JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: fear in the classroom.

Another shooting in Colorado brings into focus the trauma caused by gun violence in schools.

Then: standoff.

New York Representative Jerry Nadler, chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, on Congress' escalating fight with the Trump administration.

And "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of America's favorite novels, adapted for Broadway.

AARON SORKIN, Playwright: This was no longer an exercise in nostalgia.

This wasn't a field trip to a museum.

It wasn't an homage to one of America's favorite books.

It was something new.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump defended his eldest son today, after reports that Donald Trump Jr. has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senators want to ask him about a meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report cited contradictions in Trump Jr.'s statements, but didn't bring charges.

The president spoke today at a White House event.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Frankly, for my son, after being exonerated, to now get a subpoena to go again and speak again, after close to 20 hours of telling everybody that would listen about a nothing meeting, yes, I'm pretty surprised.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president also said that he will let Attorney General William Barr decide whether Mueller should testify before Congress.

The White House already invoked executive privilege, blocking the release of Mueller's entire report.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted to that today, blasting Mr. Trump for rejecting congressional oversight.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The president is almost self-impeaching, because he is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress' legitimate role to subpoena.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We will talk with the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler, later in the program.

President Trump plans to nominate Patrick Shanahan to be U.S. secretary of defense.

The White House announced it today.

Shanahan became acting secretary in January, after James Mattis quit over Mr. Trump's call to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.

The president said today that he is not happy with North Korea after it fired short-range missiles for the second time in five days.

South Korea says that two weapons were launched today near Kusong, north of Pyongyang.

They flew as far as 270 missiles out to sea.

Meanwhile, the U.S. formally seized a North Korean cargo ship that has been detained in Indonesia for a year.

It allegedly was used to violate sanctions.

European Union leaders are urging Iran to adhere to its 2015 nuclear deal.

But the E.U.

said today that it will continue trading with Iran, despite U.S. sanctions.

Tehran has threatened to abandon key parts of the agreement, unless the E.U.

helps to for the sanctions.

The U.S. withdrew from the nuclear deal last year.

Pope Francis today mandated that priests and nuns report sexual abuse and cover-ups to church authorities.

The new law also includes procedures making it easier to investigate bishops.

A senior Vatican prosecutor said that it shows no one is above the law, including bishops.

CHARLES SCICLUNA, Vatican Sex Crimes Prosecutor: Experience shows us that either a closed-shop mentality or a misplaced interest in protecting the institution was hindering disclosure.

I think the law is very important, because it makes disclosure as the main policy of the church.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Some abuse victims called the law a step forward.

Others complained that it doesn't require reporting abuse to police.

Back in this country, lawmakers in Alabama delayed voting on a bill that bans abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

That would have made it the toughest in the nation.

Democrats and at least one Republican shouted objections when other Republicans stripped out exceptions for rape and incest.

Debate resumes next week.

Federal prosecutors in San Diego have filed 109 hate crimes charges in last month's synagogue attack; 19-year-old John Earnest already faced state charges of murder and attempted murder.

He allegedly killed one person and tried to kill dozens.

The federal counts could carry the death penalty.

U.S.-China trade talks resumed this evening in Washington, hours before the Trump administration says that it will impose higher tariffs.

They go to 25 percent on Friday, affecting $200 billion in imported goods from China.

The tensions with China kept Wall Street off balance.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 139 points to close at 25828.

The Nasdaq fell 32 points, and the S&P 500 slipped eight.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": exploring the trauma caused by school shootings; stand-off - - Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler on the House's feud with the Trump administration; surging prices -- Uber prepares to make its initial public stock offering; and much more.

The school shooting in Colorado this week has focused our attention again on tragedies happening on campus and periodically in the classroom.

It is an unfortunately familiar story, particularly in Colorado, raising questions not just of what needs to be done to stop the violence, but also how best to prepare for them, and whether that has its own costs for children, for teachers and parents.

Another American school plunged into terror by gun violence this week.

On Tuesday afternoon, two students at the STEM School Highlands Ranch in the Denver, Colorado suburbs, are alleged to have opened fire during class.

SOPHIA MARKS, Student: I just kind of saw like flashes, and we heard bangs.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Police descended on the K-12 school.

Students were evacuated, and anxious parents waited outside.

WOMAN: The children are texting you that they're hiding under a desk and that bullets are hitting their window, or things are hitting their window.

It's a horrible feeling.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Inside, three students charged at one of the gunmen and tackled him.

One of those students, Kendrick Castillo, was shot and killed.

A classmate, who also rushed the shooter, described Castillo's final moments of heroism.

BRENDAN BIALY, Student: He charged the shooter and immediately was on top of him, complete disregard for his own safety.

He was immediately there to respond.

He was immediately on the shooter and he was ready to end the threat.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Castillo was a senior, just days away from graduation.

Both shooters, an 18-year-old male and a juvenile, are in police custody.

The attack hit the Denver area hard, one already on edge, roughly a month after the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School.

Schools across the area were locked down last month in reaction to threats related to the anniversary.

Tuesday's attack is the second U.S. school shooting in as many weeks.

Last week, a gunman at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte killed two and wounded four.

He was also taken down by a student who charged him.

These recent shootings come amid a nationwide debate about arming teachers.

Classrooms across the country are already taking other safety measures, such as operating active shooter drills more frequently.

Last year saw the highest number of school shootings in recent years, including two dozen that left 35 people dead.

Three of the four deadliest shootings in modern U.S. history, in an elementary and secondary school, have happened since Columbine.

Let's talk about how communities and school systems are responding to all of this, including in Colorado.

John Ferrugia is the news anchor and managing editor with Rocky Mountain PBS in Denver.

And Evie Blad is a reporter who covers this for Education Week, a "NewsHour" partner.

And we welcome both of you to the program.

John, I want to start with you.

Tell us how the Denver community is dealing with all of this, especially with a history going back to Columbine.

JOHN FERRUGIA, Rocky Mountain PBS: Yes, Judy, there's an overwhelming sense of sadness here, I think, another school shooting, nine people shot, one young man not coming home to his family again, another funeral.

There's just an overwhelming sadness about this in the community.

I think, also, though, there is anger.

I was just talking with a Columbine survivor who saw her friends murdered in 1999.

She now has children of her own.

She says, why in the world can't we keep our kids safe at school?

And I think that's an overwhelming feeling here in this state and around the country.

And, of course, that brings up the issues around access to guns, et cetera, which is being debated everywhere.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You were telling us that the Denver area and these counties, they have already instituted a number of assessments, taken security measures.

So, it's not as if nothing's been done over these years.

JOHN FERRUGIA: No.

In Colorado, a couple of examples, Safe2Tell is a hot line where people call and report either someone they're fearful could commit suicide or a threat.

And last year, in the last school year, there were 16,000 calls to that hot line and about 600 threats reported, around 2,800 suicide concerns.

So people are reaching out, kids mostly.

This is aimed at kids to call.

Secondly, in Douglas County, where the STEM shooting took place, they have what they call threat assessments.

Last year, more than 200 threat assessments of kids, individual kids, who were concerning to them through tips or whatever, 184 of those kids were put on a safety plan, on an individual safety plan, where their parents were involved, where they could be searched when they came into school, where they're monitored.

So there's a lot of vigilance going on in the school districts in Colorado.

And just one final thing.

John McDonald, the safety director over in Jefferson County, where Columbine is, he says, today, if we see on social media, you have got gun or you are going to shoot somebody, or are you have got a bomb, we're going to believe you.

And we're going to be at your door right away doing a safety check.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Evie Blad, how is what they're doing in the Denver area, how is that similar or not to what's happening around the rest of the country?

EVIE BLAD, Education Week: Yes.

So there's been a big emphasis on prevention lately.

These shootings aren't -- are still statistically rare.

But when they happen, they have a big effect, obviously.

And they are a very emotional thing for folks.

So there's been a real drive to say, what can we do to ensure that a student who may be struggling, a student who may have some of these risk factors can have the support and resources they need, so that they don't act on those things?

And there's also a lot more emphasis on preparation around the country.

We have seen, since Columbine, the number of schools that do active shooter drills has increased dramatically.

So, while not every student will experience a shooting -- in fact, statistically, students in America won't -- most of them have an awareness of them because they practice these routines that would keep them safe in the event of an emergency.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you were telling us these routines are in elementary schools for young children.

EVIE BLAD: Yes.

And some young children do drills that have been modified.

They won't talk about a bad guy or an assailant.

They will talk about stay safe in your classroom, like you would do if there was a dog in the hallway, and we didn't know the dog and we wanted to keep you safe.

Psychologists have been trying to work with schools to modify these things, so that young children don't feel traumatized by the preparation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John Ferrugia, I mean, it really is a balancing act, isn't it, for these schools, for educators, because you want to be prepared, you want to be on the lookout, but you don't want to frighten children.

You don't want children traumatized before anything happens.

JOHN FERRUGIA: Yes, that's right, Judy.

And one of the other things that -- the dilemma is, is, how do you keep a child or a kid who comes into the school, who belongs in the school, has a backpack, walks in, and gets into the school, like in the STEM shooting, and then reveals having a gun in the backpack and starts shooting?

So it really is prevention, and it's identifying these kids early.

In the situation at STEM, these kids weren't on the radar.

The sheriff says, look, we had no idea who they were.

They didn't have any social media postings that were concerning.

Nobody saw this coming.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Evie Blad, is there a sense in the education world that they have made progress in understanding which children, which students might be at risk of trying to do something?

EVIE BLAD: Well, there's no set profile of a school shooter, even though there are some things that we see in common in news reports.

And so the idea is to give students the support they need, while also respecting their civil rights.

We want students to have due process.

We don't want to intervene in a situation and stigmatize them.

But some of the things that you would do to support a student who might be at risk are things that are best practices to help students in all kinds of situations.

These tip lines, like they have in Colorado, more often field reports about things like bullying and suicides than about school shootings.

So some of the practices of making schools supportive, of connecting adults to children are good preventative, protective factors for all kinds of things.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But coming back to what you said earlier, John Ferrugia, you're saying there's still -- even with all the preparation being done, there is anger, understandably, that this kind of thing can still happen.

JOHN FERRUGIA: Yes, there is Judy.

And I will tell you, part of the sadness here in Colorado is that we just noted the 20th anniversary of Columbine, this terrible, terrible event.

And 20 years later, many of these victims are saying, we're now on a journey, on a continuing journey of recovery.

And now we know, every time there is one of these shootings, we have a new set of people on this recovery road again.

And that's what happens over and over and over again.

And that's the anger.

That's the sadness.

That's the frustration that people are feeling.

And that's the drive, I think, at least here in Colorado and I think around the country, with teachers, administrators, law enforcement... JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

JOHN FERRUGIA: ... of trying to identify this early and prevent it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, Evie Blad, it gets back to what you said earlier, that even though the shootings are not common, they happen often enough.

They get a lot of media attention.

And people -- the sense of terror is -- can be in the air.

EVIE BLAD: Yes.

Certainly, the public polling has showed that about three times as many people report they fear for their child's safety now than they did after the Newtown shooting in 2012.

And that kind of fear can often drive policy-makers to do what -- legislate by anecdote, to look at the circumstances of the last shooting and say, what can we do differently?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Evie Blad with Education Week, John Ferrugia with Rocky Mountain PBS, thank you both.

EVIE BLAD: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There's a lot of interest around the initial public offering of Uber, which is expected to be one of the biggest IPOs in years.

William Brangham looks at why that is, the questions around its business model, and some of the wider controversies around the company.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: If Uber hits the market tomorrow, as expected, it'll be the largest public stock offering in the U.S. since 2014.

The ride-sharing giant and the rivals it inspired changed driving and commuting around the world.

Its opening day market value may be well above $80 billion, which would make it bigger, for example, than the market value of GM.

The big winners?

Uber's founders and early investors, who own big chunks of stock.

Former CEO Travis Kalanick resigned in 2017, after reports of a corporate culture rife with sexual harassment, but he still owns 9 percent and will easily make billions.

Some veteran Uber drivers could get cash bonuses to buy shares.

But the company itself, and the prospects of big paydays, remain highly controversial.

There are worries about how this IPO could exacerbate already huge wealth gaps in Silicon Valley.

And many Uber drivers and those at its competitor Lyft say they don't get paid nearly enough.

This week, many went on short strikes in cities around the world, protesting low wages and their status as independent contractors, rather than official employees.

While Uber performs more than 15 million passenger trips every day, the company has also grown to include mobile scooters, a long-haul trucking service, and Uber Eats, a food delivery service.

But revenue growth has continued to slow, and it's still burning through a lot of cash.

Uber lost more than $3 billion last year.

Its competitor Lyft went public weeks ago, but is now trading below its initial prices.

For more on Uber's initial stock offering, we turn to Farhad Manjoo.

He's an opinion columnist for The New York Times.

And Amir Efrati, senior reporter at The Information, who tracks this sector closely.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

Amir, to you first.

Why so much expectation?

I mean, I haven't heard people talking about an IPO as much as they are about Uber's in a long time.

Why all the fuss?

AMIR EFRATI, The Information: This is an important consumer brand now.

It's a utility.

It's part of all our lives, and so this is going to raise the profile of the company that much more.

It's also going to be an important barometer for the public market's appetite for other kind of big-money-losing companies that are going to go public in the near future.

We have with got Postmates coming up, Slack coming up, WeWork.

There's talk about WeWork going public as well.

And this is actually a very, very important barometer for whether investors are OK with that.

So far, we have seen a lot of skittishness when it comes to the Uber IPO.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But with Uber specifically, Amir, they have got competition.

It's losing a lot of money.

It's had a raft of bad P.R.

It has these labor issues.

Do you think any of those clouds are going to rain on tomorrow's parade?

AMIR EFRATI: They already have.

The company did want to price its IPO valuing the company at $120 billion, or at least $100 billion.

The executives who currently run the company are heavily incentivized to get that valuation to that level.

They get massive, massive bonuses if the company reaches it.

But the expectations have been ratcheted way, way, way down as the uncertainty has gone up.

And Uber just had basically its worst quarter ever in the first quarter of this year, lost more than a billion dollars overall.

And, yes, the questions continue to mount.

And the company's saying, look, trust us.

The competition that we face currently in the United States and around the world, it will abate and we will be able to make money.

It's very difficult to see that path at the moment.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Farhad Manjoo, you wrote a blistering piece in The New York Times recently, where you admitted you originally had some optimism about the idea of Uber and it as a company.

But you have obviously since changed your mind.

And, in fact, you referred to this IPO as a moral stain on the culture of Silicon Valley.

What is your biggest complaint?

FARHAD MANJOO, The New York Times: Yes.

I mean, I think the Uber idea and the idea of ride-sharing was this -- it could have been this beautiful dynamic, where the company and its founders won, but also you could have had this company work in a way where drivers and cities and the way we all work could have improved.

Instead, what's happened is, the latest numbers show that, in many cities where these companies operate, traffic is up.

Traffic is up in large part because of these kinds of companies.

And they have also created this massive work force of drivers who get and are allowed to get paid under the minimum wage because of their -- how they're classified as contractors, rather than employees.

Meanwhile, after a long history of recklessness, lawlessness, the insiders of this company, the people who founded it and who were reckless in creating that culture, they are going to get huge rewards from this IPO.

I think it's a -- it's a bad model, but, unfortunately, a more common template for what Silicon Valley does in the world and its kind of effect on the world.

Like, this could have been a much better idea, a more equitable idea, and one that worked for kind of more parties.

And how it ended up is winning for a few people, while a whole lot of others lose in the process.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I'm curious, though, to press you a little bit on that point, because to be more equitable -- I mean, labor is one of the big issues here.

If they were paying their drivers more, wouldn't that only, again, negatively impact the company, meaning -- I guess I'm trying to ask is, is the model itself potentially viable, and you simply think Uber is not doing it well, or is the business model itself not financially viable?

FARHAD MANJOO: I mean, we will see.

I think -- I think that there is a -- there was a way that you could have had more expensive Uber rides, but a better incentivized and labor force, one that wasn't sort of a template for this new model of working for an app that chooses your pay and chooses your -- how you work with an algorithm.

And I also think that there may be a universe where treating drivers better would have led to a better company that didn't have these kinds of brand issues and other problems.

I think that, though you point out and Amir pointed out, I mean, the kind of fundamental business model of this company, even in the way, the inequitable way, it's structured now, is still in question.

I think one of the reasons we in the Valley have been watching this company for a long time is, it's because it's been this mystery, whether it's sort of ultimately works.

And we have had other companies like this in tech.

I mean, Amazon for a long time was losing money and bent on expansion.

But Amazon sort of -- and Uber has sort of tried to compare itself to Amazon.

But I think this is a different kind of company.

It's pushing sort of new boundaries and new - - and a whole new kind of business model.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amir, what do you make of that?

Is this business model, where a company could be successful and its employees feel like they're getting a fair shake, is that viable?

AMIR EFRATI: It can be.

It's going to require a lot of work and a lot of mergers and acquisitions potentially as well.

But I think it's very important to talk about the net benefits that Uber and Lyft and other ride-hailing companies have provided to society.

They really modernized the taxi market.

If you ask LGBTQ people what it was like to try to hail taxis, they will tell you a lot of horror stories.

And that's certainly the case in San Francisco.

For wheelchair-bound people, this has been a huge gift.

So I think the product is incredible.

It works very well for the most part.

And that's something we should -- we should keep in mind.

Farhad is totally right.

There's congestion.

Drivers should be paid more.

But I think it's been a net benefit so far, and drivers are choosing to drive for a reason.

They're doing it for a reason.

Nobody's putting a gun to their head.

I do think, though, that they need better - - need to give drivers better information and potentially better pay.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Amir Efrati and Farhad Manjoo, thank you both very much.

FARHAD MANJOO: Thanks.

AMIR EFRATI: Any time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Sports champions, as we have seen, frequently visit the White House, but, in this divided political time and with bitterly polarized attitudes about President Trump, it is no longer a routine practice.

As Yamiche Alcindor reports, many famous players are taking action off the field.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: A moment of a celebration for some of the Boston Red Sox.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The 2018 Red Sox never gave up and never backed down.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: For others, it was a White House boycott.

That's because some members of the 2018 World Series championship team didn't show up for the traditional White House visit.

Even Red Sox manager Alex Cora choose not to attend.

He's from Puerto Rico.

And, today, he told a radio show, he's troubled by President Trump's response to Hurricane Maria.

ALEX CORA, Boston Red Sox Manger: I'm the guy that has lived it.

I'm the guy down there in the off-season.

I understand how it is.

And I just don't feel right going and celebrating while people are struggling back home.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: On display today, a stark racial divide.

Most white players came, but all but one team's black and Latino players, like star pitcher David Price and MVP Mookie Betts, didn't.

The event comes as President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Tiger Woods on Monday.

Events like today's have long been a bipartisan White House tradition.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: Thanks for salvaging my bracket.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But President Trump's past statements, especially tied to race, have led to deep divides among athletes about attending.

Some still come to White House ceremonies, but many of the most well-known players in sports have not.

In 2017, the president publicly criticized quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem.

That same year, the reigning NBA champions, the Golden State Warriors, said they would boycott the White House visit.

President Trump claimed he disinvited them.

And a visit by the 2018 Super Bowl champions, the Philadelphia Eagles, was canceled after of number of players said they wouldn't attend.

Let's explore this divide a bit more.

The Red Sox visit today is just one chapter in President Trump's tense relationship with some athletes.

To talk about this, I'm joined by Kevin Blackistone, who is a national sports columnist for The Washington Post, a regular contributor to ESPN, and a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland.

Thanks so much, Kevin, for being here.

There is a split here.

Some Red Sox players showed up to the White House.

Others chose not to come.

What do you make of that?

And what does it say about what these sports events at the White House have become under President Trump?

KEVIN BLACKISTONE, University of Maryland: Well, just when President Trump was elected, I did a video column over at The Washington Post about this very issue, about the tradition of sports teams and champions coming to the White House.

And I said then -- and I think I would certainly amplify it again now -- that if you believe that sports are some sort of elixir for all the ills that are in our society, racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, then it would be disingenuous was for you, as a sportsman or sportswoman, to accept an invitation to congratulate you for a championship from this president.

And I think that's what you saw borne out more starkly in this Boston Red Sox have been than any other, because, in other instances, either teams have not gone, or either teams have been disinvited.

But, this time, half the team showed up and half the team didn't, basically in protest.

And the racial division was so stark, that it just couldn't be ignored.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Earlier in the year, the Clemson University football team also visited the White House.

Most of the black players there didn't show up.

Most of the white players did show up.

What do you make of that racial divide, given the history of the United States?

KEVIN BLACKISTONE: Well, I think that this president has returned us to a time when we thought about how divisive things were between black folks and white folks in this country, or, maybe in this case, expand it to people of color and white folks in this country.

And I think, if you look at what happened with Clemson, or certainly if you look at what happened with the Red Sox, it's very clear.

And I think it's important to point out people of color, because a lot of people talk about baseball not having as many black players as it used to.

But you know who didn't come to this White House?

The progeny of enslaved Africans from this country, the progeny of enslaved Africans from the Caribbean, the progeny of enslaved Africans from South America.

They all didn't come.

So, in one way, it created some unity, I think, among black American players and black players from the Caribbean and from South America.

But it also, once again, just underscored how divisive the politics are under this particular administration.

You heard Alex Cora talking about his concern about Puerto Rico and what has happened to Puerto Rico under this -- under this presidency after it was struck by the hurricane.

And we know how many black players have felt about this presidency's approach to matters concerning the Black Lives Matters movement.

And so all of this has really come to a head in this event.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: There's also this issue of Tiger Woods.

He got honored at the White House earlier this week.

What does him being honored mean, you think, for this issue going forward?

KEVIN BLACKISTONE: We know that President Trump and Tiger Woods have a long history on the golf course.

And so I think that President Trump saw this as an opportunity to wrap himself in the glow of the moment of Tiger Woods.

And we know that Tiger Woods has had a very spotty record when it comes to speaking out on political matters, whether it was about women being admitted to Augusta or whether it was about other issues.

In fact, he didn't stand up for President Obama until after President Obama was elected.

So, that was a -- this was an issue for Tiger Woods and for the president that I think a lot of people understood the ramifications of.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Kevin Blackistone.

KEVIN BLACKISTONE: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump's decision to defy the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report puts the administration and House Democrats on a collision course.

Democrat Jerry Nadler chairs that committee, and issued a stark warning this week that the country is in a constitutional crisis.

Chairman Nadler joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Chairman Nadler, thank you for being here.

My question is... REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... are we at an impasse?

The president saying, I'm not going along with any subpoenas from Congress.

You have the White House press secretary saying what you did in holding the attorney general in contempt is unlawful.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, we are in a constitutional crisis because of the administration's contempt for law, their refusal to obey the law, whether it's their refusal to hand over the president's tax returns to the chairman of Ways and Means, when the law says they must do that, whether it's their family separation at the border, whether it's the -- their not -- their opposing the constitutionality of a duly passed act of Congress, the Affordable Care Act, in court.

And now the president's obstructions of justice, as documented in the Mueller report, and now the president's decision -- and announced decision -- that he's going to defy all subpoenas from the House.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: That means he's denying the role of the House of Representatives as a coordinate branch of government, and he's trying to establish the presidency as a dictatorship.

You cannot have a democratic government which is supposed to be tripartite, the legislative, the judiciary and the presidency, if the executive denies all information, even... JUDY WOODRUFF: But... REP. JERROLD NADLER: ... and even -- and denies all lawful subpoenas.

It's just a complete defiance of law.

And that's a crisis.

And the other part of it is that they have turned the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce the law, into an agency for defying the law, as the personal property of the president, against the laws of the United States.

That is a crisis.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Congressman, what recourse does Congress have, realistically?

I mean, if all this ends up in the courts, aren't you looking at weeks and months of wrangling in the court, with no resolution here?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

Well, we're certainly looking at weeks, maybe months, in court, but we have no alternative, because we have to vindicate the rule of law and we have to insist that the president -- no president is above the law.

No American is above the law.

And no president is above the law, or a dictator.

We -- presidents have to respect Congress, as the representatives of the American people, and have to be willing to give information requested by Congress on behalf of the American people.

And simply to say you're not going to obey any -- any subpoenas is flat-out defiance of law, is going is -- is going to be found wrong in court.

The courts are not going to sustain that.

There's no basis for it.

But they're just trying to -- they're being totally lawless.

And a lawless administration is a tyrannical administration.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But what does that mean, Congressman Nadler, in terms of what you can do?

You have -- you're now holding -- your committee has voted to hold the attorney general in contempt.

My understanding is that citation expires at the end of this term of Congress.

What recourse do you, the others in Congress have to make the administration cooperate?

(CROSSTALK) REP. JERROLD NADLER: The only recourse we have is to cite the attorney general.

And I'm sure others -- I'm sure that other committees will be citing other officials in the administration for contempt shortly.

We will pass those on the floor of the House, and we will have to go to court.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But my question is, what does it lead to?

And, meanwhile, the American people... REP. JERROLD NADLER: What it leads to, hopeful - - what it leads to, hopefully, is a swift court order, with compulsion behind it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm sorry.

Could you repeat that again?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: What it leads to, hopefully, are swift court orders, saying you must apply this information, or you must do this or that, as the case may be, with the court-ordered compulsion behind it.

A court can fine an official $40,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 a day until he does what is necessary.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But our understanding is the law around so many of these issues is not black and white.

It's not all entirely clear, that, again, you're looking at wrangling... REP. JERROLD NADLER: I disagree.

I disagree.

The law -- I disagree.

The law is quite clear on most of these issues.

For example, any subpoena must be adhered to.

The information must be supplied, unless you have a legal reason not to do so.

And presidential privilege, which they're claiming, has certain limits.

And the Supreme Court 8-0 nothing in the Nixon case said that even the most closely held privilege, where the president was talking to his own advisers, is not valid when you're talking about potential wrongdoing by the administration.

Second of all, it is very clear, black letter law, that once you give any give any information to a third party, to the press, to somebody's lawyer, to the Mueller investigation, you have waived the privilege.

And all the information we have demanded is of that character.

So there's no question legally we will win.

The question is how long it will take.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman, very quickly, as you know, the administration's pointing out that something like 92 percent or more of the Mueller report has already been made public.

So what more is it that you and others in Congress need to see?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: The other 8 percent.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And... REP. JERROLD NADLER: And you can't judge the importance of information from percentages.

And in every previous case, whether it was the Nixon case, or the Iran-Contra case, or the Clinton case, in every -- or other cases - - Congress, or at least the Judiciary Committees, have seen all the information and the underlying materials.

We admit -- we agree that some of that information cannot be made public.

But that decision is up for the -- is for Congress, the Judiciary Committee, not for the -- not for the president and not for the attorney general.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So finally, Congressman, it sounds like you're not backing down.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: We are -- we cannot back down.

To back down would be to admit that the administration may hold all material secret from Congress, and Congress might as well go home.

And then you have the president as a dictator, above the law.

We cannot admit that.

We rebelled against George III 250-odd years ago, and we cannot admit that it was all a waste of time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Chairman Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, thank you.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: You're welcome.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now: a new movement that is bringing together big businesses and environmentalists, with the goal of rethinking the value of waste.

Jeffrey Brown reports from Amsterdam.

It's part of our weekly segment on business and economics, Making Sense.

JEFFREY BROWN: Away from Amsterdam's iconic canals and museums, a different kind of attraction, a place where the offices and hotel are made out of old boats.

Solar panels power most of the buildings, and the herbs used at the popular cafe are grown using fish waste.

And that's not all that's helping them.

EVA GLADEK, CEO, Metabolic: This column, it's connected through the piping that's on the wall to urine that we have collected from the dry urinals in the cafe and also from our building.

We can add some chemicals, and then we get these crystals that are actually fertilizer.

JEFFREY BROWN: Welcome to de Ceuvel.

Quirky and off the beaten path, its own little neighborhood in the midst of the larger city, it's a laboratory to test a new approach to waste-free, sustainable living.

EVA GLADEK: This was waste land that was polluted that we got to reuse in a beneficial way.

JEFFREY BROWN: Eva Gladek, an American who's lived here for more than 10 years, is founder of Metabolic, the company that spearheads the project.

EVA GLADEK: We took a bunch of old houseboats.

We eco-retrofitted them to make them as sustainable and energy-efficient as possible.

We tried to reduce the amount of infrastructure necessary to run the site, so there's nothing dug into the ground.

The boats don't have sanitation.

So they all have they all have compost toilets and gray water treatment systems using biofilters.

The soil is being cleaned using plants, and we have a lot of different experiments on managing urban resources.

JEFFREY BROWN: Small experiments for now, but based on big ideas.

EVA GLADEK: Cities are functioning as global resource drains.

The metabolism of cities is linear.

There is all this stuff coming in, it's getting processed, turned into waste, and then it gets spit out.

And, actually, we need to create a circular metabolism.

JEFFREY BROWN: De Ceuvel is rooted in the so-called circular economy, a radically new way of thinking about the future that's built on a relatively simple idea: Maximize the use of raw materials, turn waste into a valuable, reusable commodity, so that nothing, in the end, is really wasted.

The goal, a healthier planet and economy.

And while the models are speculative, some studies suggest potential benefits are massive.

For example, by getting more value out of existing materials, Europe could see an annual benefit of up to $2 trillion by 2030.

And carbon emissions could be nearly halved.

At the same time, it's a massive undertaking.

HARALD FRIEDL, CEO, Circle Economy: I would say we're in the first third, if you want to pin me down into an estimation.

And I would love that, in 2020, we're moving into the second third of the transition.

JEFFREY BROWN: Harald Friedl is the CEO of Circle Economy, a research and advocacy group based in Amsterdam.

HARALD FRIEDL: I think our way of thinking, sometimes, we believe big change isn't possible.

JEFFREY BROWN: How do you change a mind-set?

HARALD FRIEDL: I think how we go about it is practical, practical, and practical solutions.

JEFFREY BROWN: To that end, Circle Economy has partnered with a number of Dutch businesses, one example, Black Bear Carbon -- 45 minutes outside Amsterdam, the company has tried to apply circular economy principles to the tire industry.

Martijn Lopes Cardozo is the CEO.

MARTIJN LOPES CARDOZO, CEO, Black Bear Carbon: There's almost two billion tires that reach the end of their life.

And most of them actually get burned or landfilled.

So, this is a big environmental problem.

JEFFREY BROWN: At Kargro Recycling, workers sort tires that are then shred.

Their base components, steel, rubber and a powder called carbon black, are separated and then reused to make new tires or other common household items.

Cardozo says they're able to extract about 70 percent of the raw material from old tires, and they're now looking to build new factories.

MARTIJN LOPES CARDOZO: Well, in order to make the circular economy work, you not only have to do something good, but also create a real business.

It has to have good economic returns.

JEFFREY BROWN: Still, it can be hard work convincing would-be investors.

MARTIJN LOPES CARDOZO: Typically, the answer you get is, oh, Martijn, we love your concept.

Once you have 10 factories up and running, we will buy number 11.

You know, you're acting in a very traditional industry.

JEFFREY BROWN: He says 1,500 plants could process all of the world's used tires, but it would require a capital investment of roughly $15 billion.

And that's just for tires.

Further, it's not only about convincing investors, but changing consumer habits as well, for example, not throwing away your old jeans, so they don't end up in landfills.

MUD Jeans, another Dutch company, uses about 40 percent recycled cotton, and in addition to giving customers a discount for returning their old jeans, in a new twist, it actually lets them lease new ones.

Bert van Son is its founder.

BERT VAN SON, Founder, MUD Jeans: Leasing a washing machine is understandable.

Leasing a pair of jeans is maybe more difficult, because you wear it, it's yours.

OK, I can understand that.

But, still, the thought behind this, give me back your old jeans, I will use the cotton again, recycle it, tear it, apart and mix it with new cotton -- I have to mix it with new cotton -- and reuse it, so that we don't have to grow so much cotton every year.

JEFFREY BROWN: Another big question for the circular economy, who ends up benefiting?

As new technology and infrastructure will be at a premium, big corporations, at least in the near future, appear to hold a significant advantage.

And could the desire to make profit derail the process altogether?

Again, Eva Gladek: EVA GLADEK: That's where governments come into play.

There has to be an alignment with government, saying, OK, this is where we want to go to.

This is the vision for it.

We're going to support businesses, create new financing mechanisms, and change policy to support that.

JEFFREY BROWN: At the moment, all these businesses are far from being completely circular.

At Black Bear Carbon, tires only go through the process once, and the trucks that get them to factory still rely on traditional fossil fuels.

Likewise, MUD Jeans ships their clothes around the world and uses about 60 percent new cotton.

Still, Harald Friedl of Circle Economy is optimistic.

HARALD FRIEDL: If we have supported in five years from now, and said we have provided tools for cities to change, and we have provided tools for businesses to change, then I think we have made a big step forward to enable others to make the change.

JEFFREY BROWN: And for Eva Gladek, there's no alternative.

EVA GLADEK: I guess you can think it's a utopian pipe dream, but if we don't make certain drastic changes to how we're operating, we're really going to run into some serious existential problems.

Unless we really make these fundamental shifts, it might not be a choice.

And I think striving for a utopia is a really great thing to do with your life.

JEFFREY BROWN: A journey to utopia?

Come aboard.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown in Amsterdam.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, something old is new again and still relevant to these times.

It has been more than half-a-century since Harper Lee penned "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Our well-traveled and multitasking correspondent Jeffrey Brown is back again to tell us more about the reworked "To Kill a Mockingbird" staged on Broadway and up for a handful of Tony Awards next month.

It's part of our ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas.

JEFF DANIELS, Actor: The defendant isn't guilty, but someone in this building is.

JEFFREY BROWN: It's a new take on one of the most-beloved and well-known stories in American literature, "To Kill a Mockingbird," in Aaron Sorkin's Broadway adaptation of the Harper Lee classic.

Sorkin is creator of the hit TV show "The West Wing."

JACK NICHOLSON, Actor: Those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

JEFFREY BROWN: And writer of films including "A Few Good Men" and "The Social Network," which won him an Oscar.

When we met recently at the famed Sardi's Restaurant, he said he'd had two distinct reactions when the opportunity came to bring "Mockingbird" to Broadway.

AARON SORKIN, Playwright: My heart sank, because I thought, this is a suicide mission.

I'm never going to get out of this alive.

JEFFREY BROWN: Right.

AARON SORKIN: And I was thrilled because of the opportunity to be doing a play, to be back in the theater.

My first draft of the play reflected the heart-sinking part.

I simply was trying to swaddle the book in bubble wrap and gently transfer it to a stage.

And the result was that first draft was tepid.

JEFF DANIELS: It's a sin to kill a mockingbird.

JEFFREY BROWN: The play he finally did write, starring Jeff Daniels, still focuses on Atticus Finch, the small town lawyer in Maycomb, Alabama, tasked with defending Tom Robinson, an African-American man wrongly accused of assaulting a white woman.

The story, set in the 1930s is still told from the point of view of Finch's young daughter, Scout, who learns important lessons about race, class and morality.

The book was first published in 1960.

Two years later, it was made into an Academy Award-winning movie starring Gregory Peck as Atticus.

Jeff Daniels called Sorkin's version a rethink.

After getting the part, he read the book and rewatched the film.

JEFF DANIELS: I wanted to see how he -- you know, he chose to do that that way, that way, that way.

And you go, OK, thank you.

Clocked it.

Again, different medium, different script.

JEFFREY BROWN: Different time.

JEFF DANIELS: And different time.

JEFFREY BROWN: Different time.

That's -- because one of the big questions is doing "To Kill a Mockingbird" today.

JEFF DANIELS: I think Harper Lee went as far as she could.

Peck was -- it was written as the great white hero, savior, and that's what he played.

That was the book.

That was the movie.

JEFFREY BROWN: How much change is allowed?

That became a question last year, when Lee's estate sued, saying Sorkin's script unacceptably altered characters.

The suit was ultimately settled, and the show went on.

Sorkin argued "Mockingbird" today should reflect an increased awareness of racism then and now.

That meant a more meaningful role for the African-American characters.

The defendant, Tom Robinson, and Finch's maid, Calpurnia, who's played by LaTanya Richardson Jackson.

JEFF DANIELS: Which means I don't want them hating people they disagree with.

LATANYA RICHARDSON JACKSON, Actress: You got to give Maycomb time, Cal.

This is the Deep South.

You got to give Maycomb time.

Well, how much time would Maycomb like?

I didn't want her to be the magical Negro.

Neither did I want her to just be scenery.

My coming to it was filled with what I would always hope that I knew about these women, that I knew about people who were in service.

And if that was going to happen, then I was in.

But if that wasn't what was happening... JEFFREY BROWN: Yes.

LATANYA RICHARDSON JACKSON: ... the truth of who they really were, of their strength, of how philosophically they filled the void of living for most people then, then I wasn't in.

JEFF DANIELS: He knew that a Negro man can't feel sorry for a white woman.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sorkin decided the lead role of Atticus Finch had to shift too, with more of an arc from the play's beginning to its end.

AARON SORKIN: Is he a bad lawyer who becomes a good lawyer, a bad father who becomes a good father, a racist who becomes someone who believes in justice and equality?

Of course not.

It's any of those.

I saw that I didn't have to give Atticus a flaw, that reading the book today, instead of back when I read it, he already had a couple.

It's just that we were taught that they were virtues.

Atticus says you can find goodness in anyone.

It's your job to get around inside their skin.

JEFFREY BROWN: That assertion, Sorkin said, had an echo in President Trump's remarks after the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Violence erupted, leaving one woman dead.

The president famously said there were -- quote - - "very fine people on both sides."

AARON SORKIN: I thought, wait, Atticus is suddenly -- I have some questions for Atticus.

This was no longer an exercise in nostalgia.

This wasn't a field trip to a museum.

It wasn't an homage to one of America's favorite books.

It was something new.

JEFF DANIELS: So let's hasten the change.

Let's hasten the end of the beginning.

Let's do it right now in Maycomb.

Let's begin by restoring this man to his family.

Let's begin with justice.

It isn't enough for Atticus to lose the case and go back to his porch, get a bourbon or a tea and then solve the Boo Radley mystery and go to bed.

You have got -- what are you going to do?

You're the hero.

What are you going to do?

What are you going to do about it?

And he tries to stand for his beliefs.

And then he finds out that maybe we can't wait for people to find the goodness in themselves.

JEFFREY BROWN: For Celia Keenan-Bolger, who plays Scout, the play is still squarely Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird," but she said Sorkin tugged at the themes most in need of examination today.

CELIA KEENAN-BOLGER, Actress: I think it feels very fresh.

While, you know, Harper Lee wrote it in 1960 about the '30s.

And here we are doing it in 2019, looking back on 1960, looking back on 1930.

I mean, I think we -- it's old and new all at once, and that that's part of what makes it -- it's an enduring piece of literature, but it's also something that can withstand a production like this, which dares, I think, to draw out the relevancy of the themes that Harper Lee put down for -- in the first place.

JEFFREY BROWN: Celia Keenan-Bolger received one of "To Kill a Mockingbird"'s nine Tony Award nominations.

JEFF DANIELS: A man will have his dignity.

JEFFREY BROWN: Also included, Jeff Daniels for best actor in a leading role.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown on Broadway.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Old and new all at once.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

Join us online and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks.

For all of us here at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we will see you soon.