captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: the fate of george zimmerman is now in the hands of a jury, to determine whether the florida man is guilty in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> suarez: and i'm ray suarez. on the newshour tonight: we recap the trial's closing day, as the defense attorney argued the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. >> woodruff: then, we return to the saga of edward snowden, amid reports the leaker of u.s. national security secrets may cut a deal for asylum in russia.

>> suarez: we update the probe into the plane crash in san francisco, where crews are removing wreckage from the runway nearly a week after the accident. >> woodruff: spencer michels reports from california's san joaquin valley on efforts to turn dry river beds into healthy waterways. >> i've never worked on anything that's had the magnitude of this project. in fact, it's certainly the largest river restoration in california, and perhaps the united states. >> suarez: and mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> woodruff: that's all ahead... on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the testimony is over, closing arguments are done, and now, it's the jury's turn. six women in sanford, florida, began deliberating just after this afternoon in the case of a neighborhood watch volunteer accused of murdering an unarmed teenager. >> never said this in i criminal trial before, never heard if in a criminal trial before. i almost wish that the

verdict had guilty, not guilty and completely innocent. because i would ask you to check that one. >> defense attorney mark o'mara used his clothes to insist again that george zimmerman acted in self-defense and to reject any suggestion that he had it in for trayvon martin. instead o'mara argued it was martin who went looking for trouble that night. he pointed to the four minutes between the time the 17-year-old initially ran from zimmerman and when he stopped running. >> the person who decided that this is going to continue, that it was going to become a violent event was the guy without didn't go home when he had the chance to. it was the guy who decided to lie in wait, i guess, plan his move, it seems, decide what he was going to do, and went. >> reporter: martin was unarmed but the defense lawyer argued the teenager still had potential weapons at his disposal.

and that he ease-- that he used them. >> that, cement, the sidewalk, and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. that was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fists to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. >> reporter: the prosecution says zimmerman profiled martin, assumed he was a criminal, and actively pursued him leading to the fatal shootingment but o'mara told the jurors that the case is full of could have beens and maybes, and warned jurors not to do the prosecutor's work for them. >> you can't fill in the gaps. you can't connect the dots for the state attorney's office in this case. you're not allowed to. this is their burden. they have to take a wranl doubt. they have to look at this

case and say to you, ladies and gentle ofjury, we're the state, we have proved this case beyond, every reasonable doubt, that we have covered every dot that falls into line and leads to nothing but conviction. and they just didn't. >> reporter: ultimate-- ultimaty said o'mara the killing of trayvon martin was a tragedy but he said a jury must not let sympathy influence the verdict. in his rebuttal the prosecutor guy said the case and evidence may not be perfect but he argued -- >> it is enough, with your common sense. it is enough. and i'm not asking you to fill gaps. i'm asking you to do what you do every day, start from the beginning, get to the end, and apply your common sense. >> reporter: with that, it fell to judge debra nelson to instruct the six woman jury on the main charge of

second-degree murder, or the lesser charge of manslaughter. >> in considering the evidence you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that george zimmerman committed the main crime of which he is accused, there may be evidence that he committed other acts that would constitute lesser included crimes. therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if george zimman is guilty of any lesser included crimes. >> the case then went to the juror to sort out the often conflicting testimony and the waiting begins. law enforcement and community leaders in sanford florida-- no matter what it turns out to be. >> suarez: still to come on the newshour: edward snowden's bid to stay in russia; what went wrong at the san francisco airport; a comeback for the san joaquin river; plus, shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the

day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> reporter: the cleveland man accused of holding three women captive for a decade will face hundreds of new charges. an indictment running to 977 counts was filed today against ariel castro. the charges range from aggravated murder to kidnapping to rape. castro pleaded not guilty to an earlier indictment. prosecutors say they have not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty. janet napolitano is stepping down as u.s. secretary of homeland security. she announced today she'll resign to become president of the university of california system. during her four years as secretary, napolitano has been a leading proponent of immigration reform. in a statement, president obama praised her and said because of her work, the country is more secure against terror attacks. in egypt today, thousands of muslim brotherhood supporters protested against the military ouster of president mohammed morsi. but this time, there was no violence. crowds massed in several cities after friday prayers, waving flags and chanting slogans. at the same time, a popular muslim cleric insisted morsi's followers will never accept the

country's interim leadership. >> the prime minister is not legitimate and he doesn't have any authority. from our point of vow as revolutionaries he betrayed the revolution, any one who supportsed coup is a traiter to this revolution. we don't support his government. any party which becomes part of government we consider it part of the coup. >> reporter: the u.s. called today for morsi's release. a state department spokeswoman said the obama administration is concerned about all politically motivated detentions involving members of the muslim brotherhood. a bomb ripped through a busy coffee shop in northern iraq late today, killing at least 31 people. more than two dozen others were wounded. the bomb went off just after diners had finished sunset meals, breaking a daylong fast during the muslim holy month of ramadan. there's been new trouble in syria between rival rebel factions. gunman linked to al-qaeda killed a top commander of the free syrian army, a militia force backed by the u.s. and other western powers.

a spokeswoman for the f.s.a. said it happened last night near a checkpoint in latakia province, close to the turkish border. the group called it an act of war, and vowed to retaliate. a train derailment in france today was the country's deadliest in years. at least six people died and dozens were injured when the train jumped the tracks and crashed into a station outside paris. it was loaded with passengers leaving for summer holidays and the upcoming bastille day. there was no word on the cause, but the french president promised a thorough investigation. a pakistani teenager addressed the united nations today, nine months after she was shot by the taliban. malala yousufzai made a plea for the cause of educating girls. we have a report from robert moore of independent television news. >> i'm here to speak up for the right of education of every child. ( applause ) >> reporter: she spoke before a special youth session of the u.n., her parents and brother watching, telling delegates she

felt more passionate than ever about her cause. >> the taliban shot me on the left side of my forehead. they shot my friends too. they thought the bullet would silence us, but they failed. and out of that silence came thousands of voices. the terrorists thought that they would change my aims and stop my ambitions. but nothing changed in my life except this: weakness, fear, and hopelessness died. strength, power, and courage was born. ( applause ) >> reporter: she was introduced by gordon brown, who is the u.n.'s special envoy on education. he knows that in malala the campaign has an exceptional advocate who is speaking on a special day.

>> never before i believe has a 16th birthday been celebrated in this way. but never before either have we had a teenager that has shown such courage. >> reporter: the u.n. sets many worthy goals that are never achieved. so the question is whether malala's power both as an activist and as a symbol can really make a difference and get tens of millions of the most disadvantaged children into primary school education. >> reporter: malala's message has resonated here and it's hoped far beyond. >> reporter: the u.n. also reported that in countries torn by conflict, the number of children attending primary school rose from 42% in 2008 to 50% in 2011. the abortion drama in the texas legislature headed into its final acts this evening. republicans in the state senate moved to pass some of the toughest restrictions in the nation. they include a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. the state's republican lieutenant governor, presiding

over the debate, warned he will not let democrats and protesters kill the bill as they did in a previous special session. the u.s. justice department is revising its rules for investigating news leaks. that follows criticism that investigators collected phone records involving associated press employees, as well as e-mails of a fox news reporter. under the new guidelines, it will be harder to obtain search warrants for reporters' e-mails. and the department will notify news organizations-- in advance, in most cases-- if it seeks a subpoena of phone records. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained three points to close at 15,464. the nasdaq rose 21 points to close at 3,600. for the week, the dow gained 2%. the nasdaq rose 3.5%. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to ray. >> suarez: the man who leaked word of major surveillance programs at the national security agency made a new bid today to break free of his international limbo.

edward snowden's renewed request for asylum in russia came nearly three weeks after he flew into moscow's airport. he's remained in a transit area there ever since. today snowden met with human rights activists and russian politicians at the airport. a russian news web site showed video of the first time he had been seen since arriving from hong kong on june 23rd. tatiana of human rights watch was at the meeting. >> you can to the stay here indefinitely. there has to be some kind of a solution. and that's what makes him ask russia. >> reporter: the anti-secrecy organization wikileaks is assisting snowden. its web site published a statement from him that said i did not seek to sell u.s. secrets. that moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly. but it was the right thing to do, and i have no regrets. a russian parliamentarian who met with snowden reiterated the kremlin's

stance. >> first articulated last month by president putin. >> he already asked for political asylum in russia and the response was positive, on one condition. that he stop to hurt the interests of our american partners, as putin put it. so the ball is on his side of the field. >> suarez: -- saying snowden agreed today to stop leaking information about american surveillance but in washington, white house spokesman jay carney took a dim view of the moscow meeting. >> providing a propaganda platform for mr. snowden runs counter to the russian government's previous declaration of russia neutrality. and that they have-- and that they have no control over his presence in the airport. it's also incombat-- incompatible with russian assurances that they do not want mr. snowden to further damage u.s. interests. but having said that, you know, our position also remains that we don't

believe it should and we don't want it to do harm to our important relationship with russia. >> suarez: later president obama spoke to putin in a phone call. a senior u.s. official said he raised concerns about moscow's handling of snowden. the u.s. has already revoked snowden's passport and filed a raft of charges against him. and today's "new york times" reported washington is pressuring other countries, especially in latin america, not to offer him refuge. snowden indicated today he would like to accept asylum offers from venezuela, nicaragua or bolivia, but he believes he cannot safely travel there. indeed, last week the plane of bolivian president morales was denied passage through some european airspace after leaving russia. and then grounded in austria amid reports snowden might have been on the flight for more on all of this we turn to ellen barry, the new york times moscow bureau chief. i spoke to her a short while ago.

>> suarez: ellen barry, welcome to the program. well, we got to see edward snowden for the first time in some time, publicly, on camera. now that that day is ending in moscow are we any clearer about what his situation is? >> i think so. i mean for one thing we know he's in moscow. no one had seen him for the three weeks since he arrived here from hong kong. the main thing that he made clear today is that he is running out of options. and that russia is the default position, and he views it as his safest and maybe only only option right now. >> suarez: but he said he hopes tow eventually end up in latin america. was there any discussion of how that might happen? >> you know, there was no specific discussion that i'm aware of. he did talk a great deal about the attempts of the, you know, by the u.s. or european countries to prevent him from making his way to latin american countries. he expressed gratitude

towards those countries who had offered him asylum. he said that they were four, and among them is russia. but it seemed clear from the presentation and even the fact that he had this meeting at all today, that he is printsably concerned about his safety and-- princip principally concerned about his safety and sees russia as his only option. >> suarez: earlier russia rebuffed is request and the president putin had gone as far as to say that perhaps he could say if he no longer leaked and no longer revealed surveillance secrets of a friendly country, the united states, where does that stand now? did he make an assurance that he's done leaking? >> well, he said that he saw this condition as not being an obstacle to his remaining in russia. he also went on to say that he never intended to harm the interests of the united states, and that in fact his past actions have not been

intended to do that. so it wasn't entirely clear from what he said whether he was guaranteeing that there would be no more leaking of classified materials or simply that he didn't view them as damaging to the united states. but given that he is, you know, involved in some kind of a negotiation with president putin, it may well be that he is willing to agree not to publish further. >> suarez: it was interesting, as you mentioned, he gave further explanation of himself, asserted his bona fides as a real whistle-blower and not someone who was involved in espionage or theft, didn't he? >> well, he certainly portrayed his actions, he regards himself as a patriot and portrayed his actions as sort of oriented toward the greater good for american an other people. but i would say the thrust of his discussion today had to do with the practical question of where he goes, and what his next steps are.

because for the last week or so, really maybe the last few weeks it's looked increasingly like he has no options. >> suarez: so you could see that he's actually more concerned, worried about his future. >> i must say, me and my colleagues spoke to quite a number of people who were in that meeting. and none of them conveyed-- none of them said that they saw him as-- they mostly said that he appeared cheerful, that he appeared to be in good physical condition, and not particularly anxious. they described him as perhaps shy or not comfortable speaking to an audience, necessarily. but every one described him as not being distraught and perhaps as being sort of optimistic about what would come of this meeting.

he asked the group of people who were invited today to intercede on his behalf both with president putin, i assume to increase his chances of actually gaining asylum, and with the united states, presumably to prevent further efforts on his part to make his way to latin america which he says is his final destination. >> suarez: who were the other people in the room? they've been described as a mix of human rights people and russian parliamentarians. were they politicians that were-- who are close to the current government of putin? >> right, i mean, that was one of the most interesting things about this group of people. they were rather mysteriously invited via e-mail yesterday evening at a point where basically no one knew whether this was a real e-mail address or the real ed snowden. a few of them were

representatives of internationally recognized human rights organizations like amnesty international or human rights watch, who are often-- often extremely independent and often critical of the russian government. and then there were others really a gro-- across the gamut without are either politicians or political an nist-- analysts but in one way or another sort of pro system public figures or pro kremlin figures. >> suarez: an quickly to close, ellen barry, can we assume that the next step is still a kind of mystery what happens next to edward snowden? >> well, i mean what appears today is the process of his asylum bid is getting started. and there's really no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube now. one of the invited guests who is a kremlin connected lawyer said that he expected that reviewing this appeal would only take about two or three weeks, that's a

relatively short time for an asylum bid. and soon there after you began to hear from some fairly influential and well connected politicians who are coming out and saying that russia really should give them asylum. that inclines me to think that it's quite likely that he will receive it but only time will tell. and obviously if he has the option of traveling to latin america, that appears to be his preference. russia is for him really a default option. >> suarez: ellen barry of "the new york times", thanks for joining us. how does edward snowden compare to others who have been charged with es poneage? on-line we take an in-depth look at the increase of prosecution of leakers under the obama administration. >> woodruff: it's been nearly a week since a jetliner crash- landed at san francisco's international airport. the initial phase of the investigation is wrapping up on the ground. but the week has also brought

new questions about the pilot and the crew, the training, and what may help explain what caused the accident. we go back to hari, who has our update. >> piece by piece workers last night began the careful process of removing the wreckage of asiana flight 214. cranes lifted large sections of the boeing triple 7 including one of the engines and part of the fuselage. pieces of the broken plane will be sent to the national transportation safety board's offices in washington for further investigation. the rest will be housed in a san francisco hangar for now. chief deborah hersman said yesterday that a final report is most likely a year away. >> we want to make sure that we complete this investigation as expeditiously as possible. and so i will tell you it's going to be a high priority for our agency. and we look at getting close to or under that 12 month mark. >> reporter: from the outset it's been clear the plane

was flying too low and too slow. but it's still unclear why. investigators found no problems with the plane's engines, computers or automated systems. they say the south korean pilot was landing a 777 at the san francisco airport for the first time. although he had thousands of hours of experience on other planes. the cockpit voice recorder shows two crew members called out to abort the landing seconds before impact but the landing gear and tail clipped a seawall and the plane smashed to earth. in the meantime there was new information today on one of the two chinese teenagers who were killed. san francisco police confirmed she was hit by a fire truck racing to the scene. a spokesman said the girl was on the ground and covered in foam used by fire crews. it is just one of the indicates-- indications of the chaos after the crash. on 911 calls released yesterday frantic passengers are heard begging for help. >> we just got in a plane crash. and there are a bunch of

people who still need help and there's not enough medics out here, there is a woman out here on the streets, on the runway who is pretty much burned very severely on the head and we don't know what to do. we've been on the ground 20 minutes, a half hour. there are people playing be-- laying on the tar pack with critical injuries, we're almost losing a woman here. >> ultimately the flight crew got most of the passengers off the plane with only a handful of serious injuries. yesterday six of the flight attendants on board returned home to south korea. they dismissed the label of heroes. >> i feel even aasheim-- ashamed to hear that i think i just did what i was expected to do. >> reporter: back at san francisco international, engineers will continue to remove the remains of the plane through the weekend. airport officials hope to reopen the runway by late sunday. we learned doctors at san francisco general hospital say a third child has been

pronounced dead from the crash. we turn to andy pasztor aviation safety reporter for "the wall street journal" who has been following the investigation. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> reporter: first of all, explain to us, we have seen this time and time again about the fact that the computers worked as they were supposed to work. how is that possible that the flight and the plane was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, and the pilots don't recognize that they're too low and too slow until almost 6 seconds before impact? >> after many accidents, the word that usually comes up, even weeks or months later is inexplicable. in this case as your report showed pretty well, the inexplicable part isn't what happened. investigators have pretty well determined what happened to this plane. but it's inexplicable how two experienced pilots on a beautiful day flying a visual approach with no apparent problems from air-traffic control or from the plane managed to get so low and so slow that they slammed, basically a thousand feet in front of

the runway. and i think that is a major question that people are going to have to ponder. the other inexplicable part of this investigation, as far as i can see is after the crash, the pilots waited a full 90 seconds to even open a single door on this aircraft so you had the surreal scene of a plane with its tail severed, its engines missing, presumably dozens of seriously injured passengers moaning and groaning in the cockpit, and the pilots are telling the flight attendants to have the passenger goes sit in their seat while they talk to the tower to determine what to do. for many airline aviation safety experts, that is truly an inexplicable scene. >> i mean this seems like sort of a cultural problem, not between americans and koreans but really about the relationship of the flight attendants and the pilots and their behavior and what their expectations were in these kinds of situations. >> well, i think that's partly true. and as many of your viewers, are freak travelers. if they can imagine an

aircraft in that condition being told by the flight attendants to sit in their seats, i think you would have many people refusing to obey. and now to look at it from a little bit different perspective, to evacuate a big plane like that, to deploy the slides and have people go down the slides, you can have dozens of serious injuries. and you don't want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary. but from the safety experts i've talked to, they simply cannot explain why the doors weren't opened even just to look for the emergency crews and to get a sense of what was happening around the plane. >> let's talk a little bit about this specific type of aircraft. the 777, there's been a lot made about the fact that the pilot didn't have any training coming into this particular airport on this type of aircraft. how different is the cockpit inside here versus the 10,000 hours that they might have flown elsewhere? >> well, i think it's significantly different. the pilot who was flying this aircraft was flying an airbus a-320 which is a much smaller aircraft and has many different systems. the most important

difference, i think, that investigators are looking at, has to do with the auto throttle system. basically the automated system that controls the speed, the plane's speed and engine thrust. and because the boeing plane has a much different system, he would not have had any cues, perhaps, from the throttle, the actual leverage moving back and forth, as they should in a boeing aircraft. he was expecting him not to move because he was flying, he used to fly an airbus craft and he may have gotten confused, perhaps n exactly what the engines were doing. >> so are there not bells and whistles that sort of go off and say you're too low and too slow? >> no, there several are various warning systems already on this plane. and even beyond that, as the the investigators have made clear. one of the basic things the pilots learn when they start flying even small propeller planes, when you are on landing, on approach to a strip, you watch your speed. and in interviews with

investigators, these pilots basically acknowledge that they thought the automation was taking care of the speed and they didn't monitor it as care floe as they should have. and no now investigators are looking to see whether they properly engaged the automation or inadvertently may have disconnected it during the flight it seems at this point that the national transportation safety board believes preliminarily that there was nothing wrong with the automation system itself. >> and briefly this might be a philosophical question but are pilots losing their edge or perhaps relying too much on the technology? >> i think that's been an issue for years. it's increasing in importance. i believe that many experts will tell you that yes, they are. and there's some efforts being made to have pilots fly more by hand, manually to do more things without automation. but i think the important thing to remember really in this case, this is not an automation problem. this is a simple attend-- attentiveness problem. and that's what the board

and the investigators are really trying to understand. how could these experienced pilots not do the basic, minimum airmanship tasks flying into san francisco. >> andy pasztor from "the wall street journal," thank you very much. >> .pleasure. >> reporter: we turn now to andy >> suarez: next, the long battle over one of the largest river restoration projects in the country, an effort that's facing new troubles over funding. newshour correspondent spencer michels has our story from california. >> reporter: this is the once- mighty san joaquin river, and much of it has been like this-- dry as a bone-- since the 1940's. that's when the federal government constructed friant

dam near fresno, california, which impounded the san joaquin's water in a large reservoir so it could diverted away from the river be used more efficiently by farmers. leaving some sections of the river wet, some dry. it's one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world. but the fish are gone, and the river is a ghost of its former self. now there is a controversial move afoot to cover this sand with water, to restore this river. that water began high in the sierra nevada mountains, and flowed west, through the central valley, and eventually out through san francisco bay to the pacific ocean. >> the salmon used to come up the river from the pas civic of ocean is a crucial reason for restoring the river. gerald hatsler gerald hatler works for california's department of fish and wildlife. >> before significant development we probably had runs on the san joaquin in excess of half a million fish. >> reporter: half a million

salmon? >> yes. >> reporter: and what is it now? >> that population is what we call extricated, which basically means the population is extinct. >> reporter: hatler and fish biologists are trying to figure out how to bring the salmon back to the river, which means bringing back the river itself. >> i've never worked on anything that's had the magnitude of this project. in fact, it's certainly the largest river restoration in california, and perhaps the united states, and we're looking at restoring a 153-mile stretch of river that dries up periodically. >> reporter: it's the second longest river in california. and in the late 1800s it became a river of legend, a major highway an fish ree. steam boats used to race in its deep channel. ferry boats brought people and crops across its fast moving water. but all that changed with the dam. 20 years ago the natural resources defense council filed suit against the u.s. bureau of reclamation

claiming fish populations downstream must be protected under law. monty schmitt is a senior scientist with n.r.d.c. >> the san joaquin river is a really important resource for the entire state of california. it will improve water quality downstream, and it restores a living river that future generations will get to enjoy. >> reporter: but ranchers throughout the valley had come to depend on the water diverted from the river. gary bursey farms almonds and wine grapes. he feared a reduction in his water supply could hurt his production. and for what? >> we in ag always had our suspicions. do you put 400 or 500 salmon in front of the food and fiber for our country? >> reporter: nevertheless, bursey and other farmers-- concerned they would lose the lawsuit and be ordered to give up even more water-- finally, in 2006, signed an historic settlement with the n.r.d.c. and

the bureau of reclamation. hailed as a unique agreement that brought together environmentalists and farmers, alicia forsythe heads up the river restoration project for the u.s. bureau of reclamation. >> it was a compromise says ronald without runs the water users authority, representing 15,000 farmers. >> our concern was if we left this in the hands of a federal judge this could be far worse, the uncertainty, the risk became a bill too much for our folks. we couldn't afford to lose half of our water supply. our experts also said if you paid some improvements along the river you could probably get by with less water. >> reporter: jacobsma and the n.r.d.c.'s schmitt-- antagonists

in court-- today are trying make the settlement work. but progress has been slow. this spring, the first actual moves toward restoring the river began when more water was released from the dam, and scientists experimentally put some salmon into the river for the first time, to watch how they behave and where they go. those are small steps. most of the money spent thus far, seven years after the agreement, has been on plans and research, which does not impress cannon michael, who farms a variety of crops near the river. >> to date, not one shovel of dirt has been turned. there's been over $100 million of money that's been spent, and i know there has to be a lot of studies. but $100 million is a lot of money, and not to show one physical result for it, is a big challenge. >> reporter: the settlement acknowledges that fixing the river will take much more money than that. the river channel needs improving so the water can flow without flooding or seeping through its banks on to farmland.

some farmers who have planted gotten used to the dry river, contend that increased flows are drowning the roots of their crops and need to be pumped off, at government expense. a small dam that diverts water into irrigation canals needs replacing; fish screens and ladders need to be designed and tested; bypasses must be constructed; and some water may be pumped upstream for reuse-- projects that could cost $2 billion, mostly federal money. both sides worry that congress won't appropriate enough money for future work, although it has authorized the restoration. >> when we signed the settlement agreement in 2006, we didn't envision that the country would go through a recession, and it did have somewhat of an impact on the restoration program. the problem with federal appropriations is you can't predict what the federal government will appropriate next year or the year after. and without the funding to do

the large scale projects, the river isn't going to function the way that the settlement envisioned it. >> reporter: one local republican congressman has tried to stop funding for the restoration. and rancher bursey thinks thats not a bad idea. >> is this the right way to spend a billion and a half dollars or whatever number we want to put on it, this project. is 500 fish, is that-- is it a viable trade-off? >> his numbers may be off, no one is sure, but his concerns continue to divide the party despite the settlement. >> our 20 member districts have supported the settlement and continue to support it, but there are pockets of landowners that don't like this idea at all. they're very concerned about their livelihoods. >> reporter: wferning overall reclamation for sight says the settlement is succeeding between collaboration between farmers and environmentalists. and she sees the changes in attitude aspr legalling the changes in the bureau and the nation

>> our attitudes have changed. our perception of the environment, our values as a nation have changed. and that's why we can look at friant dam today and say, maybe we never should have done that. but in the context of the '30s it was the right thing to do. >> reporter: for now, it remains impossible for salmon to swim the length of the river and spawn. but a few fish are living in the river, and are reproducing. still, it may take another 20 years before the restoration of the san joaquin can be judged a success or a failure. >> suarez: you can see historical images of life and development in the san joaquin river valley dating back to the 1800s. find that slide show on our homepage. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and brooks: syndicated columnist mark shields, and "new york times" columnist david brooks.

welcome back, gentlemen. so let's start by talking about immigration. the senate passed its bill w what two weeks ago, mark, i think 14 republicans voted for it. but now that it's in the house, the republicans are balking, what is going on if. >> well, it's a different institution, judy. the republicans who backed it recognized that not only is it the right thing to do when their judgement is public policy to take 11 million people out of the shadows, some processed 13 year, paying fines, background checks to event aislely become citizens but also, judy, that in the interest of the republican parties they're going to be competitive in this changing of the lech trek. and quite bluntly house republicans don't have that same perspective. i mean they, many of them are purists and absolutists against anything that in any way suggests what they call amnesty. but they don't have the same breadth of perspective on

their party and having lost five of the last six presidential elections popular vote, that they're not going to be competitive in a changing electric, with only white vote its. >> woodruff: but what-- is that the explanation for why the house view is so different? >> they come from white districts. there are very few with a significant latino population in their district. they also have a different attitude about big legislation. i think it's crazy, personally. what's going happen in the house is they will break up the bill into parts they like which is the border fence. and probably ignore the parts they don't like which is the path to citizenship. but they're heading in a direction that is nonpassable. they're heading towards the status quo because they're going to propose something the national will not accept and certainly the white house will not accept and the democrats already said that. so they're looking for something purist. but what we will end up with is a bill-- probably with nothing. and that will mean lower economic growth, this bill improves economic growth. it will mean a lot more illegal immigration. the senate bill would cut

illegal immigration by 33 to 50%. and it looks like we'll gets zero% reduction. and political ruin. and they have a theory of politics. their theory is that republicans don't actually need to win latino votes, they need to get out the white working class votes they haven't got. and if they pass immigration that will hurts them with the people they need. i think that theory is completely wrong. in the 21st century we're heading toward a multiethnic america and if both parties don't embrace that, they will be-- . >> woodruff: is that the direction it's headed in. >> no, it is, judy. and i think that it comes down to how view a political party. a political party financial you and i agree on much more than we disagree on, and we share certain objectives, then we form a coalition o and we say okay, we're going to be a party. or is it political party instead of being a coalition, does it become a social group. you have to believe these 15 things. and if you don't believe all 15 of them you're to the gok part of it and quite frankly

that's the way, if you wanted to pass the bill f you wanted to pass it right now, what you would do if you were john boehner. >> you mean the bill that came out of the senate. >> yeah, or comparable legislation that-- that really is a large bill. because a large bill, accommodates other people, that is what it does. that's why it becomes a large bill. i mean it isn't some conspiracy somewhere to get david's support or your support, we put in certain positions, we emphasize certain things that we can all agree upon. what i would do is i would change the filing date for the 2014 election to the first of august of 2013. because they're all, david's right, the average republican district is 75% white. the average democratic district is 51% white. so if i'm sitting in the republican district, i'm scared of the primary, of somebody coming at me who will be more absolutist than i am and once you get past the primary they will win their seat. if you can get that behind them that is what i would do. >> i would say in support of

that, a lot of them in private talk a pro immigration game. >> yes. >> but then they invent reasons to oppose the bill. some of them are sincere, i don't mean to say that. but they are all nominally pro immigration. we have got to have more immigration, high skilled immigration. but then they look for reasons. some of the reasons seem completely unpersuasive so one of the points they make about the senate bill is it has exemptions and waivers. they say president obama opted not to enforce the employer mandate part of obama care. he just takes legislation he doesn't like and reverses it. so if we hand him a bill he will just reverse it in ways we can't foresee. and that strikes me as not a good reason. because any piece of legislation could be reversed by the white house. >> one of the things, judy, and that is some of the intellectual leaders of the republican party, or conservative movement have come out against it. charles krauthammer. and bell crystal, david's only colleague, somebody who was a colleague of mine on the newshour and i like.

but i mean no amnesty, and amnesty has become the buzzword. and at some point you wonder, this is the one legislative significant major legislative achievement that barack obama can win in the second term domestically t appears right now. and it's almost a point of denying him that kind of a victory. >> woodruff: i don't know if there is any connection but one thing the house republicans did do yesterday, david s they voted to pass a farm subsidy bill but they stripped out of it hundreds of millions of dollars in food stamp funding. so where is that headed? i mean not a single democrat voted for that. >> the house republicans are making it difficult for me to be a big cheer lead they are we can. >> this started with a decent impulse that we have this beard system, we had a political alliance, we put the food stamp program with the agricultural subsidies so you get people on both sides voting for it and that would guarantee passage year after year, all these people come to washington and say we're going to change things. we'll cut the subsidies, wondering why food stamps is

exploding as a program, maybe we feed to set that back. so we say let's change things. and that is sort of a decent impulse. but at the ends of the daiwa do we have, they're not really cutting ag subsidies, they're just catering to their ol interests as before but tripping-- stripping out the food stamp program. so they're giving money to corporate farmers, they're taking, at least delaying money to poor people who need food. so it's a political disaster. and it's also a substantive disaster because they haven't really changed the ag subsidies. >> woodruff: and the republicans argue that some of the money for food stamps is wasted. >> well, unlike the subsidies. judy, this bill failed, less than three weeks ago. 62 republicans voted against it, all right. on 12 reps voted against it when it passed on thursday. what was the difference? the difference was the only difference, they eliminated food stamps. now if you aren't looking for-- if you are's looking for a mean spiritsed party, to face the charge that you done care about people, half the people on food stamps are children, people under the age of 18.

are you talking about people with disabilities. you're really talking about feeding people. this is a judao christian country, to hear that speech after speech, if feeding the hungry is not an element in that, then the republican part is just turned its back. and whom do they help? i mean david's right. it's 9 agriculture subsidies, 75% of the bargain, of the supports go to 10% of the farmers, the biggest 10%. they don't turn their back on the fact that they are getting federal water or fed ra power, that we're spending money for irrigation. and you know, somehow that is-- the people who are getting the food, are-- . >> woodruff: are there republicans who are defending this bill. >> there are some, not so many. and you know i was going to do a column. because the republican critics are correct, that the number of people on food stamps has exploded. and so i was going to do a column, this is wasteful, it's probably going up, the income stromes people don't really need the food stamps so, this was going to be a great column, get my readers

pad at me, i would love it, it would be fun am but then i did some research and found out who was actually getting the food stamps an it's the people who deserve to get it are getting. that was the basic conclusion i came to. so i think has expanded, that's truement but that's because the structure of poverty has ex-- expanded. and so to me it seems like a legitimate use of money. and if you want to replace it with an eipc or earned tax credit or another thing that would be legitimate. but right now it seems like a reasonably good program. >> woodruff: while we're talking about wonderful things happening in congress, let's move over to the senate where the senate majority leader harry reid mark, said that he wants to change the rules so that republicans no longer have an easy time blocking the president's nominees. i just want to quickly show our audience a little bit of what reid and the senate republican leader mitch mccon hell to say about this yesterday. >> this is really a sad, sad day for the united states senate. and if we don't pull back from the brink here, my

friend the majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader of the senate ever. the leader of the senate who fundamentally changed the body. >> all we want is for the president of the yoonteded states, whoever that might be, democrat or republican to be able to have the-- as contemplated in that document called the constitution of the united statesment that's to its asking too much. >> woodruff: so is mark, harry reid, potentially the worse senate leader ever for trying to change the rules? >> no, he isn't. but eight years ago positions were reversed. the republicans had a re-elected republican president and they were making the case. and democrats, including the current incumbent president of the unites states barack obama was making the counterargument. but this has become just the default position now of the minority party, that we're threatening to filibuster on everything. >> woodruff: you say both sides do it equal. >> you can take the words that we use by mcconnell

eight years ago and those are the words used by harry reid am but harry reid has raised the question, we're not talking about judges. because that was the big fight with gorge w bush. was judges. judges have lifetime appointments. we're talking about executive appointments, people who serve with the president. and what, they use it frankly for is to just disable an agency or a law. i mean forbes, a federal election commission is now, is new because they won't confirm people. the national labor relations board whether workers can organize, that has been disabled as well. so i think there is enough hypocrisy to go around. but i think it is a legitimate fight. >> because the people aren't there to run the agency, to carry out the law. >> in other words, and especially the consumer protection agency, where richard is still waiting for confirmation. >> this is like an old political philosophy principles that if there is

not external self-control-- internal self-control there will be external self-control. but the members had a code of ethics that they weren't going to abusement and now the code has gone away so they just use it all the time some then the people in the majority say oh, we're just going get rid of the filibuster because they can't control themselves. i understand the impulse to get rid of the filibuster, nonetheless the senate is not the house because at the is not a pourly-- it is about projecting minority rights that is why mr. is more bipartisanship in the senate than in the house that is why being in the minority matters in the senate where it does not mat never the house. and i'm so for protect the privileges and tradition of the senate. i think what harry reid is doing is wrong. >> what would you go to improve it. >> i think you have to go back to the etiquette and say it's in both of our interests, when we're in power when we have a president in power, to only use the fill bust never extraordinary circumstances, fots every day things is. >> very fast, in new york city two poll figureses who had a fall from grace,

anthony weiner, eliot spitzer, trying to make a comebacking weiner for mayor, spitzer to be controller. what do we think of this. they have a right to do this. >> yeah, but my rule is start at the bottom. i am pro spitzer, if you have a fall from grace start at the bottom and work your way back up. show you care about the service rather than just rebuilding your reputation. >> don't confuse the two. both from am by shution, young, nervey, lom-- loved cameras, attention, anthony weiner was a show horse, a talk show creation. eliot spitzer was an only political figure in the united states who dared to take on wall street. and very rarely do you see a politician take on the deepest pocket, most powered money interest and de it from goldman sachs on and what he did to his family was trbl and disgraceful wa, he did to the office wasment but he is a different public servant. and he really deserves to be its sheriff of wall street. >> well, you two were the sheriff of the newshours, cosheriffs, mark shields,

david brooks, thank you. >> and mark and and mark and david keep up the talk on the doubleheader, recorded in our newsroom. that will be posted at the top of the rundown later tonight. >> suarez: again, the major developments of the day. >> i jury began deliberating but reached no verdict for the shooting death of trayvon martin. deliberations resume tomorrow. the man who revealed major u.s. surveillance efforts edward snowden was seen for the first time since he a roiferd at a moscow airport last months. he mets with human rights officials and asked for asylum in russia. and the death toll rose to three in last saturday's jetliner crash in san francisco. the latest victim was a child who had been injured in the crash. >> woodruff: and as we head into the weekend, we have a story online about standing in line for ten hours to get a hug. hari sreenivasan explains. >> reporter: that experience comes from newshour political editor christina bellantoni. she writes of her encounter with amma, a south indian woman known as the "hugging saint," who says she has embraced more than 32 million people worldwide.

plus, what's it like to shampoo in outer space? astronaut karen nyberg demonstrates her hair-raising experience in the zero gravity of the international space station. watch that video on lunch in the lab. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and before we go, some news about hari. we won't be seeing him in our newsroom after tonight. >> are you moving to new york to become the anchor of the new weekend edition of this program which started september. very exciting. tell us a little bit more about it. >> so half hour each day on saturday and sunday. think of it basically as an extension of the newshour, natural evolution. we are committed to being every where anywhere people want, any time people want it, so that means weekend and weekdays on-line and on air. so get newshour 7 day ace week. >> and you will be appearing right here on the newshour from time to time. >> that's right. i don't quit my day job too. so really it's just seven days of work instead of 3 or 4. >> as often as possible, we

look forward to it. >> thank you. >> suarez: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll look at the new guidelines approved by american retailers to improve safety conditions in factories in bangladesh. i'm ray suarez. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. >> 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 macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org