JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: the cost of an
outbreak. The toll of coronavirus continues to tick
up worldwide, and the global financial system grapples with the fallout. Then: the pain of zero tolerance. A damning report chronicles the suffering
of migrant children, as they sought refuge at the U.S. southern border. Plus: the state of the race. As Elizabeth Warren drops out, the Democratic
primary winnows down to a two-man contest. I speak with the strategist behind Barack
Obama’s historic bid for the presidency. DAVID PLOUFFE, Former Obama Senior White House
Adviser: There’s something deeper going on here, because it wasn’t just Elizabeth Warren. We had some other talented female candidates
in the field who didn’t go as far as we would have thought. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Restrictions are escalating
around the world tonight, in an effort to control the coronavirus outbreak. Schools are being closed. Travelers are facing quarantines. And even the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem
has been shuttered. In this country, Congress gave final approval
today to an emergency funding measure, as the Washington state announced an 11th death,
making 12 nationwide. William Brangham begins our coverage. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Another cruise ship stuck
at sea because of coronavirus; 62 passengers are quarantined inside their cabins, anchored
in San Francisco Bay, after a passenger from a previous voyage on the ship died of COVID-19. Elsewhere in the country, two new states had
their first confirmed cases, Nevada and Tennessee. DR. LISA PIERCEY, Commissioner, Tennessee Department
of Health: While we are saddened to learn that the virus has now reached Tennessee,
our recent preparedness efforts that the governor just mentioned have positioned us to respond
swiftly and thoroughly. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Washington, D.C., the
Senate Homeland Security Committee heard from administration officials on the federal preparation. Republican Chairman Senator Ron Johnson said,
no response is perfect, but the Trump administration is doing all it can. SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): The chances of the administration
getting it just right, reacting perfectly, is zero. It won’t happen. But, again, from my own knowledge, my own
interaction, what we have seen in terms of the interaction with the Senate and the House,
this is an all-government approach. This is all hands on deck. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Vice President Mike Pence,
who is leading the response, echoed that sentiment during a trip to Minnesota. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
And we’re going to continue to bring the full resources of the federal government to bear
to confront the spread of the coronavirus. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But in a phone interview
on FOX News last night, President Trump seemed to contradict guidance from public health
officials about whether people should go to work if they think they have the virus. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
We have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by sitting
around, and even going to work. Some of them go to work, but they get better. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And he cast some doubt on
the latest projections from the World Health Organization about the virus’s death rate. DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think the 3.4 percent
is really a false number. Now, this is just my hunch, and — but based
on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will
have this, and it’s very mild. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And a senior health official
today explained why the death rate could be lower. DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Director, National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: What the WHO numbers do not take into account the people
that do not come in contact with medical facility. That’s the reason between the difference of
2 percent of a 3 percent mortality and a model of what it might be, with a big range, if
you counted people who are asymptomatic. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Other experts warn that
going to work while infected is dangerous and could exacerbate this outbreak. Lawrence Gostin specializes in global health
at Georgetown University. LAWRENCE GOSTIN, Georgetown University: It’s
very clear, from a public health perspective, that if a person has flu-like symptoms, they
shouldn’t go to work, they shouldn’t go to school, because what we know about this coronavirus
— and we know it very clearly from other countries and from the United States in King
County, Washington — is, is that it spreads very rapidly in congregate settings, when
people are crowded together. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Gostin also took issue with
the general message the president gave last night. LAWRENCE GOSTIN: I think the president’s tone
was to understate the seriousness of COVID-19. COVID-19, no matter what the fatality rate
will be, will be orders of magnitude more deadly than the flu. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That threat is why so many
cities are seeing school and workplaces are shutting down across the globe. In South Korea’s Daegu City, which has born
the brunt of that country’s outbreak, usually bustling train stations were empty today. A few brave train riders kept their faces
covered with masks. In Italy, primary school employees put up
signs in Rome informing students class was out at least until March 15. Back in the U.S., the Senate passed an $8
billion emergency spending bill aimed at combating the virus domestically. The president is expected to sign that bill
soon. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m William Brangham. JUDY WOODRUFF: Economic worries over the outbreak
weighed down Wall Street today and wiped out most of Wednesday’s big gains. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 969
points, to close at 26121. The Nasdaq fell 279 points, and the S&P 500
dropped 106. The coronavirus outbreak is also increasingly
straining the health care systems and economic resources of countries around the world. This week, the International Monetary Fund
announced a $50 billion aid package intended to help various governments buy needed medical
equipment and ease expected slowdowns in business activity. Kristalina Georgieva is managing director
of the IMF, and she joins me now. Welcome to the “NewsHour.” KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA, Managing Director, International
Monetary Fund: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, first of all, the question
is, which countries are going to get this money? KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: The $50 billion is made
available to both low-income countries and middle-income countries that may be severely
impacted by an economic slowdown, as well as the need to respond to this crisis. For the low-income countries, this is zero-interest
loans. For the middle-income countries, the regular
conditions of the IMF. What I want to stress is that what we want
to make sure, Judy, is that people don’t die just because of the lack of money, and businesses
don’t collapse only because of the lack of immediately available credit. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, how do you do that? What exactly are you expecting countries to
do with the money? KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: So, what we’re doing
at the moment are two things. We are engaging with governments to look at
the countries that are at higher risk, either because their health systems are weak, or
because they’re commodity-exporting countries, and prices are going down, or they don’t have
fiscal space. They just have the money to be more aggressive. And, secondly, we are discussing with our
sister institution the World Bank how we can collectively support countries to make the
right decisions. And what we’re telling everybody is, number
one, invest in your health provision, especially targeted to more affected communities. Number two, immediately, put in place a plan,
even if you don’t yet need it, to help businesses and to help families to cope with economic
impact, because what we have in front of us is a rather unusual shock that affects both
demand and supply. And that requires — that requires a rather
unusual set of measures that we want countries to put in place as quickly as possible. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you say as quickly as possible. So you’re — I’m assuming you mean you have
methods to get them the money unusually quick. KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: But I also want to ask, how
can you make sure they’re using the money the way you want them to? KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: Well, the — this is
why we work with the World Bank as well. The World Bank difference from the IMF is
grounded in countries. They have a lot of knowledge about health
systems. They have a lot of staff personnel on the
ground. And what we want is collectively to give policy
recommendations, and then have these recommendations followed through. Because it is emergency financing, we can
provide the resources virtually within weeks, even sometimes within days. But then there has to be support for countries,
so they can spend this money wisely. And this is a case when the international
community truly needs to come together. JUDY WOODRUFF: How confident are you right
now that world leaders are addressing this as they should? One of the reasons I’m asking you is because
there’s a lot of conversation today about President Trump, for example, speaking about
the mortality rate not actually being as high as it reportedly is? How do you assess how leaders are doing their
jobs on this? KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: There is clear recognition
that we do need to work together. And we had Secretary Mnuchin, Chairman Powell,
all the leading ministers of finance and central bank governors uniting and expecting from
us, the international organizations, to be the platform to bring speed of action. We need to lean forward in this crisis with
collective resources. And I want to make a very important point
for our viewers now. We know, from previous health crises, that
only one-third of the cost, the economic cost, of the crisis is from direct impact, people
unfortunately dying, not going to work, production shrinking. Two-thirds of the impact is loss of confidence,
uncertainty. So, we have a very important role, not only
to act, but to communicate these actions, be together in the face of this uncertainty,
so we can reduce the suffering and reduce the economic burden. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, the seriousness is certainly
coming across with what you are saying. Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director
of the IMF, thank you very much. KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Progressive
champion Elizabeth Warren has ended her bid for the Democratic presidential campaign. The Massachusetts senator had led the race
back in October, but she failed to win a single state, including her own on Super Tuesday. Today, she addressed supporters outside her
home in Cambridge, and acknowledged there was no way forward. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): I will not be running
for president in 2020. But I guarantee I will stay in the fight for
the hardworking folks across this country who’ve gotten the short end of the stick over
and over. That’s been the fight of my life, and it will
continue to be so. JUDY WOODRUFF: Warren didn’t endorse former
Vice President Joe Biden or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, saying she needs time to think
about it. Biden leads Sanders right now 626 to 550 in
the Associated Press delegate count. It takes 1,991 to clinch the Democratic nomination. We will return to the campaign after the news
summary. The U.S. Senate’s top Democrat insisted today
that he never threatened two Supreme Court justices, but he also voiced regret. On Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
had said conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would — quote — “pay the price”
if they vote to curtail abortion rights. Chief Justice John Roberts condemned the comment. And, today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
blasted Schumer’s statements. The New York Democrat responded on the Senate
floor. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but
in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. And Leader McConnell knows that, and Republicans
who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that too. JUDY WOODRUFF: Schumer said he had meant the
justices might face political, and not physical, consequences. The leaders of Turkey and Russia agreed today
on a cease-fire for Northwestern Syria. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin met
in Moscow. It followed clashes in Idlib province between
Turkish and Syrian forces, with two more Turkish troops killed today. Turkey opposes a Syrian offensive, backed
by Russia, that is driving new refugees to the Turkish border. The United States today pressed the Taliban
to call off attacks in Afghanistan. The militants have stepped up assaults on
Afghan forces since signing a deal for the U.S. to withdraw troops. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo said today
it is time to stop all of the violence and get serious about moving forward. MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: In no
uncertain terms, violence must be reduced immediately for the peace process to move
forward. We also continue to press all sides to stop
posturing, start a practical discussion about prisoner releases, knuckle down and prepare
for the upcoming inter-Afghan negotiations. JUDY WOODRUFF: Pompeo also rejected an investigation
into U.S. actions in Afghanistan. The International Criminal Court at The Hague
agreed today to allow the inquiry. It will probe allegations of war crimes against
the Taliban, against the Afghan government and U.S. forces. And the woman who first inspired the World
War II character Rosie the Riveter has died. Rosalind P. Walter passed away on Wednesday
at her home in New York. Her wartime work on an aircraft assembly line
led to a song about Rosie the Riveter. Several other women also served as models
for the character. Later, Walter became a main benefactor of
PBS. She was 95 years old. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the lay of
the campaign trail now that Elizabeth Warren has ended her presidential bid; documenting
the anguish that migrant children faced at the hands of the U.S. government; the lives
of civilians caught in a crossfire as fighting erupts between Turkey and Syria; and a preacher
gives his Brief But Spectacular take on theology in action. With Senator Warren’s decision today to end
her White House bid, the battle to take on President Trump this November is largely now
a two-man race, between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. David Plouffe was Barack Obama’s campaign
manager in 2008. He was the architect behind the president’s
successful 2012 reelection bid. His book “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald
Trump” is out this week. And, David Plouffe joins us now. Welcome, David Plouffe. And congratulations on the book. DAVID PLOUFFE, Former Obama Senior White House
Adviser: Oh, thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Elizabeth Warren, let’s
talk about what went wrong. She said today at her — she talked with reporters. She said she thought, at the beginning of
the campaign, there would be a lane between the moderates and the liberals in the Democratic
Party, but she said it turned out there wasn’t. How do you see what happened? DAVID PLOUFFE: Yes, we had two really strong
front-runners in the beginning, Biden and Sanders, who at different times in the campaign
looked like they might not be able to pull it together. So, that’s important to remember. They both had a lot of vote. She ran a great campaign. She was a strong performer, had strong staff,
raised good money. And I — she talked about gender today. I hope there’s a lot of study about this by
political scientists and academics and people much smarter than I am. There clearly was a hangover from ’16, I think,
where a lot of people thought Clinton lost to Trump. We can’t nominate a woman again. But there’s something deeper going on here,
because it wasn’t just Elizabeth Warren. We had some other talented female candidates
in the field who didn’t go as far as we would have thought. JUDY WOODRUFF: So you’re saying sexism was
part of it? DAVID PLOUFFE: Well, I think sexism, misogyny,
to me, was definitely part of ’16. I’d like to think that most people voting
in the Democratic primary might have just been fearful, wrongly, I think, that a woman
couldn’t win the presidency. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, now we are down to two
main candidates. DAVID PLOUFFE: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two men, main candidates, Sanders
and… DAVID PLOUFFE: Two young men, yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two very young men. But with regard to Bernie Sanders, how do
you quantify the depth of the opposition to him and the breadth of the opposition to him
from the mainstream of the Democratic Party? DAVID PLOUFFE: Well, I will say, Judy, as
you know, I have worked in Democratic politics a long time. I have yet to meet this so-called Democratic
establishment. I’d like to. I wish we were that organized. It’s voters and it’s elected officials making
their own decisions. I think there’s no doubt that there’s some
concern that, could a Democratic socialist win? I’m actually not in the camp that says he
couldn’t. But what’s happening here in the primary is,
Joe Biden, as you know, led all of 2019 pretty significantly nationally. That’s kind of where voters were. He stumbles in debates. He performs poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire. And some of his vote left. And the thing I have learned in politics,
it’s easier to get vote back that you had initially than you never had before. So then some other candidates didn’t seize
the moment to break into his coalition, particularly African-American voters. He wins South Carolina. He gets endorsement from his rivals. He performs just a little bit better. Let’s not overstate that. And all that vote came back. And Sanders has never been able to grow his
base out of the mid to high 20s. And so he got 43 percent against Hillary Clinton. And what’s clear is, about half of that, probably,
maybe a little bit more, was pro-Bernie, but the rest of it was, he was the only alternative
to Hillary. And that’s where we find ourselves, where,
who’s going to win more races going forward by landslide margins, which is the only way
you get delegates? It’s probably only going to be Joe Biden,
because in Southern states in particular, where you have got heavy African-American
vote, he’s going to roll up huge margins. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you said probably only
going to be Joe Biden. (CROSSTALK) DAVID PLOUFFE: Doesn’t mean Bernie won’t win
states, but that’s not how you get delegates. JUDY WOODRUFF: But I’m asking, because, I
mean, the endorsements of Joe Biden from members of Congress and governors, senators are just
rolling in every few minutes. And yet you don’t see that happening, the
Democratic Party getting behind Bernie Sanders. I’m trying to understand what it is that he’s
up against. DAVID PLOUFFE: There’s no wizard behind the
curtain doing this, is my point. I think a couple things are going on. A lot of people, Biden was their default. And then he wasn’t performing well. He shows that he can perform well, they come
back. Secondly, I think there are some people concerned
with Bernie Sanders, even if he could get to 270, would he be good for us up and down
the tickets? Some people concerned about that. And don’t forget Joe Biden is a beloved figure. So — and, right now, he looks like he’s going
to win. I was part of this in ’08, where we still
had to rely on superdelegates. It wasn’t until it was clear we were likely
going to win, all of a sudden, superdelegates began saying, I’m with you. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what about the hard feelings
between the two sides? I mean, look at what happened in 2016. Yes, Bernie Sanders did endorse Hillary Clinton,
but there wasn’t a lot of love between the — his voters for hers. What’s stop that from happening all over again
in 2020? DAVID PLOUFFE: It’s a critical question. I actually wrote about this in my book, which
I had to work on last summer and fall. So I’m glad I spent some time on this, because… JUDY WOODRUFF: You anticipated this was going
to come? (CROSSTALK) DAVID PLOUFFE: Well, I didn’t know it would
be down to these two. But I went through this in ’08. By the way, the Obama-Clinton primary was
harsher than this primary. It took us some time to put that together. So here’s what has to happen. The principals in the play — so, in this
case, Biden, Sanders, people like Obama, both Obamas, Hillary Clinton, everybody needs to
do the right thing and mean it. And because Trump is looming, and he’s an
existential threat, I think Bernie Sanders will do everything he can, as Joe Biden would
do. But the people who support the candidates
on the ground, the staff, you have got to work at this. Like, you just can’t assume, we won, now it’s
time to get on board. You got to host house parties. You got to invite people… JUDY WOODRUFF: Whichever side it is, you’re
saying. DAVID PLOUFFE: Yes. And invite the people. So we have — if Biden is the nominee, invite
the people who organized for Bernie and listen to them complain, say, you know what? You guys clearly know how to organize young
people. We don’t have to do that so well. We need your help. So I would — here’s what I would say. I don’t think it’s the top reason we will
lose to Trump, but if you don’t get this right, your foundation is weak, and if — whoever
our nominee is, Biden or Sanders, needs to treat this as intensively as they do winning
Wisconsin for the next couple of months. JUDY WOODRUFF: So let’s talk about… DAVID PLOUFFE: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: You title the book “A Citizen’s
Guide to Beating Donald Trump.” And you talk about how tough it is going to
be for Democrats to do that. The economy, it is right now — we don’t know
what’s going to happen with the coronavirus and the effect it’s going to have. DAVID PLOUFFE: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right now, the economy appears
to be in the president — acting in the — or moving in the president’s favor, something
that he can point to. What would it take for that to be undone? And what — how should Democrats be talking
— how should Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders be talking about it? Should they be denying that it’s been something
that has helped… (CROSSTALK) DAVID PLOUFFE: Well, I make this point in
my book. I mean, presidential races, the central argument
already — always is about the economy. So, first of all, I’d say, Donald Trump’s
going to get 46, 47 percent of the national vote. So no one should worry about any of those
people. It’s, who is really gettable? Who’s a true persuadable voter? Who’s somebody who isn’t sure they’re going
to vote or someone who is thinking about voting third party, which was a real part of Hillary
Clinton’s loss last time? So the economic case — by the way, so, someone
who has a job today who’s making $12 an hour doesn’t feel great about their wages. They’re paying more for health care. They think Donald Trump is taking care of
the wealthy with his tax cuts. You have got to make that case. ’12, when we ran for reelection against Romney,
you remember the stock market was rebounding? That was not a reason to vote for Barack Obama,
because most of the people who are going to decide this election are not invested in the
stock market. And so his trade war in Wisconsin, we’re technically
in a manufacturing recession right now in parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Health care is an economic issue. People pay more for that. The private student loan industry, there are
so many attacks to make about this. And, at the end of the day, it’s, whose side
are you on? I can’t believe Donald Trump won that argument
in ’16, but he did. The guy from Trump Tower in Manhattan convinced
enough voters he was going to fight for people like them. And I think Biden and Sanders both have strong
economic messages, and I think relate to people. By the way, Barack Obama won those voters,
the skinny black guy from Chicago with a strange name, twice. If he can do it, I think Biden or Sanders
can do it. JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re saying they haven’t
been talking that way until now? DAVID PLOUFFE: Because they’re trying to get
into the finals. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. Right. DAVID PLOUFFE: So, these debates are not about
making arguments against Trump. But every — an average citizen has a role
here too. So let’s say your neighbor was hurt by Trump’s
trade war. Take out your iPhone, or your Samsung, ask
them to speak into the camera for 30 seconds about why they’re not voting for Trump this
time, and put it on Instagram. Like, we have to capture what’s happening
in the states, which is different than the way the economy is covered in New York and
Washington. JUDY WOODRUFF: David Plouffe, “A Citizen’s
Guide to Beating Donald Trump.” Thank you very much for joining us. DAVID PLOUFFE: It was great to see you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Appreciate it. We return now to our ongoing coverage of the
southern border and immigration. A new federal government watchdog report lays
out disturbing findings about how the government handled the separation of migrant families
following the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy last year. As Lisa Desjardins tells us, this centers
on the agency tasked with caring for the children, the Department of Health and Human Services. LISA DESJARDINS: Judy, the report outlines
a litany of failures within HHS. They kept children and parents separated for
weeks and months longer than necessary. The report depicts a complete breakdown in
communications and planning within the agency, as well as with the rest of government, including
no warning when the Trump administration triggered this situation. Numerous alarms were raised by front-line
staff, but ignored by senior officials. All of that led to serious problems in caring
for the children. The report comes from the inspector general
of the Department of Health and Human Services. Ann Maxwell is the assistant inspector general,
and she joins me now. A lot of work your staff did on this. Thank you for talking us to. First of all, your report lays out problems
almost at every juncture. I want the look at one way you look at this. First, there were problems in finding the
parents, problems in communicating with the parents, and then problems in transporting
the children. How do you see this scope of what went wrong? ANN MAXWELL, Assistant Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Well, it starts with the fact that the department
wasn’t prepared, right? As you said in you opening, the department
didn’t have any advance warning. And because of that, there was no planning
for this event to happen. So, as you said, the care provider facilities,
where these children were housed and cared for, didn’t prepare for the spike in separated
children. And they, as a result, had all of these challenges
that they faced throughout every single step of the reunification process. LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s start with some specifics. In particular, it seems like one of the longest-lasting
problems is with in just finding the parents, making sure they could establish contact. Your report has this quote from one of the
— e-mails to a DHS official, writing from HHS: “No, we do not have any linkages from
parents to unaccompanied children, except for a handful.” They write: “We have a list of parent alien
numbers, but no way to link them to the children.” Another person also told your staff that it
was easier at one point to locate people in rural Guatemala than within our own detention
system. Take us through exactly the difficulty in
finding the correct parent for the correct child. ANN MAXWELL: Right. So you bring up two really important issues
in our report. Both are tied back to the lack of advance
planning. The first is, because there was no advance
planning, there was no linkages, as you said, between the information at HHS that had information
about children and the information at DHS about parents. So, they weren’t even able to identify at
the outset who was actually separated. Once they were actually trying to reunify
these children, they were then trying to find the parents in DHS custody. And, as you said, we had some instances where
they called each and every day trying to locate parents, and were unsuccessful getting through
to try and locate that parent. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s another amazing moment
in your report. I want to read this from page 25. The facility — this is a facility caring
for children. One of the facility directors writes: “That
facility called the DHS detention facility center every day seeking the parents of an
11-year-old child. They could not reach anyone at the detention
facility, and that child cried every day.” There was also a block in connecting with
ICE, because those people trying to assess whether this parent was ready to reunify had
to spend a few hours talking to them. But each person in detention only got 10 minutes
to talk on the phone. They spent it with their child. Was this a systematic issue, or was this just
not making it a priority to make these reunifications happen? ANN MAXWELL: So, it’s important to go back
to that place in time, in that there was an enormous spike in separated children that
was brought on by the zero tolerance policy. Before that, we heard that separating children
from their families was relatively rare. So, the system was just unprepared for this
enormous, immediate spike in separated children. And the facilities and the department were
working to try and figure out new processes and procedures to care for these children,
to make sure they had contact with their parents, and then, ultimately, to reunify them when
the court ordered them to do so. LISA DESJARDINS: And then let’s take — sort
of the last step. The children are ready to be reunified. They’re going to reunify — reunification
centers. But your report talks about how often those
kids would be in vans outside of the center for hours, sometimes having to stay in that
area for days, staffers sleeping in shifts because they were waiting for their turn to
reunify. My bigger question, as you talked to HHS officials,
what kind of responsibility were they taking for what happened? Why is it they were not ready for this? ANN MAXWELL: Well, the answer is probably
pretty complicated. But it has to do with two main things we talk
about in our report. One is that the — there’s a number of interagency
channels that are designed specifically to coordinate immigration across the federal
government, and those were not used to warn HHS in advance. So, there were not warnings that HHS was given. So, they were caught unprepared. But, also, there were warnings coming up from
staff they didn’t take advantage of and largely dismissed. And so that’s why our recommendation is to
make sure that, as the department moves forward, that they are centering child priorities and
interests in all of their decision-making, both in their internal decision-making, as
well as their interagency decision-making. LISA DESJARDINS: And HHS has accepted all
of your recommendations, but they point out that they still have to use a manual process,
taking notes in each case, to connect child and parent. ANN MAXWELL: That’s right. LISA DESJARDINS: Does that seem like it will
be sufficient? ANN MAXWELL: It doesn’t. And we have a recommendation to correct that. So they have made some strides in being able
to identify the children who are currently being separated. But it is still a multistep, manual process
to make the information clear about which child has actually been separated. We recommend that they improve that system,
automate that system, so we can be sure that we can identify separated children to make
sure they get appropriate care and then reunite with their parent, if appropriate. LISA DESJARDINS: So important to keep following
this. Ann Maxwell of the Inspector General’s Office
of HHS, thank you. ANN MAXWELL: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, Turkey and Russia announced
a cease-fire in Idlib, Syria, the final stronghold of fighters who are opposed to Syria’s President
Bashar al Assad. Turkey has been fighting in Idlib against
Syria and its ally Russia. And that fighting has helped push refugees
to the Syria-Turkey border, and, separately, to the Turkey-Greece border. As Nick Schifrin reports, today’s cease-fire
will likely be temporary, and refugee movement has become a crisis. NICK SCHIFRIN: For Syrian refugees, Europe’s
shores symbolize sanctuary. But, in recent days, families fleeing Turkey
to reach Greece have been met by aggressive Greek military boats and even gunfire. MAN: We have children! NICK SCHIFRIN: And at the Greece-Turkey land
border, refugees are rebuffed by concertina wire, armed Greek guards, and sometimes clouds
of tear gas. Turkey has allowed, even encouraged these
refugee families to head to the Greek border. That created hope, and then anger at the Greeks
for blocking the border. KHALED JASEM, Syrian Refugee (through translator):
What we care about is finding a safe place for our children. Where can we go? We don’t have homes. We don’t have work. We don’t want anything. All we want is safety. NICK SCHIFRIN: Safety from the war that’s
now being fought between Turkey, Syria, and Russia. In Idlib, Syria, Russian-backed Syrian government
forces are fighting Turkish soldiers and Syrian rebels. Syria has killed almost 60 Turkish soldiers
since January. Today in Moscow, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a de-escalation zone inside Syria
and a cease-fire. VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through
translator): I express hope that these agreements will serve as good ground for a cease-fire
in the Idlib de-escalation zone, will finally put an end to the suffering of the civilian
population, and create conditions for a peace process in the Syrian Arabic republic. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): Our goal is to prevent the worsening of the humanitarian crisis in the region. We will work together to supply aid for all
the Syrians in need, without any precondition and discrimination. NICK SCHIFRIN: But analysts say the cease-fire
will prove temporary, and civilians now living in camps will remain caught in the crossfire. Hundreds of thousands face an advance by the
Syrian regime and Russia, and have fled as close to the Turkish border as they can. But Turkey refuses to open this border. Syrian children whose country has been at
war all their life bare the brunt. The International Rescue Committee says 60
percent of parents say their kids cry for no reason. These siblings fled airstrikes and were living
in a police station. They had to flee from there, too. Aseel is 14. ASEEL, Syrian Refugee (through translator):
We were hit. The airstrikes hit the police station, and
a few raids hit beforehand too. We are leaving our homes, so my siblings won’t
be afraid and my mother won’t be scared. NICK SCHIFRIN: Earlier this week, senior U.S.
officials visited Idlib and pledged humanitarian aid and ammunition to Turkey. But, so far, the U.S. has declined Turkish
requests for greater intervention. KELLY CRAFT, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations: Humanitarian aid is only a response. The real answer is an immediate cease-fire,
a durable cease-fire. NICK SCHIFRIN: But on the Greek border, and
inside Syria, hundreds of thousands of refugees remain displaced, and a cease-fire doesn’t
replace their lost homes. Here with me now to discuss Syria, the refugee
crisis and more is the United Kingdom’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, who’s here in Washington,
D.C., meeting with U.S. officials. Welcome to the “NewsHour,” Mr. Secretary. BEN WALLACE, British Defense Secretary:®MD-BO¯
Thank you so much. NICK SCHIFRIN: Let’s start with Syria. Does NATO have an obligation to assist Turkey
in its fight against the Syrian regime and the Russian air force in Syria? BEN WALLACE: It has an obligation under Article
V to any of its members, should they wish the seek to trigger that in collective self-defense. NATO also has an obligation to respond to
any members’ concerns. And that’s why NATO has already had a session
at its headquarters to discuss the emerging situation in Syria. And so I think NATO is doing what it can do. It’s being supportive of Turkey, insofar as
understanding the challenges it has and recognizing the security situation right on its border. So, I think NATO is fulfilling its obligations
and will always continue to do so under its charter. NICK SCHIFRIN: Turkey, of course, is a member
of NATO, we should remind our viewers, and has asked for more, namely, Patriots, for
example, from the United States. We saw President Erdogan make another deal
with President Putin — of Turkey. This is not the first deal that the two has
made. Is Idlib an opportunity for the U.S. or NATO
to try and help Turkey more, and, in so doing, try and perhaps begin to reduce that Turkish-Russian
partnership? BEN WALLACE: I think, certainly, what Turkey
is learning, slightly the hard way, is that Russia is one of the most unreliable partners
you can have. I think it’s not an opportunity. I think it’s really the chickens coming home
to roost, that if you do a deal with Russia, count your fingers when you finish shaking
hands. But I think what is more important is that
the West , Europe, Britain, the United States, we do recognize and are very sympathetic to
Turkey’s current position. They are already a country full of 3.6 million
refugees from that conflict. That’s a huge amount for any one country to
hold. They’re a country who faced the direct consequences
of a failed Syria. What can the U.S. and the U.K. do? Well, I think the first thing we can do is
what we’re going to do, which is, we’re going to increase our aid to them. We’re going to help with the aid for all those
refugees to make sure that they are looked after. And then we can discuss with the Turkish what
it is they think we could do to help. Now, I’m off to Turkey next week to visit. My foreign secretary went at the beginning
of this week. And I think it’s really important that we
engage with Turkey, but in a spirit of de-escalation. NICK SCHIFRIN: Let’s spin around the globe
and cover some other issues. The United Kingdom has agreed to allow the
Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei into the periphery of the 5G system. Before that decision was made, I was reading
an interview that you gave in which you said, “If we are going to allow the country’s access
to our market, we should expect a code of behavior that is fair play.” What assurance do you have that Huawei will
play fairly? BEN WALLACE: Well, we don’t have that insurance,
which is why there are two parts to this policy. First of all, our policy wasn’t allowing them
in. I mean, like, even some counties in parts
of states in the United States, Huawei are already in our commercial networks. And that’s partly because we in the West have
failed to provide alternatives over the last few years. We felt that, having taken technical advice
from our leading spy agency, the GCHQ, that we could mitigate its potential threat. We took the view to ban it from our sensitive
national security network. So it is not in our defense networks, our
intelligence networks, or all that all those places where we communicate with our allies
and our ourselves. We’re going to cap it in the more commercial
normal consumer-facing parts of the network to 35 percent. And we’re going to work to cut it out over
time from the network and replace it or — or, as the network evolves, to make sure that
it does not become an area that we’re dependent on. NICK SCHIFRIN: You reportedly opposed this
decision. Why didn’t you resign after it was made? BEN WALLACE: Look, I’m not going to comment
on media speculative articles about national security conversations. They are classified. And, indeed, we — I’m part of a government
that’s collective. I think the reality is, we think, my experts
have told me, technically, in the 5G, we can contain them. I think the bigger question for all of us
in the West, and — is China. How do we change China’s behavior? And as you said in the quote, if you want
access to our markets and our universities, which, by the way, they are in the United
States — they own Walmart, for example, the Chinese. All over our country, how do we change that
behavior, where we see evidence of, obviously, espionage, I.P. theft, et cetera? NICK SCHIFRIN: You praised the U.S.-Taliban
agreement just signed because the withdrawal of U.S. troops, of NATO troops is conditions-based. But those conditions, as you know, in that
agreement are not based on a reduction of violence on the ground long-term or even political
progress between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Those conditions for withdrawal are based
strictly on the Taliban renouncing al-Qaida. Are those conditions too narrow? BEN WALLACE: Well, I think there are more
conditions than just that. And my counterpart, Secretary Mark Esper,
said today that there are two part — two other parts of the deal. NICK SCHIFRIN: Although the U.S. has admitted
there are two other parts that they’re not publicizing. BEN WALLACE: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: But they are not going to change
the fundamentals. They are just about implementation. BEN WALLACE: Well, the fundamentals are about
the direction of travel to reduce violence. I mean, that has been part of the condition. And, as you saw previously, when those conditions
were broken, President Trump said, that’s it, it’s done. He… NICK SCHIFRIN: The last time that we came
close to this deal, right. BEN WALLACE: The last time. He was very close. He was very clear about that, President Trump. And, in fact, as it’s been reported in the
media only yesterday, I think it was, there was an airstrike against threats in Afghanistan. People have criticized people for trying. We have to try. Young men and women from Britain and America
and some of our allies died to try and bring peace to Afghanistan. If we don’t try, then what has it all been
for? But I absolutely hear people’s concerns about
the conditions. You know, it’s got to be real. It’s got to be deliverable. And it’s got to be long-lasting. And that’s why the U.K., alongside America,
will make sure that any drawdown at the moment is in a position that’s going to allow us
to continue to take the war on terror, to fight the other threats, the Haqqani Network,
and I.S. in other parts of that area that are a direct threat, and also that we make
sure we work with the Afghan government to ensure that they can come to an accommodation
with the Taliban. That’s really important. But, from my point of view, and as I said
in my public statement, this is a small step. We will do it step by step. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ben Wallace, defense secretary
of the United Kingdom, thank you very much. BEN WALLACE: Thank you very much for having
me. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will be back shortly
with a Brief But Spectacular take on living out one’s faith. But, first, take a moment to hear from your
local PBS station. It’s a chance to offer your support, which
helps to keep programs like ours on the air. Now an inspiring story. William Brangham follows top players of wheelchair
tennis to hear what they’re learning on and off the court. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Twenty-eight-year-old Dana
Mathewson hits hard. She’s the number one American women’s wheelchair
tennis player, competing at the world’s top tournaments, including this, her third U.S.
Open. Mathewson started as a soccer player, but,
at age 10, she contracted a rare neurological disease. In a matter of minutes, she went from running
on the field to being paralyzed from the waist down. During this difficult time, her mom, who’s
a doctor, encouraged her to try tennis. DANA MATHEWSON, Professional Wheelchair Tennis
Player: When I heard about adaptive sports, I didn’t think that they would be anything
like what you saw today. I didn’t think they would be competitive. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Flash-forward 19 years. Mathewson has represented the U.S. in World
Cup team tennis nine times. This September, playing for Team USA, she
won a gold medal in doubles and a bronze in singles at the Pan-American Games in Peru. Is it just as fierce? DANA MATHEWSON: Definitely. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Are you guys just as rough
on each other and just as brutal? DANA MATHEWSON: Definitely. When you have a disability or you have to
come back from certain hardships, and then to also play a sport, that’s a type of really
resilient person. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That type of resilience
is shown in other adaptive pro sports, like wheelchair basketball, wheelchair racing and
skiing, all growing in popularity. JASON HARNETT, Head Coach, U.S. Paralympic
Team: We really feel like that respect has arrived. You’re seeing the very, very best skill level
I would equate to the able-bodied side. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jason Harnett is the U.S.
Tennis Association’s head coach for the Paralympic team. He’s known Mathewson since she first picked
up a racquet. The rules for wheelchair tennis are the same
as for able-bodied tennis, with one exception: You get two bounces, if players need the additional
time to get to the ball. Here at the U.S. Open, the world’s top eight
men and top eight women were competing, as were the best four quadriplegic players those
who have at least three extremities affected by a permanent disability. They compete in a separate competition. JASON HARNETT: If you think about them using
the chair, if I have to move to my left or my right, I actually have to turn the chair
and push forward. There is no sidestep out. There is no cross-step. JOANNE WALLEN, Director, U.S. Open Wheelchair
Tournament: It’s a big stage. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jo Wallen directs the wheelchair
tournament at the U.S. Open. And she says players have to hit the same
tough shots, but they also have to quickly steer their chair, often making figure eights,
so they can track the ball and be ready for the return shot. JOANNE WALLEN: It’s the maneuvering the chair
that messes up the able-bodied person. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Some big names in able-bodied
tennis, like Novak Djokovic and Frances Tiafoe, have tried playing from a chair, and discovered
just how hard it is. GUSTAVO FERNANDEZ, Professional Wheelchair
Tennis Player: I always dreamed to be a professional sports player. It was tennis, what I was meant to do. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Argentinean Gustavo Fernandez
is the number one ranked wheelchair tennis player in the world. In 2019, he’s won the Australian Open, the
French Open and Wimbledon. When we caught up with him at the U.S. Open,
he was going for his final of the Grand Slams. Fernandez has been in a wheelchair since he
was a year-old as a result of a spinal cord injury. GUSTAVO FERNANDEZ: I love to compete. And competition, it means everything to me. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: He said he feels a need
to not only grow as a competitor, but to grow this sport, in part to change perceptions. GUSTAVO FERNANDEZ: Sometimes, the ignorance
makes you not see what it really is. And once you learn about it, you will see
that it’s a professional sport with high-quality tennis. And I think, in that way, it will grow by
itself. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Fernandez’s matches are
intense. MAN: Nice shot by Fernandez. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On this day, he blew a tire
on the hot court. MAN: There’s the wheelchair repair technician. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Enter Mike Zangari. He’s a pioneer who played wheelchair tennis
himself for 35 years and basketball before that. He’s ready, courtside, to repair these lightweight,
high-end titanium chairs that can run into the thousands of dollars. MIKE ZANGARI, Chief Wheelchair Technician,
U.S. Open: If you take your conventional hospital chair or the ones you see in the airport or
the ones I got my start in, I would relate them to being a Hummer. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A Hummer? MIKE ZANGARI: Big, clunky. Now, comparing to these chairs, that’s what
you have out there. You have Lamborghinis. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Wheelchair tennis is slowly
gaining traction. There are grassroots levels up to professional
ranks, and the sport is represented at all four Grand Slam events around the world. But it’s not without its challenges: building
a fan base, getting more sponsors, even offering higher prize money. Wheelchair Grand Slam winners take home just
over $33,000, compared to the millions for the able-bodied winners. Certain players, like six-time U.S. Open singles
champion and world number two Shingo Kunieda of Japan, have a literal following. After this recent doubles win with Gustavo
Fernandez, fans flocked to him. But they’re nowhere near enough to fill the
cavernous stadium. Officials are also hoping the sport will gain
more popularity as top competitors continue their U.S. Open with a much larger pool of
players, like here in Saint Louis. These more intimate venues help build community. The players ate together, pumped up their
own tires, helped each other out, and generally celebrated each other’s achievements. Fernandez and Mathewson were part of that,
while remaining laser-focused on their own goals. In New York, I asked them, what drives them? DANA MATHEWSON: The more and more that I get
exposed to different things, the more that I realize what I can do with this disability
and the things that it’s afforded my life, the more I actually feel really grateful for
it, which is kind a weird thing to say. A lot of people… WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Grateful? DANA MATHEWSON: Yes, a lot of people wouldn’t
really look at a disability and say that it’s a great thing. I think that’s one of the more unfortunate
attitudes that people have about disability, that, if someone can’t walk, their life must
suck. This disability has allowed me to represent
my country. I get to travel the world for a living. I get to play a sport for a living. GUSTAVO FERNANDEZ: I like really much what
I do, and I respect it and I think I’m quite good at it, because I have been — I have
worked for it. So if there’s 10 people, 10,000, one billion
people watching it, for me, it will mean the same. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tennis’ year seemingly never
stops. Players are now competing in Europe, before
heading to the season-ender in Orlando. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m William Brangham
in Flushing Meadows, New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a personal
look at faith in action. The Reverend Cecil Williams Gives us his Brief
But Spectacular take on what we can learn from helping those in need. REV. CECIL WILLIAMS, Glide Memorial United Methodist
Church: I was born, my God, 90 years ago. When I came in the world, immediately , they
started calling me Rev. My mother said to me, you are going to be
a preacher. And that stirred me up, because a preacher
represented a way of life that was quite different. It meant that not only would I provide a healing
community, but the church, the church was the place where I stood up and said, I’m going
to be somebody, no matter what anybody said. I came to San Francisco in 1963, and I immediately
began to work with a church called Glide. Glide is located in the Tenderloin, which
is the worst conditions of human blight. It was the most dedicated community of people
who were looking for something, but they kept looking for that which worked against them. I went to Glide. Oh, my God, it was awful. It was a church that closed its doors to all
kinds of people. And, of course, when the bishop appointed
me there, he said to me, I hope that you will do something that will upset the people, because
they need to be upset. I decided that, if we were the church, we
would act like it, and we would engage in what I call doing theology. We’re going to go and become a part of a world
which needs to face itself. So, it became a church that was standing on
the line, saying, I love you. I will work with you. And we’re going to stand with people, no matter
what their color, no matter what their class, those who are suffering, those who are going
through trials and tribulations, through moments of despair. And that’s what we have done. I came in contact with a woman called Janice
Mirikitani. And when you run into somebody like that,
you better get ready, because you have got to work on yourself. She took me and helped me to know that I had
to be somebody. I had to be something more than I’d ever been. And so what we have done through the years
is, we have built program after program. We will give you a sense of recovery. We will give you a sense of loving. I came to San Francisco in the Tenderloin,
and I made something happen. My name is Cecil Williams. This is my Brief But Spectacular take on why
everybody is somebody. JUDY WOODRUFF: Remarkable story. Reverend Cecil Williams. And you can find all of our Brief But Spectacular
segments online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. Also on the “NewsHour” online right now: NASA
announced the name of its new Mars rover today, Perseverance, which was suggested by Alexander
Mather. He’s a seventh-grade student from Burke, Virginia. Learn why he picked Perseverance on our Web
site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *