PBS NewsHour for February 7, 2019 - Part 2
<Show: PBS NEWSHOUR>
<Date: February 7, 2019>
<Head: PBS NewsHour for February 7, 2019 - Part 2>
<Sect: News; International>
<Byline: John Yang, William Brangham, Nick Schifrin, Amna Nawaz>
<Guest: Edward Markey, Caroline Clark, Andrea Thompson, Leah Wright
Rigueur, Nicole Winfield, Eugene Scott>
<High: Controversy swirls around the Democratic governor of Virginia and
those who might succeed him. As the U.S. pulls out of a major nuclear
weapons treaty, what does this mean for the future of arms control and our
relationship with Russia? What are the long-reaching effects when people
give kidneys to complete strangers? What is the Green New Deal? The
Catholic Church is rocked by new revelations that priests sexually abused
nuns. Student Caroline Clark gives her Brief But Spectacular take on being
<Spec: Ed Markey; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Religion; Catholic Church;
Abuse; Women; Caroline Clark; Disabilities; Economy; Environment;
Democratic Party; Health and Medicine; Virginia; Ralph Northam; Russia;
Nuclear Weapons; Politics; Donald Trump; Government>
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. National Security Adviser: Absent an agreement with the Russian side, which is our preference, then we will exercise our unilateral option to withdraw.
I would urge him to get out of the Iran deal completely.
I think President Trump should say to Vladimir Putin, you either bring Russia back into compliance with the INF Treaty, or we`re going to get out of that one too.
The next step in the bilateral relationship with Russia is for this administration to abrogate the New START treaty, so that we have a nuclear deterrent that`s equal to our needs to prevent future conflict.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Four major arms control treaties, four treaties that he wanted to leave, the national security adviser.
Led by him, is the U.S. going to withdraw from the New START treaty?
ANDREA THOMPSON: I have no intentions of addressing that today.
We have got two more years. Again, we have got an interagency process addressing that. The fundamentals of that is what`s best for the safety and security of the American people. And it`s a complex security environment. We will see what 2021 holds.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Undersecretary Andrea Thompson, thank you very much.
ANDREA THOMPSON: Thanks, Nick.
AMNA NAWAZ: Stay with us.
Coming up on the “NewsHour”: Making Sense of the altruism behind donating a kidney to a stranger; the Catholic Church is rocked by new revelations that priests sexually abused nuns; and Caroline Clark gives her Brief But Spectacular take on being deaf.
We learned this week that 2018 was the fourth warmest year on record, making the five warmest years in recorded history the last five.
William Brangham takes a look at how U.S. lawmakers are responding to climate change today.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This Green New Deal calls for the U.S. to take dramatic action to reduce the carbon emissions that are driving climate change, but which are also so intertwined in our everyday lives.
The plan calls for the U.S. to be carbon-neutral in just 10 years, which would require massive changes to how we get around, how we power our homes and our offices, how we grow our food. And, its supporters argue, we can make these changes while boosting jobs and the economy.
Its two co-sponsors, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, introduced their plan today to address what they say is the growing danger of climate change.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), New York: In order for us to combat that threat, we must be as ambitious and innovative in our solution as possible.
So what we`re doing today in introducing these resolutions here today is that it`s not a bill. It is a resolution. And what this resolution is doing is saying, this is our first step. Our first step is to define the problem and define the scope of the solution. And so we`re here to say that small, incremental policy solutions are not enough.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And Senator Edward Markey joins me now.
Welcome to the “NewsHour.”
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY (D), Massachusetts: Thank you. Glad to be here.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Before we get to the substance of this, I should also say there are parts of this that deal with housing and unions and jobs and wages and all of that, but I really want to talk to you about the climate change impact of this.
Make the case why we need this deal.
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: The case is scientific.
Both the United Nations scientific community and every single U.S. federal agency in the Trump era have now said that it`s much worse than we ever thought it was going to be.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The threat of climate change.
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: The threat of climate change, and what the impact could be on our country and on the planet.
And now they point towards 2030 as the year that we have to target, if we`re going to avoid the worst, most catastrophic consequences of climate change.
Now, we saw the wildfires out in California. We see the storms which are far more dangerous than they ever were before. It cost our country $300 billion last year just to deal with the impact of climate change.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your -- the costs that we have been incurring this past year are evident, as you have laid out.
The costs of the proposals that you`re putting forward in this plan are also costly. And I know you would argue that the benefits saved would accrue to the country enormously.
But do you think that these costs are surmountable? Do you think we can generate the funds to do this?
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: I actually don`t think we have an option.
The cost is prohibitive if we don`t take this action. We`re going to be losing areas of our country along the coastline that would have been avoidable, but it`s going to total trillions of dollars. So we should spend the money now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How do you imagine we will become carbon-neutral? What are the tangible steps you would imagine we take?
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, what we do in the resolution is, we talk about each one of the sectors, transportation, agriculture, electric power generation.
And we talk about what the goals should be for us to find the best technologies that can be used in order to reduce dramatically the greenhouse gases that come out of each one of those sectors, and to then challenge the country, but to challenge the United States House and Senate and the White House to deal with this issue.
But it`s ready to be a politically weaponized issue. You can really feel that this younger generation, millennials in our country, are just fed up with no action it. So I think this is far different than 10 years ago, when I was the author of the climate change bill that passed the House and then died in the Senate.
I think now we have an army out there. We have the resources to be able to fight back against the Koch brothers, fight back against those that do not want to see this issue dealt with.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One of the things that would be crucial to this, it seems, is government investment in some of these technologies.
The market is working. I mean, we have seen incredible growth in solar and wind over the last two years that have largely been private sector. But to make the changes you`re talking about, do you imagine that the government is going to have to heavily invest in these technologies?
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: There is going to require some government investment, no question about it.
We need the tax code to provide the same opportunities for wind and solar and all-electric vehicles, new battery technology that we have been providing for 100 years to the oil industry, to the natural gas industry, to the coal industry.
It`s about time we really had a true level playing field in terms of where all these subsidies go. We have to fight every year just to continue the wind and solar tax price. It`s just not right.
So, yes, there`s going to be a federal role, but there`s always been a federal role in energy policy. The nuclear power plants have federal guarantees when they are built in our country. So now we`re talking about this renewable revolution. We`re talking about all-electric vehicles.
We`re talking about mandating that all new buildings in the United States are twice or three times more efficient than the ones that are being built today, and to refurbish the old ones, so that they meet higher energy efficiency standards.
But that can be a huge private sector job creation opportunity. We now have 350,000 blue-collar workers in the wind and solar industry. And there`s only 50,000 coal miners left.
We`re going to take this up to hundreds of thousands? No, millions of workers in this sector. We need to have this become a voting issue in our country. It really wasn`t back in 2009 and 2010. It`s about to become one of the two or three most important issues in 2020 in the presidential and in the congressional and Senate races.
And, with that, I think we`re going to be able to see a lot more progress.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Senator Edward Markey, thank you very much.
SEN. EDWARD MARKEY: Thank you. Thanks for having me on.
AMNA NAWAZ: There are more than 100,000 people in this country waiting for a kidney transplant, and the median wait time is more than three years.
A Nobel Prize-winning economist has a solution: kidney transplant chains. It starts with a donor giving to a stranger with nothing guaranteed in return. And the momentum builds from there.
Paul Solman has the story of two donors who volunteered to start a chain, saving multiple lives, part of our weekly series Making Sense.
BARBARA SINE, Altruistic Kidney Donor: Emotionally, I`m feeling a little bit anxious.
WOMAN: Knock knock. Good morning.
BARBARA SINE: Hello.
PAUL SOLMAN: That was Barbara Sine back in October, minutes before surgery at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey.
BARBARA SINE: Scary.
PAUL SOLMAN: Sine, a 53-year-old mother of two, works at a prep school, teaches spin classes on the side, is healthy as a horse. Her operation was 100 percent elective, and yet lifesaving. It was all due to a story on NPR.
BARBARA SINE: I actually brought my husband in the car. I made him listen to that podcast and that interview. And I said, I have to do this. And -- and I -- still to this day, it gets me very emotional.
PAUL SOLMAN: So that was you?
ALVIN ROTH, Stanford University: On the “Freakonomics” broadcast, yes.
PAUL SOLMAN: Turns out Barbara Sine and those like her are key players in a medical revolution, and economics Nobel laureate Alvin Roth deserves much of the credit.
As a market expert, he`d been puzzling over how to increase the number of kidney transplants. Dialysis keeps patients alive while they wait, usually years, for a deceased donor kidney, or, if they`re lucky, a kidney from a living donor who`s a good biological match.
And then Al Roth says he heard about two spouses chatting in the waiting room of a dialysis clinic.
ALVIN ROTH: Why are you here? I`m waiting for my husband. I would give him my kidney, but he has blood type B and I have blood type A. Oh, it`s a funny thing. My -- you know, we`re just that reverse.
PAUL SOLMAN: So the wife with blood type A gave one of her two kidneys -- we can live with just one -- to the other spouse. And her blood type B husband got a kidney from the person she`d met in the waiting room.
But Roth saw a way to go beyond two couples swapping two kidneys, by using computer algorithms to create donor-recipient chains, matched for blood and tissue type, even for age.
One problem, though, everyone needing a kidney also needed a partner to donate a kidney to another pair. A second problem, all the operations had to happen simultaneously.
ALVIN ROTH: Just to make sure that no link is broken. What wouldn`t be good is if you give a kidney to my brother today and tomorrow, for whatever reason, I fail to give a kidney to your sister. You had a surgery that didn`t help your sister, and you can`t take part in next kidney exchange because you no longer have a kidney to exchange. You have already given yours.
PAUL SOLMAN: And that created a logistical logjam.
ALVIN ROTH: What that means is, that if you want to do even that simple exchange, you need four operating rooms and four surgical teams to be available at the same time. To do a three-way exchange, you would need six operating rooms.
To do a four-way exchange, you would need eight operating rooms.
PAUL SOLMAN: There was, however, a solution.
ALVIN ROTH: It turns out there are a couple hundred people a year in the United States who want to give a kidney to someone who don`t have a particular patient in mind.
We have learned how to use them to start chains of transplants, where they give to a patient donor pair, and the donor in that pair gives to someone else, who gives to someone else.
And each pair gets a kidney before they give one, because, if I fail to give a kidney, the patient I was supposed to give a kidney to will be very disappointed. But their donor will still have his or her kidney. So they can wait for the next opportunity.
PAUL SOLMAN: And all this because of just one non-directed donor, like Barbara Sine.
BARBARA SINE: I think, prior to this, if I had known someone who needed a kidney, I`m sure I would have stepped up. But I don`t know anybody. So I can just kind of throw it up there to fate and let it land where it may.
PAUL SOLMAN: What`s different about you? I mean, it`s so unusual to have someone altruistically give a kidney.
BARBARA SINE: I`m a hospice volunteer. I foster animals. So I think this is kind of a continuation, maybe at a different level.
PAUL SOLMAN: Twenty-six-year-old Eric Walano gives blood regularly.
ERIC WALANO, Altruistic Kidney Donor: I actually just finished up my fourth gallon.
PAUL SOLMAN: Takes a homeless a man he`s befriended to lunch.
ERIC WALANO: And we go to Five Guys sometimes.
PAUL SOLMAN: Walano too is a non-directed kidney donor.
ERIC WALANO: So, about a year and a month ago, I went to a charity organ donation gala type thing. And I turned to my parents and I was like, kidney donation, I can do that.
PAUL SOLMAN: And they said?
ERIC WALANO: And they said, you`re crazy and probably a little bit drunk. What if, God forbid, something happens to my other kidney down the road? And then a month later, I was in Saint Barnabas.
PAUL SOLMAN: Undergoing rigorous physical and psychological evaluation. He was cleared to donate, gave a kidney in April. But to whom? As the months passed...
ERIC WALANO: I was in a little bit of a funk. I was like, ah. It was like, why am I a little bit sadder today? What am I missing?
PAUL SOLMAN: Because it was a feeling of irresolution or not having been acknowledged.
ERIC WALANO: That`s perfect. Yes, you hit the nail on the head.
PAUL SOLMAN: And you weren`t getting anything back.
ERIC WALANO: And I didn`t get anything back.
PAUL SOLMAN: No wonder that of the thousand or so people who contact Saint Barnabas each year about living donation, only 1 percent are would-be non-directed donors. And only half of those area approved, says clinical director Marie Morgievich.
MARIE MORGIEVICH, Saint Barnabas Medical Center: They want to help another person, because they`re good people. But maybe it`s just not the right time for them to come forward.
PAUL SOLMAN: Meanwhile, the waiting list for cadaver kidneys, 2,500 people at Saint Barnabas alone, 100,000 or more nationwide, keeps growing, growing faster than deceased donor organs come in.
MARIE MORGIEVICH: We will do approximately 170 deceased donor kidney transplants, but we will add 400 or more candidates to that list. So we know that we`re in a losing battle.
MAN: My hope was down here, and every day was darker and darker.
PAUL SOLMAN: 39-year-old Rosario Davi (ph) was on dialysis over a year.
MAN: I could do 10 percent of what I used to do physically. Mentally, that demon`s on your shoulder the whole time through this process.
PAUL SOLMAN: But, last April, Eric Walano sent Davi`s demon packing.
MAN: It`s an angel on Earth. I don`t know what else to say.
PAUL SOLMAN: And, in December, Walano finally did get something back, when he was allowed to meet his kidney`s new owner, and the entire transplant chain his gift had set in motion.
WOMAN: It`s just so unfathomable that you would go through this process of having the surgery and the recovery time for a complete stranger.
PAUL SOLMAN: But after Rosario got Eric`s kidney, his wife, Tara (ph), also gave to a complete stranger, Michael Dunn (ph) in California.
MAN: You`re such a blessing to do what you did, to sacrifice the way you did. And I`m very grateful.
PAUL SOLMAN: Michael`s wife, Sandy (ph), gave a kidney to Eduard Cardenas-Rios (ph).
WOMAN: How are you feeling?
MAN: I`m feeling very well.
MAN: Yes. I was on dialysis for seven years.
WOMAN: Oh, my God. Whoa. To be able to give it to someone that needed it so much, it just -- it just makes me really happy.
WOMAN: Can I just say something to her?
PAUL SOLMAN: Eduard`s sister, Ines.
INES CARDENAS-RIOS, Kidney Donor: He has a life to look forward to now. And it just means everything to me and my family. I just wanted you to know that.
PAUL SOLMAN: And Ines Cardenas-Rios donated a kidney that`s keeping Leo Lunney (ph) alive.
MAN: And I`m the biggest person in the room and the most emotional, so...
PAUL SOLMAN: His brother, Richard, had agreed to donate a kidney on Leo`s behalf. It went to Leslie Naples (ph).
WOMAN: It`s working great. Yay!
PAUL SOLMAN: Leslie`s had kidney disease for 23 years.
WOMAN: I want to say that I love you, because I do.
MAN: I love you too.
MAN: One more hug.
MAN: I love you too.
MAN: I`m Leslie`s husband, Rick.
PAUL SOLMAN: Rick Naples (ph) donated a kidney, ending the chain, to perhaps the luckiest recipient of all, Sharon Bloch of California.
With a hard-to-match blood type, and no one to donate on her behalf, she`s been on dialysis, and deceased donor waiting lists, for years.
SHARON BLOCH, Kidney Recipient: My son is 8 years old. And I kept promising him I will eventually get a kidney, and you will see a different mom. I even flew here one time because there was a kidney. Got to the airport here, and turned around and went back, because it fell through, right? Yes.
So, when this happened, it was like...
WOMAN: A miracle.
SHARON BLOCH: It was -- yes.
WOMAN: Well, Eric, just take a look and look what you have created. All of these people`s lives have been changed.
MAN: Bigger family.
ERIC WALANO: I`m going to take this picture from today, and I`m going to put that up. That`s going to be the trophy case now.
PAUL SOLMAN: Meanwhile, Barbara Sine has yet to meet her recipient.
BARBARA SINE: I know that a man about my age got my kidney, and I do know that his wife was scheduled to donate, I think, the following week. And that`s about all I know.
PAUL SOLMAN: Would you be more and more happy as a function of whether or not more and more people were in your chain?
BARBARA SINE: Well, yes, I mean, I think the more people who are helped, the better. The idea that it can -- I can help 10, 15, who knows.
PAUL SOLMAN: And, bottom line, that`s what makes this tear-jerker an economics lesson as well.
ALVIN ROTH: Altruism seems to respond to some of the economic incentives that other goods do. If you can do more good with a dollar, you`re more likely to give a second dollar.
PAUL SOLMAN: OK, you can`t give a second kidney. But you can sure do a world of good giving just one.
This is economics correspondent Paul Solman reporting from New Jersey.
AMNA NAWAZ: Pope Francis broke his silence on Wednesday, acknowledging for the first time that clergymen have sexually abused nuns.
John Yang has more on the story
JOHN YANG: Amna, for decades, the persistent allegations of sexual abuse of nuns and religious women by Roman Catholic priests and bishops have been overshadowed by other scandals in the church.
Now decades of silence are ending. Last year, a bishop in India was arrested after a nun told police he had repeatedly raped her between 2014 and 2016. Many priests celebrated when the bishop was released on bail. He faces trail later this year.
This week, for the first time, Pope Francis addressed the issue as he returned to Rome from the United Arab Emirates.
POPE FRANCIS, Leader of Catholic Church (through translator): It`s not something that everyone does, but there have been priests and even bishops who have done this. And I think it is still taking place because it is not as though the moment you become aware of something, it goes away.
The thing continues, and we have been working on this for some time. We have suspended a few clerics and sent some away over this.
JOHN YANG: The pope was responding to a question from Associated Press Vatican correspondent Nicole Winfield, who joins us now from Rome.
Nicole, thanks so much for being with us.
You published an investigation last summer that documented abuse going back decades and spreading across at least four continents. Why has it taken so long for this silence to break and for this to surface?
NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press: The first public reports were in 2001. The National Catholic Reporter did a groundbreaking report and provided documentation that had been given to the Vatican a decade before about the situation in Africa.
So, I took that as a starting point and decided that, with the reckoning that was going on in the United States, that it was a time to really look at what was going on around the world as far as the religious sisters were concerned.
And, indeed, we found that really nothing had changed.
JOHN YANG: And you also wrote about the forces that kept these religious women, these nuns, from speaking out, from reporting the abuse.
NICOLE WINFIELD: In all situations of abuse, there is a general tendency not to report, right? There`s a sense of shame, a sense of guilt.
So there are all those normal forces that we have heard over and over again in talking about abuse in general. The religious sisters, though, it seems like there`s compounding interests that might have conspired to keep this quiet.
Some of that is that the sisters have a fear, a real fear of repercussion within their own congregations if they speak out, especially if they belong to some of these smaller diocesan-level congregations. That order is wholly dependent on their local bishop.
So if the bishop himself is doing the abuse or if one of his priests is committing the abuse, there are real vested interests in not having this come out.
JOHN YANG: And, as I said earlier, your reporting found this over at least four continents.
Give us some idea of the scope of this, and I don`t know if severity is the right word, but there are nuns who have been forced to have abortions or forced to have the children of these priests and bishops.
NICOLE WINFIELD: Sisters were reporting that they were getting pregnant and, in some cases, they were -- even the priests themselves were paying for the abortions.
So kind of a compounded -- as far as the church was concerned, a kind of compounded sin. And then there would be the cases where the sisters would also give birth, and then very obviously then be thrown out of the congregations.
And, indeed, it seems like the developing world has been some of the places where it has been reported at least more frequently than elsewhere.
JOHN YANG: What`s the significance or the importance of the fact that the pope, in answering your question, acknowledged this for the first time?
NICOLE WINFIELD: Well, I think it was quite courageous of him to even take the question. I admit it was a bit out of left field, so -- but there was -- it seems like there was momentum building for it.
The Vatican`s own women`s magazine just last week had written an article about it, so it seemed like it was fair game. Nevertheless, the fact that the pope said it, he admitted it, he said it was a problem, he said we`re working on it, and he committed himself to do even more, because he said more was needed, I think, is enormously significant.
If you think of this as a problem of secrecy and a culture of secrecy, having the pope come out and say, I get this, I know it`s a problem, I think, is enormously significant maybe for the sisters themselves. Maybe they might feel emboldened now to break that silence.
JOHN YANG: Briefly, this issue comes up just before a summit of bishops to talk about the abuse of children, sexual abuse of children in the church.
Is there any sense that the abuse of religious sisters is going to come up at that meeting as well?
NICOLE WINFIELD: I would be surprised if it did, only because already this meeting has enormous expectations, perhaps unreasonable expectations, placed on it.
It was called to address a very specific issue, the prevention of abuse of minors. I think if they were to add in the issue of abuse of religious sisters, that would detract attention from the core issue.
So I think it would open a bit of a can of worms if they were to redirect this meeting to address that issue. And I think so they will probably just keep it focused on its original intent, which was on preventing abuse of minors.
JOHN YANG: Nicole Winfield, Vatican correspondent for the Associated Press, thanks so much for joining us.
NICOLE WINFIELD: Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: Last week`s Brief But Spectacular featured Melissa Malzkuhn, who was born deaf into a deaf family. She spoke about how access to sign language offers access to humanity.
Tonight, we have a separate take on language and deafness from Caroline Clark.
Born into a hearing family, Clark was diagnosed as deaf at the age of 2. She reflects on her relationship with words and how she turned to technology to help her speak.
Clark now works with the Baker Institute, a nonprofit that provides speech therapy for deaf children.
CAROLINE CLARK, Student: I was diagnosed with deafness at 2.
And I will never forget the word, the first word that I learned. And it was the word up. So, my mom told me this story. She said that she was in my grandmother`s house, and she would hold me in her arms, and she would carry me up and down the stairs.
And she would say to me, Caroline, up, up, we go. And she even sometimes would apparently take my hand and place it on her throat, and I would feel the vibrations of what she was saying.
And, finally, when I was two-and-a-half, I said the word back to her, up. And when my mom heard that, she cried tears of happiness, because I think that moment she knew that I learned to speak.
Learning to speak when you can`t hear is an interesting process. You pay close attention to how the -- forming the lips. Most of all, it`s just repeatedly trying the word over and over again.
There`s a magnet that is inside of my inside of my head and then there`s a magnet outside of my head. So, sound comes through the magnet.
When it first gets turned on, you don`t understand anything you`re hearing. It sounds like beeps, and then slowly sounds like Donald Duck. And then, one day, you ask someone, did you say the word door? And they said, yes, I said that word.
And so, over time, you begin to understand this new language. I didn`t learn sign language. My mom made a conscious decision to teach me how to speak. As I got older, she said, OK, you can learn sign language.