JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: touching down in
Turkey. The vice president and the secretary of state
come face to face with Turkey’s President Erdogan, agreeing to a five-day pause in the
Syrian incursion. Then: The acting White House chief of staff
admits that military aid for Ukraine was withheld in exchange for a promise to investigate Democrats. Plus: a Brexit breakthrough. The United Kingdom reaches a tentative deal
with the European Union to prevent a hard crash-out, but questions abound on whether
it can get through Britain’s Parliament unscathed. And by the numbers. As consumers generate massive amounts of data,
artists and industries take note, turning creative inspiration into a precision instrument. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: What we were living in the past, you could think of as the data bronze
age, right? So, this has now become a gusher of data that’s
much cheaper to gather and much cheaper to analyze. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Five days, 120 hours, turkey
now says that it will stop its military drive into Syria for that long in order to let Kurdish
fighters withdraw. The Kurds say they will comply. This follows a tense day of talks between
Turkey and the U.S. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
Today, the United States and Turkey have agreed to a cease-fire in Syria. JUDY WOODRUFF: The announcement came from
Vice President Pence, after he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held more than four hours
of talks with Turkey’s president in Ankara. Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to stop the assault
on Kurdish YPG fighters in Northeastern Syria. MIKE PENCE: It will be a pause in military
operations for 120 hours, while the United States facilitates the withdrawal of YPG from
the affected areas in the safe zone. And once that is completed, Turkey has agreed
to a permanent cease-fire. JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump lauded the
outcome during a visit to Fort Worth, Texas. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I just want to thank and congratulate, though, President Erdogan. He’s a friend of mine, and I’m glad we didn’t
have a problem, because, frankly, he’s a hell of a leader, and he’s a tough man. He’s a strong man. And he did the right thing. JUDY WOODRUFF: But in Ankara, the Turkish
foreign minister disputed that it was indeed a cease-fire, and hailed the deal as a win
for Turkey. MEVLUT CAVUSOGLU, Turkish Foreign Minister
(through translator): This is not a cease-fire. Cease-fires can be done only between two legitimate
sides. We are only pausing the operation to allow
the terrorist groups, which are the targets of the operation, to withdraw from the safe
zone. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yesterday, a letter surfaced
from President Trump to Erdogan. It was dated last Wednesday, October 9, three
days after Mr. Trump ordered U.S. troops out of Northeast Syria. He warned against a Turkish military offensive,
and said, in decidedly undiplomatic language: “Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool.” Erdogan reportedly threw away the letter,
and launched the assault into Syria the same day. The Turkish leader had vowed not to stop until
establishing a 20-mile buffer zone into Syrian territory to rout Kurdish fighters. He considers them terrorists allied with Kurdish
insurgents in Turkey known as the PKK. The top Syrian Kurds of the YPG, in turn,
announced a new alliance with the Syrian government and its Russian allies. The top Syrian Kurdish commander said on Wednesday
that President Trump approved that alliance in a phone call. MAZLOUM ABDI, Commander, Syrian Democratic
Forces (through translator): In this sense, Trump said that we are not against it. We told them that we are contacting the Syrian
regime and the Russians in order to protect our country and land. He said: We are not against that. We support that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, President Trump dismissed
bipartisan criticism of his actions. He said the U.S. pullout and sanctions on
Turkey created an amazing outcome. DONALD TRUMP: This was something they have
been trying to get for 10 years. We would have lost millions and millions of
lives. They couldn’t get it without a little rough
love, as I called it, I just put out. They needed a little bit of that. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, back in Washington, Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham, along with Democrat Chris Van Hollen, said they will go ahead
with legislation for tougher sanctions. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think we should keep
working on them. We have introduced the bill. We haven’t passed anything. I’m still going to get co-sponsors. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, fighting continued
today in parts of Northeastern Syria, with explosions continuing to rock the border town
of Ras al-Ayn. Now for Turkey’s view of this deal, how it
came to be, and the fighting in Northern Syria, I’m joined by Serdar Kilic, Turkey’s ambassador
to the United States. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to the “NewsHour.” SERDAR KILIC, Turkish Ambassador to the United
States: Thank you very much for taking me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So your government says this
is not a cease-fire; it’s a pause in the fighting. Our government, the U.S., says it is a cease-fire. Which is it, and does your government plan
to honor it? SERDAR KILIC: Well, I think we agree that
there’s going to be a pause. It’s not a cease-fire. We are just trying to provide for the withdrawal
of YPG/PYD elements from the region that we are… (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: These are the Kurdish fighters. SERDAR KILIC: Well, I wouldn’t say Kurdish. They are YPG/PYD. There is a distinction between the Kurds and
the YPG/PYD. There is an incredible mixture — mix in that
regards in. The United States, they are referring to the
YPG/PYD as Kurds. Yes, all the members of YPG/PYD are Kurds,
but they do not represent the Kurds. JUDY WOODRUFF: Does Turkey consider them more
of a threat than ISIS? SERDAR KILIC: Well, even President Trump have
stated a couple of days that PKK is more of a threat than the ISIS. JUDY WOODRUFF: This is the terrorist group… (CROSSTALK) SERDAR KILIC: It’s an existential threat to
us. Our operation conducted in Northern Syria
and our determination to fight against Da’esh are not mutually exclusive. We have the determination and we are going
to fight decisively, if there is a need, against Da’esh as well. But YPG/PYD is an existential threat to us. We have lost 40,000 people at the hands of
PKK terrorists, 40,000. You have lost only 3,000 in 9/11 in New York. And we have given full support to the United
States during its operations against the culprits of 9/11. And we did not question when the United States
conducted operations in Afghanistan, whether it is against the Afghani people. We knew that it was against the al-Qaida. The messages that were given by even high-caliber
senators like Senator Graham and Van Hollen, they are — they have hurt the feelings of
the Turkish public opinion. Referring to YPG/PYD, a terrorist organization,
which is recognized as such by the United States authorities, because it’s (INAUDIBLE)
PKK, referring to it as an ally, and blaming President Trump… JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, they did work alongside
the United States in the fight against ISIS in Syria. SERDAR KILIC: They did. They did. (CROSSTALK) SERDAR KILIC: Yes, that was the mistake at
the first place, Judy. I mean, you cannot fight successful — I mean,
you cannot conduct a successful fight against a terrorist organization by making use of
another terrorist organization. JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned Senator Van Hollen,
Senator Graham. SERDAR KILIC: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: In fact, it’s the entire foreign
policy — Foreign Affairs Committees of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate
that are saying they are going full speed ahead with sanctions against Turkey, despite
this agreement. SERDAR KILIC: Well, this is the prejudice
that we have to overcome. They are referring to the Kurds or the YPG/PYD,
as they refer Kurds, as the ally of the United States. They are not ally of the United States. They are making use of the support of the
United States in order to carve out a Marxist state from Syria. Our first of all and ultimate goal in Syria,
as the international community, is trying to preserve the territorial integrity and
political unity of Syria. JUDY WOODRUFF: Several questions about what
led to this. There was, as you know, the phone call between
President Trump and President Erdogan on Sunday, October the 6th, at which time they discussed
apparently this operation. SERDAR KILIC: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And President Erdogan gave
the go-ahead to this operation shortly after that phone call. What was said by President Trump to President
Erdogan that gave him the confidence to move ahead, after months and months and years of
the United States opposing this? SERDAR KILIC: Well, we have, since a long
time, made our views in that regard very clear, that we are not going to let a terrorist corridor
to develop in Northern Syria which will be an existential threat to the Turkey’s security
stability and to security of the Turkish territories and populations. We will not let that happen. During the telephone conversation, there are
reports that President Trump gave a green light. Which country needs a green light in order
to defend its citizens? (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: But there was change in — in
the past, the U.S. has said, do not do this. The U.S. has troops in Northern Syria. Do not move against them. SERDAR KILIC: Yes. Well, in that regard, I think President Trump
understood that, in any case, we are going to take that action to defend our population,
territory, and forces. And we are authorized fully by the United
Nations charter Article 51. So he understood that that operation is going
to come, and he didn’t want to lead to an undesired clash between our forces over there. So he decided to withdraw his forces. JUDY WOODRUFF: If he understood that there
was going to be a military operation, why then did just a couple days later President
Trump say publicly, please stop, Turkey, don’t go any further? SERDAR KILIC: I believe that he was under
big domestic pressure from the Congress and from certain media outlets. And that’s why he changed his messages in
that regard. But during that entire time, he also mentioned
that Turkey has the full right to defend its citizens and to be able to get rid of the
threat that is coming from the YPG/PYD. He was very vocal in that regard as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you also believe that it
was pressure that led President Trump to send that letter to President Erdogan on October
the 9th last week in which he said: “History is going to look upon you forever as the devil
if good things don’t happen; don’t be a tough guy, don’t be a fool”? SERDAR KILIC: Judy, very frankly speaking,
I hope history will not record that letter. That letter should not have been sent at the
first place, because it lacks all the niceties. And it’s void of any established practices
in that regard. I mean, I totally reject that letter. And I hope that history is not going to record
it in any case, in any way. JUDY WOODRUFF: What was President Erdogan’s
reaction to it? SERDAR KILIC: Well, our reaction was even
in Syria in that regard. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you mean? SERDAR KILIC: Well, we started conducting
the operation. JUDY WOODRUFF: And there were advisers to
President Erdogan who reportedly told the press that President Erdogan threw it in the
trash. Is that correct? SERDAR KILIC: Well, I mean, he accepted that
letter as null and void. JUDY WOODRUFF: Null and void? SERDAR KILIC: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you about something
else, Mr. Ambassador. And that is, you have said repeatedly that
Turkey is fighting terrorists in going into Northern Syria. SERDAR KILIC: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: But I want to read — this
is from an awesome autopsy report that came with a video. And this is of a senior Syrian Kurdish politician,
a woman who was killed in the last week during the incursion. And I’m reading. She was beaten in the head, beaten on the
leg, dragged by her hair, shot in the head at close range, and then shot four more times
after she fell to the ground. Is this the method of the Turkish military? SERDAR KILIC: Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. And if there is any wrongdoing in that regard,
you can rest assured that’s going to be investigated. Our (INAUDIBLE) reporting in that regard is
— flaws. We have never committed a crime or atrocities
against the Syrians. JUDY WOODRUFF: What were your troops told
to do in Syria? SERDAR KILIC: To avoid Syrian casualties,
to avoid attacking religious sites and the civilian population. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the factors of — as
a result of this is that Russia has moved into Northern Syria now, very close to the
Syrian government, the Syrian regime. Is Russia now the real winner in all this,
because it has more influence in Syria as a result of this? SERDAR KILIC: Well, at the end of the day
— I will put it from a different perspective. At the end of the day, I hope that the Syrian
people will be the winners. There are 3.6 million refugees in Turkey,
Syrian refugees in Turkey, and refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and so on and so forth. At the end of the day, I hope that the winner
will be the Syrian people. Whatever happens in Syria, it’s not going
to be confined within the borders of Syria. It will have a spillover effect. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is there a role for the United
States in Syria at all at this point going forward? SERDAR KILIC: Of course. Of course. They are going to collaborate with us, I hope,
for the implementation of the safe zone in Northern Syria. We need the assistance of the entire international
community. As I told you, we have 3.6 million refugees
in Turkey that we have spent 40 billion U.S. dollars. And nobody is taking — paying any attention
and turning a blind eye to the fact that we are taking care of an additional 3.5 million
internally displaced Syrians within Syrian territories. This is a burden that we cannot shoulder alone. And in that regard, of course we need the
support of the United States too. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Serdar Kilic, ambassador
of Turkey to the United States, thank you very much. SERDAR KILIC: Thank you for having me and
for providing me the opportunity. Thank you very much. Thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to the other major
story of the day, the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump. And, as Lisa Desjardins reports, the news
came in fast from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. LISA DESJARDINS: From the White House, Chief
of Staff Mick Mulvaney, on one hand, refuted the idea that President Trump ever held up
Ukraine aid money to force an investigation into former Vice President Biden. MICK MULVANEY, Acting White House Chief of
Staff: The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. LISA DESJARDINS: But he then said this about
whether the president tied that aid money to a different investigation about Democrats
and his 2016 election. MICK MULVANEY: Did he also mention to me in
past that — the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats like House intelligence
Chairman Adam Schiff heard an admission of abuse of power. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Things have just gone
from very, very bad to much, much worse. The idea that vital military assistance would
be withheld for such a patently political reason, for the reason of serving the president’s
reelection campaign, is a phenomenal breach of the president’s duty to defend our national
security. LISA DESJARDINS: This as another key Trump
official arrived at the Capitol. The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union,
Gordon Sondland, today was also an impeachment witness. QUESTION: Why was it important for you to
show up here today? GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. Ambassador to the European
Union: It’s always important to show up when Congress calls. QUESTION: Are you here to salvage your reputation,
sir? GORDON SONDLAND: I don’t have a reputation
to salvage. LISA DESJARDINS: Sondland is a hotel chain
founder who donated $1 million to President Trump’s inauguration committee, and later
was appointed to his ambassadorship by Trump. He testified behind closed doors. Multiple news outlets obtained his opening
statement. In it, he said President Trump directed the
team working on Ukraine to talk to Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, about the president’s
concerns. He also testified: “I didn’t understand, until
much later, that Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians
to investigate Vice President Biden or his son.” Sondland did defend the president, though,
saying that, at one point, Mr. Trump repeatedly told him no quid pro quo, meaning aid wasn’t
a bargaining chip for the investigations. At the White House, Mulvaney tackled that
testimony as well, insisting neither Giuliani’s role nor any political influence on U.S. policy
was impeachable. MICK MULVANEY: I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going be political influence in foreign
policy. LISA DESJARDINS: In Texas, President Trump
spoke on other topics, but didn’t address impeachment. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Lisa is here with me, along
with our White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor. So, hello to both of you. Lisa, let’s talk first about the European
Union ambassador, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland. He’s a central figure in all of this. What do we know about how he fits in to this
big picture? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, it’s interesting. Today, he both became more important and less. Less important because he told people that
— he told investigators that he wasn’t actually on the call, but more important because he
establishes relationships. And that’s what I want to talk about here
and kind of get to why Democrats are looking at him so hard. First, let’s take a look at Mr. Sondland. As people know, he is, as you say, the ambassador
to the E.U., and he also was a donor to President Trump’s inaugural. Here’s what we learned today. He said that President Trump himself directed
Sondland to talk to Rudy Giuliani and then Giuliani in conversations with Sondland, if
you look at Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, he pushed for that investigation
into the 2016 DNC hack, as well as Burisma, Burisma being the energy company where who
worked? Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. So right there is an important establishment
of relationships, because more and more I had heard from Republicans that they had thought
Rudy Giuliani went rogue, Rudy Giuliani was doing something the president was aware of
— wasn’t aware of. What Gordon Sondland seemed to establish today
was that the president directed him to talk to Giuliani. The president was putting trust in Giuliani
to take care of his concerns. JUDY WOODRUFF: So let’s pick up on that, Yamiche. What are you learning about what Ambassador
Sondland had to say today? And how does this fit in to what the president’s
been saying and the people around the president? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Ambassador Sondland said
some things that were both problematic for President Trump, without breaking with him
completely. So, he said that he was disappointed in President
Trump’s decision-making as it relates to issues of Ukraine. He also said that he was disappointed in the
fact he involved his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in issues dueling with Ukraine. That being said, he says that I didn’t know,
at least at the beginning, that Rudy Giuliani wanted to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter
Biden. So he was doing was really putting distance
between himself and what President Trump and Rudy Giuliani were doing. That’s problematic for the president, because
this is someone that donated millions of dollars to President Trump’s campaign actually having
a little bit of distance with him. So, what you see there is someone who really
is close to the president or is an ally of the president saying, look, I’m just going
to go and say what I know and have — and it really fits a pattern of what other people
have been saying, telling lawmakers. So President Trump there is really not coming
out looking good, and it look as though him and Rudy Giuliani were, in fact, trying to
do these dealings with Ukraine as kind of — a sort of shadow campaign without the State
Department’s involvement there. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, then, separately,
as we heard in Lisa’s report, there is this explosive statement from the acting White
House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, today about what happened on that phone call between
the president and the leader of Ukraine, and then later today a very different statement. Let’s — fill us in on that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: There is so much going on
with Mick Mulvaney right now. He came out to the White House podium as part
of a briefing, and he vigorously defended the president, but he said that the president
was withholding military aid for Ukraine because of an issue dealing with the Democratic National
Committee. He wanted Ukraine to look into that. Tonight, just a couple minutes ago, he released
a statement saying that his words are being misconstrued and that, in fact, the president
never mentioned the DNC as part of him withholding that military aid to Ukraine. The president said that he’s happy or very
OK with the performance and the words of Mick Mulvaney. But those words from the podium really led
to a lot of backlash. Democrats were saying that this was really
evidence of a quid pro quo. You even had a senior Department of Justice
official reach out to me, and that person told me, look, the DOJ has no idea what Mick
Mulvaney is talking about, essentially. And they said that they were not aware of
any sort of withholding of military aid that had to do with a DOJ investigation. The president’s own personal attorney Jay
Sekulow also came out and said the president’s legal team had nothing to do with what Mick
Mulvaney was talking about. What you’re seeing here is really Mick Mulvaney
releasing this statement as part of the backlash that he’s now facing. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s getting more and more
difficult to keep track of who is saying what about all this. But, Lisa, so let’s back up a little bit. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Where does this impeachment
inquiry stand right now? LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s talk about the timeline
in the last day. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has
said, hey, we could have a Senate trial even by the end of the year. Is that possible? Well, let’s look at what we know is likely
to happen. First, right now, the House Intelligence Committee
is holding these closed-door meetings and then hearings as a part of their investigation. After that, they say they will hold public
hearings also as part of their impeachment process. Then, at that point, the Intelligence Committee
will put together likely a report. They will send it to the Judiciary Committee,
along with the other committees involved. The Judiciary Committee will probably hold
hearings and then have meetings probably to mark up or go over articles of impeachment. Judy, that’s a lot of work that still needs
to happen, and they’re running out of time this year, so I think things are going to
continue to move at a very fast pace. A trial in the Senate by the end of year seems
like a long stretch to me. It’s not impossible, but maybe articles of
impeachment by the end of the year is likely. JUDY WOODRUFF: But they still have not and
don’t plan to at this point take a vote at on authorizing an impeachment? (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: No. Right now, they are still moving along with
their investigation. And they could move just straight to articles
of impeachment as it stands. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Yamiche, another piece
of news from Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff at the White House. And that is, the president is proposing to
hold the next G7, leaders of the seven leading countries in the world, meeting at his golf
resort? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: This was a very controversial
decision by President Trump to say that he wants to hold the G7 at Trump Doral, which
is a property that he has and owns in Florida. Here’s what Mick Mulvaney had to say as he
was defending that decision. MICK MULVANEY: Listen, I was skeptical. I was. I was aware of the political sort of criticism
that we’d come under for doing it at Doral, which is why I was so surprised when the advance
team called back and said, this is the perfect physical location to do this. So I get the criticisms. So does he. But face it. He would be criticized regardless of what
he chose to do. But, no, there is no issue on him profiting
from this in any way, shape or form. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Mulvaney is saying here
that the president — it was really the president’s idea to do this. He is also saying that the president isn’t
going to profit from this. But it’s very clear that the president is
going to get a lot of publicity for Trump Doral. The other thing to note is Trump Doral has
been losing money. The Washington Post reports that the revenue
is down. Democrats have been saying that this is really
a brazen attempt by the president to profit off the presidency. So we’re going to have the really look at
how this develops. But the G7, at least for now, is going to
be held at a Trump property. JUDY WOODRUFF: Another very full day. Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, thank you
both. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Britain
and the European Union reached a tentative agreement for the United Kingdom’s exit from
the bloc. They said the deal announced today would ensure
an open border between E.U. member Ireland and British Northern Ireland. In Brussels, Britain’s Prime Minister Boris
Johnson celebrated with handshakes, and urged Parliament to approve the deal. BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: I hope
very much now, speaking of elected representatives, that my fellow M.P.s in Westminster do now
come together to get Brexit done, to get this excellent deal over the line, and to deliver
Brexit without any more delay, so that we can focus on the priorities of the British
people. JUDY WOODRUFF: Parliament will convene a special
session Saturday to vote. But the deal already faces opposition, including
from within Johnson’s government. Britain is set to leave the E.U. on October
31. We will discuss all of this after the news
summary. New England — back in the U.S., New England
is cleaning up after a powerful nor’easter lashed the region overnight and today. The storm brought heavy rain and wind gusts
up to 90 miles an hour. In Roxbury, Massachusetts, storm surge washed
boats ashore. Elsewhere, trees fell on homes and cars and
downed utility lines. All told, 400,000 customers in Maine and Massachusetts
lost power. Meanwhile, a drought across the Southeastern
U.S. is worsening. More than 30 million people are affected from
Alabama to Virginia. But some relief may be on the way. Forecasters say that a tropical storm may
form tomorrow off the Gulf Coast, and move inland by the weekend. About 25,000 teachers and staff walked off
the job today in Chicago, the nation’s third largest public school district. They set up picket lines outside many of the
district’s 500 schools, demanding better pay and smaller class sizes, among other things. ANN O’BRIEN, Striking Teacher: The only way
that we get justice for our kids is by making sure that we, as teachers, who are their front
line for defense, stand up for their needs. So we will stay out as long as it takes for
us to be able to get the things that they need. JUDY WOODRUFF: The strike has canceled classes
for more than 360,000 students. The number of deaths related to vaping has
climbed again, to 33, since March. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported the new figure today. There is still no definitive cause for the
deaths. Meanwhile, Juul Labs announced that it will
stop selling vaping pods with fruit and dessert flavors. Juul is the country’s bestselling e-cigarette
brand. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained about 24 points to close near 27026. The Nasdaq rose 32 points and the S&P 500
added eight. And veteran Congressman Elijah Cummings of
Maryland died early today after longstanding health problems. The Baltimore Democrat was a highly regarded
figure in both political parties and had been playing a central role in the impeachment
inquiry. Amna Nawaz looks at his life and career. AMNA NAWAZ: Elijah Cummings spent a lifetime
advocating for civil rights in his native Baltimore and beyond. After 13 years in the Maryland Statehouse,
he came to Congress in 1996. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): My mission is one
that comes out of a vision that was created long, long ago. It is a mission and a vision to empower people,
to make people realize that the power is within them, that they too can do the things that
they want to do. AMNA NAWAZ: Cummings pursued that vision as
a vocal advocate for causes ranging from gun reform to immigration, and always racial justice. In 2015, he worked to restore calm when riots
erupted in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray, a young black man, in police custody. And at Gray’s funeral, he gave an impassioned
eulogy. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: I have often said that our
children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see. But now our children are sending us to a future
they will never see! There is something is wrong with that picture! AMNA NAWAZ: This year, Cummings was equally
fierce condemning the conditions in which migrant children were being detained at the
U.S.-Mexico border. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: We are the United States
of America. We are the greatest country in the world. We are the ones that can go anywhere in the
world and save people, make sure that they have diapers, make sure that they have toothbrushes,
make sure that they’re not laying around defecating. Come on. We’re better than that. AMNA NAWAZ: As chairman of the House Oversight
Committee, Cummings also launched investigations of President Trump. The president struck back, calling Cummings
racist and branding Baltimore a rat-infested mess. Today, Mr. Trump tweeted condolences, saying
— quote — “His work and voice on so many fronts will be very hard, if not impossible,
to replace.” In Congress, Cummings’ colleagues paid tribute,
including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): In the Congress, Elijah
was considered a North Star. He was a leader of towering character and
integrity. He lived the American dream. And he wanted it for everyone else. AMNA NAWAZ: That sentiment crossed the political
aisle to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): He counted close friends
and admirers from all across the political spectrum. AMNA NAWAZ: Cummings’ death deprives House
Democrats of a leading voice in the impeachment inquiry. But he left behind a legacy of clear-eyed
views on Congress’ duty. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: When we’re dancing with the
angels, the question will be asked, in 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy
intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing? AMNA NAWAZ: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna
Nawaz. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Elijah Cummings
was 68 years old. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: Britain and
the European Union reach a Brexit deal, but can it survive the British Parliament?; the
United Auto Workers move to end their strike with GM — what’s on the line?; and how data
is driving artists to create new work. European Union leaders unanimously backed
a Brexit deal with the United Kingdom today. The next major hurdle is having the agreement
approved by the British Parliament, no easy feat for Prime Minister Boris Johnson. And the stakes for the United States are clear:
The E.U. is America’s largest trading partner, and the U.K. is one of America’s closest allies. Nick Schifrin has the story. NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, British Prime Minister
Boris Johnson threw his arms around negotiators and saluted European leaders for agreeing
on new terms of their divorce. Johnson even did a full victory lap around
the table, celebrating what he’s compared to reaching the summit of Mount Everest. BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: It’s
been long. It’s been painful. It’s been divisive. And now is the moment for us, as a country,
to come together. Now is the moment for our parliamentarians
to come together and get this thing done. NICK SCHIFRIN: Much of the new deal is the
old deal. The United Kingdom leaves the European Union
after a transition period that ends in December 2020. British residents in Europe and European residents
in the U.K. maintain their status. And Britain pays Europe about $45 billion. The sticking point has always been the border
between Northern Ireland, a member of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland,
a country in the European Union. Right now, there’s no physical border between
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and cars and goods can travel freely. To maintain that freedom, the new deal allows
the entire United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to strike trade deals and import
goods under U.K. customs laws. But Northern Ireland would follow European
Union regulations, and goods at risk of being exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic
of Ireland would fall under European Union custom rules. Today, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar praised
the deal. LEO VARADKAR, Irish Prime Minister: It is
a unique solution, one that recognizes the unique history and geography of Northern Ireland. NICK SCHIFRIN: The new deal also reduces the
chances that Northern Irish politicians could reject it, and could keep the U.K. more in
line with European environmental and labor rules. QUESTION: How are you feeling, gentlemen? NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, Johnson predicted members
of the British Parliament, or M.P.s, would ratify the new deal. BORIS JOHNSON: I hope very much now that my
fellow M.P.s in Westminster do now come together to get Brexit done, to get this excellent
deal over the line, and to deliver Brexit without any more delay. NICK SCHIFRIN: But in today’s Parliament,
that’s much easier said than done. Johnson’s allies, the Northern Irish Democratic
Union Party, criticized him and the deal. NIGEL DODDS, Deputy Leader, Democratic Unionist
Party: He has been too eager by far to get a deal at any cost. NICK SCHIFRIN: And the largest opposition
bloc, Labor, and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, vowed to reject it during a Saturday vote. JEREMY CORBYN, Leader, Labor Party: We are
unhappy with this deal, and, as it stands, we will vote against it. NICK SCHIFRIN: For a deeper look at the Brexit
agreement and the challenges ahead, we turn to Robin Niblett. He is the director of the London think tank
Chatham House. Robin Niblett, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” What are the two or three major aspects that
have changed in this deal? ROBIN NIBLETT, Director, Chatham House: Well,
the major thing that’s changed is that Northern Ireland, from Boris Johnson’s point of view
and the E.U.’s point of view, is no longer the problem that it was. They have agreed to create, in essence, a
border down the Irish Sea that hives off Northern Ireland from all of the problems that had
been bedeviling the Theresa May deal. It means you don’t need any kind of border
structures or even border arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. So, that’s number one. Number two, what that means is that Boris
Johnson can now prepare to strike a real free trade agreement with the E.U. for the future
relationship of the U.K. with the E.U. He’s free to do a much more open type of relationship
that allows the U.K. to diverge a bit from the E.U. And for the big Brexiteers, the people who
championed Brexit from the beginning, the whole idea was to be able to strike big, new,
exciting agreements with countries around the world. Now, with the Northern Irish problem resolved,
he reckons he has that freedom. And that lets him have a better chance of
getting parliamentary support to get this through Parliament, the British Parliament. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, as you just discussed just
at the end there, he has to get it through British Parliament. What are the chances of that, given what we
just heard from the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party and Labor Party, both opposing
it? ROBIN NIBLETT: I think it’s still a long shot. I mean, this has been so compressed in time. Labor are going to feel they’re being bounced
into even holding a vote on this on Saturday. What he’s done is created a lot of antibodies. If he doesn’t have the Democratic Unionist
Party on his side, all things being equal, he’s probably five votes short. And that assumes that all of those Conservatives
that left the Conservative Party in disgust of him proroguing Parliament, it assumes they
all come back on board. It assumes all the really fervent Brexiteers
decide this deal is good enough. Even with all of that, if he doesn’t have
the Democratic Unionists, if he doesn’t get any Labor people voting for him, he is going
to be a few votes short. So, a critical thing for him is, can he get
some of the Labor people, who represent districts that voted heavily to leave and are worried
about this dragging on and on, and who don’t really trust Jeremy Corbyn in any case, can
he get a few of them over to vote on his side? He only needs 15, 10, something like that,
to come his way, and he might scrape it. NICK SCHIFRIN: And so if, at best, perhaps,
he’s about five votes short before he starts horse-trading, and if he can’t succeed in
that horse-trading, are we heading toward another election? ROBIN NIBLETT: Ultimately, yes. He’s under the gun then by law, a thing called
the Benn Act, when Parliament kind of took control of the Order Book and took it away
from him, to prevent a no-deal Brexit, he’s obliged to send a letter to the European Commission
asking for an extension all the way until the 31st of January. He’s obliged to do that by Saturday evening,
if Parliament doesn’t approve this deal, by then. So, you can see the time is so compressed. I think, if he loses the vote, or if some
Labor people cleverly try to add on a requirement for a confirmatory referendum to the deal,
which is something I think the Conservatives would also oppose, he may choose to resign
and say, look, over to you guys. I struck a deal. I had a deal with the E.U. You can’t pass it. Good luck. You form a government. Let’s see how you do. And he’s hoping it would collapse, and then
there would be the general election. And he would be in a strong, very strong position
to win it. NICK SCHIFRIN: Would he be favored to win
another general election? ROBIN NIBLETT: The question for him is, will
the Brexit Party, what used to be called the U.K. Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage,
will they contest Boris Johnson, because they reckon this deal is a bit fuzzy and fudgy,
or will they step back and give the Conservatives a carte blanche to run it? So, look, Labor is in a chaotic position at
the moment. He has to be odds-on to get close to a majority. But what I fear is, we would end up with a
pretty undecided hung Parliament even after another general election. I think this has still got a way to run. NICK SCHIFRIN: Robin Niblett, head of Chatham
House, thank you very much. ROBIN NIBLETT: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: A month-long strike by the
United Auto Workers appears to be coming to an end soon. The UAW’s National Council approved a tentative
deal today with General Motors. Workers will remain on the picket line until
the rank-and-file members vote on the deal over the next week or so. This deal will likely be the template for
the UAW’s upcoming contract negotiations with Ford and Fiat Chrysler. William Brangham has more about the terms
of their four-year deal and what it says about the future of the auto industry. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tentative deal does
include a number of wins for the union, for one thing, more money. Most GM workers will get an $11,000 bonus
upon ratification. There are wage increases and lump sum bonuses,
and eventually the top hourly pay for permanent workers will go up to $32 an hour. Another key for the UAW, the new contract
includes a quicker path to permanent employment for temporary and part-time workers, who have
long earned less money. But General Motors got some of what it wanted,
too. Three of four plants slated to close in Ohio,
Maryland and Michigan will not reopen. A fourth assembly plant in Detroit that was
slated to close will stay open and will build electric vehicles. Moreover, the contract doesn’t guarantee any
additional manufacturing or production will move back to the U.S. from Mexico. Micki Maynard is a journalist who follows
the automotive industry and has written several books on the subject. And she joins me now from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Micki, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” I checked off a few of the elements in this
proposed deal. And we should say it still has not been signed
by the rank-and-file workers. So it’s still largely there, but not 100 percent. What stands out to you as the most significant
parts of this? MICHELINE “MICKI” MAYNARD, Journalist and
Author: Well, a couple of things. And as you mentioned in your setup, there
are wins for both the union and General Motors. And one of the things that General Motors
apparently got is, it doesn’t have to make any specific promises about future investment. And if you understand how much turmoil the
auto industry is in right now, that’s a very important point for GM, because no one really
can predict where the industry will be in four or five years. And so GM got a lot of flexibility. For the union side, the union got a lot of
cash for its members. It’s really stunning. There’s an $11,000 signing bonus for the veteran
workers, and the temporary workers who are not even full-time are getting $4,500 apiece. And apparently it goes into their paychecks
a little while after the — if the contract is approved. And that’s an awfully sweet bonus to vote
yes for this contract. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One of the other issues
that I know was a big point for the UAW was this issue for permatemp workers. For people who don’t know what it’s like in
a factory, and the distinction between permanent workers and these permanent temporary workers,
why was that so important for the union? MICHELINE “MICKI” MAYNARD: One of the founding
tenets of the UAW, going back to Walter Reuther, was that everybody on the assembly line and
in the other factories should be considered the same. That’s the whole idea of solidarity. What this previous contract and the contract
before that did was literally set up two tiers of workers, plus the temporaries. So you almost had three levels. You had the veteran workers, who got full
pay and benefits. You had the newly hired workers, who got less
pay and barely any benefits. And then you got the temps, and the temps
were basically getting paid an hourly rate. And that is not the way the UAW has operated
for most of its history. And I think the union was very eager to eliminate
those tiers and try to get people all on the same page. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Three out of the four plants,
as I said, that the UAW wanted to keep open are not going to stay open. There’s no promise of moving jobs that have
been proved to Mexico, that those will be coming back to the U.S. Do I read this right, but that is an ominous
trend for American workers, is it not? MICHELINE “MICKI” MAYNARD: It’s not a great
development. To be honest, I don’t think any of the four
— all four of the four had a chance of staying open. I think there was some hope that Lordstown,
which is near Youngstown, Ohio, might have gotten a product. There was talk about putting battery production
into Lordstown. The Warren Transmission plant near Detroit
and Baltimore were probably never going to reopen. The Detroit plant, which is called Detroit
Hamtramck, or Poletown up here, that one is supposed to get electric truck production. But the interesting thing about that is that
there’s a start-up called Rivian which just got an order from Amazon for 100,000 electric
trucks, and it’s also going to build pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. And so they’re operating right down the road. They’re a start-up. They have some money from Ford, and they have
the big contact from Amazon, so GM needs to hustle if it wants to compete in that market. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We’re seeing this proposed
settlement, and this looks like, as you were saying, success for both sides. We’re also seeing today 25,000 schoolteachers
in Chicago going out on strike, following on the path of a lot of other school strikes
that have been happening. When you look at the developments of today,
assuming this deal gets ratified, what is — is this a one-off, or does this mean something
more broadly for the labor union movement in America? MICHELINE “MICKI” MAYNARD: This is an awfully
generous contract, if you’re just talking about cash. I don’t think other places can provide this
kind of cash to their employees. The Chicago teachers strike is very interesting,
because Chicago has a brand-new mayor, and I think she’s actually a little sympathetic
to the teachers. And the teachers walked out anyway because
they have some very real concerns about their future. As far as the broader labor movement goes,
certainly, in journalism, we’re seeing a number of news organizations unionize that had never
unionized before. There are unionization efforts going on, on
college campuses. And I think people feel that they need someone
to speak up for them and that there is value in solidarity. And as someone who, honestly, has been a union
member all my life, and my mother was a union organizer, and my grandfather was a union
organizer, I can completely understand why people want that feeling of solidarity. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Micki Maynard,
thank you very much for helping us sort through all of this. MICHELINE “MICKI” MAYNARD: Always a pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the fundamental economic
shifts of our time is the way that big data is disrupting commerce and everyday life. Artificial intelligence, which involves machines
learning, analyzing and using enormous sets of data, is expected to have an ever-wider
impact, transforming industries and eliminating some jobs. That data also can be used to appeal more
directly to what customers want, including in creative industries. Special correspondent and Washington Post
columnist Catherine Rampell has the first of two stories on that for our segment Making
Sense. DAVID APEL, Symrise: This is called Petit
LU. It’s an interpretation of a little French
butter cookie. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Oh, it smells so good. DAVID APEL: And that’s it. CATHERINE RAMPELL: I don’t know that I want
to smell like this, but I want to eat this. DAVID APEL: Right. But you want a little of that. CATHERINE RAMPELL: David Apel is a master
perfumer at Symrise, one of the world’s largest fragrance and flavor design companies. It’s also on the creative cutting edge, harnessing
the power of big data to make artistic decisions, part of the second digital disruption, as
legal scholars Christopher Sprigman And Kal Raustiala call it in a new paper. KAL RAUSTIALA, UCLA Law School: So, the first
digital disruption was really about the ability to distribute digitally. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Legally, or not, given
the piracy on file-sharing platforms like Napster. Creative industries had to adapt to the new
ways people were getting their music and movies, KAL RAUSTIALA: The second one, which is happening
right now, is really about data and not just distributions. It’s streamed out to you, but then, in turn,
the company is receiving data from you. So this is all about targeting consumption
to the consumer. What do you want? If you go a little bit further, you get into
actually investing in content. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Companies like Netflix
pay close attention to the details of what people watch, down to when they hit pause. User data is mined, analyzed, and then used
to create new products. The classic example? “House of Cards.” CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: Netflix was willing to green-light that series without producing a pilot. They were confident enough in what they thought
they knew that they spent a huge amount of money kind of sight unseen. KAL RAUSTIALA: They identified that people
like this particular original British version. They like David Fincher. They like Kevin Spacey. And so we’re going to put those things together,
and we know there’s an audience for that kind of combination. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: That turned out, at
least until Kevin Spacey ran into some trouble, to be a very successful show. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Even savvier at using big
data to create content? The porn industry. KAL RAUSTIALA: For a few reasons, they probably
use data more than other companies do in their creative efforts, one, because, typically,
adult films are short. People watch a lot of them. They get a lot of data. They have massive viewership. And they’re cheap to make. ACTOR: Well, I have been approaching it scientifically
as of late. Why not, right? ACTOR: Better porno through science. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Of course, even in pre-Internet
days, the porn industry was studying customer tastes. The professors cite the peep show operator
in HBO’s “The Deuce,” set in the ’70s. ACTOR: Last couple of months, I have installed
the quarters in each machine separately. Now I know what film I’m running in each machine,
and I never mix it up before we do the weight. It’s starting to give me a real sense of what
stuff is bringing in the most quarters. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: What we were living
in the past, you could think of as the data bronze age, right? So, this has now become a gusher of data that’s
much cheaper to gather and much cheaper to analyze. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Now, most academics shy
away from studying porn. But these two used it as a case study, because
it’s been so innovative, down to using data to write scripts. So what are examples of the kinds of creative
choices, let’s say, an adult film company might make based on an analysis of data? Is it like, if there’s a plumber at the door
or a pizza delivery guy, or… KAL RAUSTIALA: Absolutely. What does the background look like? What does the room look like? What is the person wearing? Those are all things that can be altered and
manipulated in different ways to see what’s most popular. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Of course, sex sells in
any industry. And what smells sexy? Robots are surprisingly good at figuring that
out too. That’s a commercial for Egeo, marketed by
the Brazilian cosmetics company O Boticario. ACHIM DAUB, President of Scent, Symrise: It
has this new hot milk, honey kind of note. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The fragrance was designed
by Symrise, with some help. ACHIM DAUB: And there you go, the world’s
first ever A.I. fragrance. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That’s thanks to a partnership
with IBM Research. MAN: This is “Jeopardy.” CATHERINE RAMPELL: It’s been nearly a decade
since Watson won “Jeopardy.” ALEX TREBEK, “Jeopardy” Host: Now we come
to Watson. “Who is Bram Stoker?” (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) CATHERINE RAMPELL: Since then, IBM’s artificial
intelligence technology has gone to work in medicine, science, manufacturing, business. But, recently, it’s taken on more artistic
tasks. RICHARD GOODWIN, IBM Research: For a long
time, people have been asking whether computers can be intelligent, which is kind of a hard
philosophical question to answer. So our group decided that we were going to
tackle a different problem, which was creativity. CATHERINE RAMPELL: But, says IBM’s Richard
Goodwin, a lot of people were already working on android art or A.I. music. RICHARD GOODWIN: So, our original idea was
to actually build a robot that would go on a cooking show and actually, you know, compete
with the other chefs. But we then realized it would be like 10 years
before we could get the robot to, like, chop up the carrots. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The dexterity is the problem. RICHARD GOODWIN: And so the idea then was,
well, what really wins the show is having novel dishes that taste good. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Enter chef Watson, and
then a collaboration with McCormick spices. From flavors, a short leap to fragrances,
a labor-intensive industry seemingly ripe for disruption. DAVID APEL: The work of a perfumer is mostly
frustrations. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Designing a new fragrance
has historically required a lot of human capital. It takes four years of schooling to become
a junior perfumer, years more to become a master like David Apel, who has four decades
under his belt. He’s got access to over 1,000 raw ingredients,
millions of existing formulas. Infinitely more could be tried. So if you were tasked with creating a new
fragrance, what would your process look like? DAVID APEL: People will come. And they give imagery and storylines and visuals,
sometimes even music or textures. And so the first process is, what things in
my brain connect to the things they’re trying to say? I made a fragrance for Pavarotti back in the
day, and I built it around patchouli because patchouli is a material that has like this
deep, like, bass kind of resonance, you know, the way I saw his voice. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That flash of inspiration,
hear Pavarotti, think patchouli, isn’t enough. It can take years of tinkering before a formula
becomes aesthetically and commercially successful. ACHIM DAUB: If you think about perfumery,
it’s an inherently complex business, because every creation is a unique product. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Achim Daub is president
of scent at Symrise. ACHIM DAUB: Manufactured out of many ingredients,
very often too many for my liking. So there is an inherent inefficiency. And so one of the aspects of using artificial
intelligence is to become faster, become leaner, become more agile. CATHERINE RAMPELL: So, A.I. can cut costs,
but can it actually be creative? DAVID APEL: I’m going to start with this,
which is called beurre, which is… CATHERINE RAMPELL: Butter? DAVID APEL: Butter. CATHERINE RAMPELL: David Apel gave me a demonstration
of how the software, called Philyra, works. He starts with two existing elements. DAVID APEL: And the first thing that Philyra
will do is, she will put them together 50/50. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And then cranks up the
creativity, literally. DAVID APEL: So, sliding this creativity scale
up to 10, I just want her to play. CATHERINE RAMPELL: In 90 seconds, 1,000 possible
candidates… DAVID APEL: And here we go. CATHERINE RAMPELL: … 12 top contenders. DAVID APEL: I like the suggestions that she’s
given me, and I just push a button, and it’s sent to the lab and compounded, and I can
smell and evaluate. CATHERINE RAMPELL: How has the introduction
of A.I. changed this world for you? DAVID APEL: What’s really amazing for Philyra
is that she knows not just my style of perfumery, but everybody’s style of perfumery. And she can… CATHERINE RAMPELL: You say she? DAVID APEL: She. She’s a she, yes. They joke here that she’s my girlfriend because
I have spent nights and weekends to kind of try to understand the way that this machine
seems to think. CATHERINE RAMPELL: It’s hard not to anthropomorphize
software doing something that seems so fundamentally human. DAVID APEL: I want to be immortal. (LAUGHTER) DAVID APEL: You know, it’s that vain of an
occupation, in some sense. Every perfumer wants to create that uniqueness,
that sort of — that magic of something that you haven’t seen before in a perfume. And that’s what Philyra has done for me. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Could we get to a point
where robots take the jobs of artists? In a blind smell test for that Brazilian client,
Philyra’s fragrance did beat out a scent created by David Apel. KAL RAUSTIALA: They’re definitely not going
to take all the jobs. They’re going to help people who are creators
give the public what they want. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Getting better at giving
the public what they want raises some legal and economic questions, though, questions
we will explore in our next segment. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Catherine Rampell
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot to worry about. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Thank you, and we will see you soon.