judy: 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 trial -- 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. p♪

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

>> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems. skoll foundation. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention in the u.s. and developing countries. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. 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. stephanie: i'm stephanie sy with newshour west, we'll return to

the full program after the latest headlines. the fight against covid-19 is advancing. pfizer says its double-dose vaccine -- plus a booster -- may offer significant protection against the omicron variant. the initial 2 doses, by themselves, appear much less effective. meanwhile, the fda authorized a new astrazeneca antibody drug for people with serious health problems who need more protection. and in other covid news, late tonite, the senate voted to overturn president biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses. the measure now moves to the house of representatives. we'll turn to the issue of vaccine mandates, after the news summary. president biden today underscored his warnings to russia's 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. stephanie: 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 >> -- end of angela merkel's 16-year tenure. schultz took office as leader of a progressive coalition of parties. they say they'll focus on modernizing germany and combating climate change. canada and britain are the latest countries to announce diplomatic boycotts of the olympics in china. they will not send government officials to the february games, but athletes will still compete. canada's prime minister 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 representation to the beijing olympic or paralympic games this winter. stephanie: australia is also taking part in the boycott. french authorities have released a man they arrested in the murder of saudi journalist jamal khashoggi. they say he was not who they thought he was. khashoggi had criticized the saudi crown prince and was killed after entering a saudi consulate in turkey in 2018. back in this country, a father and son have been arrested on suspicion of sparking the giant caldor fire in california earlier this year. david scott smith and his son travis shane smith were booked on reckless arson charges that resulted in great bodily injury to multiple injuries. they each are being held on $1 million bail. the caldor fire leveled the town of grizzly flats. it burned more than 200,000 acres in the lake tahoe area and was ablaze for more than two months. a minneapolis jury heard opening

statements in the manslaughter trial of a former police officer who fatally shot black motorist 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'll have more 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 2 men who claim smollett hired them to stage the attack are liars. the prosecution accused smollett of lying. the ceo of instagram called today for creating an industry body dedicated to keeping young people safe online. adam moseri 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. stephanie: moseri would not commit to terminating plans to add a version of the platform for children under 13. that project is now on pause. 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 the committee's subpoenas are overlyroad. the committee warned today that meadows will be held in contempt of congress for refusing to testify. 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. >> this is "pbs newshour west" from weta studios in washington and in the west at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: the u.s. senate is set to vote this evening on repealing president biden's vaccine mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees. 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 democrat-controlled house of representatives 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 ranking republican in the senate.

senator, thank you very much for joining us. let me ask you flat out. what is the argument for not having the government require large employers to make sure that their employees are either vaccinated or are tested once a week? >> i think several arguments. one is the impact it would have on the workforce. all of a sudden heard from employers and our states. the number of south dakota is 30% of workers would not be able to go to work if this vaccine mandate were put into place. i think the belief that a lot of us have and i'm pro-vaccine, i'm vaccinated. i encourage people to get vaccinated all the time, but i think it is really hard to have a federal government through a regulatory agency impose this kind of a mandate. i think the courts have determined they don't have the

constitutional authority to do that. we are simply putting congress on the record and i think we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of overturning this mandate. judy: there is more evidence coming and that these vaccines are effective and there is more evidence today that with the booster 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, i think that is why we should do everything we can to encourage, persuade, whatever it takes to get people in a voluntary way to exercise their individual freedom and responsibility to get that done. i think in some respects mandating this will have the counter effect. i think it is going to push people away who otherwise might be able to persuade to get this vaccine. i don't think people sometimes

understand when you have the government in washington, d.c. issuing mandates like this, the effect it has on people like this to view these issues to be personal issues, and some case religious, medical issues. sometimes you can work through that and get them vaccinated, but in some cases, you cannot do that. in cases where you can't do that, at a lot of these employers are working really hard to keep the work places safe. by requiring an mandating this vaccine, it is going to cost them a lot of jobs. i've talked to employers in south dakota where they are talking about 40%, 50% reduction in workers as a result of this and this has a crushing effect on the economy and these are employers doing important work, like health care workers and people caring for people's health. judy: i did see a report that health care cpanies in south

dakota, something like 97% of their employees got the vaccination when they were required. i would also point out there is the 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. it has been pointed out that 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 don't think that is true. like i said, i think mandating it discourages the people we are trying to reach. that being said, the point that you make, there are health care fighters and self-care -- providers in south dakota that have done it and i respect the right of an individual employer,

i'm not saying you can't do that, it is a free country if you want to do that, i just don't think the federal government ought to be mandating it. i think we all want to encourage the maximum amount of people to get vaccinated. i think that makes us all safer. we are seeing good success in our state of south dakota and across the country, but the mandate is something that -- i look at the vote we are going to have today as a bipartisan vote, my neighbor from montana is going to be voting against this mandate as well. i think it is partly just this perception that people in some states and a lot of people across the country have that one big government tells you to do something like this, it infringes on their constitutional rights and freedoms and sense of personal responsibility. i think there is a better way to do this than the mandate and i think it is going to -- this

will have a bipartisan vote tonight to overturn this mandate, but a lot of that is already happening in the courts because i think the courts have found this to be unconstitutional. judy: a different question about all this and that is about the politics of it. a number of republicans saying they oppose president biden and democrats saying in mandate is a good thing, on the other hand president -- republicans saying president bideis responsible for covid not being under control. does that compute? >> in politics, both sides are going to try to take advantage of a situation and perhaps politicize it. i don't think that is what we ought to be doing with an issue like a health care crisis. i think we out to be encouraging people to make the right decisions and giving them the science and the facts and the data and informing them about what is the best way to protect themselves, their families, their communities. would hope on this that we could kind of keep the politics

out of it. i think president trump, to his credit, worked hard to get a vaccine in place. president biden has worked hard to try to get people vaccinated, but i don't think mandating it is going to accomplish that objective. i think it is backfiring on them, i believe. i think that is why you are going to have a bipartisan vote today to overturn it. judy: senator john thune, thank you very much. >> thanks, judy, appreciate it. judy: 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 local schools -- religious schools in maine comes on the heels of recent cases in which the justices sided with religious freedom advocate.

john: 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 had attended as well. olivia's mother -- >> really good academics, really good. small classroom size. and pretty much a family atmosphere. you didn't worry when they went to school. john: 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. john: 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. john: 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. john: 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. john: 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 me is that if the school -- if the state must give money to the schools, they're going to get into all kinds of religious disputes. john: 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 nondiscrimination 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 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. john: 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 rongly that the free exercise clause in particular in the first amendment should be aggressively enforced or implemented. john: marcia coyle is chief washington correspondent for the national law journal. >> 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. john: the justices will deliver their decisions the three religion cases by the end of june 2022. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. ♪ judy: 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 led to today's trial. it's part of our ongoing series, race matters. and a warning -- some of the images in this sto are disturbing.

p chanting] fred: 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. fred: perhaps underlining the simmering tensions here -- just moments before demonstrators began marching, 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 veteraof the force -- and two other officers pulled him over for expired tags 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. >> taser! taser! taser! i just shot him. fred: the killing set off days of protests outside the brooklyn center police department. there were 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 is not even a word to me. i do want accountability. a hundred percent accountability. fred: 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. fred: 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 and he would be with us. but he goes. she can't let him leave. because he's going to kill her partner. so she does taser, taser, taser, and she pulls the trigger, believing it was a taser. fred: 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? fred: 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 active 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 to answer and that is where the nuance exists. fred: in the meantime, officials and residents are grappling over what is 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 wright. fred: mike elliott is the mayor of brooklyn center. he has 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% were a general call for help, about 11% medical and mental health -- we saw there was a great need for us to have this alternative response system. fred: but it has been a tough sell, hasn't it? >> it has, you know, as you knowanything new is a tough sell, right?

fred: 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. fred: a plea that wright's mother has repeated since april. for the pbs newshour, i'm fred de sam lazaro in brooklyn center, minnesota. ♪ judy: it's been nearly four months since the united states ' withdrawal from afghanistan, the collapse of the afghan

government, and the taliban takeover. the country is now widely seen in freefall, with citizens in danger and a spiraling humanitarian crisis. here's nick schifrin. nick: 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 has frozen all other assisnce and captain place pre-existing sanctions that have become defective sanctions on the afghan government. why? >> thank you for having me. let me say that the humanitarian crisis worsening afghanistan is that the center of policymaking. you mentioned hundreds of millions, it is $474 million in u.s. humanitarian assistance, that is in addition to $4.1 billion since 2002. we have issued general licenses that aim to provide for humanitarian actors, and geo's to scale up and meet the needs of the crisis this winter throughout reach to particular corporations. we have managed to stitch together in operation that is tracking in many millions of dollars explicitly to help humanitarian organization scale up. we talked to the taliban about

the magnitude of afghanistan's dependence on foreign aid in the months leading up to their takeover. they chose a military takeover. i think they knew the consequences. they made that decision anyway. unfortunately, the afghan people are suffering as a result. nick: the u.s.-madthose consequences clear, but we are witnessing state collapse in real-time. bun says 97% will be in poverty. that is a level of poverty never seen before in any conflict anywhere. do you acknowledge that u.s. policy is exacerbating the crisis even if the u.s. did not start it? >> i would say collectively the international community has not yet decided to pursue 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. nick: what is it exactly you expect the taliban to do right

now? >> we are not conditioning humanitarian assistance on anything the taliban moves forward with. the $474 million is moving. i would add that there are $1.5 billion stalled at the world bank. the afghanistan reconstruction trust fund. that use to support 75% of public expenditures. nick: this is well beyond humanitarian assistance. this is what the government calls humanitarian plus assistance. the very idea of getting cash into society, people 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, a question of national security? if the afghan state collapses, do you acknowledge there might be a migration crisis that could destabilize the region? >> my first stop abroad in this job was to brussels, where i

consulted with our allies. yes, i think the possibility of a repeat of 2015 and 2016 looms very large in their minds and that is white on behalf of our allies, that is reason enough to do more to mitigate this humanitarian crisis underway. nick: let's try to do some specifics and get into the health care system. i want to show a clip from a hospital in kabul that my colleague filmed 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. nick: what is the u.s. doing to help those children? >> 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. nick: let's talk about education a little bit. 222,000 teachers. can the u.s. help pay the salaries? salaries that have not been paid for much of the year. >> i would sketch for you may be two areas of strong consensus within the international community when it comes to potential support to teachers again through the world bank. we want to see a serious and rigorous academic curriculum. we have received strong assurances from the taliban that they have no interest in revising the curriculum of the 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, we want independent monitors to let us know the same. we have seen positive public statements in this regard from a range of officials with the taliban, but we want to see followthrough and we want to see a monitoring arrangement in place. nick: is that followthrough worth risking the lives of a million children this winter, given that those children will need more than emergency humanitarian aid, they need structural assistance that the u.s. is currently freezing? >> when i say followthrough, i mean specifically on education and the matter of salaries. unfortunately, providing 200,000 teachers there salaries, even that is not going to be enough to truly meaningfully mitigate the suffering underway. i think the scale of the

intervention is going to have to be larger. nick: tom west, thank you very much. >> thank you, nick. judy: late last night, the u-s -- 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 assualt. but some members of congress say the reforms don't go far enough and could even exacerbate the problem. amna nawaz has more. amna: 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. welcome back to the newshour. a lot of folks have been hailing this new legislation as a seachange, a giant leap forward for sexual assault survivors. you have said it does have some major reforms, but it does not go far enough and you plan to vote against it. why? >> is a missed opportunity. we had such a ground well of support to creating an independent prosecutor that functioned outside the chain of command, one that was highly trained with no bias. unfortunately, the house in the conference committee chose to retain an enormous amount of authority within the chain of command. the commander is still the convening authority. at the beginning of every trial, it will say this court-martial has been convened by xyz commander. the commander continues to retain authority to choose some of the witnesses, to give

permission for certain expert testimony, to entirely dismiss someone from the military. there is a lot of authority that is still in the commander's hands, so from my perception of a survivor or plaintiff, i don't think they will believe that 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 are accusing of sexual assault. amna: commanders did lose some power, they no longer have the authority to decide if the accused could be prosecuted in the first place. now, the lead trial counsel reports straight up to the secretary of each military branch, which is a change. there is also a change for tracking instances of retaliation. do you think those will have impact? >> all of those changes would seem to be positive, but about a third of servicemembers who are assaulted in the military don't

report because they don't believe the chain of command will have their back. in fact, 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 did not meet the need of an independent military justice system. amna: so what happened? i recall in the summer you were confident the bill would move forward. we should note the final text was done by the chairman and ranking members of the house and senate armed services committee, so you were not in the room. how did it get removed? >> sender jack reed and his ranking member, as well as congressman adam smith and his ranking member chose to take it out. it did pass in the senate armed services committee, the entire provision. we thought it did have sufficient support. but these four men have enormous power and behind closed doors,

they chose to put their well in front of the will of all of those members of congress. the other reform they chose not to take is a bright line of all serious crimes that are nonmilitary. our bill had 38 crimes removed from the chain of command. this bill chose to remove 11. it did not remove assault and child abuse, things that should have been removed from the chain of command, because a lot of crimes can be shoved right under those two. when you have just a small number of crimes being removed and given to a special prosecutor, you run the risk that servicemembers will see this as special treatment, specifically for crimes that target women. we don't want them to be seen as getting special treatment and further marginalized. we call that a pink court. that is why we recommended a bright line for the serious crimes. amna: i need to ask you about these reports that there were top military lawyers and even

the secretary of defense lobbying members of congress against your expensive legislation. is that true and why would they do that? >> i'm well aware that the secretary of defense was calling around, including calling the majority leader and others to be heard. that is obviously his right. but everyone who serves in the military knows the convening authority is determinant for the projection of power in these cases, so servicemembers know that if the convening authority is still the commander that the commander holds enormous weight in the outcome of these cases. amna: that is democratic senator kiersten gillibrand joining us tonight. thank you for your time. >> yes. amna: for a different perspective we turn to rhode island democrat jack reed. he is chairman of senate armed services committee. welcome back to the newshour. you just heard senator gillibrand talk about the broad

support for her more expensive reforms. 66 senators, 220 members of congress, attorneys general around the country. they wanted those more broad reforms. why did you cut them out of the bill? >> we actually expanded the reforms the house had proposed and indeed the house did not consider senator gillibrand's legislation either in the committee or on the floor. what we managed to accomplish in the conference was to expand and include crimes that are not specifically related to sexual behavior, so it is no longer a pink court. it offers the possibility of further changes to expanding that list, so we have gone a long way to recognize the problem. this is the problem that has been undercutting our military 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 senator ernst for what they have done. i have had the opportunity to go to fort hood and talk to individual soldiers, female soldiers, get a sense of what they need and restore trust and this legislation will do that and do it in a way that will provide fair justice. amna: if i may, let me ask you about the specifics. many will argue that it does not go far enough, that you may have created a separate system for some crimes, but that the military commander still has enormous authority and influence over how sexual assault cases are prosecuted. military commanders in this system retain the authority to convene trials, to choose jury members, to grant immunity to witnesses, to approve witnesses and defense experts. 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, and the judge. 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. amna: if i may, her case is that would be an independent prosecutor. >> i don't know if there is any civilian court in the world in which the district attorney gets to pick the jerry because they have an incentive to pick people who will be on their side. i think what we want is fairness and what we have achieved by allowing the convening authority to establish the pool, not to select the jurors, but to

establish the pool, we give e opportunity for the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense lawyer to exercise jury selection through a series of challenges or preemptive challenges. that is the way it is done in every court in america. to turn it over to the prosecutor, i don't think it would be accepted by any civil authority. amna: let me ask you about how this is being received. there have been some former military lawyers who have said there is no way a prosecutor can be independent in this system, that the military commanders would exert enormous influence. survivors groups say it does not go far enough and it feeds the mistrust that everyone agrees exist in the system, that servicemembers do not feel comfortable that offenders will be held accountable. what is your message to those survivors? especially the military members who don't believe this goes far enough. >> all i can say is the most prominent group who supports

reforms 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 in 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 refer these charges. they can't be overruled by a commander. we have maintained the ability to have a fair and impartial jury. ultimately, this is going to be coupled with also significant preventive initiatives that we put in the legislation. i think one of the perceptions is that this is the only remedy. the best remedy is prevention, not simply adjudication. we have also done that and that is in this legislation. so we are trying and i hope will

succeed, we will do all we can to succeed to create an environment in which troops trust their commanders and commanders know their troops and care for those troops. that is not only a basic tenant of human behavior, but it is also the glue which holds combat units together. individual responsibility and an individual sense of protecting your subordinates, protecting your comrades. that is what we are striving for and i think we will achieve it. amna: that is senator jack reed joining us tonight. mr. chairman, thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. judy: as congress is in its final weeks in session for this year, 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. lisa helps us understand why the debt limit has become so political and what exactly it does. >> the debt part is easy. the u.s. government is the largest spender in the world. everything from the military and socal security benefits to school lunches and even feeding animals at the national zoo. but the u.s. spends more money than it takes in, a lot more. for most of the past 100 years, we have operated off red ink. all of that government spending is 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 i

place, so the debt ceiling does not mean our debt or bills will stop, it only stops the u.s. ability to borrow right now and to pay for those bills. someone who has testified about our debt explains. >> the purpose of the debt ceiling is to make sure that we are not borrowing unlimited amounts, but we have a check and we consider, are we borrowing the right amount of money and for the right things? >> when first introduced, the overall u.s. debt limit was set far above government spending and left room, but now the debt limit is routinely set at or near what we spend, so congress, both parties, has to live the debt ceiling regularly, like in the agreement this week. >> we have cleared the path hopefully for the debt limit. >> or two years ago. >> we think it was the best circumstance. >> congress can either raise the

debt limit or they can suspend it by punting the problem to a future date. but what happens if the u.s. hits the debt limit and defaults? that has never happened, so this is uncharted, but it is likely a financial disaster. to help understand, think of the u.s. government has the world's largest airport. planes like money come in and planes go out. think of borrowing as what powers the airport. that cuts main power to the airport, so most air traffic stops. now, imagine this happened to every u.s. airport. the travel or financial problems would ripple across the world in profound ways. >> that amount of uncertainty thrown into the economy and into the country where we have never had it before could push us back into a recession. >> 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 or pay its bills, it would affect interest rates and stock markets around the world. it also could quickly affect things like mortgages, car payments. it is not entirely clear, including to those in the business. >> hypo 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. >>for government agencies, there would be some kind of a shutdown and one worse than usual because mandatory programs like social security could see funding cut or frozen. the treasury department would ration out where the nations limited cash goes. why hasn't congress just raised the debt ceiling? we are at historic levels of reading. only world war ii was higher.

for lawmakers, there is real concern and political maneuvering. >> we know the debt ceiling is always going to be raised, the question is how much of a political game of chicken will we have to go through. >> we are in a time of gridlock, close margins, sharp divides, and big spending. the debt ceiling has become a piece of political leverage in policy warfare. the debt limit now threatens instability. it largely serves as a mirror of our political instability. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins. ♪ judy: terrel scruggs is a tennsee native with a strong sense of his life's calling. he is a preacher and caregiver, providing services to seniors in his national community, even

throughout the pandemic. tonight, he gives his brief but spectacular take on living a life of service. >> caregiving is not a job, you do a job to make something for yourself. with 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. 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 or what you own or what you possess. it is just too you are.

at 15 years old, i prayed to god that if he ever give 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 i was going to be a part of his life. my brother is highly challenged. he does not speak. he does not to. i told my father that whatever you need, let me know and i will help you with him. later on, my biological father passed and we found his mother a couple years later on the kitchen floor, aneurysm. her daughter took her with her to another county and took care of her and i took my brother with me. that is how i got him. that is why i took him in.

it has been lovely ever since. he lives better than me than he did with him. i'm not ashamed of him. i don't go nowhere that he cannot go. caregiving is a calling. you have to want to help somebody. you have to look beyond yourself, your problems, your disposition in life and see that you can lend aelping 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 are 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 is just taking out the trash to the curb so the trash man can come and pick it up when they can't, it is simple stuff that you can do. it don't cost nothing but a

little bit of your time. it ain't what you do for yourself that is going to last, it is what you do for others. my name is terrel scruggs and this is my brief, but spectacular take on helping people. judy: thank you, terrel scruggs, and we all need to remember that message. you can watch all of our brief, but spectacular episodes at pbs.org/newshour/brief. online right now, medical historian howard markel shares an expert -- excerpt from his new book, the secret of life, which explores rosalyn franklin, the key to the discovery of the dna double helix, but was left out of the history for years. you can read that on our website, pbs.org/newshour. that is the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay

safe, and we will see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular skull has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of no contract plans and our customer service team can find one that fits you. to find one, visit consumer cellular.tv. ♪ >> johnson & johnson. bnsf railway. financial services firm raymond james. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and 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. >> this is "pbs newshour west" from weta studios in washington and in the west at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. >>

emergency planning for kids. we can't predict when an emergency will happen. so that's why it's important to make a plan with your parents. here are a few tips to stay safe. know how to get in touch with your family. write down phone numbers for your parents, siblings and neighbors. pick a place to meet your family if you are not together and can't go home. remind your parents to pack an emergency supply kit. making a plan might feel like homework, but it will help you and your family stay safe during an emergency.

(jonas) you know when you get to a new place and right away you feel that there's something special about it but you can't quite put your finger on what it is? that's exactly how i felt the first time i visited the driftless felt the first time i visited the driftless region. (♪ ♪ ) (kaitlyn) this land is ancient (♪ ♪ ) (off camera) holding onto the yellow. alright, there's the camera. and here's your safety. (jonas) this is me. my name is jonas stenstrom and i'm from sweden but right now i'm