captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: >> my attitude toward syria and assad has changed very much. >> woodruff: as the death toll in syria's chemical attack rises, president trump appears to take a harder line against the assad regime. then, a closer look at the f.b.i.'s investigation into 2016 presidential election-related links to russia, and what they mean for the new administration. and, how ticks on rampant deer populations are contributing to the spread of lyme disease, and leaving communities with few options to combat a growing ecological threat. >> if i were to be here 20 years

ago at this check station, i could look all day and maybe find two or three ticks. now, in the course of two hours, we've got probably 50 ticks off a deer. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> our tradition has been to take care of mother earth, because it's that that gives us water that gives us life. the land is here for everyone. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention. in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the chemical attack in northern syria has now claimed 75 lives, and it may trigger a shift in u.s. policy. the president today voiced his outrage and threatened a tougher approach. john yang begins our coverage. >> these heinous actions by the assad regime cannot be tolerated. >> reporter: at a rose garden news conference, king abdullah of jordan and president trump condemned the attack as an "affront to humanity." >> when you kill innocent children, innocent babies-- babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal, people were shocked to hear what gas it was-- that crosses many,

many lines beyond a red line, many, many lines. and i will tell you, it's already happened, that my attitude towards syria and assad has changed very much. >> reporter: administration officials had been saying that removing syrian president bashar al-assad was no longer a "fundamental option." but today, mr. trump didn't seem to rule anything out. last year you seemed to be reluctant to get involved or intervene in syria directly. is that one thing that's changed after yesterday? >> militarily, i don't like to say where i'm going and what i'm doing. i'm not saying i'm doing anything, one way or the other, >> reporter: the u.n. security council held an emergency session, but took no action. u.s. ambassador nikki haley warned, the u.s. will act, if no one else does. >> when the united nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states, we are compelled to take our own

action. >> reporter: the syrians continued to deny any chemical attack, and its ally russia called the reports "fake" information. haley charged that moscow, especially, has made "an unconscionable choice." >> they made an unconscionable choice. they chose to close their eyes to the barbarity they defied the conscience of the world. how many more children have to die before russia cares? >> reporter: meanwhile, victims of the attack continued to pour into hospitals in syria's idlib province, and in nearby turkey. >> ( translated ): there was a lot of smoke and there was a smell. it was very difficult to breath, we couldn't breathe anymore. we just couldn't breathe anymore. >> reporter: the world health organization said the symptoms are consistent with a nerve agent. doctors without borders said it could have been sarin, the same agent used in a deadly 2013 attack outside damascus. >> both today and yesterday,

president trump was highly critical of barack obama, saying that he failed to deal with assad by back off the threat of military force. now president trump says the responsibility of dealing with assad is his. judy. >> woodruff: thank you, john. at the white house and in the day's other news, president trump removed chief strategist steve bannon from the national security council. the appointment of the former head of breitbart news after the inauguration had drawn criticism. today, bannon said his job was to "de-operationalize" the n.s.c. after the obama years. he said the new national security advisor, h.r. mcmaster, has returned the council to its proper function. the president now says former national security advisor susan rice may have committed a crime. it has been reported that rice sought and leaked identities of trump transition aides caught up in surveillance. she denies any wrongdoing. but the president told the "new

york times" that he thinks rice broke the law. he provided no evidence. he also defended fox news' bill o'reilly against allegations of sexual harassment, and he said, "i don't think bill did anything wrong." north korea test-fired another missile early today, and u.s. defense officials say it ended in a fiery crash at sea. it came a day before president trump and china's president meet. it also followed mr. trump's warning that, "if china is not going to solve north korea, we will." the chinese foreign ministry had this response today to the north's latest launch: >> ( translated ): china has noticed the relevant report. we believe that under the current situation all relevant parties should maintain restraint and not do anything that will add to tensions in the region. >> woodruff: the u.s. response came from secretary of state rex tillerson. in a terse statement, he said: "the united states has spoken

enough about north korea. we have no further comment." in iraq, islamic state attackers killed at least 31 people overnight in the northern city of tikrit. the militants wore police uniforms and targeted police forces. when they ran out of bullets, they blew themselves up. more than 40 people were wounded. lawmakers in malaysia today approved a law on sex crimes against children-- but balked at banning child marriage. during the debate, one legislator declared that girls as young as nine are "physically and spiritually" ready to marry. the mostly muslim nation allows girls younger than 16 to marry, if their parents and islamic courts allow it. back in this country, secretary of homeland security john kelly softened his stance today on separating parents and children who cross the mexican border illegally. he had said previously he was considering that step as a

deterrent, but at a senate hearing today, north dakota democrat heidi heitkamp pressed kelly on the issue. >> there's been reports that you're considering separating mothers and children at the border? >> only if the situation at that point in time requires it. you know, if te mother is sick or addicted to drugs or whatever. >> so if the child was in danger, that's the only circumstance to which you would separate? >> can't imagine doing it otherwise. >> woodruff: kelly also reported that apprehensions at the border fell sharply in march, to the lowest number in 17 years. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lost 41 points to close at 20,648. the nasdaq fell 34 points, and the s&p 500 slipped seven. still to come on the newshour: president trump's next possible moves in syria; how the f.b.i.

has historically handled politically-charged cases such as the russia investigation; senators debate the supreme court nominee, and much more. >> woodruff: as we reported earlier, president trump said that the chemical weapons attack yesterday in syria has crossed "many lines" for him. but what options could the president pursue in the six-year civil war? i'm joined now by two experts with deep experience in military strategy and planning. andrew exum was a deputy assistant secretary of defense for middle east policy in the obama administration; and, kori schake was the director for defense strategy at the national security council during the george w. bush administration.

and we welcome both of you to the program. kori schake, to you, first. when the president said today-- it was a striking comment. he said what happened with this chemical attack this week had caused him to completely rethink his attitude towards syria, toward president assad. for those of you who know-- who have been watching syria, watching assad, should this have been such a shocking move? >> it should not have been such a big surprise because there have been dozens and dozens of chemical weapons attacks by the syrian government against its own population. still, it's a welcome development that the president is paying attention to the war crimes that are being committed by the assad regime and by their supporters in iran and in russia. >> woodruff: andrew exum, when you left the defense department just a few months ago, were you and others aware that the assad regime still had this capability of used banned chemical weapons? >> we were certainly worried about the deployment of chemical

weapons across syria by all parties, frankly, by the islamic state as well, so it was a concern. i think the diplomatic efforts in 2013 accomplished a lot, but it certainly appears as if the assad regime kept the remainder of those weapons back and is employing them today. >> woodruff: does that square with your understanded, kori schake? and i guess my question is, the administration has been saying that they were not prepared to go in to syria to remove president assad. those are the signals we've been getting. so if they were to change that approach, that would be a significant change, wouldn't it? >> it would be a significant change. and the president's comments today certainly sound 180 degrees out from his policy, stated just two days ago by secretary of state tillerson, that they supported keeping the assad regime in power. i don't think that's changed, though. my guess is that what they are likely to do is retaliate with

punitive strikes. i think the long shadow of the iraq war is that they are going to want to leave assad in place because they're fearful of the squalor of regime change. but that they are going to try and constrain his behavior by penalizing him for the kinds of actions that the syrian government undertook against its own population today-- yesterday. >> woodruff: so andrew exum, obviously, we are in speculation territory here, because we don't know what the trump administration is going to do, but for the president to follow flew threw on what he said today, that "i've changed my mind, attitude, towards president assad," cha whatsapp could they conceivably do. >> president strikes me as someone who listens to the last person he spoke with, and is just as shock vick vis rally by the images he saw on television as all people worldwide. i guess as he gathers his team-- i disagree with kori here. i think he's likely not to ask for a number of different

reasons. first off, he has to ask what is his priority? and he has communicated his priority is the islamic state. if you were to strike the assad regime, for past two years, the u.s. aircraft and coalition aircraft have flown through a pretty robust air-and-defense system over syria without being harassed. if they were to trike the assad regime, they could then interfere with the u.s. campaign against raqqa, against the islamic state elsewhere. additionally, you have to ask yourself, how willing are you to killing cil some russians, because, especially since the fall of 2015, when you've seen a lot more russians in syria, if you strike any site in syria, you may end up killing some russian advisers. and i wonder if that's a risk the trump administration is prepared to take. >> woodruff: what about these arguments, kori schake? could these be reasons why this administration is going to think twice, think three times or more before they were to take any aggressive steps against assad? >> yeah, i think andrew is

right. i think those are both sensible concerns to have. my gerks though, is that the more thoughtful people in the trump administration, after the president's comments today are, going to be looking for ways to penalize the assad regime without triggering either of those problems-- deconflicting the activity with the russians is certainly a possibility. they do think they will continue to leave assad in place because they're thinking about what happens after the defeat of the islamic state? and they don't want to take on the responsibility for governing syria. but i do think there are options available to them, especially if you can find ways to target assad forces that were involved, particularly in the attack against civilians, and the follow-up destruction of hospitals that was undertaken. >> woodruff: you mean specifically this attack that took place this week? >> yes. >> woodruff: i wanted to ask you to expand on what you mean. i mean, what are the options?

if they're going to take limited steps, if you will, in response? >> yeah. it looks to me like the general strategy for fighting the islamic state is to step up the pace of operations, to increase arming and training of the free syrian forces, to coordinate much more closely with the sowders, the u.a.e., the israelis. they seem to be having some problems still bringing turkey into effect. but given that they are tightening the noose around isis, that will give them much greater leverage for doing with the assad regime subsequently. because assad's justification right now is that he is protecting syria against terrorists. if you take that excuse away from him, it actually gives them a lot more leverage for reining in assad's behavior. >> woodruff: are these the kinds of steps, andrew exum, that president assad, his regime, would see as a kind of punishment or retaliation for

what they've done? >> i think if you end up taking direct strikes against chemical weapons facilities, places where you know chemical weapons may be manufactured or stored. i think they would see that as punitive. i'm still not sure the pump administration is going to want to do that. i think i disagree with kori just a little bit. i'm not sure we gain leverage by defeating the islamic state. i think once you get past raqqa the need to coordinate even more with the russians, perhaps even with the regime, grows more important as you get closer to where the regime has a pretty strong toe hold and where i think the islamic state is going to go after they flee raqqa. so, unfortunately, i see a bit of a contradiction between the fight against the islamic state and the desire to remove the assad regime. and even if you work with russia, i'm just not sold that working with russia is an effective way to hasten the end of the assad regime or to enact any type of punitive measures.

>> woodruff: just about half a minute. kori schake, do you want to respond to that? >> well, i agree with much of what andrew says. i think deconfliction with the russians is probably the maximum that we can do. but deconfliction is enough to prevent us killing russian soldiers when we are attack the assad regime. and i think there's so much more that can and should be be done because this isn't just a problem internal to syria, terrible as that is. but the norm against chemical weapons use is extraordinarily important internationally. i agree with andrew that the president's all over the map on this, and i don't think that's going to change. i don't think administration policy is going to smooth out over time. >> woodruff: kori schake, andrew exum, thank you, both. >> sure thing.

>> woodruff: we turn next to the american investigations into russia-- its meddling in the 2016 election, and whether trump associates were involved in at all. the congressional probes have been the focus of late. but, the federal bureau of investigation is looking into the matter as well, putting the bureau under scrutiny again for how handles another politically sensitive case. william brangham begins there. >> brangham: he leads the country's most prominent law enforcement agency, the f.b.i., making director james comey the very public face of a bureau suddenly in the spotlight. >> and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government. >> brangham: it's not standard procedure to reveal, let alone publicly discuss, an ongoing f.b.i. investigation, but last july, comey also came forward to discuss a politically sensitive probe that he said was wrapping up. it was the bureau's

investigation into hillary clinton's email practices, when she was secretary of state. >> i want to tell you what we did, i want to tell you what we found and i want to tell you what we're recommending to the department of justice. >> reporter: that recommendation? not to bring criminal charges. a decision panned by some top republicans, like house speaker paul ryan, who said the announcement defies explanation. then, there was also his revelation about a week-and-a- half before the election: this letter from comey to congress, saying the bureau had subsequently learned about emails that may have been pertinent to the clinton probe. former attorney general eric holder criticized this revelation. so did other former justice department officials, from both parties. and even today, a justice department watchdog is reviewing whether comey's public statements on the clinton case flouted f.b.i. or d.o.j. policy. for his part, comey is defending his, and the bureau's, handling of these politically sensitive matters, as he did last week in washington: >> i know if i make a hard

decision, a storm is going to follow. but honestly, i don't care. if we ever start to think about who will be affected in what way by our decisions, in a political sense, we're done. >> brangham: as for the ongoing probe into what role the russians played in our election, and whether members of the trump campaign participated in that meddling-- comey told congress he had no sense how much longer that may take. for a deeper dive into how the f.b.i. handles these kinds of investigations, i'm joined now by stephanie douglas. she's a 23-year veteran of the f.b.i., where she specialized in national security and counter- intelligence; and, john carlin. he ran the national security division of the department of justice under president obama. welcome to you both. stephanie douglas, i'd like to start with you, first. i wonder if you would just take obefore we get to the investigation, take on this criticism of comey. there are a lot of democrats who are very upset with how the f.b.i. handled the hillary clinton email investigation. what would you say to those

critics? >> well, i think, you know, i've never worked with director comey personally, but i have a great deal of respect for him. andy think at the end of the day, the director felt like he was making the best decision he could given the circumstances. i think he considered it a ver y sensitive matter that he felt that the u.s. public had a right to know and understand. and i think based on that, he made a decision to come forward with the disclosures. i do think that given that, it has put the f.b.i. in the middle of a political firestorm, which is an uncomfortable place to be. but i think at the end of the day, the director is very-- he did not make this decision hastily, and i think he believes that he did the right thing. >> brangham: john carlin, is there anything you would add to that? >> well, i think it's important right now to take stock of where we are and what the national security threat is. and i thought what was stunning

and has not been receiving the attention that it deserves was the director of the f.b.i.'s statement at a congressional hearing last week and the head of the national security agency, and what they said was not only did russia attempt to undermine confidence in the integrity of our election, in this election cycle. not only did they do that, but they're going to do it again. they said that it is their assessment that the russians believe it's a success, and they're going to come back at us in 2020, perhaps as soon as 20 2018, and that they're going to take similar efforts undermining democracy in europe, european elections that are upcoming shortly. so the problem is urgent. and i hope that we can start focusing on what we can do to prevent them from being successful in those attempt glrgz dou doug stephanie douglau

heard what he said. what meddling did the russians into in our prior election and whether the trump campaign had any collusions in that activity? what is the goal here? is it disruption? is it putting people in handcuffs? i mean, what's the end goal here? >> wcial the f.b.i. has been doing counter-intelligence investigations for decades and it's a part of their core missions and a part of one of their most significant priorities. so the purpose of counter-intelligence investigations is to provide intelligence to policy makers to other intelligence community partners. so we are better educated to make decisions relative to policy. as you said, there are two parts of this investigation. it will not be a surprise to russia that there's a counter-intelligence investigation into their intelligence activities ongoing within the united states. but there are also, as part of that investigation, an attempt to understand the roles and the relationships of u.s. persons with the russian intelligence service. and if there was anything

inappropriate as part of those relationships, so the bureau has a big job ahead of itself to fully vet out and to put the pieces together in any logical investigation to make sure the facts are clear. >> brangham: john carlin, how-- investigating the president of the united states, who is ostensibly the boz of f.b.i., has got tob an incredibly fraught political thing to do. how does the agency, how does the bureau insulate itself from that kind of pressure? >> well, i've had the privilege of working with some of the professionals, both at the f.b.i. and the career prosecutors who are at the department of justice that handle this highly specialized type of investigation. and one thing that assures me that i can assure others, having worked with them, is these are people that they don't care about politics. they're not even tracking what's going on in the political world. upon they're trained investigators who believe--

swear an oath to protect our constitution, recognize the threats that they're facing from abroad from people who fundamentally do not share our values, and work day in and day out to protect us from those threats. they're going to follow the facts and evidence where they lead under the law, and then make a decision if there were criminal charges to bring, that's based on long-standing justice precedent. those are the prosecutors. so when-- if the target of the investigation were to be the president, there are protocols-- and i'm not saying that it is-- but that there are protocols in place tha at the department of justice to ensure that ultimately the career prosecutors' decisions, the investigative steps of the career agents are respected, and that the investigation is allowed to proceed. and one thing i have absolutely no doubt is that director comey will do what he needs to do to preserve the integrity of those

investigations, and that the career officials at the national security division and in u.s. attorneys' offices will similarly not allow political interference with their investigation. >> brangham: stephanie douglas, we've seen a lot of controversy air, lot of attacks on the intelligence agencies recently. are you confident that this investigation can get to the bottom of this issue and that those findings, when they're presented, will be accepted by the public? >> yes. and i just want to echo what john was just saying. you know, the men and the women of the f.b.i. do sensitive investigations every day. not many of them come to light, or are briefed as publicly as this one has been. but they have very strict protocols. they understand the rule of law. they're very process oriented in how they go about a very methodical investigation.

they gather evidence in conform asbestossance with the law. they do interviews. they take advantage of investigative tools that are made available to them. and the only thing that will enhance this investigation is the fact that it will be even more highly scrutinized because of the potential impact of it. so i have-- i have very firm confidence that the f.b.i. is up to this task. >> brangham: all right, stephanie douglas, john carlin, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: an uptick in ticks, and the diseases they carry. but first, are insurers treating drivers of color differently by charging them more money? a new analysis finds that is the case in a number of states. hari sreenivasan has the latest

in our "race matters" series, from new york. >> sreenivasan: consumer groups have long contended that drivers in predominantly minority neighborhoods are charged more for insurance premiums than drivers in predominantly white neighborhoods. insurers had said that was due to a higher risk of accidents in those communities. but a new analysis by propublica and consumers union found the disparities in premiums are higher-- sometimes much higher-- even when the risk of an accident is essentially the same. the team looked at data and more than 100,000 premiums in four states: california, texas, illinois and missouri. julia angwin of the propublica team joins me now. so what did you do? what did you find? >> so what we did was we basically tried to take a predominantly minority neighborhood and nonminority neighborhood and the risk. and we looked at the prices of the premiums in those neighborhoods and said are they the same? and oftentimes what we found is despite the fact that the payouts were the same and we had the same safe driver, that the

minority neighborhood was being charged quite a bit more. >> sreenivasan: when we say "payouts" that means the amount of money the insurance company has paid in that community for whatever accidents might have been happened. >> right, over a period of five years, insurers paid this amount per car. >> sreenivasan: and what is the underlying reason for this? >> well, i don't know why this disparity is taking place, but it raises the question about whether this pricing is fair because insurance is supposed to be based on risk, and that's what the industry has always said. but when you look at the risk they truly bear, which is the cost they pay out for claims, you see these price disparities that can't be explained by that risk. >> sreenivasan: is there enough information out there to be able to make this assessment we were hard pressed to get this data. we collected it from four states. so we could only do this nalysis there. >> sreenivasan: and these four states are, they representative of a cross-section because different states have different insurance rules, obviously, different types of driving

conditions. >> ythey do. basically we have a nice range because california is considered one of the most regulated states for insurance. the industry has to submit their rates to the regulators before they can issue them, illinois the least regulated. they don't have to submit rates to anybody for approval before they issue them and it's consider aid very competitive target. and two states in the middle, missouri and texas wbasic level of regulation considered normal in the industry. >> sreenivasan: we spoke to james lynch of the insurance industry, and this is what he had to say. >> they kind of started off on the wrong foot, actually. i kind of feel sorry for them because they spent a good year-plus,aise understand it, putting this study together. but what they failed to do was they failed to take into account the people in different neighborhoods drive differently. and abuse because that's the case, you have to compare those drives with the set of drivers on the premium side that drive differently. they really cannot comparing like to like. they're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. >> sreenivasan: a 30-year-old

driver across state lines, why is that not a fair comparison. >> they are saying the reason the rates vary from one territory to another is because of the territory itself. the truth sin any neighborhood, some drivers are driving more miles than others. some drivers are getting in more accidents than people in other neighborhoods and you need to take that into account when you're setting rates. as far as we can tell, they haven't done that. and we've actually hired a firm to peer review their work, and it looks like they're coming to a very similar conclusion to ours. >> sreenivasan: is there any reasoning that you can come up with for why these disparities exist from zip code to zip code? >> well, as i said, if you took these on a like-to-like basis, if you looked at all of the characteristics of drivers in an area-- race not being one of them because insurance companies do not ask questions about race. in many places it's illegal to ask them about race. and they go one further-- they just don't ask because there's nothing to be gained from the

exercise. and so what they do ask about is they ask about things like the kind of car you drive, the number of miles that you drive, what your driving record is, and based upon those concrete variables your rate is set. >> sreenivasan: so he takes aim at your methodology and says the conclusion flawed. >> you know, as of yet, we have not heard from anyone about any throors are correctable that we need to correct in this, and we're always open to hearing that. we approached the industry and actually lots of academics and experts to review our methodology for months advance. is and so as of right now, i don't have any corrections to make to it. and i await the response that the industry said they're going to publish soon. >> sreenivasan: the insurance industry says it's not apples to appleapples to compare a personf the same age and driving record because people did fr different communities drive differently. there's a much larger pool to compare. >> the insurance industry has a way of dealing with the problem you're describing. they assign territories different risk ratings, and those are what these insurance

quotes are based on. we're analyzing the quotes that they give to each person. that's based on their own assessment of the riskiness of that neighborhood and what we're doing is comparing that to the payout they say made in that neighborhood. >> sreenivasan: why does this all matter at the end of the day? >> why this matters, this is one of many areas in life where you seen minority neighborhoods being treated disparitily, and there's an explanation that says, "oh, it's because it's so risky and basically it's deserved. they're paying higher prices but it's because it's a dangerous neighborhood." this just raises the question which sonce again, the facts don't support that analysis. the facts don't show these neighborhoods are riskier than the ones getting cheaper prices in most cases. >> sreenivasan: all right julia angwin of propublica, thank you for joining us. >> thank you so much. >> the arrival of spring is

>> woodruff: the arrival of spring is a most welcome sight to many of us, but it also brings a serious health problem-- ticks. they can lead to lyme disease, which can be a serious chronic condition. suburbs are trying to figure out just how to deal with ever more ticks, all of which is directly connected to the growing population of deer. researchers are enlisted in the battle as well. miles o'brien has the story for our weekly segment on the "leading edge" of science. a warning: some of the images in this story might disturb some viewers. >> reporter: this english manor in the woods near boston is denny and win swenson's dream house. when they moved here ten years ago, they were thrilled to see a lot of deer. >> and it was so exciting because they're such beautiful animals. they seemed harmless. wow, we felt like we had arrived. >> reporter: but today she is a more than a little wary of the deer. in fact, she believes controlling their numbers is the only practical way to stem the spread of lyme disease.

humans are infected with lyme from tick bites, and ticks like to feed on deer. >> there's a trail there that the deer love. >> reporter: this is deer country here? >> yeah, yeah. we have tons of deer. >> reporter: the state says that there are about 85 deer per square mile in the adjacent 7,000 acre blue hills reservation. ten per square mile is considered a density that could reduce the spread of lyme. deer were hunted nearly to extinction a century ago in the u.s. today, thanks to legal protection and regulated harvests, the deer herd nationwide has exploded to more than 30 million. this creates a host of problems, including more than a million deer/car collisions each year in the united states. suburbia offers the perfect habitat for deer to flourish; no human hunters or animal predators and a bounty of food. >> they're coming all the way up to the front door to eat. they're really hungry, so they kind of need the rhododendrons

as much as i do. >> reporter: this is kind of like the drive-through of a deer, right? >> this is the drive-through for them, yeah. >> reporter: lyme is an infectious disease, caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by the bite of infected blacklegged ticks. symptoms often begin with a distinctive bullseye rash and evolve into various neurological problems including facial palsy, severe headaches, muscular aches and sensitivity to light. without antibiotic treatment, lyme disease can lead to permanent motor, sensory and cognitive impairment. it is the most common tick-borne disease in the northern hemisphere. there are an estimated 300,000 cases a year all across the u.s. both denny and wynn have had multiple cases of lyme disease. >> i will never forget those headaches. i will never forget the pain, sort of sweeping around my body. i felt like i was being invaded

by some crazy thing. >> reporter: the more she asked around, the more she got scared. >> we did a neighborhood survey and 30 households responded and we found 30 cases of lyme disease in those houses. >> reporter: you basically have a public health crisis here. >> yes, these are epidemic level numbers. >> reporter: a former journalist, denny swenson started researching. the lyme disease bacterium lives inside white-footed mice-- the so-called reservoir. ticks that bite the mice become infected propagators, or vectors, of lyme. she quickly concluded reducing the population of mice, or the ticks themselves, using chemicals, is neither practical nor prudent for the environment. but what about targeting deer? >> there's no animal as abundant as deer in these habitats, and these ticks do seem to like deer. >> reporter: sam telford is a professor of infectious

disease and global health at tufts university's cummings school of veterinary medicine. we met at a hunter inspection station during deer season in webster, massachusetts, 60 miles southwest of boston. >> if i were to be here 20 years ago at this check station, i could look all day and maybe find two or three ticks. now, in the course of two hours, we've got probably 50 ticks off a deer. >> reporter: fortunately for the deer, they are not susceptible to lyme disease. telford's fieldwork might make you squirm a little bit. he harvests thousands of ticks to study later in his laboratory. lyme is just one of more than a dozen human diseases and infections spread by ticks. they are, by far, the biggest disease vector in the u.s. telford showed me a tube filled with two fully engorged female deer ticks. those are fully fed? >> these are fully fed. >> reporter: that's all blood in there, right?

>> that's the end result of feeding for seven days. each one of those will lay 2,000 eggs. >> reporter: so even though mice might be the lyme disease bacterium reservoir, telford believes controlling the deer population is the key. >> if you were trying to intervene, to try to control the force of transmission of the agent of lyme disease, what do you go after? something small, or something that's far more limited in numbers but produce the ticks? >> reporter: in the late 1980s, he ran an experiment to test his theory on a small, isolated cape cod peninsula. a sharpshooter reduced the deer population from about 50 to fewer than eight. the numbers of ticks dropped precipitously-- by 80%. ever since then he has tried to convince people who live in suburban communities overrun by deer to take similar action. >> the reality is some communities won't tolerate hunting and so, there have to be alternatives. >> reporter: at the national

institute of standards and technology in gaithersburg, maryland, they're trying birth control. the 600-acre campus is home to 180 deer. they are everywhere. >> we've created a monster, there's no doubt. it's just whether or not we contain it in a realistic timeline, based on the growth of these deer populations and the ever-increasing conflicts with people. >> reporter: wildlife ecologist tony denicola runs a nonprofit organization focused on managing white-tailed deer herds in suburban environments. after they were tranquilized at nist, the deer were surgically sterilized by veterinarians-- 61 does over ten days. >> sterilization has the benefit of the social support of much of the public, eliminates a lot of the controversy around lethal programs. but as you'd expect, it is far more work in order to handle these animals with this level of intensity and you don't get the immediate population impact. >> reporter: the humane society

of the united states is a big advocate of alternatives to conventional hunting. that's what they're doing 20 miles north of new york city in the village of hastings on hudson. >> this is our third capture season for this project. >> reporter: kali pereira is the senior deer program manager at the humane society. >> we're using a product called p.z.p.-22 to address population control in an urban environment that hunting is not an option for. >> reporter: p.z.p.-22 is a birth control vaccine that lasts for 22 months. about 70 females in the herd here are on this birth control drug. it's a first in the nation experiment, that is a labor intensive, ongoing effort. it requires patience. >> usually these projects take you a minimum of five to ten years before you see true population plateau and reduction. >> reporter: slow as the approach is, it does not draw

controversy. which is what happens when the state of massachusetts allows deer hunting with shotguns in the park near the swenson house. in two seasons, they have killed 122 out of an estimated 850 deer. sam telford says the ideal size of the blue hills herd is about 100. but is that a realistic goal? stephanie boyles griffin is the senior director of innovative wildlife management and services with the humane society. >> attempting to reduce deer populations, to reduce the transmission of lyme disease has not been shown to really be effective. you would have to get your populations so low, and that's really just not achievable on a lot of these urban systems. >> reporter: in denny swenson's neighborhood, most people are committed to thinning the herd, but there is some ambivalence. >> killing them wasn't my first goal at all, and i'm so

heartbroken that we have to. but for the health of the deer and the health of the forest and the health of the people that visit the forest, we need to manage this problem. >> reporter: the explosion of the deer population in suburbia and the rapid rise of lyme disease are warning signs of an ecosystem out of balance. the hunt for solutions won't be cheap, easy or fast. miles o'brien, the pbs newshour, milton, massachusetts. >> woodruff: the u.s. senate spent all night, and day today, debating the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to be the next associate justice on the supreme court. lawmakers took turns trading barbs and discussing the so-called "nuclear option," which could change longstanding senate rules to approve gorsuch with a majority vote instead of

the usual 60. >> judge gorsuch, to me, is not mainstream. he'll put corporate interests above individual interests. he has a hostility toward so for all those reasons, it seems appropriate to me that this is why we have a 60-vote threshold-- to make sure we don't, that we don't take extreme nominees and allow them to be confirmed by a partisan vote. >> every excuse they've come up with to engage in this unprecedented filibuster is completely without merit. what they're really upset about is what happened on november the 8th. and i don't believe, if they won't confirm judge gorsuch, they will never vote to confirm any nominee of this president, period. >> invoking the nuclear option is a dangerous path to go down. mr. president, i've been in the majority, i've been in the minority, and either way, i believe, when it comes to a lifetime appointment to the

supreme court, the senate must adhere to a higher standard and the 60-vote threshold. if you can't get that many votes for a supreme court nominee, you don't need to change the rules, you need to change the nominee. >> i'm left with no choice. i will vote to change the rules and allow judge gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority. i will do so with great reluctance-- not because i have any doubts that judge gorsuch will be an excellent justice-- but because of the further and perhaps irreparable damage that it will do the united states senate. >> woodruff: for more on the continuing fight over the supreme court nominee; the negotiations between the white house and congress to repeal and replace obamacare; and president trump's effort to rollback parts of the obama legacy, we turn to matt schlapp. he's chair of the american conservative union.

>> we had hoped to have karine jean-pierre. she's a senior varies for moveon.org, join us as well, but she is stuck in traffic here in washington. meantime, matt, you and i are going to have this conversation. so what do you make of the determination now of democrats s that there are going to be at least three of them who vote for neil gorsuch, but not enough to give him the 60 that he would need? >> you know, what i'm struck with-- obviously, i'm a partisan. i'm a republican. but what i'm struck with is that neil gorsuch really passed all the gates. he seemed very steady during his hearings, really didn't have a misanswer throughout all of that process, has a stellar record, but it just shows you in our hyperpartisan age, it's very hard anymore to get these cross-over votes for supreme court nominees, especially because the court has ceend of inserted itself in every major question in society, and they are a flashpoint. >> brangham, of course, the democrats would say, well, he

didn't answer as many questions as we would have liked. >> but they all admitted that he did a good job. they would have liked him to step in something, and he really did avoid that. >> brangham: is there anything else either the white house, president trump, or judge gorsuch could have done, do you think, to get democrats to 60? or do you think this was cooked coming in because of what happened last year? >> i think-- yeah, i think democrats are very upset at the treatment of merrick garland. they thought he deserved to have a vote, a hearing and a s vote. and, of course, republicans saw this supreme court opening, this kind of really important swing pick just too close to the election, and they wanted to wait. but i do think republicans coiled cut a deal. the president could cut some kind of a deal to get democrats to come over. >> woodruff: what do you mean? >> well, he would have to cut some deals on future supreme court picks, maybe watering down some picks he would like to make. and i think for republicans it's just anathema. they think neil gorsuch

deservans up-or-down vote. >> woodruff: you mean the democrats would, in essence, take his word that he was going to follow up way more moderate choice? >> yeah, yeah, that's right. and i think-- look, for republicans and for conservatives, that's a bridge too far. they believe they won this election. they've picked a nominee who has gotten huge majorities in the senate previously, who's well qualified by the american bar association. so they really felt like they put a nominee up that deserves an up-or-down vote. >> woodruff: all right, let's turn to health care. we keep hearing-- we keep seeing-- that the white house s trying to get something rez rectsed with house republicans that will effectively repeal and replace obamacare, the affordable care act. >> right. >> woodruff: but they're struggling. >> they are. >> woodruff: and we said just this afternoon speaker ryan was seen going into the white house again. right. >> woodruff: where does that stand and what do you see the prospects? >> i have had conversations with the speaker and the white house, and they are trying very hard to get to a bill.

you know, just like in every political party, we have our hard-core conservatives and we have our more moderate members that came from more swing districts. and they're trying to strike a balance to get to the 218 and they're simply not there. i think where they want to go on the bill is to allow more state opt-outs of the obama mandates, and they're trying to figure out if they can get to that 218. >> woodruff: karine jean-pierre has joined us. i'm so sorry you were stuck. >> that's okay. >> woodruff: karine, on the question of the republicans still trying really hard to come up with something where they can get enough votes to repeal and replace obamacare. is this something that democrats are prepared to work with the white house in any way? >> no, the only way that would happen is if republicans said, "hey, you know, what? we know obamacare is a place to start, and there are some

fixes." both sides have said obamacare needs some fixes. if they were to come to democrats and say, "let's fix obamacare." but if it's repeal and replace i don't see that happening. and the thing, too, you would think that republicans would have learned from their mistake, which was they tried to jam down this trumpcare in 17 days, and now to come back and say, "hey, you know, we're going to introduce something that is not on paper and by the end of the week fass or vote on it," which we know that's no longer going to happen. that's also-- they haven't learned their lesson. obama took 13 months to push a.c.a., in a public way. >> woodruff: right. >> and it was very difficult for him to do that. >> woodruff: go way to make this work with democratic support? >> i think you make very fair points. i don't think the democrats are going to solve the republicans' problem. i think this is a problem that republicans need to solve. >> woodruff: speaking-- i was going to say speaking of rolling back obamacare, there are a number of other things, to both of you, that this president is saying is signaling and moving

on to roll back, from the environment, labor rules, intishts. >> right. >> woodruff: internet privacy. you go down the list. matt schlapp, is this-- we know the president does believe in doing this, but is this designed to shore up the base? is it designed to win over people in the middle? i mean, how do you see the political calculus? >> you be, i looked over this list, executive orders and congressional review acts, and i think by and larg large there ao themes of the trump presidency-- economic growth and security. and i think most of these issues involve that. i think donald trump understands if the economy doesn't get growing and we don't start adding jobs and people don't start feeling better about their take-home pay and their economic situation, his political standing will be harmed by that. and i think they want to take everything they can off the ability of businesspeople, entrepreneurs to invest and grow their company s. >> woodruff: and we have seen, karine, in the last weeks that his approval rating in so many

of the national polls has been sliding. in some it's down in the 30s. >> yeah. >> woodruff: who knows, you know, how long lasting that is. how do you see this? is this something-- if he's able to do what matt says-- can he win support? >> but the problem sjudy, is he's rolling back issues, policies that are actually very popular and we have to remember donald trump didn't win with the popular vote. he doesn't have a mandate. only 26%, 27% of eligible voters actually voted for donald trump. and it's troubling to see what he's doing. and there are people on your side who are very concerned by some of the rollbacks he's doing, especially when it comes to privacy. and so it's certainly-- it's certainly a problem that we should be concerned about. and so i just don't eye don't see how this is going to be popular. it certainly doesn't show that he's a president for everyone. it's him doubling down, tripling down-- >> i can say on the congressional review acts of which we've only seen one in our history, and to see over a dozen

come to the president's desk, there's just a lot of action here. and i think for him politically, one of the downsides for him is there's so much action, but also one of the upsides is we're not focusing on one because there are so many. >> woodruff: but, also, for some of these, there may be folks who like them, but there are also folks who don't like them. >> sure. all that matters for president trump is he's got to get that economy humming. he doesn't, you know, there are consequences. >> the funny thing is, his favorite poll, rasmussen, even shows him down by 16 poants. >> i don't think it's his favorite poll. >> that's what he keeps focusing on. there's a problem there. his numbers are softening. >> woodruff: we're glad the infrastructure helped get you here today. >> thank you so much, judy, and i'm so sorry about that. >> if we drain the swamp, we'll have less traffic. >> is that right? that's the problem.

>> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on thursday: a look at the rising costs of protecting president trump, his family and their residences. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> it's hard not to feel pride as a citizen of this country, when we're in a place like this. >> bnsf railway. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the wellbeing of humanity around the world, by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at www.rockefellerfoundation.org.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> you're watching pbs.

>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin by looking at the upcoming summit on thursday and friday between the president of china and the president of the united states. we talked to the former prime minister of australia kevin rudd. >> the chinese at the end of the day are realists. i mean, they stopped trying to export revolution back just after the cultural revolution in the late '70s. that was the end of that. so when they observed western politics at play, particularly in this country, which is the most powerful country in the world, the united states, anyone who wins a presidential election, from their point of view, is someone to be respected. secondly, when you've come from totally outside the mainstream, like president trump has, including outside the mainstream of the republican party, they are, i think, more res