tv PBS News Hour PBS March 24, 2017 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: >> with no democratic support, we couldn't quite get there. we're just a very small number of votes short. >> woodruff: in a defeat for republicans, president trump and house speaker paul ryan pull the g.o.p.'s health care bill, lacking votes needed to replace the affordable care act. and, it's friday. mark shields and david brooks are here to analyze a packed week of news. then, jeffrey brown talks with the director of the sequel to the dark comedy/drama hit "trainspotting" about bringing characters back after 20 years.
>> one of the joys of doing the film was seeing how poorly men age and how wise women are about aging. it's not even like we think we're living in the past. we just are, and we're not admitting it to ourselves for so long. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.
>> our tradition has been to take care of mother earth, because it's that that gives us water that gives us life. the land is here for everyone. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: 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 republican effort to replace obamacare, the health care law, lies in ruins tonight. at the 11th hour today, house g.o.p. leaders gave up trying to hold a vote on their bill. our lisa desjardins has been at the capitol all day, and begins our coverage. >> i will not sugarcoat this; this is a disappointing day for us. >> reporter: after a dramatic week of "will they or won't they," republicans' selected "won't," pulling their sweeping health care bill shortly before a scheduled vote, when it clearly was short of the support it needed. >> moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with growing pains. and, well, we're feeling those growing pains today. we came really close today but we came up short. doing big things is hard. all of us, all of us, myself included, we will need time to reflect on how we got to this moment. >> reporter: the house speaker then acknowledged the resulting
reality. >> obamacare remains the law of the land, indefinitely. >> we were very close. >> reporter: president trump pointed to a lack of democratic support and said he's open to discussing another bill. but for now, health care will stay as it is. >> i've been saying for the last year and a half, that the best thing we can do politically is let obamacare explode, and it is exploding right now. >> reporter: this, after a wild 24 hours of promises and pressure, with vice president pence meeting with the conservative freedom caucus today, and the white house standing by an ultimatum president trump issued last night: that if the bill failed, he would not return to the issue. press secretary sean spicer, today.
>> i know that the president's made it clear. this is the effort. this was the train leaving the station, and that he expects everyone-- that this is our opportunity. >> reporter: republicans also dangled some carrots, adding new changes last night to win votes. for moderates, they revived a medicare tax on the wealthy, using the proceeds to help states increase health coverage. and for conservatives, a repeal of the affordable care act's guarantee of basic, "essential benefits:" things like e.r. visits, prescriptions and preventative care. removing the essential benfits did sway some members. joe barton of texas: >> that is a big win for conservative values, so i am now a yes vote. >> reporter: others refused to budge, including barton's fellow texan, louie gohmert. >> the president shouldn't give any more energy. this was up to us. it was not up to him. and i'm grateful to him for spending as much effort and as hard as he did. >> reporter: more no's came from the ranks of moderates. the chair of house
appropriations, new jersey's rodney frelinghuysen, cited cuts to medicaid funding. at the white house, president trump said this morning he has no regrets. >> did you rush it, do you think? >> no. >> reporter: he also said he had full faith in speaker ryan moving forward. but by early afternoon, ryan was at the white house, delivering the grim news on the bill's prospects. democrats, meanwhile, pointed to the republicans' disunity. >> they were so focused on embarrassing the affordable care act rather than trying to improve it. >> reporter: three months into their control of government, republicans have a central political and policy platform to rebuild. and this is a seismic moment. speaker ryan say, nonetheless, he's moving to the next big mountain to climb, tax reform, even though accomplishing tax reform will now be harder, judy, because they don't have the savings he was hoping for from
healthcare reform. >> woodruff: so, lisa, a lot of finishing pointing going on. what is your reading from talking to all the people you've talked to about why they couldn't get this done? >> i want to set aside the blame game, there is a lot of that, and focus on three things. i talked to chairman greg walden, one to have the co-sponsors of the bill, he felt the goalposts kept moving among conservatives and mordz. another, republicans have a large conference but with that comes large differences in policies and couldn't bridge those. third, the time line was a big factor. the republicans shot for the moon trying to pass a massive bill in three weeks. that didn't leave breathing room for serious concerns and that's why i think we saw this bill fail. >> woodruff: what are republicans saying about what they think the i'm cases are for their party? >> they're worried about018. democrats would need a sweep to retake the house, but for the first time, i had two different
republican members tell me today they're worried that sweep is possible and it's not just about their individual elections, judy, but this takes the kind of air out, all the energy out from conservative causes across the board. they have been campaigning on this up and down, nonprofits, politicians, for seven years, and they're just not sure where the energy will come from for all of these groups that have been pushing for conservative causes for years. >> woodruff: quickly, what about speaker ryan himself? how is he affected by this? >> actually, i think speaker ryan is doing okay. julia spoke to members of the freedom caucus who had nothing but good things to say about speaker ryan. also, doesn't look like anyone else wants his job right now. >> woodruff: interesting. lisa desjardins at the capitol, we thank you. and now, a view from the white house today. reporter robert costa of "the washington post" interviewed the president as the bill was being
pulled from consideration. and robert joins me now. robert, the president called your cell phone. what did he say? >> in arlington, it was a blocked number. he said, bob, i'm pulling the bill. he just met with house speaker ryan. the vote weren't there. he said about 5 to 12 votes away. he said he's ready to move on. he's going to not hold the bill, he's going to wait, in his words, for it to explode. >> woodruff: he said to the pool of reporters in the oval office that the next move is up to the democrats. is that your sense of what they're looking for, or are they just shoving it to the side now? >> he seems to be open to a bipartisan deal. we'll see if that emerges. you're kind of a non-ideological president even though you're a republican, maybe you're more natural down the road doing something with the democrats.
he said a lot of people may say that, said it with a chuckle. whether the democrats may be willing to work with the president, we'll see. i thought it was striking, he was even tempered and i said, you have been in the presidency 60 days, what's the lesson here? he said, another day in paradise. >> woodruff: he didn't give a sense of regret or something he h or his party did that had gone wrong? >> not a bid -- bit of regret. defiance was the tone. even tempered but defiant. he said if the premiums rise by 1 pun hrs h, 70 or 200%, just publish the story at the post-. he said he's going to blame the democrats. very partisan and political. i said did you blame the speaker? you're the newcomer to washington. leeh said three times, i don't blame paul. >> woodruff: so revealing. robert costa. you will be hosting washington week later tonight on pbs.
>> 8:00. >> woodruff: we'll be watching. and in the day's other news: the state department issued a permit to build the long-delayed keystone x.l. pipeline. the $8 billion project would allow oil to be piped from canada to the texas gulf coast. president obama had rejected the project mainly for environmental reasons, but in the oval office today, president trump said reversing that decision puts the country's economic security first. >> it's a great day for american jobs, and a historic moment for north america and energy independence. this announcement is part of a new era of american energy policy that will lower costs for american families and very significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create thousands of jobs right here in america. >> woodruff: the oil industry hailed the decision. environmental groups vowed to keep fighting the pipeline. a federal judge in virginia ruled today in favor of the president's revised travel ban. the judge rejected arguments by
muslim plaintiffs who said the ban was discriminatory. that directly contradicts federal courts in maryland and hawaii that blocked the order. the split increases the likelihood that the issue will end up before the u.s. supreme court. in london, police have made two more arrests in wednesday's terror attack that killed four people near parliament. they have taken ten people into custody since 52-year-old khalid masood drove an s.u.v. into pedestrians, before being killed himself. security was tight again today around the site of the attack. meanwhile, jewish, christian and muslim faith leaders gathered outside westminster abbey for a minute of silence. there may be a new migrant disaster in the mediterranean. a spanish aid group reports that hundreds are feared dead in three possible sinkings off libya. rescue workers were out today, hunting for survivors. the search began after they came
across bodies in the water. >> yesterday at 6:30 in the morning, we found the first body, and four more of young african migrants from ages between 16 and 25. then we found also the wrecks of two boats. we guess there might be around 200 people missing. >> woodruff: so far this year, almost 600 people have died trying to cross the mediterranean to europe. more than 5,000 perished in 2016, that was the deadliest year ever. salvage crews in south korea today finished raising a sunken ferry that killed more than 300 people in 2014. then, two barges began towing the ferry to a transport vessel that will take it to a port for inspection. most of the victims of the sinking were high school students on a trip. ousted egyptian president hosni mubarak has been released after
six years in custody. mubarak, now 88, had been tried on charges of ordering the killing of protesters during the arab spring revolt in 2011. earlier this month, egypt's top appeals court cleared him. the former leader held power for 30 years before being overthrown. back in this country, the house intelligence committee's probe of russian contacts with trump campaign advisors erupted into fresh acrimony today. republican chair devin nunes called off a public hearing next tuesday, with former intelligence agency leaders. instead, he said the panel needs to hear again from leaders of the f.b.i. and national security agency, in a closed session. >> until we can get them in a closed session, it's not going to be worth it having the open session. so all members have a chance to interview them and hold a hearing in the closed session. >> woodruff: the committee's ranking democrat, adam schiff, quickly challenged the decision and disputed the chairman's
explanation. >> there must have been strong pushback from the white house about the nature of monday's hearing. it's hard for me to come to any other conclusion about why an agreed-upon hearing would be canceled. clearly it had to do with events of this week. >> woodruff: earlier this week, nunes drew heat for briefing the president that some trump transition communications were intercepted, without first telling committee democrats. today, nunes also announced that former trump campaign chairman paul manafort will appear voluntarily before the committee. we'll get back to all of this, little later in the program. it's being reported that president trump will continue to get financial reports on his business empire. "forbes" magazine quotes the president's son, eric, as saying that he will likely provide quarterly updates. before taking office, the president announced that he would separate himself from his companies to avoid any conflicts of interest. a north carolina man who fired
an assault-style rifle inside a washington pizzeria pleaded guilty today to weapons charges. edgar welch told police he drove from north carolina last december to investigate a bogus online conspiracy theory. it claimed that the pizza shop, named "comet ping pong," was home to a child sex ring involving hillary clinton. and, wall street closed out its worst week since the election. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 60 points today to close at 20,596. the nasdaq rose 11 points, and the s&p 500 slipped about two. for the week, all three indexes were down 1% to 1.5%. still to come on the newshour: what's next in the health care debate; how investigating connections between the trump campaign and russia split the house intelligence committee; mark shields and david brooks take on this busy week of news, and much more.
>> woodruff: so, where do members of congress go from here on health care? i spoke earlier with democratic representative tim ryan of ohio. congressman ryan, welcome. what do you make of all this? >> it's been a very interesting day, judy. you know, a lot going on here on the hill, but clearly the republicans did not have the cohesiveness, the plan that was going to move this piece of legislation forward, and i think the plan really, in so many ways, was a disastrous. it was knocking 24 million people off their healthcare. that became something a lot of members weren't willing to go home and defend. the repealing out of the stance
abuse coverage, the mental health coverage. for people who have to go back to districts and states that are seeing one to have the greatest heroin and drug epidemics in history happening right before their eyes, that becomes tough to vote for when it hits the the ground in ohio and other states who are having stance abuse epidemics happening. >> woodruff: speaker ryan said to the press a couple of minutes ago that the real disaster is obamacare, the current affordable care act, that he says it's something that's cllapsing of its on weight, premiums are going up. he said a third of the counties in the country have only one plan to choose from. >> well, there are some issues with the affordable care act that we made gate strides, we covered 20 million people, we are bending the cost curve in the long term, many people have the coverage ce talked about, mental health, substance abuse,
prenatal care, all the things that save you money in the long run, those are in the affordable care act. let's fix the things we need to fix. part of the problem is the republicans gutted payments to the insurance companies that would have allowed them to participate in the riskier areas. we needed coverage in those areas but you needed to help the insurance company so you wouldn't lose money. the republicans gutted the insurance transfer payments and that's when the companies started to leave. you're saying it's not working in those areas, it's because they cut the funding to those areas. let's fix the problems. there are problems there. i'm not ashamed to admit it. we passed a great piece of legislation that had flaws. let's sit down, democrats and republicans and make this thing work. >> woodruff: is your party prepared to do that and are the republicans prepared to do that? >> i'm not speaking on behalf of my entire party but i'm willing
to sit down and said we've made great strides, there are issues, i'm willing to sit down and try to fix them. we should have universal coverage that should be affordable for everybody. here's the this t thing, and i hope republicans would be willing to sit down and do it. they have been complaining about obamacare for years and they can't pass an attempt to fix it and i think it was because it was making it worse is why it didn't pass, but hear's the thing, we tier united states of america, wealthiest country in the world yet 37t 37th in health care delivery. we spend two times more than other developed countries spend on mct. clearly we're not doing something right. we have to move more in the way of prevention, make sure people are healthier. we have to have improved on the food system. >> woodruff: so when president trump says this is the
democrats' fault, what's your answer? >> well, we're not even in the majority in the house of representatives. how could it possibly be our fault? he has complete control of the house of representatives, they're all republicans, and he couldn't even get the republicans to pass it, and it's typical donald trump, he's going to find somebody to blame, so he's going to blame the democrats. i assume he's going to blame president obama and maybe even hillary clinton for this problem. they need to take responsibility. they need to put a plan forward their members can vote on and that actually solve problems. the problem with the republican party judy is they're living by bumper sticker slogans. they're not in the minority. they're in the majority. the dog caught the car and they have to figure out how to govern the country. >> woodruff: we wantive tim ryan, thanks for talking with us.
>> woodruff: next now for an opposing perspective on what's nxt for healthcare, i am joined by lanhee chen. he is a fellow at the hoover institution, who advised mitt romney and marco rubio in their presidential campaigns. welcome back to the program. what's your reaction to what happened today? >> well, thank you, judy. i think this is clearly a ut of town, if you will, tonve repeal the affordable care act and replace it with other reforms and they didn't do so. i think it is a real disappointment for those who have been seeking to do this for some time, and we'll have to see what happens next, but appears as though health care is off the tame for a period of time. >> woodruff: i want to ask you about that but what about the president's comment this is all due to the democrats, not republicans. >> well democrats certainly weren't helpful. they didn't participate in the process, obviously. but from the republican perspective, there were a lot of people here who appeared to say they wanted a perfect piece of legislation and it seems to me that they allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good in this case, that there were a lot of things about this legislation that would have moved the ball forward, for example, on reform of medicaid which is a huge
entitlement program. if they had actually voted for the bill, they would have been moving forward that effort. instead, it seems to me, there are some republicans that stood in the way. as i say, i see this as a self-inflicted wound more than anything else. >> woodruff: what do you think should happen next? we heard the president from what he told robert costa from "the washington post," he said, i'm moving on to tax reform. >> it's going to be a challenge, as speaker ryan said today, not being able to get this done does make tax reform harder. i think it is wise to move on to a different subject for a period of time. it is clear there are divisions in the republican party about how to handle health care and health care reform going forward. i do think this notion of obamacare is going to collapse in one, large giant flame is probably simply inaccurate. i think it's the case in many markets you will see significant issues, but the medicaid expansion be continue and obamacare will by and large
continue as well. we need to take stock of what's going to happen and return to this issue at some point in the future. >> woodruff: interesting you said that. the president said what you just said, he predicted it will collapse and said, at that point, democrats are going to come crawling back, in so many words, looking for a way to work with republicans. but you're saying that your view of this whole thing is different. >> yeah, i mean, i think more than anything, judy, i would call this kind of a slow-motion train wreck more than a significant sort of single implosion or single situation where the bill completely -- where obamacare completely goes down in flames. i think it's the case there are some markets where there is significant difficulty. there will be additional markets where there will be more difficulty toward the end of 2017 into the -- into 2018. that will continue to place pressure on federal as well as state budgets. >> woodruff: if you're saying
it's not a good idea for republicans to come back to this issue, now, where do you see this going? >> i i said, in certain markets, you will see, particularly on the individual market side and obamacare exchanges, you will see continued decline if insurer participation. i think premiums continue to go up in some markets and i think there will be efforts made to look at how to repair the individual market and shore up that part of this. but if we go toward larger system change, entitlement reform, et cetera, that's going to have to be a different discussion and it will be something republicans have to get on the same page on first before that ball gets moved forward. >> woodruff: how long will it take before you see republicans getting there? >> well, i hope they with would have been able to get there hopefully in the last few weeks but that obviously didn't happen. i think it's something where they're going to have to revisit this issue after dealing more seriously whether tax reform or infrastructure spending or some other issue to be able to demonstrate that they can govern
and hopefully come back to this issue as time goes on. >> woodruff: lanhee chen, we thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: the drama on capitol hill today was not just on the health care front. as we reported earlier, the house intelligence committee descended into further division over its russia investigation. hari sreenivasan has that. >> sreenivasan: there were new and more serious fractures today on the intelligence committee. it's investigating russian meddling in last year's election, and alleged ties between the trump campaign and moscow. now, the very direction of the probe itself seems in question. here for some more on this is one of the committee's democratic members, representative eric swalwell of california. congressman, you've said before you feel chairman devin nunes has a conflict of interest, do
you think he's taking orders from the white house? >> i think he betrayed the duty to conduct an independent collaborative investigation. we were attacked by russia and our constituents are counting on us to get to the bottom of it. he's going off on his own, receiving classified information, not sharing with members of the committee, taking it to the white house where the president's campaign is under criminal and counterspill jedges investigations. he needs to find an onramp because this investigation must go forward and he must work with democrats because otherwise it will be asked how can you conduct a credible investigation into the largest attack ever seen. >> sreenivasan: he says he has information about apparent unmasking of identified persons tied to the trump campaign under illegal surveillance. have you seen this? >> he should unmask this evidence for his colleagues on the intelligence committee. he told us yesterday after he
apologized for how this happened that we would see this evidence today. we haven't seen it. no one knows who or what he is thinking about. again, it has seriously compromised the independence of an investigation that people are counting on us to conduct. >> sreenivasan: in the past 24 hours or so, and adam schiff said more than circle evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. have you seen that? >> no, that's reserved for the gang of eight who include the chairman of the committee and ranking member. i credit the ranking member pushing for all members of the committee to have access to the information. but i would also tell you hari there is enough information in the unclassified world that shows serious ties, personal political and financial, and converge with russia as they are conducting this interference tam cane. >> sreenivasan: in your opinion, what can salvage this investigation? >> the speaker is the one in
charge of who chairs the intelligence committee and looks like he was party to this stunt. he authorized devin nunes to receive the information and take it to the white house. so we'll continue to go forward as democrats and listen to witnesses and review fed but we need an independent commission now more than ever. that's not only the most comprehensive twie get to the bottom of what happened, it's an insurance policy against the compromise to have this investigation. >> sreenivasan: we heard the chairman's comments this morning. do you know why he made next weak's session closed with f.b.i. director comey and director rogers? >> the american people for the first time since this attack heard evidence about russia's conduct and the trump team ties, had that evidence validated by the f.b.i. director who confirmed an investigation underway and they were looking forward to a hearing this coming tuesday from other witnesses who had information and to cancel it only obstructs our pursuit for
the truth, i think. >> sreenivasan: isn't the bulk of the committee's work done behind closed doors? >> only if we have to pass classified information to a witness or receive classified information from a witness. in this case, we had already the evidence opening statement testimony in an unclassified form from the witnesses. so, now, this is on hold, and people at home are wondering what are you going to do to make sure we're never in this mess again? >> sreenivasan: there were reports this afternoon that advised those are interested in a public hearing. they feel they're under the microscope and want to address the committee. is that an option? >> yes, we are very interested in having them testify only in public, and i think the only way we really earn and reclaim the independence of this committee is to bring those witnesses forward in public and ask them about serious questions around what they were doing, why they were going to russia as this
interference campaign was going on and for mr. manafort why such extensive financial ties to russia and pro russia individuals. >> sreenivasan: we had two almost separate press conferences by the heads of the committee. what puts this on track toward any sort of bipartisan effort? >> first the chairman needs to fulfulfill the promise he made o the committee members yesterday including members on his own side that will show us evidence that he received and took over to the white house. that's the first step. unless that occurs, i don't see how we get back to having the real credibility the american people are counting on us to have. >> sreenivasan: representative eric swalwell, thank you. >> my pleasure, hari. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: director danny boyle discusses his sequel to the hit '90s film
"trainspotting;" and, one man's take on whether corporate sponsorships compromise the causes they purport to benefit. but first, to the analysis of shields and brooks. that is syndicated columnist mark shields, and "new york times" columnist david brooks. gentlemen, i'm sorry there is no news to talk about today, but let's see what we can find. mark, seriously, the move today in the congress and by the president to pull this healthcare bill, what is there to say? the republicans wanted, they said for months this is what was going to happen. >> first thing, judy, is, i think, a general statement. the republican party is a protest party. we have a protest president, a protest party. it's not a governing party. it showed itself unable to accept the responsibility and accountability of governing. this bill was not a bad bill, this bill was just an
abomination. there was no public case that could be made for the bill, there was no public argument that could be made for the bill because nobody knew what was in it. there was no public campaign for the bill because no organizations -- every organization that was involved in medical care, whether the american medical association, american psychiatric association, american academy of pediatrics, they were all against the bill. it was a terrible bill. there was nothing organized. the only organizing principle is it was against barack obama. prine, an earnest policy wonk, showed himself to be an inept political leader. he couldn't even lean on the safest seats in his own party's caucus. those are ones you say these are people who are not a threat to reelection, i need you, you have to vote. he couldn't even do that. donald trump showed he has no understanding of the legislative process. h he dealt in adjectives --
wonderful, fantastic, glorious -he had no idea what was in it. the art of the deal just collapsed and this is a man who gave away the store to the freedom caucus and got nothing in return, didn't even get their votes. on no count was this anything but a disaster politically and public policy and just for the country. >> woodruff: how do you explain it, david? >> well, all those things contributed, trump's bad negotiation, lack of experience, factionism. people talk about divisions within the party, but the core of the problem was philosophical and the problem was with the substance of the bill. we live in a country where there's widening inequality and a lot of people are very insecure. the republicans could have taken some of the approaches like the tax credits, the health savings accounts and a lot of things and to deal with the country as it is, take those market mechanisms to reduce cost but to give people basic security and to shore up the coverage that they
have now. but instead of doing that, they gave a bill that was, like, out of 1984, which devastated the poor, 880 billion cut out of medicaid while enriching the rich, increasing after tax incomes of people making more than a million dollars by 14%. every stereotype of the republican party. so it just did not fit the country. the core problem for the republicans is they can't figure out what they want to govern. even if they were the best and most efficient legislators in the history of the world, if you don't know what you want to do, and you don't know how you're going to address this country's problems, you're going to wind up with superficial, intellectually incoherent and unpopular bills. the last poll was 17%. >> woodruff: the president and
speaker ryan suggested tax reform. a major tax reform is the next on the agenda. >> the deal the republicans in congress essentially made with donald trump, they didn't know and in most cases didn't particularly trust, was he will be the instrument of our achieving our agenda. he will be, whether it's deregulation, tax reform, whatever, i think that relationship was ruptured. mutual trust to the degree it existed was depleted today. >> woodruff: between the president and -- >> between the president and his party in congress. the party itself. judy, i don't think it's going to -- it's not going to be easy. i don't think anything is going to be easy from this point forward. if you are a republican, all of a sudden the mid-term eelections of 2018 get a lot closer. why do i say that? because when a president's job approval rating is 50% or above, the president's party loses an average of 14 house seats in the midterm election. when the president's job rating
is below 50%, his party loses an average of 37 house seats. donald trump, today, is in, in the best polls, in the high 30s. it's hard to see how his numbers are going to go farther north from here. >> it is still early. 64 days. but this is not a confidence or trust builder. republicans, all of a sudden, are starting to get nervous about 2018. they thought 2018 would be the arrival of the golden age. there is no hillary clinton or barack obama to run against. it's a referendum on donald trump and his party and that is not working in their direction right now. >> woodruff: what can republicans get done now? >> if they stick with -- i think prine is a wonderful guy, great politician, great thinker. >> not a great politician. fair, but people like him.
he used to work in a place called power america and the orthodoxy '80s republicanism. if republicans stick to that they will go down to defeat after defeat. how will donald trump react to this? there was enmity between him and ryan in the last few days -- bad communication, cutting deals behind each other's backs mostly trump to ryan -- and will he say i'm not going to do this again? i'm going to govern a as a true populist and maybe break up some of the orthodoxies that separate democrats and republicans. maybe i won't try to pass bills through the reconciliation process which is a technical thing but messes up every bill you pass which is so arcane, restrictions on what you can put in a bill, and maybe i'll try to be a 65% get some democrats, get some republicans and violate the republican orthodoxy. to me that's the smart lesson. try to govern opposite the way
you ran. >> woodruff: if he does that, where does that leave his party? >> i'm not sure. i don't think he's constitutionally capable of doing that. the time to do that was after the election. the country was yearning to be united. you don't do nine rallies on. on the eve of the vote you don't go to louisville and have cries of lock her up in the room. you don't do that. that is playing to the narrowest base. i agree at the outset on healthcare, should have brought in the democrats and the republicans and say, look, they have to come in. but he beat up on obamacare, said it was terrible, horrendous, awful, it had to go. where is the purchase for the democrats to say we want to be part of it? now he's walking away from the healthcare in the country. he is responsible. the governing parties, republicans understand if healthcare is in trouble in this country, it's the republicans. >> this is a point to be
underlined that lanhee chen made the point obamacare is not going to explode. it may deteriorate but it won't employed. second, republicans own the healthcare in this country. people will blame the republicans when things go bad. i agree, i don't think he's going to pivot in a major way. this is not brain science. who elected him? working class voters, people making just above the medicaid minimum. this bill hammered them. who elected him? people 50 to 64. this bill hammered those people. why not take the vote of the people and reward them? that's not what he's trying to do. >> woodruff: this was not the only bad news for president trump. you had the f.b.i. director confirm publicly in a hearing before the congress that they are investigating -- the f.b.i. is investigating ties between the trump campaign an russian
government officials. they don't have evidence yet of coordination or collusion but an investigation is underway. >> judy, the week began with the president being basically regarded and described by the intense chiefs of the country as dishonest, okay. i mean, the charge was with baseless. a charge of felony he made against his predecessor to the point where the "wall street journal," the organ of american conservatism said he is on the verge of becoming -- his relationship with honesty is so loose. he's becoming a fake president, not a fake news president. to say an f.b.i. investigation has been going on since july, it's hard to say it's going to come to nothing. so this is serious stuff, and it's hurtful. when you doubt the president's
competence and his honesty in the same week, i mean, these are blows, regardless of how loyal and dedicated and enthusiastic his base, this is erosion of public support and public trust. >> woodruff: how does it affect what he's able to do? >> i was trying to think of a president who had a worse week. as mark said, to have your major legislative initiative die, your first major one, and get a scandal to your integrity in one week, a rarity in american history, let alone this early in the term. i'm not sure we're going to find a smoking gun to link the trump campaign to vladimir putin. to me, the big mystery is the almost magnetic pull wean the trump crowd and russia. what is the basis of that? is it because he had so many investors? as i said before, eewith seem to be getting closer to this answer, where did paul manafort come from? how did he become chairman of the trump campaign in the middle
of all this? a guy who had ties to russian mobsters? what was the chain of evidence for that? whether we have actual evidence -- we've oversold this story at times. the dots really aren't there to connect. >> woodruff: in any other week, this would have been the first thing we talked about but, mark, that is the nominee to the supreme court by the president, neil gorsuch. had several days of hearings, didn't answer all the questions the democrats wanted him to. where does he stand? >> didn't even answer the questions sam alito and john roberts did when they were up there. i'll say one thing the trump campaign did well. they vetted. they vetted the judges. they knew whom they had. if they had done as well in the cabinet, it would be different. he was the ideal nominee, in
spite of his becoming nnforthcoming, saying no democrat or republican judges -- >> woodruff: you think he's state of for confirmation? >> unless there is something out there. chuck schumer is not a guy who goes on a journey all by himself. he said he'll lead a filibuster but i don't see the votes being there. >> woodruff: 30 seconds. the democrats are making a big mistake. he is clearly within the realm of what any republican would nominate. democrats should pick their fights. they will have plenty of fights in the trump era but to blow up the filibuster rules over this is indignified and an insult to the nats. >> woodruff: thank you both, david brooks, mark shields. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: next, an oscar-
winning director returns with a sequel to a film that became a cult classic 20 years ago. jeffrey brown reports. >> hi, mark. >> simon. >> so, where have you been for the last 20 years? >> reporter: it's a fraught question, all right. the new film, "t2: trainspotting," is about a group of men, once the best of friends growing up in the projects of edinburgh, scotland, coming together after 20 years, with a wee bit of baggage. director danny boyle says that nostalgia, even to the point of denial, is a central theme in the film. >> one of their problems is that they imagine, as men often do, that they can still live like they were 20 years old. >> reporter: you're saying this with a smile, that you feel it yourself. >> very much so. i mean, it's a, something i'll hold up my hand and admit to.
and it was one of the joys of doing the film was seeing how poorly men age and how wise women are. wheras we, it's not even like we think we're living in the past. we just are, and we're not admitting it to ourselves for so long. >> reporter: the new film is a sequel to the 1996 original "trainspotting," about four heroin-using, small-crime committing, wild-living young men. based on a 1993 novel by irvine welsh, it was a low-budget affair, boyle's second feature film, with then little-known actors, that became a smash hit. one of the most successful films ever made in britain, with a large, almost cult-ish following in the u.s. and worldwide. >> we believed in it very fervently, very passionately, in the book and how we wanted to make it as a film. this is irving welsh's extraordinary voice, that he
creates for these people, and that we inherit in the movies. he gives a voice to people who are marginalized, and they are from an extraordinary city, edinburgh, but they're from the fringes. >> reporter: the first one was about this youthful experience of, you know, i can almost do anything, and they do, heroin and all kinds of antics, but you feel immortal. but now, this is inevitably a kind of meditation about aging and mortality. >> the first film is really boyhood, or you know, when you emerge from childhood into those late teens, early twenties and you feel reckless and careless and you can take all the risks, the terrible risks you take with yourself and other people. and most of us get away with it, and they have most of them have got away with it. but they move from boyhood to manhood, really. you get a little sense of the beginning, a glimmer of understanding of where they are in the world and what they should be and what they need to atone for. >> reporter: for the sequel, again based on work by irvine welsh, the four lead actors,
including ewan mcgregor and jonny lee miller, have returned. all had gone on to successful careers, as has boyle, who won an oscar for best director for "slumdog millionaire" and later made the bio-pic "steve jobs." when you're making a remake like this, there's an opportunity, because you have a built in audience, in some sense, but isn't there also kind of an albatross of expectations? >> oh, totally. and you have to learn very quickly to take off the albatross, otherwise it gets heavier and heavier, worrying about what people will think of us going back. >> reporter: you just have to say, don't blow it, because i have this memory of a film i love. >> yeah. the affection for the first film was palpable. and indeed, this is why we went back to it-- there was still an appetite for these characters. but yes, you're concerned about not besmirching the original, and the memory of the original.
but we felt-- and we tried ten years ago, and we abandoned that attempt. it would have disappointed people, we knew. it was just a rehash of the original. >> reporter: "t2" is no rehash, but it does pay homage. scenes are recreated from the original, again addressing addiction at times, but equally about the bonds of friendship. >> i can feel again, mark. i need to detox the system. >> "detox the system." what does that even mean? it doesn't mean anything. it's not getting out of your body that's the problem, it's getting out of your mind. you are an addict. >> reporter: obvious question is, why go back? >> yeah. well, because i think it is a natural inclination in human beings. the past is alive in u and you often ignore it for long periods of time. >> reporter: but there is it. >> yeah, but there it is, and that's why we have those catch- up moments where we go, "it's not 20 years?" >> reporter: and to the extent that we're talking about a film about aging men, you're older, too. >> i am.
>> reporter: did you feel any trepidation about going back to your early period? >> oh yes, because you think... you're measuring yourself against the past, really. >> reporter: oh, you feel that? >> oh, yeah, very much so yeah. i also, because i have a philosop, a belief, which i can see in many other directors, that your early work is your best work. because you don't know what you're doing. and i certainly felt that way when we were making the first "trainspotting." we were in the dark, me and the actors, none of us had much experience, and so you're taking huge risks, ridiculous risks, a bit like the bravado of the characters, in a way. obviously, when you come to a later one and look back, then you begin to simulate some of that innocence and some of that naiveté work and that freshness really, and i hope some of that is in the new movie as well. >> reporter: it's an interesting philosophy of life and directing. it's all downhill from here. >> absolutely, yeah. >> reporter: "t2: trainspotting" opens around the country today. for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown.
>> woodruff: nato thompson is a curator of public art, and author of the recent book, "culture as weapon." tonight, he offers his humble opinion on the confusion created by charitable advertising. have a listen. >> like many of us, i was brought up with the values that i should make the world a better place. as a curator of contemporary art in our public spaces, i often work with artists who share this basic common value; we want to rectify social injustices and to help our fellow humans. call it "do-gooder art," for lack of a better term. i have seen a growing interest in corporations wanting to support public art. and while i too want to go after the money, sometimes i have to stop and ask: is corporately- funded art just an
advertisement? am i being paranoid, or am i a pawn in someone else's game? i don't think it is just me. i suspect we must all admit a bit of confusion over what is an advertisement and what is actual social good. for example every october, a particular color arrives that epitomizes this phenomena: pink. it is the color of breast cancer awareness, and believe me, i can't imagine a more important disease to fight. so, please don't take my criticism of pink to be a critique of the actual plight of fighting breast cancer. but i have also seen, as i am sure you have, a lot of sponsors jump on the "pink" bandwagon. sports teams have literally turned pink, from cleat to helmet. soup cans turn suddenly turn pink. bowling balls turn pink. even military fighter jets have turned pink. now, i'm all for awareness, but certainly some businesses see the pink color as an opportunity to appeal to the female consumer market. i'm just guessing here. this approach actually has a name. it is called cause-related marketing. one could easily call it a win-win, and sometimes my
artists and i are the lucky benefactors. social justice causes get-- well, money-- and sponsors get the benefit of looking moral. for those of a more cynical persuasion, they might see such efforts as a bit of a shell game where a company distracts with the image of doing good, to take the eyes off practices that aren't. even the super bowl advertisements themselves seemed to have this feeling as though, they were actually out to do good in the world. maybe they are. maybe they are not. the world is a complex place. wanting to make the world a better place and knowing how to do it are not the same thing. rather, i suggest that we become aware of both how susceptible we are to companies saying they are doing good and also, that we look at the entirety of the practices of those companies, to make a better judgement. >> woodruff: and on the newshour online right now: what's in the new 2017 nasa congressional authorization act? the bill makes some major changes to the space agency's
priorities. we take a close look and explain why it matters. all that and more is on our website, at www.pbs.org/newshour. stay tuned for more on this big week on capitol hill and the defeat of the republican health care bill, with "washington week," hosted tonight by robert costa of "the washington post," who, as you heard, joined us earlier tonight about the unexpected call he got from president trump today. and on pbs newshour saturday, an inside look at south sudan's growing humanitarian crisis, as the world's newest country confronts famine and fears of genocide. >> reporter: when i caught up with a spokesman for the government troops known as the sudan people's liberation army, or s.p.l.a., he denied that abuses are happening in a systematic way.
>> woodruff: that's tomorrow night on pbs newshour weekend. and we'll be back, right here on monday with a look at life on the u.s.-mexico border. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> it's hard not to feel pride as a citizen of this country, when we're in a place like this. >> bnsf railway. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org.
>> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions 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 newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org