JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: aspirin warning.

Top medical experts now say that bleeding risks for some older Americans likely outweighs the benefits of taking an aspirin a day.

Then: show of force.

North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, displays new missile technology made to strike the U.S. mainland and names the United States as his country's greatest adversary.

And the impact on education.

Overall college enrollments drop in the wake of the pandemic, but more Americans seek careers in health care.

DEBI KINDER, Student, Gateway Community College: I kept seeing the nurses on the news, and they were, like, sitting in the hallways, and they were just, like, crying.

They were exhausted.

And I was just, like, really driven to go see if I could help in any way.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Adults who are 60 years old or older should not necessarily take a daily aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.

That is according to a draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel of independent experts.

The task force is revising several key guidelines and warning that, for some people, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits.

I'm joined by Dr. John Wong.

He is a member of the task force.

He is a primary care expert at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wong, thank you for being with us.

And I want to be as clear as possible about, exactly what is this advice for people who are over 60 and who are not yet taking a daily aspirin?

DR. JOHN WONG, Tufts Medical Center: First, let me thank you for your interest, Judy.

This is a very important recommendation.

It has to do with preventing stroke and heart attacks, which account for one in three deaths.

So it is a very important recommendation for helping all people in this country stay healthy and live longer and better.

We, based on new information, have made substantial changes.

But, in particular, we used to recommend that people in there 60s speak with their clinician about whether starting aspirin would be right for them.

But we now find that the bleeding risk cancels out the benefit.

Bleeding risk increases as people get older.

And thus we have changed our draft recommendation to recommend not starting aspirin in their 60s.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, this is based on additional research.

And are you saying people should not talk with their doctor about this?

What exactly is your advice to individuals?

DR. JOHN WONG: Any time anyone is concerned about their stroke or heart attack risk, we would encourage them to speak with their clinician, who can then help them assess what their individual risk is for a stroke or heart attack, as well as whether or not aspirin is appropriate for them.

But, when we look at the evidence, the risk for people in their 60s and older, cancels out or balances out the benefits, so that we would not end up recommending it.

For people who are younger, we used to recommend starting aspiring.

But we now recommend that they speak with their clinician about aspirin, because the balance of benefits and harms is now closer.

And for people in their 40s, we, in 2016, weren't sure if they should or should not take aspirin.

We now find that some people may benefit from aspirin.

So they should have a discussion with their clinician to see if aspirin is right for them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But I hear you saying, bottom line, if there's any question in people's minds, they should be talking to their clinician.

And, again, this does not apply to people, as I understand it, who are already on a daily dose of aspirin; is that correct?

DR. JOHN WONG: That is certainly correct.

If you are already taking aspirin, this recommendation really focuses on people who are thinking about starting aspirin.

If you're already taking aspirin, you should speak with your clinician about whether or not that is appropriate for you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: To continue doing it.

And another question.

You -- and you pointed to this.

This is a change in guidance.

And it's still a draft recommendation.

But it sounds like you're saying it's enough of a serious point in the research that people should go ahead and take this advice.

DR. JOHN WONG: For anyone who's concerned about their heart disease risk or their stroke risk, we would encourage them, as you mentioned, to speak with their clinician, because it's a balance of, what is your risk for having a stroke or heart attack and, as we have discovered with new information, what is your risk for a bleeding complication from aspirin, and thinking about that balance of benefit vs. harm, and then coming to the right decision for yourself.

For people who are 60 and older, when we look at the evidence, we find that the risk of bleeding, which increases with age and exceeds the benefit for those who are 70 and older, and basically cancels out the benefits for people in their 60s.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dr. John Wong, who is a member of this task force making this draft recommendation, thank you very much.

DR. JOHN WONG: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day's other news: The U.S. House of Representatives was on track to approve raising the federal debt ceiling by $480 billion.

Democrats favored the move, while Republicans were opposed.

The action averts a national default, at least until early December.

The bill passed the Senate last week, and now goes on to President Biden after the House passes it for his signature.

The White House challenged Texas Governor Gregg Abbott today over banning COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

The Republican issued a ban last night.

It came as the Biden administration is about to issue rules for a federal vaccination mandate for larger employers.

At the White House today, Press Secretary Jen Psaki challenged Abbott's action.

JEN PSAKI, White House Press Secretary: I think it's pretty clear, when you make a choice that's against all public health information and data out there, that it's not based on what is in the interests of the people you are governing.

It is perhaps in the interest of your own politics.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also today, the state of Florida fined Leon County $3.5 million for making its employees get vaccinated.

The county is home to Tallahassee, which is the state capital.

And in New York, a federal judge blocked a state vaccine mandate for health care workers, unless it includes religious exemptions.

Record numbers of Americans quit their jobs in August, driven in part by pandemic-related fears.

The U.S. Labor Department reports that 4.3 million people resigned.

That was the most in nearly 21 years.

Job openings were down as well.

In Britain, a report by Parliament today charged that a delay in imposing a COVID lockdown caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

In response, a Cabinet minister defended the ruling Conservative Party's actions.

STEPHEN BARCLAY, U.K.

Cabinet Minister: We took the decisions based on the evidence before us.

But, of course, we have always said, with something so unprecedented as the pandemic, there will be lessons to learn.

We're keen to learn them.

That's why we have committed to an inquiry, and that will be the opportunity to look at what could be done differently and what lessons we take into the future.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Britain did impose a lockdown in late March of 2020, when infections threatened to overwhelm the health care system.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that the Vatican cannot be held liable for sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

Two dozen alleged victims had attempted to sue the holy see.

The court found that the Vatican's status as a sovereign state gives it legal immunity.

In Iraq, a pro-Iranian leader is rejecting election results that show his party and its allies lost seats in Parliament.

Hadi Al-Amiri says the results of Sunday's vote were -- quote - - "fabricated."

Meanwhile, supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr celebrated in Baghdad last night after their coalition came out on top.

FADHIL AL TAIE, Muqtada al-Sadr Supporter (through translator): We congratulate the Iraqi people on the victory of the reform project led by the leader Muqtada al-Sadr.

Today, we feel that Iraq has been liberated.

We haven't had this feeling since 2003.

Today, Iraq is truly liberated from corruption.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The various factions now have to form a coalition government, and that could take months.

Back in this country, a former U.S. Navy engineer and his wife appeared in federal court, accused of selling nuclear submarine secrets in an FBI sting.

Diana and Jonathan Toebbe allegedly thought they were dealing with an unnamed foreign power.

The Toebbes heard the charges in Martinsburg, West Virginia, but entered no pleas.

The judge ordered them to remain in custody.

And on Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 117 points to close at 34378.

The Nasdaq fell 20 points.

The S&P 500 slipped 10.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the North Korean leader shows off his country's missile technology, some that can reach the U.S.; House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff weighs in on the tenuous state of America's democracy; one judge's decades-long pattern of wrongfully arresting and jailing children of color; plus much more.

Today, the U.S. and South Korean national security advisers are meeting in Washington to discuss North Korea.

It was earlier today when North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, surrounded by missiles and other weaponry, put his nuclear-armed state front and center, and the Biden administration on notice.

Nick Schifrin explains.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The stars were out on Pyongyang's red carpet, intercontinental ballistic missiles, a new surface-to-air missile, a new hypersonic glide vehicle, and, behind Kim Jong-un himself, what North Korea calls new-type gigantic rocket, a flashy flaunting of years of North Korean military and nuclear advancement, and outside, human weapons, demonstrations of tae kwon do and North Korean soldiers' toughness.

Fighters flying by, to the delight of Kim and a sea of military leaders, the audience for the weapons exhibition both global and local, says Ankit Panda of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

ANKIT PANDA, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Kim has been quite open about the fact that these are not good times for North Korea.

But, despite all of this, their national defense program continues.

Their defense scientists continue to be innovative.

That's really the message here for the internal audience, that Kim Jong-un continues to ensure that North Korea will sustain its autonomy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: These weapons are the highlights of North Korea's missile and nuclear program so far, but they're also previews of future weapons that are today still untested.

ANKIT PANDA: I think Kim is trying to really indicate that he is working his way through a long list of military modernization objectives.

This is about leverage for the next time the North Koreans come back to the diplomatic table.

And Kim really wants the U.S. to appreciate what they're capable of doing and what they have been capable of doing over the last few years.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Last month alone, Pyongyang conducted three tests, including the hypersonic missile, the new cruise missile, and a train-based ballistic missile, all designed to improve North Korean missile and nuclear survivability and responsiveness.

ANKIT PANDA: By placing these missiles on rail cars, they can be placed in tunnels.

They can simply be rolled out, erected, and launched, and so that enhances the survivability in principle, and similarly with responsiveness.

Unlike truck-based missile launchers, which need to be driven around the countryside on - - sometimes going off-road, rail mobility is quite stable.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The North isn't the only one advancing its missiles.

Last month, South Korea tested its own missile launched from a submarine and watched by President Moon Jae-in.

The regional arms race isn't new, but it comes after a may summit in which the U.S. lifted decades-old missile restrictions.

Meanwhile, South Korea is trying to upgrade inter-Korean communications.

The two sides recently reopened a liaison office that last year North Korea blew up.

But ever since Kim and President Trump met in Hanoi in 2019, U.S.-North Korean diplomacy has been stalled.

The Biden administration wants direct diplomacy with North Korea, officially known as the DPRK NED PRICE, Spokesperson, State Department: We remain prepared to meet with the DPRK Without preconditions any time, anywhere.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But North Korea says it won't meet with the U.S. while the U.S. continues to hold training exercises with South Korea, including this one in August, and maintains sanctions, what the North calls the U.S.' - - quote -- "hostile policy."

For more on North Korea and the South Korean and the United States' national security advisers meeting today, we turn to Frank Jannuzi.

He was a State Department analyst, where he focused on North Korea.

He's now president of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, a nonprofit focused on improving relations among countries in Asia and with the United States.

Frank Jannuzi, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

As we just reported, North Korea says the U.S. has a -- quote -- "hostile policy" that it needs to give up.

For North Korea, what does that mean?

FRANK JANNUZI, President and CEO, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation: Well, they define it usually, Nick, to refer to sanctions, as well as the criticism of their human rights record, the fact that the United States maintains forces on the Korean Peninsula and nuclear armaments, which the North Koreans consider to be a threat.

But the North Koreans have long desired the United States to lift this so-called hostile policy.

And, in recent weeks, they have been turning more and more to addressing the state of war on the peninsula and a desire to see that state of war ended as one of the measurements by which they would evaluate whether or not the United States had lifted its hostile policy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So that's what North Korea wants.

South Korea is here in Washington today.

What does it want the U.S. to do?

FRANK JANNUZI: Suh Hoon, the national security adviser, has met with the North Koreans more than almost any other South Korean diplomat.

And what he's looking to try to get out of the Biden administration is a willingness for the Biden administration to put something new on the table in order to get dialogue with North Korea started, perhaps sanctions relief, perhaps an end-of-war declaration.

The Moon administration is in its final months in office.

They're really desperate to get something going with North and South diplomacy and the U.S.-North Korea diplomacy before that term expires.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And so you have the North Koreans and the South Koreans actually both wanting the U.S. to consider lifting sanctions and consider the end, official end of the Korean War.

Where's the Biden administration?

Is it willing to listen to those requests?

FRANK JANNUZI: Well, the Biden administration has pursued what I call a Goldilocks approach to the North Korea policy, not too hard, not too soft, trying to strive for something in the middle, just right.

But the problem for Biden is, is that policy lacks a degree of creativity necessary to really command North Korea's attention.

The Biden administration hoped that, by offering talks without preconditions, that they could lower the North Koreans into dialogue.

But, unfortunately, the North Koreans essentially are demanding that the Biden administration move first, move first on sanctions relief, move first on aid, move first on a end-of-war declaration.

And, frankly, I don't see any appetite in the Biden administration for those kinds of concessions.

NICK SCHIFRIN: There are some analysts who would say the Biden administration should not give concessions to North Korea, because North Korea, as it has in the past, would pocket them, and not actually take steps to denuclearize.

FRANK JANNUZI: Well, indeed.

There's every reason for the Biden administration to be mistrustful of the DPRK's intentions.

At the same time, I would hope that Biden would remember the attitude which he adopted in 2001 when Kim Jong-un's predecessor, his father, Kim Jong Il, made some overtures to the South and to the United States.

And at that point in his Senate career, Senator Biden said that it was vital for the United States to test North Korea's intentions through dialogue.

And so, one way or the other, the Biden administration needs to find a formula by which they can engage with the DPRK to test whether or not North Korea is prepared to take meaningful steps toward peace and denuclearization.

And if they can't do it through sanctions relief -- and, probably, they shouldn't -- then they need to find some other mechanism.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, meanwhile, we are seeing a very confident speech by Kim Jong-un last night and a display of years of military modernization.

I was struck by the fact that Kim Jong-un is approaching his 10th year in office as leader of North Korea.

And this is a more confident Kim, one who's willing both to admit the failings of his domestic economic development programs, at the same time that he celebrates what has been meaningful progress in the development of nuclear weapons, more advanced weaponry, and delivery systems for nuclear weapons that can now reach the region, if not all the way to the United States.

So, Kim Jong-un is perhaps less desperate for dialogue with the United States than he might have been five or six years ago.

And I think this is one of the reasons why he has set the bar higher, in terms of conditions on dialogue.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Frank Jannuzi, thank you very much.

FRANK JANNUZI: Thanks, Nick.

JUDY WOODRUFF: He is best known probably for being the chief prosecutor in former President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial.

That case ended with an acquittal.

But, in his new book, "Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff connects that episode to others in our recent history, including the January 6 Capitol riot.

Chairman Schiff joined me here just a short time ago.

Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you very much for joining us.

If the title weren't jarring enough, you have also been saying that the risk of authoritarianism in this country has never been greater.

Do you mean that?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I do.

There's this dangerous flirtation in the Republican Party right now with autocracy.

You see it reflected in some of their preeminent spokespeople, like Tucker Carlson extolling the model of Viktor Orban, the Hungarian wannabe dictator.

You see conservative political conventions now being scheduled in Budapest.

And you see Republicans around the country attacking the independent apparatus of our democracy, these elections officials, and trying to strip them of their powers and give them to partisan appointed officials or boards.

And that is a direct threat to our democracy and a pathway to authoritarianism.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm struck in the book by -- obviously, you focus a great deal on former President Trump, but how much you focus on Republican members of Congress.

And you describe how many of them are good people who are persuaded to abandon their beliefs.

This becomes a theme of the book.

Give us an example of how you see their minds changing, their hearts changing.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It is really a theme, a running theme in the book.

And it goes back to something Robert Caro, the historian, once observed, that power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals.

And over the last five years, we have seen how power has revealed who certain people are.

Bill Barr is a perfect example.

Bill Barr, under the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, when he was first attorney general, was one kind of person.

Surrounded, I think, by people of integrity, like the former president, we didn't get a sense of who he was.

But later, tethered to a man without scruple like Donald Trump, we found that Bill Barr was also without scruple, that he would do almost anything to have a seat once again at the table of power.

And there are so many other cautionary tales along those lines.

But I also wanted to tell the story in this book about the heroes that emerged, the Marie Yovanovitches, the Bill Taylors, the Alexander Vindmans, those who showed great courage, because their example is what will lead us out of this darkness.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think -- I mean, you call it darkness.

I mean, do you see an end to the influence of Donald Trump?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I do.

And what really I think is such a terrible tragedy is, after we went through that horrible ordeal of the insurrection, there was a window when the Republican Party might have recaptured its identity as a party of ideas.

You could see in Mitch McConnell the struggle about whether to throw Donald Trump overboard.

With Kevin McCarthy, those pangs of conscience lasted about 30 seconds.

But, with McConnell, you could see that he recognized what a disaster Donald Trump is for the country.

But I think he concluded ultimately that, if he tried to throw Trump overboard, he himself would be thrown overboard.

But at the end of the day, you have to ask, why are you in office anyway, if you're not going to do the right thing when the country really needs you?

JUDY WOODRUFF: You are clearly engaged in a number of things going on right now in Congress, but, in particular, the January 6 committee attempting to bring people who were close advisers to President Trump and potentially President Trump himself to testify.

They don't seem to be cooperating, most of them.

How do you plan to bring them before the Congress?

I know there's talk about bringing the -- saying they're in contempt of Congress, but do you really believe that, in the end, they're going to testify?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I believe we're going to force them to testify, if they don't do so willingly.

The reason why they feel they can thwart the law is, for four years, they were allowed to.

Steve Bannon was subpoenaed during the Russia investigation.

And he showed up with 25 questions that he would deign to answer written by the White House.

And when even the Republicans expressed outrage at this, he knew -- that is, Steve Bannon knew that the attorney general then, whether it was Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr, would never enforce the law against those covering up for the president of the United States.

But it's a different Justice Department with Merrick Garland.

It's a Justice Department that understands the rule of law, that no one is above that law.

And if people don't come before our committee when they're subpoenaed or don't turn over what they're supposed to, we will vote to hold them in contempt, criminal contempt in the House.

We will refer them for prosecution.

And we expect the Justice Department to uphold the principle that no one is above the law.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, you refer several times in the book to lessons learned from - - as you move through this process, the impeachment process.

Are any of those lessons things that you can apply to what you're engaged in right now?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, there are many lessons learned, and certainly some we can apply very easily.

And that is moving very quickly to, for example, criminal contempt.

Other lessons, though, bigger lessons, are much more difficult to effectuate.

And I say that because one of the most powerful lessons, to me, was, there's no flaw in our Constitution, there's no problem with the remedy of impeachment.

The problem isn't in the draftsmanship.

The problem is that we don't have enough people in Congress willing to give the spirit of the founders -- live up to the spirit of the founders in executing those provisions.

If people don't appreciate the difference between right and wrong, if they're not willing to be truthful, if they won't give content to their oath of office, it doesn't matter how brilliant the laws or Constitution are; our democracy is going to founder.

And that's why we are where we are.

One party right now has given up being a party of ideology.

It's become a cult around the former president.

And as long as that is the case, we're going to be at risk.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That's a pretty discouraging conclusion.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It is.

But the remedy is engagement.

There's nothing more debilitating than the idea that we're powerless to affect our circumstances.

We can't all be Marie Yovanovitch, first in the breach, showing the way to stand up to the most powerful in the world, but we can all do our part in our private life, our public life, our civic and corporate life, at a time when our democracy really needs us.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Adam Schiff.

The book is "Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could."

Thank you very much.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A new investigation by ProPublica and Nashville Public Radio has uncovered an alarming pattern of arresting and detaining elementary school children in one Tennessee county.

Lisa Desjardins has the story.

LISA DESJARDINS: Rutherford County, Tennessee, has detained a record number of children, some as young as 7 years old, in past years.

Some were arrested for playground fights, others for cursing.

In one 2016 case, four elementary school-age girls were detained for failing to intervene in a fight.

A disproportionate number of the children involved and arrested were Black.

Meribah Knight from Nashville Public Radio is the lead writer on the report.

And she joins us now.

Thank you so much, Meribah.

The focus is on this one county, Rutherford County.

And an attorney there told you, at one point, some 500 kids, he thought, had been arrested by mistake and another 1, 500 detained over a point of time as part of a jailing system that seems like it was subjective.

Essentially, at points, police and judge were deciding on how the kid looked or how the kid was acting in a moment, whether they would be detained.

At the center of your story is the arrest of 11 children surrounding that idea of a fight who intervened, who didn't.

Can you explain exactly what happened with those kids and how?

MERIBAH KNIGHT, Nashville Public Radio: Yes, thanks so much for having me.

Essentially, you set it up really well.

There were 11 children in all that were arrested for watching a fight.

The two that were actually involved in fighting were so young, 5 and 6, that they weren't culpable for their actions, but the other children were.

And they were arrested under the charge of criminal responsibility, which as we outlined in the story, was not even a real charge.

It's a prosecutorial theory.

So, one can't be charged with criminal responsibility.

One can be, say, charged with assault under criminal responsibility.

But that's just the beginning of kind of the myriad of mistakes that happened in this case.

So, yes, they wound up arresting 11 kids in total, using this charge.

There were an 8-year-old with pigtails arrested and handcuffed.

A sixth grader fell to her knees.

A fourth grader threw up in the assistant principal's office when she found out she was being arrested.

It was just a terrible, terrible experience for these children and a terrible moment for this system.

But it really shined a light on what was happening.

LISA DESJARDINS: Help us understand the role of those in power who seemed to even create this system, an elected judge and then also police officers.

How did this happen?

MERIBAH KNIGHT: Yes, so these arrests, as you outline, took place in Rutherford County, which, as we write in the story, had been illegally arresting and jailing kids for years, all under the watch of one judge, juvenile court Judge Donna Scott Davenport.

She has been the county's only juvenile court judge since 2000, when the court began.

And she has a really outsized role.

She oversees the courts, and she oversees the juvenile jail.

And up until this incident, she directed police on what she called our process for arresting kids, which basically was every child who was arrested, even for something minor, like this or like truancy, they must first go to the jail.

The judge told law enforcement this explicitly in a memo.

This is not normal routine procedure with children.

Then, the second part of this is that, once they got to the jail, they were subjected to something called the filter system, which was implemented by the jailer, Lynn Duke.

And that was an overly broad assessment of what a child was deemed -- whether a child was deemed a true threat.

I can talk more about that, but it was overly broad, it was illegal, and it was happening for decades.

LISA DESJARDINS: There's a lot of discussion about this topic of what incarceration does.

The judge in this case has argued on radio shows that this policy was meant to build character and that kids would come out of this detention system better.

What did you find about how kids were affected?

MERIBAH KNIGHT: I had an interview with one child who simply said to me: "We're not coming out better."

This has affected children in so many ways.

We open the story with this mass arrest.

The children involved in that, many of them had to go to counseling.

They were lucky enough to get settlements from the county, where there was money earmarked for counseling.

But I talked to them, and they had bad dreams.

They were scared they were going to get picked up at school and arrested again at any moment.

There was another young man we spoke to who was kept four days and denied his medication for bipolar.

After he was released, he was put on house arrest, and he tried to commit suicide three times in the coming year.

So the impact on these children is real, it is ever-present, and it is wide-ranging.

LISA DESJARDINS: Is this still happening?

And have there been any repercussions for the people who put this policy in place?

MERIBAH KNIGHT: There have been no repercussions, except for this settlement.

Some of this has been stopped, thanks to federal judges intervening when lawyers have brought class-action lawsuits.

They have forced the filter system to stop.

They have forced solitary confinement to stop.

But the architects of this system are still in power.

The judge is still the judge.

The jailer is still the jailer.

And there's also other mechanisms of oversight that are woefully inadequate that we outline in the story.

Just one example is the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, they license juvenile jails across the state.

They inspected this facility twice a year, and never once did they flag this illegal system.

And it was right there in black and white in the manual for this facility.

So, yes, there's been some consequences, as far as money and payouts to families, but the architects are still there and the systems of oversight are still inadequate.

LISA DESJARDINS: Such important reporting.

Meribah Knight of Nashville Public Radio, thank you for joining us.

MERIBAH KNIGHT: Thank you so much for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare many vulnerabilities in the United States' health care system, including a worsening shortage of nurses and physicians.

But recent data indicates a new surge of interest in nursing, medical, and other health-related career programs.

Stephanie Sy has this report for our series Rethinking College.

STEPHANIE SY: At 55, Debi Kinder is taking a new path.

Last year, the mother of two, plus dog Diva, was semi-retired and working a part-time job.

Then the pandemic hit, and she was laid off.

Sheltered at home, Kinder saw a gap that needed filling DEBI KINDER, Student, Gateway Community College: I kept -- I'm going to cry.

I kept seeing the nurses on the news, and they were, like, sitting in the hallways, and they were just, like, crying.

They were exhausted.

And I was just, like, really driven to go see if I could help in any way.

STEPHANIE SY: So, she started training to become a licensed practical nurse, and got a full-time job at a local home hospice.

When she finishes her program in December, Kinder will take more courses to become a registered nurse, or R.N., a role with more responsibility and pay.

Full-time school on top of full-time work is no easy task.

But Kinder says she's prepared for the long road ahead.

What else do you think it takes to be a front-line worker during a pandemic?

Because we're still in it.

DEBI KINDER: Endurance.

STEPHANIE SY: Endurance.

DEBI KINDER: I definitely have the endurance.

I have done three Iron Man.

I have done an Ultra run.

And so I think that gives you the stamina.

I'm not fast, but I never stop.

(LAUGHTER) STEPHANIE SY: Kinder is part of a new trend.

Last year saw record interest for many health-related programs nationwide.

Medical schools saw applications soar by about 18 percent.

Public health programs reported spikes in interest for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

And Kinder's school, Gateway Community College in Phoenix, Arizona, saw a 15 percent rise in interest for its licensed practical nurse and nursing assistant programs.

MARGI SCHULTZ, Director of Nursing, Gateway Community College: They really want to help people, and they want to make a difference.

And they feel that this is a way to do it.

STEPHANIE SY: Margi Schultz is the director of nursing at Gateway.

MARGI SCHULTZ: A lot of students have cared for their family members who had COVID, and some of them were extremely ill. And they realized they weren't scared by it, or, if they did home care, they liked it, and they were drawn to that.

STEPHANIE SY: She says that some applicants are also attracted to the field because of the high demand for nurses at all levels.

MARGI SCHULTZ: There are more jobs than there are people to fill them.

STEPHANIE SY: The unprecedented interest that schools like Gateway saw last year has been dubbed the Fauci Effect, after prominent physician Dr. Anthony Fauci, who, along with other front-line health care workers, emerged as heroes during the pandemic.

Ming Lian and her fellow classmates are some of the lucky few accepted to the University at Buffalo's Medical School from a record number of applicants.

Last year, the school saw a 40 percent surge.

MING LIAN, Student, University at Buffalo Medical School: During the midst of the pandemic, I had to focus on just getting by day by day and the task at hand.

STEPHANIE SY: Lian was working as a medical scribe, assisting doctors at a hospital in Brooklyn.

When New York City became the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic, she felt powerless.

MING LIAN: I was very disappointed in myself not knowing enough to help anyone.

So, going through medical school will allow me to directly participate in patient care.

STEPHANIE SY: She had worked on her medical school applications for two years, and was ecstatic when she found out she was accepted.

MING LIAN: That was incredible.

It was an incredible feeling.

STEPHANIE SY: Dr. Dori Marshall is the director of admissions at the University at Buffalo's Medical School.

She says that, like Lian, many first-year students were inspired by front-line doctors, but did not apply on the spur of the moment.

DR. DORI MARSHALL, Director of Admissions, University at Buffalo Medical School: It's really a process that takes years to get themselves ready to apply for medical school.

STEPHANIE SY: She says last year's spike in applications is more likely attributable to other reasons, like moving the entire process, including interviews, online.

DR. DORI MARSHALL: The expense of flying here was gone with COVID.

There was no overnight in a hotel.

There was no travel expenses.

The only expenses last year were really the application and then taking an hour for each of the two interviews.

So I think that that had a lot to do with it.

STEPHANIE SY: Fully-online applications meant aspiring doctors could afford to apply to more medical schools.

MING LIAN: Being able to do it virtually and at home saved me quite a bit of money, so that I can actually use those money to apply to more school.

STEPHANIE SY: These changes meant University at Buffalo saw a 59 percent increase in applications from first-generation college students like Lian, who moved to the U.S. from a village in China when she was 13.

But this rising interest won't mean more physicians anytime soon.

Medical schools and hospitals have not increased class sizes and residency programs to meet demand.

Back in Arizona, Gateway Community College has enrolled more nursing students, but students need hospital experience to complete their training, and those spots, as with physician residencies, are limited.

While students can practice in simulations like this one, it's no substitute for the real thing, says nursing director Margi Schultz.

MARGI SCHULTZ: You absolutely must get in there with real patients.

And patients do different things than a simulator does.

And you really have to be vomited on, and you have to really experience it up close and personal to be a nurse.

STEPHANIE SY: Student Debi Kinder is eager to join the fray.

What most excites you about the prospect of being an R.N.?

DEBI KINDER: Being done with school.

(LAUGHTER) DEBI KINDER: I think just that -- honestly, I hate to say it, but that feeling of accomplishment, of doing something I didn't think I was able to do, and then being able to help patients and interact with them and get that quality time.

STEPHANIE SY: She's got the bedside manner part down.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Stephanie Sy in Phoenix.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the NFL's most well-known head coaches, Jon Gruden of the Las Vegas Raiders, is out of a job after a series of highly offensive e-mails were publicly disclosed by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

William Brangham has the story.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy, these e-mails show Gruden repeatedly using racist, anti-gay and misogynistic language.

They date back to 2010, when Gruden was an analyst for ESPN.

He rejoined the Raiders as head coach in 2018.

As reported, Gruden was communicating with, among others, Bruce Allen, who is the one-time president of the Washington Football Team.

In one exchange, Gruden used a racist stereotype to describe DeMaurice Smith, head of the NFL Players Association, who is Black.

Using an anti-gay slur, Gruden complained when, in 2014, an NFL team drafted Michael Sam, the first openly gay player.

Carl Nassib, who's the first active NFL player to come out as gay, plays for the Raiders, Gruden's former team.

William C. Rhoden is a columnist for the sports media site The Undefeated.

Bill Rhoden, great to have you back on the "NewsHour."

I wonder if you could just give me, what was your reaction when you first heard about this whole saga?

WILLIAM C. RHODEN, The Undefeated: Yes.

Well, I was surprised, not because I was surprised by what Gruden said and that he said it, but more that I know that he is very popular, people like him.

He's kind of known in the business as a guy's guy.

And the owner likes him a lot.

In fact, he gave him this unprecedented 10-year contract.

And I know that he did not want to see him leave.

So I thought that he was just going to try to run out the clock and play it out.

But it just got to be too much, with -- if it had been just DeMaurice Smith and the racism, maybe he could have walked with that, but you're calling the commissioner a slur.

He checked every single box of bigotry and racism.

And in this NFL, where they're talking about diversity and inclusion, he just could not survive that.

So I was surprised that they did it so quickly.

I was not surprised at what he said.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In your column for The Undefeated, you wrote not just about Gruden, but Grudenism and how this represents a much larger culture within the NFL.

What did you mean by that?

WILLIAM C. RHODEN: There are a lot of people - - the NFL is very regressive, despite all the efforts of being open.

There are a lot of people who really agree with everything that Gruden said.

They're not crazy about women becoming officials or anything in a position of power.

They're not crazy about athletes getting their voice.

You know, they don't say anything, but this is an attitude that's there.

And I'm also really curious about these others.

Going forward, who did he write these e-mails to?

Who's on the receiving end?

And what was their reaction?

You know, I really would hope the Players Association will force NFL to give us more information.

Who are these people and what was their reaction?

Because Gruden was enabled.

And I want to find out who these enablers were.

It's one thing to get rid of Gruden.

But when I refer to Grudenism, I'm talking about that sort of sensibility that he represents, which I feel is alive and well, not just in the NFL, but, as we have seen in the past few years, throughout our country.

So that's what's a little disturbing.

I mean, he's gone.

Sort of like the nail is gone, but the hole is still there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The NFL, as you pointed out, has decried these comments and has tried over the years to push what it argues are anti-racism efforts.

From a management and a leadership perspective, what would you like to see the league do to make sure that this is more of an aberrant type of event?

WILLIAM C. RHODEN: Well, that's hard, William, because it's hard to legislate what's in somebody's heart.

You could pass all the type of rules, but if you're homophobic, you're homophobic.

If you're not crazy about women in position of power, that's what it is.

I'm not sure what the NFL could do, except, in this case, find out who were his enablers?

Who are the people who he was writing to?

Who were the people who were on the receiving end?

Who are his sort of his guys, his clan?

And, also, by the way, let's get beyond having three or four Black head coaches.

Let's get Black executives, because actions speak louder than words.

You can say all this stuff, but if you don't do business with Black vendors, if you don't promote Black executives, if you don't -- that's really the tale of the tale.

And this with Gruden is sort of where the rubber hits the words.

So, I'm really interested in deeds, not just words.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: These e-mails came out as part of an investigation into culture within the Washington Football Team.

Do you think we're ever going to find out who are about that?

Because that seems to have sort of hit something of a dead end.

WILLIAM C. RHODEN: Well, I'd like to.

And I think that's absolutely the point.

It can't just stop here.

And like I said, the Players Association wants to get more, and I know that there are probably a lot of people around the league who are holding their breaths.

They want it to stop here, because no telling where this can go.

You know, where there's smoke, there's a lot of fire.

And, like I said, it's easier just to get rid of Gruden and then let's call it off.

I would like this to be the beginning point, and I think that this will be a season like no other.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Bill Rhoden of The Undefeated, always good to see you.

Thank you very much.

WILLIAM C. RHODEN: The pleasure is mine.

Take care.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In recent months, a lack of quality, affordable child care in the United States has moved front and center to the political conversation in this country.

It is a key part of the agenda for many Democrats, including President Biden, whose original Build Back Better plan aimed to ensure that families pay no more than 7 percent of their income for child care, offer universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, and make an existing expanded child tax credit permanent.

Republicans are almost uniformly opposed to the measure, but many say that an overhaul of child care in this country is long overdue.

That issue is the subject of a new documentary airing later tonight on PBS titled "Raising the Future: The Child Care Crisis."

It highlights the struggles parents and child care workers experience every day.

WOMAN: Floating in the sea, along came a whale, and took them home for tea.

WOMAN: The child care experience as a whole has been challenging.

WOMAN: It was really stressful, because we didn't really know our options.

Like, we didn't really ever think about, are we going to have a nanny?

Are we going to do group care?

Like, it was things that we just kind of thought, when she needed care, we would just, like, bring her someplace, which I guess is such a naive way of thinking now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And our own Amna Nawaz and special correspondent Cat Wise, who worked on this special program, join me now.

Hello to both of you.

And, Cat, I'm going to start with you.

This is born from a series that you and your producer worked on, as we said, this summer.

What led you to want to tell these stories?

CAT WISE: Yes.

Before the pandemic, Judy, the U.S. child care system was often described as fragile and broken.

And as -- over the years, as Kate McMahon and I have traveled around the country covering different stories, we have met many parents who've really struggled with child care.

And what we have learned is, it boils down to four main issues, access, affordability, quality, and work force pay.

And those are huge issues for families around the country.

We know that child care workers earn, on average, $12 an hour, just $12 an hour.

There are fast food workers who earn more than that these days.

And we know many families cannot afford the cost of child care.

So when the pandemic hit and the child care system all but collapsed, these were some of the key issues that were really highlighted.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Amna, what you do in this hour is, you're not only looking at where we are right now, but how we got here.

To what extent has child care always been in crisis here?

AMNA NAWAZ: You know, what was really interesting to find out that I actually didn't know about is, in past times of crisis in this country, the government has stepped in, World War II, for example.

Men went off to fight.

Women went in the factories to work.

Hundreds of thousands of American children needed care.

Congress funded and set up a national system of child care centers with quality, reliable child care.

Those went away when the war ended.

And there have been efforts at reform.

Even under President Nixon, there was a bipartisan effort to reform child care, do a kind of national system again.

It went through Congress, but then, under conservative pressure, President Nixon ended up vetoing it.

So what we have today, as Cat alluded to there, is this very fragmented system.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Cat, you traveled across the country to look at what different communities are doing, how they're trying to tackle this, how to fix it.

Tell us a little about what you found.

CAT WISE: Yes.

I mean, communities across this country are impacted by a lack of child care, especially in rural America.

They're very concerned about young families moving away, and they see this as a critical economic development issue.

We went to one small town that decided to tackle their child care shortage by adding an infant and toddler program to the public school.

We also spoke to the Coffey (ph) family in Nebraska.

And, like many families, they want to see more government funding for child care, but they want to maintain local control over those dollars.

MAN: Nobody wants to be taxed more.

But dollars have to come from somewhere.

If it's a boon to society, I think it makes sense to take money from taxes for that.

WOMAN: Early childhood and education funding, it definitely doesn't need to be run and managed by the government.

As a former superintendent of schools, it is extremely important to communities to continue to have that local control.

CAT WISE: That was the view we heard from a number of people that we talked to.

We heard over and over again that the child care system in this country should be fixed, but there's just a lot of opinions about how to do that, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Amna, finally, I guess this leads us to ask, where does this leave us today?

AMNA NAWAZ: Like you heard from Cat, you heard from some of the families we profiled there, and you will hear in the hour, good, quality child care costs money.

The big debate is who is going to pay for it and how we're going to fund it.

That political debate you obviously mentioned, the Biden plan for reconciliation, the Democrats fighting to get that child care funding in that Build Back Better plan, could come from there.

Could come from some of the examples that Cat examines.

We also look at some examples overseas.

The French, for example, have a very interesting system we unpack.

But even here in the U.S., we look at the U.S. military.

We put in a billion dollars every year to make sure there is a quality, reliable child care system in place for our service members.

Maybe there are some answers in there for us.

But, right now, the big question is, it's broken.

How do we fix it?

JUDY WOODRUFF: And I remember what a great series it was last summer.

I am so looking forward to tonight.

Thank you, Amna Nawaz.

Thank you, Cat Wise.

And I also want to thank the producers who worked with both of you, Rachel Wellford and Gretchen Frazee.

And you can watch "Raising the Future: The Child Care Crisis."

That's tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern/9:00 Central on your local PBS station.

Do watch.

And in a related story, on the "NewsHour" online right now: Experts say bias in the workplace against those who have to provide care at home for family members is increasingly a problem.

We explore this issue on our Web site.

It's PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.

For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon.