AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Congress takes up the debt ceiling deal with only days left to avoid a default.

We speak with Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

AMNA NAWAZ: Drone attacks damage residential buildings in Moscow for the first time since the war on Ukraine began, while Russia ramps up its own strikes against Kyiv.

GEOFF BENNETT: and former first lady Rosalynn Carter is diagnosed with dementia after dedicating much of her own life to reducing the stigma around mental health and caregiving.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

The debt limit deal forged by President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tonight heads into a crucial final stretch, with less than a week to win congressional approval before a June 5 default deadline.

AMNA NAWAZ: Some in both parties oppose the weekend agreement.

But the White House and House Republican leaders say they will push it to passage.

White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez begins our coverage.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy are racing to secure the votes needed to pass their debt ceiling deal.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I'm not sure what in the bill people are concerned about.

It is the largest savings of $2.1 trillion we have ever had.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: At the White House, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Shalanda Young, urged Congress to pass it quickly.

SHALANDA YOUNG, Director, Office of Management and Budget Director: This agreement represents a compromise, which means no one gets everything that they want and hard choice -- choices had to be made.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Their bipartisan compromise suspends the debt ceiling until January 2025, beyond the next presidential election.

It also imposes modest federal spending cuts over the next two years, eases permitting for energy projects and increases work requirements for food stamp recipients.

But President Biden and Speaker McCarthy are facing pushback from Republicans and Democrats alike as they try to sell their plan.

Progressive Democrats have criticized the process and some of the bill's provisions, like new work requirements for low-income Americans receiving food aid benefits.

REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): I think it's right for Democrats to get this deal done, but for a large number of progressives to say, no, this entire process where the American economy can be held for ransom, that's a no-go.

MAN: Mr. Roy.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Some Republicans, like House Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy of Texas, say the bipartisan package doesn't do enough to cut spending.

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Not one Republican should vote for this deal.

It is a bad deal.

No one sent us here to borrow an additional $4 trillion to get absolutely nothing in return, but, at best, if I am being really generous, a spending freeze for a couple of years.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Roy is a member of the House Rules Committee, which presented the first major test for the deal this afternoon, as it debated the 99-page bill.

Democrats, like Ranking Member Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, accused Republicans of risking a default.

REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): By weaponizing the debt ceiling, Republicans are establishing a precedent that will haunt us forever, that one party can use the full faith and credit of the United States as a hostage to pass their wildly unpopular ideas.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: With less than a week to go before a potential historic default, some Republicans also threatened McCarthy's speakership.

REP. DAN BISHOP (R-NC): If we take McCarthy out, whatever the path is, but those Republicans have to avoid being destroyed themselves by voting for this.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Still, Republican House leaders expressed confidence the deal would ultimately pass.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

AMNA NAWAZ: More than two dozen House Republicans say they will not back the debt limit deal, saying Speaker McCarthy made too many concessions to the White House during negotiations.

One of them is Congressman Scott Perry.

He's chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

And I spoke with him earlier today.

Congressman Perry, welcome, and thanks for joining us.

So, assuming a majority of the Democratic Caucus will end up supporting this bill, you would need a significant chunk of your conference to be able to sink it.

Do you have those votes?

What does your math tell you?

REP. SCOTT PERRY (R-PA): Well, we're not whipping against it right now.

We're informing the members, which, look, they just found out what was in this bill, the text.

They found out about the bill, that it existed.

That was on Saturday night.

The text came out on Sunday evening.

And so, into Monday, people are reading it.

Now, it's 100 pages.

So it's not a big bill.

But you got to read through the legislative language to see where the money's coming from and where it's going to.

And it can be very confusing.

For instance, in the bill, it says we're rescinding some COVID money.

But you would think that would go back to the Treasury to pay down the debt.

It's not going to the Treasury.

We're doing what's called banking it, which means we're just putting it in another account to spend it later.

So that's not really what people signed up for.

And there are other things, like the 87,000 IRS agents, $80 billion.

We're rescinding $1.4 billion of that, essentially - - or, ostensibly, we're told to stop the IRS for hiring more people to investigate Americans.

But they keep basically the $78.6 billion that they have in the bank that was given a lump sum appropriation that they can spend it any time.

So it really doesn't stop anything.

And so those are the things that members are finding out about.

And, when they find out about them, they say, well, I didn't sign up for this.

I'm not voting for this.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, you have made very clear you don't support this bill.

And, as we all know, any member of the Republican Conference can move forward with a motion to vacate and remove Speaker McCarthy from the speakership.

If you don't have the votes to sink this bill, and the bill does move forward, would you move to remove Speaker McCarthy?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: Well, we're going to have that discussion after this is done, Amna, but we're not done yet.

This is in Rules Committee.

There still might be amendments in the Rules Committee.

It still might not pass on the floor.

And so I'm never willing to really handicap those kinds of things, because you can get out ahead of your skis pretty quickly.

And then it's hard to reel things back in.

So, right now, we're focused on this and the debt ceiling and the fact, quite honestly, that the Senate hasn't passed anything, still is reluctant, apparently, to come to work.

And so the House has had to negotiate against its own position.

That's not where we should be.

We have passed a bill in the House of Representatives to deal with this.

We think it's high time that the Senate passes something, even has a hearing, or even marks up, writes that the bill text of a bill down that they can pass, before we keep asking House members, what are you willing to give up to not have this circumstance on this debt that we -- where we are right now?

Understand, Amna, this offers unlimited spending for the next two years.

So, that's essentially, I don't know, $4 trillion, $5 trillion, $6 trillion.

We will probably be at $36 trillion in debt at the end of this term, because it is -- there's no cap on this.

There's no limit whatsoever.

This is exactly what President Biden said and demanded back in January, when he said he wouldn't negotiate.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Congressman, let me -- let me ask you, let me ask you, if I may, because I know your time is limited.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he backs the belly.

He hailed Mr. McCarthy for winning concessions from the White House and called on his Senate colleagues to move forward quickly on this.

But, again, if you do not have votes to end this bill -- I should mention to you you're colleague Chip Roy had said that, as part of the deal for Mr. McCarthy to secure the speakership, he agreed there needed to be unanimous Republican consent on the Rules Committee for a bill to move forward.

REP. SCOTT PERRY: Yes.

Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: If that is true, and he does not have unanimous consent and moves forward, would you remove him from the speakership?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: Like I said, Amna, we're going to -- we're not going to talk about ifs right now.

We're going to talk about things we know for sure.

The Rules Committee is happening right now.

We're going to wait and see how that plays out.

There might be a great amendment that comes from that.

And so we're not going to -- we're just not going to handicap things like that, because it's not productive.

The American people are tired of paying too high prices for gasoline and for groceries and everything they buy.

And it's all stemming from this overspending at the federal level.

That's what we're focused on right now.

Once we get done with that, then we can come back and talk about other things.

AMNA NAWAZ: The timeline, sir, is what it is, though.

So, in the end, I have to ask, are you essentially advocating for a default here?

You are mere days away from that X-date?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: No.

No.

Amna, there's not going to be any default.

First of all, number one, the -- Janet Yellen has no credibility and is not -- actually, she started helping out the inflation rise to the level it is when she was at the Fed.

Then she didn't see inflation coming even as the as they passed the $1.7 trillion omnibus last September.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, sir, you say that to mean you don't believe the date that she's put forward?

Is that right?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: First of all, I call that into question.

Second of all, we know that, June, all the quarterly is going to come in.

The federal government is going to be flush - - flush with revenues that come in.

So all we have to do is get to the middle of the month, and that issue is all... (CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Congressman Perry, if I may, Goldman Sachs... REP. SCOTT PERRY: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... has put forward June 8 or 9 as their X-date.

Do you believe their numbers?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: They might be correct.

I don't know.

But, again, we can stop all this with recisions.

We could claw back the COVID money, all of it, and put it towards the debt.

We can claw back all that $80 billion for the IRS and put that towards the debt immediately.

We can do that right tonight in the Rules Committee and change the trajectory of all this.

And that's kind of the stuff we're looking for, so that we provide some space to negotiate and where the Senate can actually pass a bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: Speaker McCarthy and President Biden would say the negotiating has already happened.

And these are the concessions.

This is where the two sides came together.

And they would point out, you don't have the votes to kill this bill.

What would you say to that?

REP. SCOTT PERRY: Well, that might be true, but the only way we're going to find that out is to see the bill.

But these are folks that haven't even passed a bill.

First of all, President Biden isn't in the legislature.

He doesn't pass any bills.

And we know that this has to go before the Senate.

And why does everybody assume that the Senate is just going to pass this?

Just because Mitch McConnell says so, it doesn't mean that maybe Democrats are unhappy over there.

Certainly, Republicans probably aren't thrilled over there.

Once again, the Senate hasn't done its job.

And for there to be any real negotiation between the two sides and the two parties, it requires the Senate to pass a bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: Republican Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, thank you for making the time to join us today.

REP. SCOTT PERRY: Thank you.

I appreciate it.

GEOFF BENNETT: The White House is urging House Democrats to support the deal ahead of tomorrow's expected vote, but a handful of members have yet to decide if they will back it.

Others are raising concerns over some provisions, including those new work requirements for food stamp recipients.

Joining me now is one of those Democrats, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan.

It's always good to see you.

Thanks for being with us.

And we just heard Republican Congressman Scott Perry expressed his frustration about the process, saying that he feels the House has been forced into a position of negotiating against itself.

You have expressed some frustration as well, saying that you felt like you were held hostage by this process.

Now that you have had time to read the bill, ask questions of the White House about the provisions contained within it, do you feel - - do you still feel that way?

What's your assessment of this compromise bill?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): First of all, I still feel like we're being held hostage.

The fact of the matter is, the country cannot default, period.

And the consequences are scary and intimidating.

We would be harming our economy for years to come, hurting seniors, veterans, children.

I could go through the list.

So default is not an option.

But that's why we're being held hostage, because I am one of the people that is read all 100 pages of this bill.

And I have been asking questions for three days.

And there are things in this bill that I would clearly not support.

I believe people -- when you talk about the environmental provisions, which, by the way, why are they even part of this, people focus on the West Virginia pipeline and they focus on transmission.

But I have read the bill.

And I have questions and have raised it.

I think it guts the heart of NEPA, which is the -- considered the Magna Carta of environmental laws around the world.

And I believe that communities have a right.

Do I think the bill needs to be modernized?

Yes.

But I think communities have a right to have a say about their water, their air, their ground.

And I think people don't understand what the potential consequences of it are.

And, two, when you talk about work requirements, I think they're raising the age for people aged 50 to 54.

Well, there's a group I'm really worried about, which is women who have had to leave the work force during this pandemic.

It's the sandwich generation.

They're caregivers.

The definition of a dependent that would be eligible is a child 1 to 6 or someone that is totally an invalid, they can't -- so most seniors don't fall into that definition.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let me ask you this.

Given your concerns, are you inclined to support the bill?

Will you vote in favor?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: I'm still undecided, because I know we can't default.

I'm angry that we're in this position.

I'm looking for answers to questions.

And I'm still -- I'm talking to my colleagues.

I'm talking to the White House, making really clear about my concerns.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Biden had said for weeks, months, in fact, that he would not negotiate on the debt.

He said that as a matter of principle.

Now he's effectively done that.

He's negotiated on the budget.

Should he have done that earlier?

Was it a strategic mistake, a miscalculation by this White House to not start this process months ago?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: So, first of all, hindsight is foresight.

But I will be very clear that anybody who knows me says that people should be at the table.

Compromise is not a dirty word.

We need to be talking to each other and listening to each other.

And, quite frankly, if you look at the record, I said it a month ago when somebody asked me and probably got in trouble with some people.

So I'm always the person that says sit at the table, talk early, talk about the issues.

GEOFF BENNETT: In exchange for Republican support, the White House agreed to cap federal spending for the next two years.

What does that mean in a practical sense?

What should the American people expect?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: Well, what's -- one of the questions that we're all asking are, what does it mean?

Because defense spending will increase by 3 percent.

We're protecting veterans.

That's something we're all very happy about.

But in -- Social Security should not be cut.

But what are the programs that are going to be cut?

And, quite frankly, there are still a lot of questions about that.

There are a lot of questions about the COVID spending and what money will still be there.

What's obligated?

Communities across the country are very concerned now, because they didn't -- they thought they had until 2024 to spend that money.

I, by the way, have been yelling at my communities, if you need that money, you should be spending it now.

But I think there are a lot of questions.

And that's part of the problem of the way that this has been done, when we're down to last-minute crises that we can't -- we know that we cannot not pay our bills, but we're making deals like this that should not be done.

They should be part of regular order.

GEOFF BENNETT: The White House says that this bill represents a good outcome, that it's consistent with past bipartisan budget agreements, and that they're effectively saying, this could have been a lot worse, given the fact that they're dealing with a divided Congress.

Do you accept that argument?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: Well, when I'm in meetings, I get a lot of, this could have been a lot worse, this is what could have been in it.

And, by the way, I do believe it could have been a lot worse.

But this is a budget deal.

And we're putting things in there like permitting, which, by the way, we do need to address.

But I think that people aren't paying enough attention to actually what's in there that it could actually gut major environmental laws.

So I just feel betwixt and between.

I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place.

And I know we got to do something to raise the debt limit, because that outcome is unacceptable.

And I'm unhappy with what's in the bill.

If they -- these were issues that were being voted on not included in this package, I would not be voting for them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Across the House, there are more than two dozen Republican no-votes.

Will there be enough Democratic support to ensure that this bill passes and that we avoid a default?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: So, to a person, I know that everybody in the Democratic Caucus knows default is not OK.

I think everybody is waiting to see how many Republicans are going to vote for this bill.

I think that a lot of people are just very unhappy about where we are, and that we're down to a finish line like we are where the consequences are so real if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

So I think there are a lot of unhappy people who know that we have got to protect our country.

GEOFF BENNETT: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, thank you for joining us this evening.

We appreciate it.

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins has been counting the votes and following every twist and turn on Capitol Hill throughout the day.

Lisa joins us now.

Lisa, as we mentioned, the first hurdle here is that House Rules Committee.

You just left there.

Where do things stand right now?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

The House Rules Committee, dominated by Republicans, but Republicans can only lose two votes on that committee, not more, if they're going to get a bill through with just Republican support.

They have, we think, lost those two votes, but the third swing vote, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a short time ago, when I was in the room, announced he is a yes for essentially moving this bill out of committee.

You heard probably just now a sigh of relief from Speaker Kevin McCarthy at getting that yes-vote.

Now, Massie is among those who still doesn't love the bill.

It's not clear how he's going to vote on the floor.

But that is a -- that was a very, very big moment, at least in moving forward, potentially setting up a vote, as Republicans would like to do tomorrow, for the bill overall.

Where are we in terms of those votes tomorrow, Amna?

I spoke to a House member who is part of the GOP leadership team.

That member told me that they are -- haven't done a full whip count yet, but they believe they're getting their hands around the questions that members have.

They're feeling good about it.

This is all just to say what your two interviews showed.

We don't really know where the votes will go.

But I will say this.

You need more than 214 votes to defeat a bill.

Right now, we have just 30 no-votes.

So it's a long way for those opponents like Scott Perry to go.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you just heard from Representative Perry there, some of those loudest critics are the hard right Republicans.

What does your latest reporting mean for all of the concerns we have heard from them?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

I think that with the -- I'm sorry.

Can you repeat that question, Amna?

AMNA NAWAZ: Of course.

All the concerns that we're hearing from those far right Republicans, that this is not a bill they can get behind -- you just reported the Thomas Massie moved this bill out of the Rules Committee.

What does this mean for those concerns?

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, that's right.

I think those Republicans are saying that they don't believe Kevin McCarthy, as Laura reported, when he says that it's a $2.1 trillion savings in this bill.

We're waiting for our budget score from the Congressional Budget Office.

But those Republicans right now have yet to get kind of the full complement even of the hard right conservatives on board with what they're doing.

So I think they have yet to really make the full argument clear in terms of getting everybody to back them versus Speaker McCarthy.

This is for them mostly about spending cuts.

And I do think, right now, it's not exactly clear where all the Republicans will end up.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about on the Democratic side?

What are you hearing from them?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

I think that interview with Debbie Dingell was really important and interesting.

She is someone who ran for Democratic leadership.

She is not someone who really tries to make herself differentiate from other Democrats.

The fact that she's having doubts is something that Democrats should pay attention to.

She also talked about something that isn't spoken about a lot on this bill.

There are $70 billion involved in this deal that aren't even in the bill.

It's a handshake, a gentleman's agreement, and that's something that Democrats are worried about, because that money would stave off the cuts they're worried about.

But how do they guarantee that that actually goes through?

All of this is in the air today.

And that's why it's so gusty here on Capitol Hill right now, Amna, people kind of feeling this way and that way, and not yet settling into where exactly they will vote.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Lisa, the big question here is, do President Biden and Speaker McCarthy have enough pull with their parties to get the votes that they need in the House?

LISA DESJARDINS: It is a test for President Biden.

Some House members have thought that he spends more time caring about the Senate than he does the House.

His relationship with progressives is very important right now.

A test for Kevin McCarthy.

This is a Congress of Republicans who generally have always gone with the most conservative kind of outlook.

Here, McCarthy is saying, let's work in a bipartisan way.

So, it's a real test, also a test for McCarthy.

So far, there is just one member who says they want to vote to oust him from the job.

It takes a lot more than that, but that is hanging over his head.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa Desjardins following every twist and turn, with more ahead, I'm sure.

Lisa, thank you.

Good to see you.

LISA DESJARDINS: Good to see you.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: Police in Hollywood, Florida, searched for three suspects after Memorial Day shooting at a beach wounded at least nine people, including a 1-year-old.

Video showed crowds fleeing when a gunfight erupted.

Officials said today that what happened was beyond reckless.

JOSH LEVY, Mayor of Hollywood, Florida: It's something that's certainly not ordinary to be carrying a weapon here on Hollywood Beach.

When you do something like this in broad daylight with CCTV cameras up and down our Broadwalk, you will be identified and you will be caught and brought to justice.

GEOFF BENNETT: So far, two suspects are in custody.

Six of the wounded remain hospitalized tonight.

A federal trial began today in Pittsburgh in the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history.

In an opening statement, a defense lawyer admitted her client is guilty.

Robert Bowers is accused of opening fire at the Tree of Life Synagogue and 2018, killing 11 worshipers.

The defense is expected to focus on trying to prevent a death sentence.

Five people are still unaccounted for after an apartment building in Davenport, Iowa, partially collapsed on Sunday.

Officials say two people could be buried in the rubble.

Last night, video showed a woman being rescued more than 24 hours after the six-story building crumbled.

It prompted calls to delay demolition, but officials warned that waiting is risky too.

JAMES MORRIS, Fire Marshal: It's the opinion of the structural engineer that any additional search operations in the area of that pile of debris should be avoided due to potential collapse.

We are currently evaluating the risk assessment of where we can go back into that building to do this other search.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's not clear what caused the collapse, but the building was 116 years old, and residents had complained of problems going unaddressed.

In Eastern Canada,an estimated 16,000 people are under evacuation orders as wildfires rage near Halifax in Nova Scotia.

Strong winds have driven flames through dry timber and burned some 200 homes and other buildings.

Today, fire officials said there's still too much fuel for the fires.

DAVID STEEVES, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources: That's why it is so important that we -- that folks respect these evacuation zones and stay out.

We're not asking them to stay away from their homes because that's what we want to do.

We're asking them to stay away from their homes because it's the safest thing for them to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: The evacuation zone is just a 30-minute drive from downtown Halifax.

A federal appeals court in New York has cleared the way for Purdue Pharma's opioid settlement.

Today's ruling protects the owners, the Sackler family, from civil lawsuits.

They already agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to the settlement.

The U.S. Justice Department still objects and could appeal to the Supreme Court.

And, on Wall Street, stocks were mixed as investors waited to see if Congress approves the debt limit deal.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 50 points to close at 33042.

The Nasdaq rose 41 points.

The S&P 500 was barely changed.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": how Rosalynn Carter's dementia diagnosis mirrors the struggles of many other Americans; U.S. colleges divided over whether to end legacy admissions; and a blend of science and art helps improve patients' neurological health.

AMNA NAWAZ: For the first time since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, civilian areas of Moscow came under a drone attack this morning.

Russian authorities blamed Ukraine for at least eight strikes in the capital city.

Five drones were shot down, but three wandered into residential areas, damaging buildings and causing residents to evacuate.

Ukraine did not claim any direct involvement.

The rare strikes inside Russia followed yet another barrage of Russian air attacks on Ukraine's capital city of Kyiv, in a sign of escalating tensions.

Moscow awoke to the sights and sounds of war for the first time since it invaded Ukraine, loud explosions, plumes of smoke in the Russian capital.

At least three buildings were hit and evacuated.

For these eyewitnesses, the war had come home.

PAVEL BOZHGO, Moscow Resident (through translator): Around 4:00, there was a deafening bang, as if strong thunder struck somewhere near.

I came out to have a look.

And there were many emergency services on site.

And it was visible that the top of the house was damaged.

WOMAN (through translator): I don't even know.

It's scary.

You sit at home and this thing flies at your window.

Of course it's dangerous and it's scary.

AMNA NAWAZ: The drones targeted a posh neighborhood, home to the Russian elite, including President Vladimir Putin.

He blamed Ukraine and called it provocation.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): Now, as we know, they have gone as far as drone attacks, though I'm more worried, not by this, but by efforts to provoke a Russian response.

That appears to be the aim.

They are provoking us to do the same.

We will see what can be done.

AMNA NAWAZ: One man had an idea of what to do.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the paramilitary Wagner force that's been fighting in Ukraine, lashed out at the Russian Defense Ministry.

He has been waging a fierce public relations campaign against those running Russia's war.

YEVGENY PRIGOZHIN, Wagner Group Chief (through translator): Get your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) up from the offices in which you are to defend this country.

You are the Ministry of Defense.

You didn't do a damn thing to advance.

The fact that they fly to your home, to hell with it.

Let your houses burn.

And what do ordinary people do when drones with explosive crash into their windows?

AMNA NAWAZ: The Ukrainian capital also woke up to yet another series of overnight airstrikes, the third to hit Kyiv in 24 hours.

One strike hit this high-rise, destroying what was once someone's home.

One woman was killed and four others injured.

Those who survived this strike fear the next one.

VALERIA ORESHKO, Kyiv Resident (through translator): I am stressed and angry.

I think everyone feels scared when something is flying towards them.

We have all survived.

But we think of what will happen next.

AMNA NAWAZ: At least 17 such attacks have hit Kyiv this month, terrifying children, who ran for shelter.

So, what impact will the attacks inside Russia have on how the Russian people perceive Putin's war in Ukraine?

We turn now to Denis Volkov.

He's director of the Levada Center in Moscow, which conducts public opinion polling.

Denis, welcome.

As you know, these drone strikes seem to be bringing the war closer to home for Russians.

But, more broadly, tell us about your public opinion polling.

What does that show you about Russian sentiment and support for the war in Ukraine?

DENIS VOLKOV, Director, Levada Center: Well, general support is pretty high, about 75 percent.

But, if you look deeper, we see that only 50 percent is a strong support, and another 30, 25 percent, they have circumstantial support.

They join the majority.

They have a lot of qualms about what is happening.

And about 25 percent, this is the core hawkish respondents.

So it's, I think, about 20, 25 percent for whom Prigozhin is a hero, for whom that the war should go one as long as Kyiv and so on and so forth, so several different circles of support.

AMNA NAWAZ: And have you seen anything that tells you whether or not these drone strikes would have any impact on that level of support?

DENIS VOLKOV: What we see that single events do not have big impacts on what is -- on support of Russian military, of Russian president.

Actually, we have had some discussions of previous drone attacks on Kremlin, and people were -- in Moscow were discussing it and said, well, yes, probably, it's a problem that it's the Kremlin.

Putin is there.

What can we simple people expect?

But, apart from this, I will say they were pretty -- pretty OK, pretty stable.

And, of course, there are different explanations for this.

And some of our respondents, for example, say that they have no more resource for war, that there are two tired of warring.

And they just tried to adjust to the station as it is.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about the impact of the sanctions, especially over time?

We heard a lot from President Biden and leaders in the Western alliance that these would have great impact, not just on the elites and those around President Putin, but more generally on the Russian people.

Have those at all eroded support over time?

DENIS VOLKOV: Well, actually, we saw that they were a shock in the beginning, in March and April last year.

But then people adjusted.

Of course, the biggest impact of sanctions was inflation.

But it was taken, put under control by the end of -- end of spring.

And, actually, with at least 50 percent of our respondents, sanctions are popular.

People say, now we will develop our own industry, that government was not doing it for 30 years.

Now the West will force us to do so.

And, absolutely, I would say the most popular sanctions on big oligarchs, which ordinary Russians don't like.

They say, yes, that's good.

Otherwise, I would say we do not have big impact, though some maybe more educated, more informed respondents say, well, sanctions are like toxin.

They work overtime.

But the majority of Russians don't really care that much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Denis, how is it that the Russian government has been able to seemingly cushion the Russian public from really feeling any impact of this war?

DENIS VOLKOV: Well, I think because Russian government invested very -- a lot of resources into it, I mean, not only state media that provide the narrative that helps to accept the situation, but also money, economic stability.

I think, if we had the banking system collapsed last spring, we would have been discussing very different moods right now, but also social spendings for -- we saw that not only families and actually people who are taking part in this special military operation, as it is known here, they got relatively high money, high social package for ordinary Russian.

But, also, we saw that, at the end of last year, the government increased salaries in the state sector, increased pensions.

And it helps to -- people to accept this.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Denis Volkov from the Levada Center in Moscow joining us tonight.

Denis, thank you for your time.

DENIS VOLKOV: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Former first lady Rosalynn Carter has been diagnosed with dementia.

That news comes about three months after it was announced that her husband, former President Jimmy Carter, was moving into hospice care.

Caregiving has been a major focus of Mrs. Carter's life and work.

William Brangham looks at that legacy and the impact that dementia has on millions of families.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Geoff, Rosalynn Carter has long focused on the importance of mental health ever since leaving the White House.

In fact, she founded an institute for caregiving years later.

More than 50 million people worldwide have dementia.

And in the statement announcing Mrs. Carter's condition, her team said that about one in 10 Americans who are 65 and older have dementia.

Kathryn Cade is vice chair of The Carter Center and serves on The Carter Center's Mental Health task force.

She's a longtime friend of the first lady and a former aide from when she was in the White House.

Kathy, thank you so much for being here.

I mean, as I mentioned, you worked with the former first lady in the White House and have been a friend and adviser ever since.

For a woman who has dedicated so much of her life to caregiving and to mental health care, this news today must land with you all with a particular resonance and significance.

KATHY CADE, Vice Chair, The Carter Center: Mrs. Carter has been a mental health advocate for more than 50 years.

And she has constantly worked to fight the stigma and the discrimination that holds back progress in the mental health field and keeps us from providing supports to family caregivers, who are often the front line when a diagnosis like dementia is made.

And so I think that Mrs. Carter has always been a fierce advocate of speaking out, speaking honestly and openly about mental health challenges, and supporting the needs of caregivers.

And so while I personally am deeply saddened by the news today, I think that this gives us an opportunity to talk openly with our families and with our policymakers and with others in our community about what we need to do to advance better programs and supports for people who are struggling with mental illness and also people who are in the caregiving role.

We know that it's the beginning of a very long and complex journey.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As we were saying, this would -- this comes just a few months after President Carter revealed the news about his care.

The Carters have always been very frank about their health conditions.

Is that part of it that seems very intentional to try to chip away at the stigma?

KATHY CADE: I think, when the family decided to make this announcement, they really thought that they were doing something that had always been a priority for Mrs. Carter.

And that is to promote better public understanding of these needs -- of these issues and to really encourage many, many more conversations, both within families and also among our policymakers, because, at the end of the day, what Mrs. Carter has fought for, for over 50 years is to increase support and resources that are available to help -- to help families and individuals deal with mental health problems and help those who are in the caregiver role.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Speaking of those resources, I mean, we know that nearly six million Americans are suffering with dementia or other Alzheimer's-related conditions.

And not everyone is going to get the kind of care that a former first lady would.

Generally speaking, what kinds of resources are available for people and their caregivers in the country now?

KATHY CADE: I am someone who has dealt with dementia in my own family.

And I think that the most important message that I want to deliver is that people do need to reach out.

They need to reach out to their local physicians.

They can reach out to their areas on aging.

They can reach out to others in the faith community.

But the most important message I want to deliver is that it is a complex situation, and people really need to take advantage of the resources that are available.

Now, having said that, we know that there are many, many people in this country who, as you say, do not have access to good support systems and good care.

So, I think that, for the country as a whole, we need to recognize that we -- the job is not yet done.

Until we acknowledge that there is a caregiving crisis, we are failing our families.

And I think one of the -- as the Carter family faces this particular journey, I am confident that they will do it with sort of the same courage, the same grace, the same integrity that they have approached every other challenge.

And I think, for President and Mrs. Carter, they will approach this in the same way that they have lived their lives for over 75 years, which is together.

And so I think that that message of courage, that message of compassion, that message of empathy for people who are dealing with these major life experiences is very important.

And I think that we need to mobilize across this country.

You can make major changes in how we finance mental health care.

You can get to a point where mental health is treated the same way as physical health.

And you can get to the point where every family that is on a caregiving journey knows that they are not alone and that they can be supported and helped in that journey, and that it is very, very important that they reach out to others in order to get that help and support.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Kathy Cade of The Carter Center, thank you so much for talking with us.

KATHY CADE: Thank you.

It's been my honor to talk with you and about Mrs. Carter.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the coming weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the use of race in college admissions, and many court watchers expect the court to further limit or ban the use of race outright.

The case is focusing attention once again on other admissions practices that may need to change, including the legacy applicants, the children of alumni who often have preference and who are overwhelmingly white and from affluent families.

Evan Mandery of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice has studied this closely and wrote a book about it titled "Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us."

He joins us now for our series Rethinking College.

Thank you for being with us.

Why did colleges start giving preference to the children of alumni?

And for the colleges that still use legacy admissions, how do they justify it?

EVAN MANDERY, Author, "Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us": Well, legacy preference actually originated as a specifically antisemitic policy.

It was a way to justify the exclusion of Jews.

And there is no ethical justification for legacy that I have ever heard.

Colleges just say it's what they have always done and they want to continue doing it.

GEOFF BENNETT: Most colleges and universities operate on slim margins.

How do legacy admissions work as a fund-raising tool?

EVAN MANDERY: Well, there's no evidence whatsoever that legacy preference bolsters fund-raising.

And one obvious case in point is MIT, which has never practiced legacy with donor preference, and has an endowment of $25 billion.

And the couple of sociological studies of it have found no relationship between legacy and alumni generosity.

One wouldn't expect there to be one.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you say there's no ethical justification for it, tell me more about that.

EVAN MANDERY: Well, I mean, education is a human right, right?

Access is supposed to be equitable.

And so legacy is just rewarding people for accidents of birth.

And that's not what education is supposed to be about.

GEOFF BENNETT: Through the Supreme Court affirmative action case that we mentioned, some Harvard University admissions data became public.

And it shows that, between the years 2010 and 2015, the acceptance rate for legacy applicants during that period was 33 percent, with a 6 percent overall acceptance rate.

So that's about 5.7 times higher than the acceptance rate for non-legacy applicants.

What does that suggest about the role of wealth and access in the admissions process?

EVAN MANDERY: Right, I mean, that wealth in that affluence is a significant predictor of success in the college admissions process, particularly to -- ironically, to the schools with the highest endowments, the schools that could most afford to be equitable.

And, right, the legacy bump is about six times.

It's higher for donors and the children of faculty and staff.

And for recruited athletes, it's about a 16 times' multiplier.

And it's important to remember that, overwhelmingly, right -- people only watch Division I college football and basketball.

So they think there's significant Black representation.

But almost all of the sports at these colleges favor affluent whites.

GEOFF BENNETT: For those elite institutions that have eased off the practice of using legacy preferences, how have they done it and what has it meant for their enrollments?

EVAN MANDERY: Well, it's had no discernible impact on their enrollment whatsoever.

I mean, two things with legacy, right?

One is who we let in, and two is the stories that we tell about the people that we let in.

So, legacy is a way of legitimating affluent people's admission, but what's worse about it is that creates the myth that the people that are being admitted are the best and the brightest, as opposed to many of the rich and the richest.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, Vincent Price, the president of Duke University, he's among those defending the practice.

And he said to his faculty last year: "We are an institution that was made in a family, the Duke family.

We bear the name of that family.

We represent family.

We talk about family.

So how does that translate into the way we behave?

The idea that you would ban legacy admissions or ban any particular factor as a consideration is troublesome."

There are lots of people who will hear that and think that that makes sense.

What's your argument against it?

EVAN MANDERY: Oh, it's a painful argument to listen to from a college president.

I mean, those are the types of arguments that plantation owners used to defend slavery.

I mean, it can't just be that it's because the way we have always done it, that that's an ethical defense of continuing an offensive practice.

GEOFF BENNETT: But why can't private institutions use the admission systems that they deem appropriate to arrive at a class that reflects a diversity of backgrounds and world views?

EVAN MANDERY: I think that's a great question, Geoff.

But I'm going to say, they can do whatever they want.

The question is whether they are going to be entitled to nonprofit status, right?

So, elite colleges collectively receive tax benefits which the sociologist Charlie Eaton has estimated to be worth about $20 billion a year.

So, if they're going to get a right -- and because your contribution to your alma mater is tax-exempt, their earnings on the endowment are tax-exempt, and all of these colleges get preferential treatment in real estate and state taxes.

So, if they're going to do that, then they need to act in the public interest.

If what they want to do is act as for-profit colleges, then they should say that that's what their business is, and then they would be able to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't explicitly violate the Constitution.

GEOFF BENNETT: Evan Mandery is a professor with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Thanks for your time.

EVAN MANDERY: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's called neuroarts or neuroaesthetics.

And a new book shows both the growth and the importance of a field that connects the arts with our health.

Jeffrey Brown visited the Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore to see the progress firsthand.

That's for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

JEFFREY BROWN: Grooving the Bee Gees, splashing in the sea as a dolphin, taking a long look at a painting, all examples of how the arts are becoming more incorporated into medicine, and, says Susan Magsamen, of a growing understanding of how art can literally reshape or rewire our brains.

SUSAN MAGSAMEN, Director, Center for Applied Neuroaesthetics: It connects different circuits, connects different systems and different mechanisms within the brain.

And what's interesting about the arts -- and different art forms certainly have different attributes -- is that they simultaneously work with different parts of the brain.

And I think what we're seeing now is the language of the science of the arts is becoming more systematic.

JEFFREY BROWN: Magsamen is co-author with Ivy Ross, vice president for design at Google, of the new book "Your Brain on Art: How the Arts Transform Us."

SUSAN MAGSAMEN: The book is really very focused on understanding how our brains and bodies change on art, and how, by knowing that, we can really think about our health and well-being in ways that we might not have thought about it in the past.

JEFFREY BROWN: It's a field it's been growing in recent decades.

The new book pulls together research and practice.

And Magsamen offered us a day's tour of ongoing examples at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where she directs the International Arts and Mind Lab.

Enter the Bee Gees or, rather, Dr. Alexander Pantelyat, a neurologist and himself a violinist who's studying the potential for improving memory loss experienced by Alzheimer's patients and others.

DR. ALEXANDER PANTELYAT, Co-Founder and Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Music & Medicine: And we know that music impacts multiple networks in the brain simultaneously.

Simply listening to a song can activate much of the brain at once.

And so therein lies the challenge of studying these different patterns of activation and trying to separate them.

Therein also lies the promise of what music can do for people with different conditions and just for healthy aging more generally.

WOMAN: I will sing it for you.

And if you recognize it, you can join, if you pick up the... MAN: I don't recognize it.

JEFFREY BROWN: In a current study, patients receive eight weeks of twice-a-week music therapy delivered via Zoom to their homes.

Before and after, they undergo a memory test and a brain MRI during which they listened to a favorite song, but also to a scrambled version of the same song.

We know music therapy helps, Pantelyat says, but not exactly how, how, for example, our brains process music.

And perhaps memory networks can strengthen as they unscramble a familiar song.

DR. ALEXANDER PANTELYAT: The other thing that we don't know is exactly what dose of music therapy, how frequently, for how long should people be exposed to the stimuli, and... JEFFREY BROWN: So, the actual application of music therapy, we could determine.

DR. ALEXANDER PANTELYAT: Exactly.

This study is a short-term study.

This is an eight-week music therapy intervention.

What I really want to see next are larger studies conducted in multiple centers at the same time that take place over a longer period of time.

If we do that, we will be able to see if these interventions can actually slow cognitive decline, slow memory loss.

And that is really our Holy Grail.

SANDRA DELUZIO, Occupational Therapist: So, when he turns his head, you will have control.

LOGAN GILES, Patient: OK. JEFFREY BROWN: In a nearby building, another kind of creative therapy called I Dolphin, in immersive animation in which stroke and other patients suffering loss of movement become a dolphin named Bandit, with a sensor allowing them to swim freely in an eat-or-be-eaten underwater world.

In this case, Bandit was Logan Giles, a 25-year-old suffering from a neurological disorder impacting the use of his arms and legs.

LOGAN GILES: You can play with the dolphin.

You can eat all the fish, the sharks you want.

Yes, it's a really good distraction from all the stuff that's going on, because people who play are generally going through stressful times.

SANDRA DELUZIO: It's kind of an opportunity to leave the hospital room, leave this environment where you can't do anything, you can't get up, get down on your own, and be successful in this moment.

You're going to bring that arm up really big, big, big, big, big, hold it until you reach the top.

And then, once you get there, you're going to move like that.

Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: And there's more says, occupational therapist Sandra Deluzio.

Researchers are hoping the therapy can help retrain the brain and limbs to aid cognitive motor skills in a noninvasive, even fun way.

SANDRA DELUZIO: We are breaking the glass a little bit here, because it's really a shift in what we traditionally do for patients, which is the traditional standard OT-PT and speech, which is incredibly important.

But this is different.

We think that if we do higher loads of training in this early phase, that we will have better outcomes, that we can optimize neuroplasticity.

But these patients are sick.

And so it has to be done thoughtfully, it has to be smart, and it has to be done by the right people.

JEFFREY BROWN: There's also a growing awareness of art's impact on the caregivers themselves, whether it's a short break for a bit of classical guitar, or something more formal.

DR. MEG CHISOLM, Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine: I think that one of the biggest problems in medicine right now is that patients don't feel recognized by their doctors as people.

But, also, there's contrast here IN what you might expect of a lion being ferocious, right?

JEFFREY BROWN: And looking at, discussing, making art, says Dr. Margaret Chisolm, should be part of A medical school education.

A professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, she cites evidence that so-called visual thinking strategies help doctors see and act in new ways.

DR. MEG CHISOLM: Medical education and training is inherently dehumanizing.

And so students are selected because they're able to do really well in science and math.

They aren't necessarily exposed or they don't expose themselves to the arts and humanities, where you really are exploring questions, like what it means to be human, what's the meaning of being a physician, even.

SUSAN MAGSAMEN: The arts are another way to really start to think about what we need, not as a nice-to-have or a luxury, but really a have-to-have for our health and well-being.

JEFFREY BROWN: That's the message Susan Magsamen and co-author Ivy Ross want to get across in their new book, and a sense of just how far the research and practice of your brain on art have come in the past decades.

SUSAN MAGSAMEN: The fact that there is science that's really beginning to show the neuroplasticity, the changes in neurotransmitters, the physiological structural changes in the brain, and also the impact on the body, I think we're starting to be able to provide an evidence base.

We are really evolutionarily wired for the arts.

And I think that, as the science continues to grow, I think we will have more applications and more ways to see that show up in our daily lives.

JEFFREY BROWN: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown at the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine in Baltimore.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for joining us.

Have a great evening.