> bnsf railway. >> financial services firm raymond james. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide.

>> 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

♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. >> hello. >> good evening. >> good to see you again. >> high stakes as presidents biden and putin hold crucial talks. is russia really planning to invade ukraine? and if so, what will dissuade him? then. >> to create a future that works, we must work together. >> building practical utopias. the queen of the dystopian novel shifts her focus to a society we would want to live in. booker prize winner, margaret atwood joins me. plus. the very first time i heard the word oxycontin my son was laying in his bed dead from it. >> the harrowing impact of the opioid epidemic, hari