Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  June 25, 2014 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT

3:00 pm
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: in a sweeping decision to protect privacy in the digital age, the supreme court ruled 9-to-0 that police need a warrant to search cell phones. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. also ahead this wednesday, my conversation with former secretary of state and first lady, hillary clinton. we discuss crises abroad, politics at home, and get a surprising answer to the question on many people's minds. >> you have to be a little bit crazy to run for president, let me just put it like that, because you have to be so totally immersed and so
3:01 pm
convinced that you can bring something to that office. >> woodruff: and from guatemala, a look at efforts to save children from malnutrition and its life-long effects, in a country where many families survive on beans, and little else. >> it's a staple meal here in the predominantly mayan highlands of guatemala. one containing so few of the vitamins and minerals children need to grow properly that roughly eight in ten of them are stunted in some communities, >> woodruff: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪
3:02 pm
moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> 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 u.s. economy
3:03 pm
suffered more in the first quarter than first believed. the government said today it shrank at an annual rate of almost 3%, due mainly to winter storms and falling health care spending. more recent data suggest a rebound since then. wall street mostly shrugged off the report. the dow jones industrial average gained 49 points to close at 16,867. the nasdaq rose 29 points, to 4,379. and the s-and-p 500 added 9, to finish at 1,959. >> ifill: the national football league agreed today to remove a cap on pay-outs to former players with concussion-related problems. a federal judge had suggested the overall cap of $675 million was not enough to cover as many as 20,000 retirees. the settlement is meant to last at least 65 years, for former players with lou gehrig's disease, dementia and other conditions. >> woodruff: republicans in the
3:04 pm
house of representatives are going to federal court with a lawsuit charging president obama has abused his powers. speaker john boehner announced the move today. he gave no details of the specific legal claims, but said the goal is to protect the rights of congress. >> what we've seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. and i believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the congress. >> woodruff: republicans have accused the president of unilaterally changing health care and immigration laws. the white house said today that congressional obstruction has forced mr. obama to make greater use of executive orders. >> ifill: supporters of gay marriage won two new legal victories today. a federal appeals court in
3:05 pm
denver upheld a lower court ruling against utah's ban on same-sex unions. the state attorney general immediately promised to appeal. and, a separate federal court struck down indiana's ban on gay marriage. >> woodruff: the roman catholic archdiocese of seattle is the latest to settlclaims that priests sexually abused children. the church has agreed to pay $12 million to 30 men who say they were assaulted, as children, at two catholic schools. it happened between the 1950's and the 1980's. >> ifill: in iraq, prime minister nouri al-maliki called for all factions to unite against a sunni insurgency. but, he rejected appeals, from president obama and others, to form a unity government. maliki insisted today any such move would amount to a coup, since his shiite bloc won the most seats in april's elections. >> ( translated ): it is not a secret to iraqis, the grave intentions harbored behind the call for the formation of a so-
3:06 pm
called government of national salvation. it is an attempt to eliminate our young democracy and to ignore voters' opinions. the call to form a government of national salvation would torpedo the constitution and the political process. >> ifill: meanwhile, secretary of state john kerry warned iraq's neighbors against intervening. on tuesday, syrian warplanes bombed an iraqi border town seized by the sunni extremist group isil. that same faction is also fighting in syria. >> woodruff: secretary kerry also called today for russian president vladimir putin to show he's serious about fostering peace in ukraine. earlier, the russian parliament canceled a resolution authorizing military force to support ukrainian rebels. but in brussels, kerry said putin needs to do more, if he wants to avoid tougher economic sanctions. >> we are delighted that president putin put to the duma the retraction of that law which empowered russia to take action in ukraine.
3:07 pm
that's important. it's a great step. but it could be reversed in ten minutes, and everyone knows that. >> woodruff: russia denies it is letting fighters and heavy weapons cross into ukraine, or that it is again massing troops near the border. >> ifill: libya held parliamentary elections today despite growing chaos, three years after the ouster of moammar gadhafi. turnout was sparse, but troops deployed to protect polling stations from possible attacks. at least two cities closed their polls entirely. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: the supreme court makes two key rulings for the digital age; a good showing for incumbents in last night's primaries; gwen's extended interview with former secretary of state hillary clinton; saving children in guatemala from malnutrition; and my discussion with former treasury secretary hank paulson on the costs of climate change.
3:08 pm
>> ifill: in two closely-watched technology cases, the supreme court placed limits on law enforcement, and on streaming video services. in a unanimous decision, the court decided police officers need a warrant to search cell phones. and separately, six of the nine justices sided with broadcast networks against an internet startup that sought to share their signals without paying a fee. for more on today's decisions, we turn as always to marcia coyle of the national law journal. st case, marcia sounds like when is a cell phone not a cell phone. >> it is a fascinating case, a straightforward decision by the chief justice. actually, it was two quick cases, one from broxton and one from california. the cell phone owners had been lawfully arrested one for concealed weapons and gang-related activity, the other for drug-related activity.
3:09 pm
one cell phone owner had a smartphone, the other had the older clip phone. as you know and we talked about, a search is reasonable under the fourth amendment generally if police have a warrant, but there are exceptions to the warrant requirement that the court has recognized over the years and one of the exceptions played out in the case today. police can search you after you've been arrested, generally for two reasons -- one, to look for any weapons that might endanger the officer or the public and also to preserve possible destruction of evidence, preserve evidence that might be destroyed. sorry about that. and the chief justice today for the entire court said that suspension does not apply to cell phones. >> ifill: the colorful writing of chief roberts being blunt and the yiew unanimity struck me.
3:10 pm
>> the court split on the fourth amendment in warrant requirements in the gps case not too long ago and they sometimes have very unusual coalitions when they divide on fourth amendment questions. but on this case, seems like it wasn't hard for them, generally because of, as the chief justice explained, the amount of information that cell phones contain today. he went into great lengths describing what we keep on our cell phones today. in fact, he said, a search of a cell phone is a more significant invasion than a search of your home in terms of what you can find. he made a funny comment at the beginning of his opinion saying that cell phones have become is such a pervasive and insistent part of our daily lives that a martian who came to the united states might think it's part of the anatomy.
3:11 pm
>> ifill: so, tell me, getting a warrant is all that the required for law enforcement to get accesso the phones, and the court said that the the cost of doing business. >> yes, he said privacy has a cost and he noted this will have an impact on law enforcement's ability to fight crime, but did think the government's counterarguments here just didn't outweigh the privacy interests. he says law enforcement has technological tools that it can use, for example, if somebody locks the cell phone, they can put cell phones in these special bags now in order to keep the evidence in the cell phone and cell phone itself from remotely being wiped. so, you know, he just came down basically saying that the privacy interests here were so much stronger, and he even we want back to the founding of the united states -- the american revolution. he said the seeds of that revolution were in the colonist's hatred an tipty for
3:12 pm
the general warrants the soldiers used to rummage through their homes. >> ifill: even if they had cell phones who knows what the patriots would have thought about this. >> that's true. let's talk about the video streaming case, also technology, but about copyright law, not privaciy. >> that's right. the major broadcast networks claimed the area which is a fairly recent streaming venture. >> ifill: pbs was one of them. right, that they ar that aero ve act by publicly performing their works and did this by retransmitting the public programming to subscribers for a fee. they had miniature antennas they would assign to each subscriber requesting a certain program and then that antenna would go up on a major board, i think in massachusetts, where they're based, and the subscriber then
3:13 pm
would decide, you know, what program and when it wanted to view that program. for the court, justic justice br bro fowrote for a 6-3 majority,e says what aero does, it's operation was very similar to what cable companies do, and cable companies were regulated under the copyright act and were required to pay license fees if they wanted that programming. >> ifill: so the majority basically thought aero, that the creators of this innovative service were trying to exploit a loophole in the law. >> well they did not say that specifically but that was the argument of the networks that aero was trying to gain the system by this new method of streaming to their subscribers. but justice breyer went step by
3:14 pm
step to look at whether aero actually performed the work, had a lot to do with the definition of publicly perform and he rejected all of aero's arguments that won. it was subscribers who perform and not publicly because the transmission only goes to one subscriber. he still saw it as very much similar to cable companies' operation. >> ifill: so unlike the first case, the first two cases, thvs not a unanimous decision. >> no. >> ifill: what did the dissenters say and who were they. >> justice scalia, thomas and alio. they looked at whether aero performed copyrighted work and decided they did not and accused the majority of coming up with a looks like a cable standard under the copyright act that he said would only create confusion. he did admit in the end of his
3:15 pm
opinion that he shared the majority sense that there was something wrong about aero's operation under the copyright act but said if this is a loophole it's for congress to deal with it not the courts. >> ifill: the court is not yet at least between the telecommunication and cable providers, right? >> right. >> woodruff: two weeks after house majority leader eric cantor, the most prominent republican in virginia, went down to a stunning primary defeat, the establishment struck back tuesday night. from mississippi to new york to colorado, there were plenty of close races for incumbents, but they all survived. the newshour's political editor domenico montanaro is back with us to decipher what happened. so what happened? this was supposed to be comeback night for the tea party, mississippi.
3:16 pm
>> maybe. i mean, we were wondering whether or not the eric cantor would be an abberation or start overan anti-incumbent trend and what it looked like last night was an abberation for cantor because there were other issues at play where he ignores his district. there were plenty of close cases, mississippi being one, but thad cochran, the incumbent senator there, long-time senator, eeked out a win by just less than 2 percentage points over highs tea party opponent and in a unique way. >> ifill: talk about that because there's a lot of discussion and you have been looking into this today about what happened in some of the heavily democratic parts of the state. >> sreenivasan: if you told me three weeks ago that a republican would win a republican primary by appealing to democrats and black voters i would say he's done and i think that's why a lot of the political community was
3:17 pm
skeptical and thad cochran with the haley barbour machine in mississippi would pull that off and that's what they ended up doing. if you look at the 24 african-american majority in the states. cochran gaining 10,000 votes out of that, his margin of victory was only 6700 votes. and in one county where jackson is, 70% african-american, he wound up 6700 votes he netted out there so that's 85% of the margin he wound up winning. so a really interesting effort by their campaign one that really i don't think's been seen before. >> ifill: and mcdaniel picked up, turned out at well, picked up his vote count as well, but as your opinion saying for cochran, much more -- and mcdaniel can't challenge, this right, there's no way he can run as an independent? >> no, he missed the march 1 deadline and can't run answer
3:18 pm
independent. i don't think it will help him. his appeal is not with independents and democrats who would be able to vote in the diswren election. this was an open primary which is why democrats and independents were able to vote. but if he ran in that climate it would be much more difficult. >> ifill: you were saying incumbents did well elsewhere, oklahoma and other states as well. >> yes, oklahoma, james lan langford, the incumbent there running for the open senate seat, an incumbent congressman, wound up surprisingly blowing away the field here with t.w. shannon who is a former statehouse speaker and he had a lot of tea party support and really was a bad night for establishment tea party folks. the irony is dave brat who wound up beating eric cantor had almost no d.c. establishment tea party support, that was pure grassroots and the only real win they've had. >> ifill: you mentioned colorado and other states. >> yeah, colorado, upstate
3:19 pm
new york. other incumbents who had a bit of a stair but won the races anyhow. >> woodruff: and charlie rangel, new york city, one of the longest-serving members of the house eeked out a win. >> and a lot of us were wondering, here was another 40-year member of congress and would he be able to survive in a district much more heavily latino, he wound up winning late this afternoon, called it 67-44 over state senator espiate. we'll see what happens in the next term. >> woodruff: primary season marches on. domenico >> ifill: she is a former secretary of state and a former
3:20 pm
first lady and the subject of endless speculation about what comes next. now with the publication of her second memoir, "hard choices," hillary clinton writes about her recent past as the nation's top diplomat, as everyone else wonders about her immediate political future. we had questions too, so i sat down with her yesterday in denver at the studios of rocky mountain pbs. secretary clinton, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, gwen, wonderful to see you. >> ifill: i want to start by talking about iraq. there's much debate about the would have and could have and should haves if they had left a residual force on the ground as critics are saying do you think we would be seeing the collapse we're seeing today? >> i think it's impossible to answer the question. certainly when president obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the bush administration had already determined because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011. i was part of the discussions where we were putting together
3:21 pm
proposals for the iraqi government to consider about a residual force that would be there to help train and provide intelligence and generally support services. unfortunately as we all know the maliki government was not willing to do that. iraqi primarily political but of course manifest in this very dangerous extremist group being able to gain ground and hold it. that is only possible, in my i opinion because the sunnis who partnered with the united states and even maliki to drive out al quaida in iraq feel as though they have been isolated and excluded. so i think it's difficult to say if we'd kept a residual force even for a year or two or three that we would have had the
3:22 pm
ability to control what maliki did, and i think his behavior, his sectarianism, his purging of sunni leaders, the way he stopped paying the sunni awakening soldiers and so much else contributed to where we are today. >> ifill: so maliki has to go for this to work itself out? >> i think it's highly unlikely he'll embrace the inclusivity that's required but it's up to the iraqis to decide who they want to lead them but, of course, their decision affects whether and to what extent we should be involved in trying to help them. >> ifill: let's talk about ukraine. in your book your read about how skeptical you were consistently of vladimir putin's intentions. can you see a scenario right now in which he would step back from the border at all in a way that you can trust? >> well, i think you've asked exactly the right question as you often do, gwen, because i can see a scenario and i see him
3:23 pm
playing around the edges of it right now where he is sending public messages that -- like the other day he said to the upper house and the russian parliament that perhaps we should withdraw the authority to go into eastern and southern ukraine. he's talking about perhaps observing a cease-fire. so the rhetorical positions he's taking look as though he is at least pausing. however, on the ground, there are still developments -- the movement of russian troops continues to be a quite troubling development and the failure to close their side of the border. so even if one were to believe that the individuals coming over the border from russia are acting independently, which i think is highly improbable, but even if one were to believe that, then putin could do a lot more to close his side to have the border to prevent that.
3:24 pm
>> ifill: here for global conference, your husband was forced to defend you at his own conference. he was asked about this idea -- there's a caricature forming of you because of a few things you said that you are out of touch. is it your fault that the conversations turned to that? >> i shouldn't have said the five or so words that i said, but, you know, my inartful use of those few words doesn't change who i am, what i've stood for my entire life, what i stand for today. bill and i have had terrific opportunities, both of us, you know, have worked hard but we have been grateful for everything that we have been able to achieve, and that's just not true for most americans today. so many americans are feeling shut out, shut down. the great recession hasn't ended for too many americans. wages are flat, families are struggling. not enough new jobs or new businesses are being created. and it's important that we all
3:25 pm
try to figure out what we're going to do and that's what i've done my entire life, fighting for a higher minimum wage or family leave, now paid family leave which i believe in, equal pay for equal work. i have a very long record. so my attitude about this, gwen, is that if others want to, you know, take things out of context or try to, you know, create some caricature -- >> ifill: but it sticks sometimes. ask mitt romney. >> well, that's a false equivalency. but people can judge me for what i've done and i think when somebody's out in the public eye that's what they do. so i'm fully comfortable with who i am, what i stand or and have always stood for. >> ifill: what i meant by mitt romney is there's a bubble problem where you can be cut off from regular people in a way. george w. bush had that. how do you avoid that? >> i think when you come from where i came from and where i've
3:26 pm
always been, i've always been reaching out, and whether it's talking with our neighbors or going shopping or standing, you know, talking to people in these book stores and hearing what's on their minds or even if work i did for eight years as a senator to bring new jobs to new york and stand up for the people i represented and, frankly, as i traveled or not as secretary of state, as i write in the book, part of what i was trying to do was to figure out ways to create more jobs at home by standing up against the unfair comp figures and the barriers to -- competition and barriers to american businesses that hurt american workers. so my husband was very sweet today, but i don't need anybody to defend my record. i think my record speaks for itself. >> ifill: let's talk about domestic politics a bit. one of the things president obama faced is the dilemma of trying to bring the economy back and by some measure it's coming back, but individuals don't seem to feel it. how do you feel that disconnect? >> i believe that if the president had not intervened in
3:27 pm
the way that he did, we would be even further back than we should be. it takes time to recover fully from such a dramatic break in our economic fortunes, and, so, we're back to kind of -- dug ourselves out of the hole. we've got our childre chin up te looking around. there's still a lot to be done, the president is the first to say that. >> ifill: facing mid-term election dilemma. >> the mid-terms are always hard. the mid-term in a two-term president, second term is especially hard. but i think we have to say what does each party and each candidate have for you? if you want a better future that relies on smart economic policies, compare my husband's eight years with ronald reagan's
3:28 pm
eight years, 23 million new jobs, more than 7 million people lifted out of poverty. we know we have to have the right combination of government policies and private sector energy. getting that balance right is what i know president obama has tried to do and at every turn he's been stopped. i want people making the consequential decisions about voting in november to think hard about what's at stake for them, their families, their futures. >> reporter: your husband actually said to me, when we talked in an interview at the peterson foundation earlier this year that he thought the democrats should not be running away from healthcare, obamacare, but running toward it. >> right. >> ifill: can you elaborate on that? >> absolutely. first of all, there's a lot of good news in what's being done. there are so many examples people can point to and we're now getting enough evidence so it's not your anecdote against mine. it's the number of people who are now insured, the number of
3:29 pm
people on medicaid who are getting care for the first time, the number of people with pre-existing conditions who now have healthcare for what they actually need it for, the number of young people and their parents' policies who are now being taken care of. we could go down a very long list. i give you bill's advice and it would be mine as well, if i were a democrat running for reelection in 2014, i would be pose ago very stark choice to the voters of my district or my state. if you want us to go back to the time when your sister with diabetes or your husband with his heart condition couldn't get insurance at an affordable rate, then don't vote for me, because i think it's great that your sister and your husband now have insurance. >> ifill: why aren't democrats making that precise argument then? they're not. >> well, they need to. it's only toward the end of june. people will get organized and get out there, but i'm just saying that i would say, because i believe -- and this is the point bill is making and maybe it's because we're so battle
3:30 pm
scared because we have fought so many battles over so many years on things like economic opportunity and fighting against economic inequality and healthcare which, you know, i certainly have scars from, that when you pass something as consequential as this, you have to defend it. you can say and i think people should say, look, we'll learn more about how it's working and if there are adjustments that need to be made when we're going forward. wouldn't you rather have somebody who wants to keep the good and fix what's not working than somebody who wants to undermine it and maybe throw it out? these are very stark choices. >> ifill: you talk about your battle scars. some people would call it more charitiably experience. given all that, why wouldn't you run for president? >> obviously, i'm flattered and
3:31 pm
honored so many people are asking. i take seriously the passion that a lot of people approach me in book lines and events talking to me about this. i am not going to make a decision until i have a chance to really sit down and take stock of what i want to do for the rest of my life and what i think i could uniquely bring to a presidential race. and i have this new exciting event. i want to wait to be a grandmother. i have wanted to do this for a long time. >> ifill: it took your daughter to help you out. >> my daughter along with her wonderful husband. i know what high-stakes politics demands. it is a 24-7, totally consuming experience. i write in the back about what it was like to end my campaign, to talk to senator obama, endorse him and so forth. i have no illusions.
3:32 pm
i probably have a better idea of what it takes both to win and to govern than, you know, many people who might choose to seek the job. i also know that when you make that decision, if it's a go decision, there's nothing else. that is what you have to do full speed. i don't want to be looking over my new grandchild's shoulder wondering what's happening in state x or y. i want to be fully engaged and then, as i said many times, you know, toward the end of the year, i will sit down and try to make sense of my conflicted feelings. >> ifill: your husband used to say all the time during the campaign in 1992 that i covered, he said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. putting it another way, wouldn't it be insane for you to rine pho office again? >> i will remember that saying because it's one of our
3:33 pm
favorites. you have to be a little crazy to run for president, let me just put it like that, because you have to be so totally immersed and so convinced that you can bring something to that office, that your vision about what you can do to help americans -- and i see them. i mean, i've had people come through the line who tell me their stories about losing their job, about what's happened since they got healthcare that has helped them, and i hear this. so i know that my life of service is the biggest reason why i would consider doing this because i would want to continue serving. it is a job you have to be consumed by and that's crazy. >> ifill: thank you very much. great to be with you. >> ifill: you can see the rest of our interview online, where secretary clinton and i talk about what's surprised her most
3:34 pm
as she's been traveling the country on her book tour. watch that on the rundown. >> woodruff: infant mortality rates have fallen dramatically worldwide over the past 25 years. but even as health officials celebrate that achievement, they also warn that those who survive malnutrition, frequently face lifelong problems. in the americas, the situation is most dire in guatemala, where roughly 50% of the children are so malnourished they're stunted, physically and developmentally, for life. now, for the first time in decades, that country's leaders have a coordinated program to bring those numbers down. hari sreenivasan has our report, which was produced in collaboration with the pulitzer center on crisis reporting. (cow mooing) >> sreenivasan: each day around mid afternoon, maria begins a chore she knows may
3:35 pm
harm her children. with no meat and few vegetables she cooks with the few ingredients available to her, usually just beans, a staple meal here in the islands of guatemala, one containing so few of the vitamins and minerals children need to grow properly that roughly eight to ten of them are stunted in some communities. chamile saw it with her first four but is hoping things will be different with her 1-year-old lydia. researchers agree that the outlook for many families seems better today than in a long time, that there's reason for optimism. so find out why, i traveled to guatemala with journalist roger thurow, covering the malnutrition with the "wall street journal." we meet up with camile in her home.
3:36 pm
how many kids? six kids? >> five kids. is he one of the boys? yes. okay. >> sreenivasan: among the first topics of conversation -- >> how old is this guy? 11. this one? 13. >> sreenivasan: the startling height difference. until recently, it was assumed mayans are shorter than other ethnic groups. when people in the hiians look around and see everyone of them of the same height, someone might think it's genetic. >> the thinking is changes. some think genetics might have some role especially getting into adulthood but basically they're finding, wait a minute, there are certain standards and expectations of a child's growth during the first years of life. no matter where the child is in the world. what they found when they charted, it's interesting, that starting already several months
3:37 pm
into the child's life, you can start seeing the deviations begin. >> sreenivasan: chamile has been warned to have the dangers and that's why every four weeks she brings her baby lydia to be weighed at the center operated by "save the children." the main focus is on children within the first 1,000 days. this period between pregnancy and the child's second birthday is a make or break one for brain development and physical growth. when the proper nutrients are missing, development slows, making it very difficult if not impossible for the kids to make up the losses, even if they're well fed later in life. studies show that not only does malnutrition cause growth disruption but can lead to vastly lower i.q. scores and increase likelihood for heart disease, diabetes, kidney damage and anemia into aholthood. on this day the health workers
3:38 pm
discovered baby lydia is not on track for height or weight. she's much too small. so the chamiles are escorted to another counseling session on nutrition where they learn the importance of adding meats, fish and vegetables to their daily diets. for a lucky few there is a small amount of "save the children" funding to help families obtain chicken for eggs and goats for milk. others receive food straight from the government. so far, this family haven't received any of that. so at the end of the day, they pick up an extra rags of rice, beans and oil from the united safe agency for international development, before beginning the uphill climb home. carlos cardenas director of save the children in guatemala says it will take larger structural change to reach all the families
3:39 pm
who need help. >> guatemala has the largest gdp in central america but the worst indicators in chronic malnutrition. so how do you explain that? so it's not necessarily just economics. it's not necessarily just poverty. it's a combination of a number of things that add up to make this a very, very complex scenario. >> sreenivasan: among the biggest complexities, the agriculture paradox. the guatemalaian countryside is overflowing with fresh vegetables but very little of the fresh vegetables make it into local homes. we're standing in the lush valley, lettuce, string beans, cabbage, all of this food here, how can guatemalan kids be malnourished? >> eth one of the sad paradoxes of this country that there is so much nutritious food growing here that you can see that you walk through. >> sreenivasan: where does all the stuff that's growing go? >> people will come by in trucks. the farmers will harvest it,
3:40 pm
load it on to the trucks and then it's off to export markets in the united states, in europe, elsewhere in central america and very little stays here. >> sreenivasan: maria pilar is the mother of 5-month-old blanca, she carries her on her back as she picks peace by hand. when asked if she would keep some of the food, he said, no, she prefers corn and beans. the deep roots of the problem led many to believe the answer is not in the countryside at all but rather with the government in the capital. in 2012, president perez launched an effort to reduce child malnutrition by 10% in the next few years. among the chief aims were more spending on health services, particularly surrounding the first 1,000 days and a greater emphasis on education. so we're here in the middle of
3:41 pm
guatemala city. compared to the highlands, how are they tackling malnutrition here in. >> i think a big part is growing awareness. two years ago if we were standing in the square in the center of guatemala city and we ask people that were walking by about it, they had no concept of malnutrition and the impact in the country. now it's a fairly accepted notion it's a crucial issue that the country has to deal with. when you're here and look around the hubbub of the city and the billboards and skyscrapers and the activity of life, it's, like, my goodness, is that a different world or the same country? >> sreenivasan: it's like two guatemalas. >> exactly. but the hunger program and the awareness of the malnutrition, this frontal attack on malnutrition and hunger is bringing the two worlds together. >> sreenivasan: there are some here who say poverty is the over-arching problem, that widespread malnutrition won't be solved till a list of cultural and economic concerns are
3:42 pm
addressed first. but luis disagrees. >> guatemala focused many years on poverty thinking if there was work on that area it would reduce malnutrition and it did not work. what we are doing here is logical interventions that are proven to reduce malnutrition. in that way, we can reduce poverty in the long one. >> sreenivasan: one of the most successful portions of the campaign is when hundreds of government officials and business leaders each spent a night in the homes of the rural poor. it's an experience these captains of industry still discuss when they meet on the 1st floor of castillo's company headquarters in downtown guatemala city. they say they have a vested interest in the topic. each day the problem cost guatemala $8.4 million in lost productivity, increased hospitalization and academic setbacks. >> we reached the agreement a country could not be competitive if the human capital was
3:43 pm
malnourished since childhood. how could we let this happen in our country? we have to do something. >> sreenivasan: you will keep the pressure on whoever becomes president? >> it doesn't matter if it's zero hunger as a name, but everybody has to be committed to giving the problem of malnutrition the attention it deserves. >> sreenivasan: but even if they succeed the change won't come fast enough for maria and baby lydia. back from save the children's center, her head is full of information about what she should to be feeding and wants to be feeding her. fresh vegetables, goat's milk and maybe chicken. but the fact is she can't. so lydia will eat beans and local herbs tonight just like everyone else in the family and her mother will keep hoping for more. >> ifill: online, you can track child mortality rates around the world, learn more about
3:44 pm
guatemala's efforts to reduce malnutrition, and view hari's postcards from the field. that's all on our health page. >> woodruff: finally tonight, new estimates on the cost of climate change and the attention it's drawing about the potential economic impact in the u.s. >> woodruff: for years, reports on climate change have largely been the province of scientists. but a new group of business and political leaders is now trying to focus on the costs. called the "risky business project, the non-partisan effort is led by former new york city mayor michael bloomberg, an independent; former treasury secretary henry paulson, a republican; and billionaire financier and democratic donor, tom steyer. the group warned tuesday that if carbon dioxide levels continue rising at their current pace. between $66 and $106 billion dollars of u.s. coastal property will likely be below sea level
3:45 pm
by 2050. days with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees may triple, to as and farm production could drop 14%. in a video statement, bloomberg says it's time to change course. >> if you invest in real estate, commodities, municipal or corporate bonds, these risks matter to you. unless we get serious about managing the risks of climate change, we're likely to see more severe losses in the future. >> woodruff: the group calls for a comprehensive response, but makes no specific recommendations. former treasury secretary henry paulson joins me now. thank you for being with us. >> judy, it's good to be here. >> woodruff: so this is an effort to focus on the economic impact of climate change rather than the effect on human health. why? >> well, absolutely. there's been a lot of work that's been done in the past on the environment and the huge
3:46 pm
risks the climb poses to the -- the climate poses to the way of life as we lead it on this planet and so on. but this is the first serious look on an industry sector -- by industry sector, region-by-region basis to try to quantify the economic impacts because those are every bit as real as the environmental impacts. >> woodruff: so we just heard about some of the data that you -- that's in this report. but let's try to get a clear understanding. i mean, when it comes to the coastal areas of the united states, when it comes to temperature change in the center of the country, what are you finding? >> well, judy, first of all, we look at the most likely cases, we look at best cases, we look at worst cases because this is about insurance and taking out an insurance policy, so this is about understanding the risks and managing the risks. so what we see in some ways
3:47 pm
shouldn't be surprising because areas that are hardest hit are the coastal areas. let's start with the coastal areas. you know, you look out even, you know, to just mid century, you know, have somewhere between 75 billion and 120 billion of infrastructure under water. you know, so there's serious damage there. i grew up on a farm in illinois, and if you look at what we call the "i" states, illinois, indiana, iowa, you know, they get hit pretty hard in terms of agriculture as time moves on. if you look out, you know, 15, 25 years, agriculture production goes down 10%. if you go out farther, it goes dramatically down as these states which benefited from being a temperate zone become arid states and farming goes farther north. >> woodruff: and your concern
3:48 pm
is these economic impacts have not really been focused on before now? >> yeah, that's absolutely right because what you are going to increasingly see and what we're seeing right now is that when mother nature acts and you have these natural disasters, whether tornadoes or hurricanes like sandy or floods or forest fires, that what happens is the government comes in, that's the role of government, people expect to government to come in. we all pay. these are big economic costs that go along with these. and what you find is, if you look at it carefully, if there was spending today, relatively small amounts of spending, to harden infrastructure, be smart about where you build plants, that we could avoid a fair amount of these costs. >> woodruff: well, let's talk about that. i mean, one of the things you specifically have said you think should be done is a tax on
3:49 pm
carbon, a tax on companies that emit carbon dioxide. you've already acknowledged members of your own republican party aren't going to like this idea, so how do you persuade them that it's the right thing to do? >> judy just to step back for one minute and make a huge point about this study. this study is bipartisan, republicans, democrats, et cetera, so we don't focus on solutions in the study. i'll get to the carbon tax in a minute. but we're starting in the middle here. we want to understand the risks, use business-type methodologies, start a fact-based discussion on the science and on the economics, and i think that i know many, many republicans, c.e.o.s of companies, political leaders who are ready for a fact-based discussion. now, in terms of the carbon tax, which is a fee on -- you know,
3:50 pm
that companies pay that emit carbon. this is, i think, the most efficient way to change behaviors and create incentives for new clean energy technologies. but the reason i am suggesting that is because, as you look at these risks, you see that some of the risks -- you know, some of the costs are already baked in. >> woodruff: but in terms of carbon tax, there's pushback from conservatives. you're not surprised to hear that. they don't believe the climate change threat is as serious as you say, and they say is a tax is the last thing americans need, another levy on business owners. >> right, and that was why the tax proposal was one i made in an op-ed i wrote. in terms of this study, the study is going to be one that's a lot harder to attack, and i think that people are going to welcome it, because we look at
3:51 pm
best cases, we look at worst cases, we use very standard business risk analysis methodology and, so, one of the things we're calling on -- we're focusing on business here, and there's three things that i think businesses need to do, and first, when they make investments, they need to, i think, be very conscious of the climate risks in terms of the kinds of facilities they build, where they build them and -- because these are long-term investments and makes a big difference. secondly, i think investors, i need to call on businesses and businesses, in my judgment, need to start making disclosures of the co2 emissions, of, you know, possibly stranded assets so that investors can look at these risks, and i'd like to see the sec do something. >> woodruff: securities and exchange commission. >> yeah, in terms of requiring
3:52 pm
that because that again would start a very serious discussion about this. then thirdly, working on policies that will help us avoid these really adverse risks. so when i say to people and they say, well, why should we do something so dramatically? and i'm saying that's radical risk taking, taking this cautious approach because if you wait till you have all the facts, it will be too late. >> woodruff: my question is a group like this that believes that climate change change is coming and is very serious can't come together on a set of solutions, how do you expect policymakers and others to come together? >> we didn't try to come together on solutions. that wasn't even a thought. the idea was, let's come together and really put facts out there. i bet you would find everybody in this group, although we may
3:53 pm
differ to a degree, everyone would like to see strong action. i'm not saying this will bring everybody to the table or solve the issue, but business executives play a significant role, and if you get leadership from them, and they're talking seriously about it and taking the kinds of steps they need to take, this will advance the discussion and i think make it easier for, you know, federal government to do some of the things they need to do and harder not to. >> woodruff: former treasury secretary henry paulson getting the debate started. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. a unanimous supreme court ruled police need a warrant to search cell phones. and the economy shrank at an annual rate of almost 3% in the first quarter, due to winter storms and falling health care spending.
3:54 pm
>> woodruff: on the newshour online right now, a team of smithsonian scientists has an ambitious mission: to scan and 3-d print the hundreds of bones of the museum's latest tyrannosaurus-rex fossil. see how they're doing that on our science page. and let us know how we're doing. take the newshour's science survey, you can find that on our homepage. all that and more is on our web site, >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on thursday, we look at the threat to the largest freshwater lake in southeast asia. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> when i was pregnant, i got more advice than i knew what to do with.
3:55 pm
what i needed was information i could trust, on how to take care of me and my baby. united healthcare has a simple program that helps moms stay on track with their doctors and get care and guidance they can use before and after the baby is born. simple is what i need right now. >> that's health in numbers, united healthcare >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.
3:56 pm
thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
>> this is "bbc world news america." >> funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation, newman's own foundation, giving all profits to charity and pursuing the mmon good for over 30 years, kovler foundation and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers work hard to know your business. offering specialized solutions and capital to help you meet