captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm nidy woodruff. on the newshour t, more than two weeks after the deadly 737 crash, questions remain about pilot training and boeing's relationship with the f.a.a. thenbrexit on the brink-- prime minister theresa may agrees to step down if parliament passes her deal to leave europe plus, an unorthodox idea to fight climate change, ancool the warming planet, but could it work? >> geoengineering seemed like a bit of a crazy idea. but there was a taboo and i think taboos are unhealthye nd my view isould understand it better to see just how crazy it really is. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshou

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> babbel. a language app that aches real-life conversations in a new language, like spanish, frenchn, german, italnd more. babbel's 10-15 minute lessons are available as an app, or online. more information on babbel.com. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the lemelson foundation.

committed tomproving 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. acmmitted to building a more just, verdant and ul world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made n possible by the corporatr public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: battle lines are being drawn in washington in a renewed battle over health care. president trump underscored today that his administration will back a court fight to kill obamacare. he spoke as he met with the wife of venezuela's opposition

leader, and he lauded a legal challenge by states to the affordable care act. >> we think it wilbe upheld. think it will do very well in the supreme court. and if the supreme cbart rules thatcare is out, we will have a plan that is far betterca than oba. >> woodruff: last december, a federal judgin texas ruled in that lawsuit, and invalidated the entire a.c.a. this week, the trumpce department asked a federal appeals court to uphold th ruling. but senate minority leader chuck schumer pushed back today, from the nate floor. >> if the republican party wanti to bdonald trump's words, the party of healthcare, god help the middle class. god save the middle class. god save people withdi bilities. god save the hundreds of millions with preexisting conditions. >> woodruff: senate democrats roe now pushing to bar the justice departmenthelping to dismantle the affordable care act. president trump demanded today that russian troopleave

venezuela, and he said, "all options are open if they don't. some 100 russian soldiers arrived in venezuela over the weekend. moscow backs president nicolas maduro's regime. the u.s. supports the opposition leader's claim to power. british prime minister theresa may has announced she will step wn early, if parliament approves her brexit plan for aving the european union she gave no specific date. lawmakers have twice rejected may's plan, and today they held we'll get the details, latm. in the prog in mozambique, the first casese of cholera wnfirmed today, after a tropical cyclone ravaged the country.po authorities ed five cases in the port city of beira, which was all but stveled by the m. emergency responders quickly hegan efforts to contain t deadly disease, ich spreads through contaminated water and food. a mozambiqan health official warned the country should brace for much worse.

>> when you have one case you have to expecthat you will have more cases in the community. therefore, the healtworkers are there in the communities, work in the communities, how to organize them, how to prevent, how to treat water and everything to prevent the read of the cholera. >> woodruff: the world health organization "second disaster" if a cholera outbreak spreads. back in this country, a neo-nazi supporter, james fields, pled guilty today to federal hate crimes, in a deadly car attack in charlottesville, virginia. it happened at a white nationalist rally in 2017. fields killed heather heyer and injured dozens when he drove his car into counter-protesters. a state court already convicted him of murder. the pittsburgh city councilto votey for new gun-control measures, including curbs on military-style assault weapons. the move follows last year's

massacre of 11 worshippers at the tree of life synagogue. the bills are set for l y te next week, but gun-rights supporters say tll challenge the measures in court. the head of u.s. customs and border patrol is warhat a surge of migrants has pushed the .ency to its breaking poi kevin mcaleenan confirmed today that 750 agents are beg reassigned to deal with the influx. he said he's hing to prevent new tragedies. >> with these numbs, with these illnesses we're seeing at the border, i fear it's just a matter of time. continued inaction by congress is going to continue to put people at risk-- the vulnerable migrants on the journey in mexico as they cross our border in increasingly hot weather, and l.our own person >> woodruff: the agency says it detained 3,700 migrants on monday alone, the highest one- day total in a decade.

a federal judge in washington has blocked work requirements for medicaid recipients in arkansas and kentucky. the federal-state program provides health care for the poor. the judge found today that work requirements pose obstacles to receiving care, and that officials have not a pressed thblem. education secretary betsy devos today defended her call to end federal funding for ecial olympics. she said the organization gets major private support, and thatg other ms need federal money more. s sought the same cut fo the last two years, without success. this time, it sparkeorm on social media and from ngressional democrats. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial avege lost 32 points to close at 25,625. the nasdaq fell 48 points, and, the s&p 500 slipped 13. and, the search is on e grave of anne bradstreet, the first published poet in north

america. she became a sensation with a 1650 book of poetry, but her burial site was lost to history. professors and students at merrimack college in massachusetts hope to find it in nearby north andover, and helpra to restore bdstreet's place in american literature. still to come on the newshour: lingering questions still surround the boeing crash in ethiopia. the trump administration's policy agenda now that theel r investigation is over. a surprising plan to combat climate change, and much more. >> woodruff: boeing sought to reassure the aviation industry ixd the flying public today that it is sufficientlyg its air control systems on the 737 max jets that are suspected to have played a role in two recent

t ane crashes. the company said close to submitting software updates to the f.a.a. for review this week. this all comes more than two7 weeks since a x operated by ethiopian airlines crashed lishortly after takeoff, k all 157 on board. and, as amna nawaz tells us, it came as the acting head of the f.a.a. was called before a senate subcommittee this afternoon for a hearing. >> nawaz: senators pursued several lines of inquiry on questions now part of the nationalonversation. were there adequate safety inspections for the 737 max initially by regulators? are the regulators too close to the industry itself? and have cost considerations affected safety? we're going to look atf that as well as what boeing pledged. the aerospace giant said the flight control system, which hao been suspectpushing the max jets downward in those crashes, will now be triggeredwo byensors instead of just one. its maneuvering of the planell

ot be as dramatic. and there will be some new computer training for pilots too. our own aviation specialist, miles o'brien, has been watching all of this and joins me from san francisco. miles, good to talk to you. you heard what boeing has now proposed. do those proposals quiet te concerns? >> it's going to help, amna. and i think is idea at only one sensor was feeding that software, which could, in effect, take control of the aircraft and send it into a nose dive was a fundamental flaw. that's a single-point failure, and so insisting that two sensors can check each other, feed that system, and that if there's a discrepancy, it can discount that, say key factor.h also, one ofe things that pilots assume in these cases is that if theyba pulck on the yoke, the wheel, in that t situatioy'll be able to over-ride what the system is doing to the aircraft. in this case, the mcas system that was designed as this

and-stall measure may have a little too much authority. they couldn't overcome it. so i think this will he it will quiet some fears. we have to watch to see how this is implemented. it will take some time before it's fully brought on aboard to the fleet. >> nawaz: miles, there are some questions on pilaiot ng, too. there was a recent report that sparked concern in the simulated recreation of the lioflight, pilots had less than 40 seconds to react and over-ride the system. what did you hear about pilot htraining that addressest concern? >> well, it's interesting, because every pilot is trained to defeat what is called "runaway tri" meaning t aircraft's automatic system are adjusting the pitch in the air. it's a procedure which, number one, they might pull back on the yoke, but they would have two switches they can disconnect. that's the same procedu w the pilold use in this instance. the question is, did the flight crews fully r what was happening in that case?

in the case of lion air, they had very little time to do anything about it, recognition of recognize the problem, identify it, and take the action that would prevent it. so what happens in this cases like this, amna, is the pilots have a difficulty diagnosing what's really gog on with the aircraft, focused on the wrong thing, and in the meantime, the airplane crashes. years ago there was an eastern1 airlines l10at crashed into the everglades. the piles were focused on a broken landing gear light that was out, and they lost altitude and flew right into the everglades because they weren't focused on the big picture. the problem is you have to identify things so quickly. >> naz: so there were a couple of specific safety features that came up in questions tod. senator markey was asking one particularly pointed line, focusing in on two things that he says are not required safety - atures, one called the aoa indicatohe angle on attack ngdicator-- and another war light. he was put something pretty firm questions to the acting administrator of the f.a.a. let's tack a lsten to what he

had to say. >> should all of the safety features been mandatory that could have alerted pilots ands mechan issues with the sensors? should they have been mandatory? yes or no. >>rienator, safety tical pieces of equipment on an aircraft are mandatory. that's what certification does. >> should the f.a.a. ban the practice of aicials selling safety features a la carte toth airlines? yes or no. >> senator markey, i will tell you that if there is any manufacturer that sells a safety critical part a la carte, we will not permit it. >> nawaz: miles, the question there is were business priorities put ahead of safety priorities? what did you make of that? >> the aiine industry, when in doubt, generally will take the cheaper route if it can. a ittough business. it's a competitive business, and they will meet thequirements.

having said, that airlines in the united states-- american airlines among them, had these indicators on the cockpit display for the pilots to make a decision one way or the othermb if, one, the wing was at the right altitude,and number two, if there was a discrepancy between the angle of attack indicato yes, it's good to have those kinds of safety measures. they should be mandated but really, for example, those two angle of attack instruments should have been feeding that automatic system in the first place. the real question is who is deciding what is mandatory and what is optieonal h? in many cases it seems faz that decision lies more in the case with the manufacturer of the airline and less with the f.a.a. and that's an important thing we ed to look at-- o is actually regulating these things, making these very critical decisions as an aircraft is brought toarket. >> nawaz: another line of questioning, the alleged coziness between the regats, in this case the f.a.a. and the

airline industry, and how that may have impacted the f..a.'s reluctance to ground the planes, even after a number of other untries had grounded them. how did you take the questions and the answers in today's hearing? >> well, you've got to look at the origins of the f.a.a. it was theld civil arnautics authority, which was created to promote and regule aviation. on its face, that is a conflicts of interest. there is a fundamentalconflict in the f.a.a.'s mission, which is tries to sort out. but it doesn't always work outso ell. on top of that, they're underfunded, do not have enugh people to be on the factory floor every moment being a part of every single decision in creating a complex airliner. and so what they do is they a ie ot of authority to the manufacturer itself to regulate itself. so theretsre conflf interest embedded in conflicts of interest here.d it probably woe wise to give the f.a.a. a little more funding and a little more manpower and person power to actually be on the ground helping make these decisions and

actually regulating in a more w meaningf. >> nawaz: miles o'brien with important context for us there in san francisco. thank you, miles. good to talk to you. >> you're welcome, amna. >> woodruff: the white house and congress are still digesti g the attorneral's summary of the mueller repo. but lawmakers are pushing forward on a range of ises including health care, family leave and climate change. lisa desjardins d yamiche alcindor have been covering this from both ends of pennsylvania avenue and are here now. hello to both of you. yamiche, i'm going tart with you, and let's start with health care. we know thrdat yes the trump administration weighed in on a federal judge's ruling that essentially threw out the entire affordable care act. what is the president's plan for health care? >> the president has put republicanfiin a dcult

position when it comes to health care because he's determined to repeal the affordable care act. he doesn't actually have a plan to replace it. now, the president said todayh that ifis lawsuit gets all the way up to the supreme court, entually, some time in the future there, will be a plan put in place. but i've been talking to white house aids all day, there is no plan right now. and that's particularly how republicans got in this situation in the first place, which is that e affordable care act is still here. becaused last time they tried to repeal te affordable care act, john mccain and some republicans and all the democrats said if you don't have a plan to replace people'su health care, n't just take it away. now, it's also important to note that as the president skes thi stance on this lawsuit and saying that the judge's ruling should sta, there are peopl inside the white house, politico and others report, that say this is not a od idea, including the attorney general and the secretary of health and hun services. but the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, he was on the hill before he came to white house, and he made a career of saying, "we should repeal

obamacare." >> woodruff: lisa, this is an issue we have been talking about for years. and a lot of reaction today on the hill, on capitol hil tl. ere some kind of a consensus about which way to go forwlitically for both parties? >> i think there is consensus only on the pol the hill, and that is that this ublicans.r r democrats i spoke to today felt like this was amazing, incredible timing. they felt overshadowed by the clusions, andt co sort of trying to figure out what they were going to do on that. now they feel the president has made a political mistake on healthare, trying to end a whole system without-- wit as yamiche said, having a plan to replace it. republicans, the only difference between them, is how concerned they are about this. some e very ccerned, bike maine's susan collins. she's about to wite a letter to the attorney general. others think if courts, if they do overrule the affordable care act, will give us time to

replace it. it's not clear th.'s true i asked, i said, "the president wants to make health care a republican party anher the party of health care, is that possible?" he laughed and he said, that's as if saying the democrats will be the party of defense. there is no world in which our party is the health care party." >> woodruff: let's talk about another subject, conversation about the family leave. we are seeing something new, lisa, you pointed that out to ua from repub. they're coming at this from multiple directions. what are you seeing there? part of it is talking about paid leave, when a parent has to take ff for the birth of a child or another family member issue. what dooyou see? >>at this interesting picture from today. this is a news conference i went to early today with four republicans, two of them very recognizable. there you hae mitt romney and marco rubio, former presidential candidates, both of them unveiling a plan that would give parents a way tonsure they received some dined of salary while they took up to three months off. i want to look at what the republicans are proposing

specifically. they would propose to fund this by allowing people to borrow from their social security benefits in the future. that would mean that thosek parents who that benefit now would have fewer benefits or delay theiremrett later. here's the deal: democrats think that's a terrible idea. they, instead, would want to fund a kind of chi or parental leave by employer and employee payroll taxes. so, judy,at's interesting here is the two sides agree it's united states is behind the rest of the world inerms of giving parents time off. very big disagreement on how to pay for that time off. >> woodruff: yamiche, what about the white house? how do they sees?hi do they possibly support a version of this? >> the president and the president's daughter and white house adviser ivanka trump bo back thed in in theory and concept but they haven't made ually wouldthey act want to see happen. ivanka trump has made this a signature part ofer timat the white house. she said the tax credit that was given in the last tax bill toan cos that would provide family-- paid family leave.

that wasn't enough republicans really do need to come up with a plan. the president also said during the state of the union, "i want to see a family paid lea policy in a bill passed at some point." president's budget, if you read it closely, it says the states should come up wity, that polnd i'm going to leave it to them. so what the white house is essentially sang is, yes, this is a great idea, but we're going to go ahead and slide this off to the states and youuys wil figure it out. >> woodruff: so let's talk about, in the time we have left, climate change. not a lot of ground we're covering today-- health care, climate change. lisa, we reported yesterday the green new deal voted down in the senate. buy we see both parties out there talking about various other climate change ideas. what do we see in the politics? >> there is something to be said uallyhe conversation is act starting to happen on capitol hill from both sides. and i want to point to som video of nancy pelosi the day after the defeat of this one version of the green new deal in the senate. shcomes out, hods a press conference, unveiling democratit

legislation s much more limited on the climate. let's look at what that legislation ould d exactly. this is called hr-9. this bill is very limited it is their first proposal of the congress. pelosi would block withdrawal from the paris clima a agreemen this bill would tell president trump he has to come up with a plan to cut emissions. i asked democrats why thth feel don't to have to come up with a plan. they said, "well, the president would excuseexecute this. we think it's his responsibility." obviously, some pol thriks. it's interesting, judy, reblicans have a couple o plans of their own. it varies from the right, steve scalise who just wants to talk about energy. and lamar alexander who is using the word "climate change" now. >> the president sees the green new deal as something he can use politically in the 2020 ercampaign. yey he had lunch with g.o.p. senators. he told them beat up the gredeen ne but keep it around. i want to use that as part of my

campaign. the face of the green ne deal,ve representacasio ortez, they see her as someone she can demonize and say she's trying to make america a socialist country. it's also important to node notethis president has said climate change is a hoax. he's also backed a lot of regulations on the environment being pu bllck. so his he's not just saying this in practice and in rhetoric.do he's actuallg it in policy. and he sees that as a promise that was kept-- pulling outris f the climate accord. he sees that as something he ran on and that he did.a so climate nge is not, again, an issue the president has actually come up with a plan on. >> woodruff: don't beat it up too badly. we're going to remember that. yamiche, lisa, thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: the u.k. parliament attempts to find aath forward on brexit.

a new book about the influence of chief justice john roberts on e supreme court. and a greek tragedy updated to reflect the syrian civil war. as we heard, there's been some debate on capitol hill about how to tackle climate change.ul but trut very little legislation is going to pass in the foreseeable future. yet climate change's impact is growing around the world. mae federal government's own assessment found c change is already costing the u.s. hundreds of billions of dollars and having a major effect in parts of the country. some researchers argue the problem is getting so seriousth it's time to start exploring ideas that have long been seen as far out and potentially loaded with other problems and consequences. but these scientists say the times demand new approaches to lower the rth's temperature. miles o'brien is back with a report. reports for our regular seriess"

on the "leading edge" of science. >> reporter: engineer davidke h has run the numbers on climate change, and for him the bottom line presents a stark reality. >> even if we eliminate ons, we simply stop the climate problem getting worse. ne don't make it any better. >> reporter: the pis already in trouble; there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and human civilization has done precious little about it. c as y see, these trendlines have a lot of inertia. so even if we stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, there's still so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the problem will persist for decades. >> we do need to drive emissions to zero, but we also need tore ce the risk from the co2 that's in the air. >> reporter: so keith is asking like what ifstions we could suck carbon dioxide out of the air? it may sound like an impractical

idea, but he has some proof of concept. it's a prototype plant in canada built by carbon engineering, a company keith founded. oit extracts carbon dioxi of thin air. de pure co2 is then combi with hydrogen to synthesize fuels, gasoline diesel or aviation kerosene. choose your grade. >> that fuelidn't come from the ground. all the carbon that you releaseo burning it, yo from the atmosphere when you made it. so in the net, there's no carb emissions and that's a way to help decarbonize. >> reporter: so what if we don't decarbonize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to avoid dire consequences? david keith is leading research into a drastic measureo turn down the global thermostat. it's called solar geoengineering. the idea: inject large quantities of sulfur dioxide, or maybe another aerosol, into the

stratosphere using high-altitude aircraft. this should lower global omperatures by reflecting sunlight away from planet. it sounds like an idea hatched by a james bond llain, and david keith is keenly aware of that. >> geoengineering seemed like a bit of a crazy idea. but there was a taboo and i think taboos are unhealthy and my view is we should understand it better to see just how crazy it really is.ee >> reporter: i he's been exploring this idea since 1989, and over t years, it's made him a bit of a scientific pariah.ea >> senior coes would tell me this would ruin my career or people would kind of like move away from me in the elevator. this tic was just toxic and the mainstream climate science community justidn't want to lk about it. >> reporter: he may not have had scientists on hiside, but nature has been running solar geoengineering experimen for millions of years, in the form of volcanic eruptions.

when the really big ones blow, they launch sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, six to 30 miles above us. >> it gradually turns into aerosols. ; turns into small drople liquid droplets of sulfuric acid and those droplets reflect away sunlight. and that reflection of sunlight cools the climate and we see that after big volcanic eruptions. , reporter: when mount pinatubo blew its top in 19obal temperatures cooled one degree fahrenheit over the subseqnt 15 months. david keith thinks humans can do the same. >> if we decide to maintain the taboo and not have a serious research program, then what we give to our kids is ignorancean they'll still make decisions, but they'll make decisions without knowing.ep ter: maybe that's why the "snicker factor" is starting to fade. >> we're not going to limit thei risks ofte change to even reasonably safe levels by reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels alone. >> reporter: climate scientist peter frumhoff is director of

science and policy at the union of conrned scientists. >> and so therefore, we're looking at a whole range of hard choices about how to pull carbon dioxide potentially out of the atmosphere at scale. and maybe, just maybe, to bogin to think mimicking volcanoes by injecting reflecting particles io the stratosphere. that's a terrible idea, but people are beginning to give it some atttion. >> yeah, it's really changing. suddenly many more of the kind of the environmental leadehip and sort of science policy thought leership take this seriously. it really feels very different even from a year ago. >> reporter: but the devil, as always, lurks in the dails. one of the big questions: could it make the climate worse in some pces, better in others? >> it has all kinds of unclear ramifications. we don't know what the regional changes in rainfall patterns might look like. >> reporter: that's just one of the possible unintended consequences of solar geo- engineering. other questions: how would it affect agriculture?

how would any aerosol interact with the gases already present in the stratosphere? and could there be some unwelcome byproducts? that's what david keith and his colleague frank keutsch are trying to determine. in the lab, they are testingou variaerosols to see how they might behave in the. stratosphere allfur dioxide may be a good reflector, but i reacts with and reduces the ozone lar, and causes acid rain. so they are considering alternatives. the leading contender: calcium carbonate. >> thesealcium carbonate particles certainly will not have the same chemistry asedhis concentrulfuric acid particles. what we don't know is "how do they actually react?" because it could be that they react even worse. >> reporter: to find out they are planning an atmospheric experiment callescopex. no launch date is set, but orenever it flies, they hope it will answer some int questions.

this is an artist renderinof the scopex project. and next to me it's pretty imprsive, kind of big. but of course, relative to the size of the atmosphere isni ule. above me is a high-altitude balloon, and right now it's lifting scopex into the atmosphere. it will rise into the stratosphere, about twice the height of where airliners fly. once scopex is here in the stratosphere, it will release a small amount of calcium carbonate. the onboard propellers mix the experiment into a plume lessth a mile in length. >> this is a tiny scale thing. we're talking about injecting less than a kilolsam of aero so, this in no way alters the climate.a it's simplientific omperiment to improve our knowledge of howfuture aerosol injection scheme might alter the climate and the chemistry of the stratosphere. >> reporter: but to make sure, an independent panel ofil scientistsreview everything before launch. they will evaluate the potential

risks along with the reward; the data and lessons learned could be huge. now the particles are interacting with sunlight and the atmosphere. as the experiment plays out, scopex isn't far away.im when theis right, the gondola is lowered right into the mix. here a suite of sensors can determine chemical composition td reflective properties plume. the experiment's done, there es the parachute, and th valuable data is on the way me. scopex is a small scale experiment designed to test thee uned consequences of a really big idea. but perhaps the greatest unintended consequence of geo- engineering might be in the realm of psychology. if we know we can do it, will we use it as an excuse not to reduce our fossil emissions? for the pbs newshour, les o'brien.

>> woodruff: in london, lawmakers and theresa may's government are trying to overcome deep divisions to set a final path forward on brexit. todamrs. may promised to resign if parliament supported her versioof the united kingdom's divorce from the european union. but members of pliament have their own ideas, and just minutes ago, voted on different rsions of brexit. nick schifrin sorts through today's developments, duringne of the most important weeks in british politics, in decades. >> schifrin: judy, the debateer rexit has divided the british people, and political parties.o for ars, parliament has been unable to come to any kind of consensus. today, lawmakers are tryin change that by voting on eight different versions of brexit.i' get to the results in a minute, but first, listen to

today's peals of unity made by members of parliament: five minutes to midnight for this parliament, for this government, and for our country. we desperately need to find a way out of this mess. h our counts spent two years tied up in knots by the prime minister's incompatible red lines. >> after years ofg paralyz conflict, we have a moral duty to open our minds this afternoon and reach for a compromise that will allow us to put the interminable brexit row >> we are beginning to talk about actually being able to take decisions founded on some sort of cross-party consensus and some search fo a majority cat can be sustained. >> schifrin: thll for consensus did not mute any mouths in parliament, but it apparently fell on deaf ears because take a look at the results of tonight's votes. option one: leave the europeani

uniohout a deal. result: rejected. options two tough five were versions of a softer brexit, meaning a closer relationsp with europe. those included a frictionlesson relaip with the e.u. an option to remain in the e.u. arket. an opposition to negotiate a permanent customs union. and option four, the labour party's alternative described as a close alignment with the e.u.o all of t were rejected. option 6 rejected. and option seven, a second treferendum, like the onat launched this process in 2016, but only after the parliament inn dorsed a deal result, rejected. and option eight ali wish t for people who want a complete divorce from the e.u., reult: rejected. what does it all mean? for that we turn to allie renison, the institute for directors, the oldest business

organization in the u.k. why no consensus in parliament today? >> i think it's a reflection of the fact that the govnment went head long into this negotiation without actually trying to figure ou ifhere was a consensus in parliament. you had the option party, the labour party, saying for quite some time, it was not going to back her de unless it met kind of test it wanted. but there wasn't a lot of reaching across the aisle. and lo ad bold, the deal has been rejected twice. ally makesy poten getting the deal through-- this is a separate process-- potey.ially more lik i think the very close votes, even though there wasn't a clear majority for something other than no deal, reflects the fact that tre are a lot of conservative m.p.s who were opposed to the deal who may think because of the close results if they dock deal, they may get eye longer extension, facil taight another referendum, and we may have a

vote on the deal on friday and that laib really close call. >> schifrin: as you say said, there is a parallel process for theresa may's version of brexit. the government said, loo parliament, you can can't come to a consensus, so, therefore, you should entors theresa may'se ion of brexit. that has to happen, coordination to the e.u., this week. as you said, it could happen friday. do these votes mean she actually has votes to pass that-- her version of brexit, give than it would the third time that she's actually brought it to a vote? >> not necessarily. now, the numbers have be shrinking every time. that's not because the opposion parties have been any less opposed to the deal, but more because the closer we get to anxit date an potentially, particularly because parliament keeps voting against no dealthi k there are a lot of parliamentarians in the rconservative party are wried they will lose brexit all together. the one big question is the party that props up the conservative party in

government, and that is the of e main unionist parties in ireland. they feel it treats northern eland differently. it keeps northern ireland tied under an insurance policy if they can't sort the irish border. they don't particularly like that. thve numbers, because we e what's called a hung parliament in the u.k., a minority gornment supported by ths other unionist party, means it's very, very difficult to acally call. the prime minister has said she distribute want to bring the deal back until she absolutely has the numbers. but there may be a case of better late than never.it you have to tret it through on friday. the only other, i think, concerb t is that is the speaker of the house has said you can't actually vote on something more than twice, certainly if it looks the exact same.e th a question mark about the speakary impartiality and whetr he will block the deal coming back a third time. >> schrin: if the deal can't be brought back a third time or gee can't get it through, does that mean awe loextension? >> it looks more likely. there are some conservativeo m.p.s e sanguine and

okay with so deal who think the primul minister shoignore parliament's votes against no deal because technically it's tnbinding and they thie government should act. that would be a big deal for e eresa may. id she will listen to the will of the parliament and the only thing so far express ithe opposition of no deal. and we know from the conditionso want e.u. set last week in agreeing to this extension, the ly other outcome if they don't vote for deelt this week is a longer extension where you have to payment in european elections. that's obviously a politically fraught issue on this side of the pond because a lot of people who voted don't twant to be in a sition where three years having voted to leave the european yub we are still electing representatives to the institutionri >> sch quickly in the 30 seconds we have left, is this going to lead to some kind of more dramatic moment, for example, another geneleral tion in the u.k.? >> i think potentially because-- and you have had some of the prime minister's own members of her party saying effectively, if

you can't t the eal through, if you cannot get your legislation relating to the deal through, you can't govern, and, therefore, you need anther election. the question mark being, does a general election actually solve anything in the longun? >> schifrin: and that is the big question. allie renison, head of e.u. an trade policy for the institute of directors, thank you very much. >> woouff: there have only been 17 chief justices of the united states. the current is serving an increasingly critically role, athe vote that could tip the balance, one way or the other, in many high- profile cases to come. what drives his decision-making? and how has he carried o the duties of a chief justice over his 13-plus years on the job? that's at the heart of a new biography: "the chief: the life and turbulent times of chief justice john roberts."

it's author is veteran supreme court analyst, joan biskupic. hello, joan. welcome to the program, and congratulations on the book. >> thank you, judy. dr>> woof: so, why now? he's been on the court, as we said, for ovee,r a decut presumably many years ago.ol he's 64 year. >> that's exactly right. >> woodruff: why now? >> i started this book in 2015 when justice scalia was still alive, anthony kennedy was in control, and i wanted to look at how chief o chief justice manags tensions between the right and the left wing and how john roberts, who so many people don't understand and recall only from his 2005 confirmation hearings, what he was all about, what makes him tick? should he be defined by his 2012 health carcision? or should he be defined by so many of his rulings on theright wing? and as i was working on this bookso much changed. justice scalia died, and then just this summer, antho kennedy leaves, and suddenly, my

subject becomes nots jut the chief justice but the controlling vote on the bench. a>> woodruff: and as youd, so many people feel they don't know him. do you think you know him after spending time with him on theok nd otherwise? >> well, i definitely know him better. i thrsk i unnd more his sense of drive, his determination, his focus, his effort at control. but he is very guarded, and in our sessions, he was very guarded throuout. he has barrier around him. >> woodruff: you write extensively about growime up. i n, his early years, coming to washington as a young man. he was here for years before he nt to the court. and bringing this-- this very solid core of conservative beliefs with him. where did that come from? of>> his sense iming was amazing, judy, because he-- heo came conservative roots. and he emerges at a time when the country is becomg more conservative. ronald reagan wins in 1980, and

when he gives his inaugural speech, john robertss is listening to him, and he says, f "ielt the call." s d his first job after his judicial clerkshs working in the reagan administration for ken starr. he became a real lieutenant of the reagan agenda, and always had that emphasis reinforced through theears. >> woodruff: in recent years-- and you mentioned the health care, the affordable care act decision, whre justice it's chief justice came down on the side of president obama and what he had done with the affordable care act, people questioned is he-- is he the conservative that they thought he was? >> well, in that vote, as my book lays outhe originally wanted to strike it down. that's how he cast his vote in the conference, the private conference with his fellow justices after the three days of oral arguments. and then he changes. he decides he doesn't want to

imperil the ente obacare law, and he switches his vote not once, but twice on different elements. and then starts to work with two of the liberal justices. and the outcome is exactly the opposite as it might have been. and i think that-- that reputation he got from that ruling as much more of a moderate sticks inhe public mind. but, judy, if you look at things like his vores on race ors,e he is much more hard-core conservati s. >> woodrufuld we look for him to be the voice of the court in the middle, of in the ture or not? >> i think that's exactly what's going to happen now. because think of where we were in 2012. it was an electn year. all eyes were on the court. things seemed very polarized. but how quaint it seems looking back now, 2012-2019. things are all the me polarized. president donald trump hassi

incrly politicized the judiciary. and i think john robertsoeels much mor an institutional sense of mission here, and he's so aware of his key vote in the center. so i think he will constantly engage in a balancing act between his conservative roots-- wi heue in that direction-- or will he think more of the reputation of the court and, frankly, his own reputation? >> woodff: so it's that he's been affected by the times. >> i think so. >> woodruff: that he's living through. >> yes. think about what he said last november when he rebuked president trump when he sad, "there are no obama judges. there are no trump judges.e there bush or clinton judges," to try to correct what the president was saying when he was criticizing judges based on the president who apointed them. but the truth sjudy, that all of these individuals come tthe supreme court chosen by a president with certain politicae

res. >> woodruff: but in so doing, he's also angered many conservatives whthought they could count on him to always abe reliable conservative vote.re is he preto stand up to that? >> in 202, when heoted the tice john paj stevens said to me, "that took a lot of courage because henew he was going to beangering his base." and he knows that. he knows he'sangering the base as hoes along, the base-- frankly, it's not his base enymore. as you remember allying cry of ransuded to be "no more david souters," the appointof george h.w. bush who ended upib moreal. there was an interest among advisers not to have someone who would turn out like john robe as. >> woodruf you also had a sentence that sticks out near the end of the book, you ite, "some associates do not trust roberts annkd thiis diffidence is treejic, that he is not

always acting in good faith, that he is not an honest broker." u>> that's true, that's t and some of it is the fallout from the health care decision when he switched his vote twimes. part of that reserve that he has and that sense of-- there's a perception that he's cagey, frankly, that he is more strategic and tactian straight forward. and i think the public might think that would be just how liberals perceive him.he buctually has plenty of skepticism from those to his right. and, look, they're appoint forward life. there's incentive for them all to get along. but there still is lingering distrust up there. >> woodruff: fascinating. it's a fascinating bok. "the chief: the life and turbulentimes of chief justice john robertsj." biskupic, thank you. >> thank you, judy.

as special correspondent malcolm brabant reports, a therapeutic drama program in glasgow is using an ancient play by euripides to help a group of syrian refugees reckon with their pasts. it's part of our ongoirts and culture series: "canvas." >> deraa, without its inhabitants. cold, destructive, frightening, dark, armoured. >> reporter: last minute rehearsals in glasgow for heba alwadi, one of the stars of an ancient greek play called the trojan women. the drama has been adapted to include the personal stories of the cast, none of d om have acfore. iheba is recounting a sce her home town of deraa, where the syrian uprising began. heba was 13 years old er school came under attack from foes of president bashar a assad.

>> our classroom was surrounded by glass and the mortars arted, so it was not a safe place at all. and we needed to leave the school very quickl was so hard to see my teacher so scared. and i thought, i'm going tdie. >> beautiful. very good. well done. you know, when you do it properly, the hair on my arms, really. >> although the trojan women is a play that is over two and a half thousand years old, it's an eternal play, it speaks about eternal truths of war. >> reporter:roducer charlotte eagar began running therapeutic drama projects in a jordanian refugee camp six years ago. she sees parallels beten the syrians' plight and that of the trojan women, who were enslaved after their city was overrun by the greeks and all the men were killed. >> it's all about death, exile,o

rape, murder, everything that happens to any innocent people in war. >> the army's response, waso supposedotect us. they were killing us instead.am i wanted to sci am a child, you should protect me. >> the way therapeutic drama works from a psychological point of view is if the participants can identify with the characters they are playing, theystork their owies into the text of the play. so for them it helps them to get over the trauma they have undergone, and it alsotieans creavely they put on a very powerful performance. >> reporter: psychotherapist f sanaa roukh helped translate the play, an extraordinary featt as she only arted learning english a year ago when she moved to this village north of glasgow. she was a teacher in deraa when her school was attacked by assad's troops and she witnessed pupils being killed. as she says on stage, it

generated the type of fear that made her sick to the stomach. >> we are people with dignity. and we have to support our children. this generation should have good future. no one can take this right from us. although we lose our country. but we need peace. and that's our right. i saw disasters. you cannot imagine how you can speak about your children who's died. no one will give you your son or daughter again. yes, we can stop? >> reporter: mohammed was a tailor in syria. he spent two years hiding in a cellar. when he eventually emehe was arrested and was tortured. buhe escaped to egypt. >> ( 'sanslated ): for me wh important, for me today, is i'm sending a message that there are llinnocent folks that get

in wars who have no affiliation with the regime or the opposition. people get wasted in war whose main concern is to feed thei kids, and take care of their household. >> reporter: most of those involved in this project were among 2,000 syrians flown to scotland under the u.n.'s refugee resettlement program. some support the assad regime. otrs oppose the dictator. for a while the gulf in political opinions caused tensions amongyr the cast. in, those differences could end in death. t here they've managed to resolve their conflicts and to respect each oths' opinions. so in a small way, this play being staged in eastern glasgow has generateharmonious co- existence.no >> we arsaying that the opposition is good or bad. we are only speaking about what we have suffersu, our personal ering. >> he is right. let him speak. reporter: this two day production and name months of a workshops beforehand cost

well into six figures. a large portion was subsidized by glasgow city council. this, at a time when local authority spding in britain is under severe pressure. but councilor jennifer layden believes it's been a good investment >> i think putting in extra money to these causes helps to raise the profile and raise awareness of the plight that cofugees and asylum seekers go through when the across from other countries and seek sanctuary in our cy. >> you know we use the word refugee as a kind of label, we see these people on the nefo, they looign, there are quite a lot of them. but actually, they're just you and me. that's who they are. so, what i'm hoping and this is what we've had in the past is that the audience will watch themselves reflected in the mirror of humanity essentially. >> reporter: and judging by the full houses and the audience reaction, thproducers and cast achieved their objective. >> when you witness things through the media, it feels a

litt bit faceless and it fee like very, very far away, whereas when you're in a tatre and its live and so close you can almost touch it, it really sinks into your heart. >> reporter: the producers want to tour britain to spread the word. >> i teach my children every day, how they can be leaders. anywhere. with any people. it doesn't matter where. it doesn't matter with whom. ant you have to be good person. because that will the llworld forever, and that give each one peace.ep >>ter: the peace that sanaa craves for her five children is here in abundance in her scottish village.il she says syriaalways have a big place in her heart, but scotland is where the mily's future lies, so they are staying here to contribute to theth countr provided sanctuary.

for the pbs newshour, i'm malcolm brabant in scotlan >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> ordering takeout. >> finding the west route. >> talking for hours. >> planning for showers. >> you can do the things you like to do with a wireless plan designed for you with talk, text and data. consumer cellular. learn more at consumercellular.tv

>> 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 likyou. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioa d by medicess group at wgbh.w acceh.org ♪

hello, everyone and welcome to "amanpour andmp y," here's what's coming up. the russian response as president trump is cleared of conspiringith moscow. i speak with russian senator constantine constandev. then what are the real threats to homelandet s janet napolitano materiels tell people should be worried about. >> the america that you celebrated and the great books that you wrote of great people that's not the country we are right now. >> pollster frank lunds tells walter isaacson why he fears the fall oer