The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Thursday; an update of the congressional struggle over how to treat and try suspected terrorists, followed by a Newsmaker interview with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; then, a NewsHour report about the search for better bomb detection equipment at airports; a look at new federal regulations aimed at reducing auto rollovers on highways; and a report from Los Angeles on Iraq war veterans with severe brain injuries.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today on terror suspects. It voted 15-9 to give them greater protections. The president had pushed for allowing tougher interrogations. He also wanted to shield U.S. personnel from war crimes charges.

Earlier today, he warned the Senate alternative may not work.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: So the question I ask about any piece of legislation is: Will the program provide legal clarity so that our professionals will feel comfortable about going forward with the program? That`s what I`m going to ask, and I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.

JIM LEHRER: The Senate committee vote came after the Bush plan suffered another blow. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced it in a letter to Senator John McCain. Powell warned "it would put our own troops at risk" and add to doubts about U.S. policy. We`ll have more on this story right after this news summary.

The House today approved a new bill to build a fence along the Mexican border. It would run more than 700 miles. Republicans moved to deal with the fence issue separately after a comprehensive immigration bill stalled.

Later, the Senate approved a bill to improve port security. It puts radiation detectors at the 22 largest U.S. ports.

A suicide bomber near Baghdad killed two U.S. soldiers today and seriously wounded several others. Three more Americans died in separate incidents, and 28 Iraqis were killed in violence across the country.

Also today, Iraq`s deputy prime minister promised new efforts to pacify Anbar province in the west. He spoke at the Pentagon.

BARHEM SALEH, Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq: I personally met with the governor of Anbar ten days ago or so, and we have agreed to release a lot of funds. We need to do a lot more to make sure that people will see benefit with security, as well as not just a matter of security operations. People need to see reconstruction, and they need to see new jobs being made and so on.

JIM LEHRER: News accounts this week said a top U.S. Marine intelligence officer has warned Anbar is all but lost. His assessment said al-Qaida is the most potent political force in the region.

U.S. officials today announced the capture of a senior al-Qaida figure in Iraq. He was said to be a "personal associate" of the group`s new leader.

Another senior al-Qaida member was killed this week in Baghdad. He was found carrying letters for Osama bin Laden.

Afghan police warned today the Taliban has regrouped in the west. Their latest attack came early today. Up to 200 fighters seized a police compound in Farah province before they were driven off.

Authorities said the Taliban have moved west to escape NATO pressure in the south. NATO has asked for more troops. And today, Poland agreed to send another 900 soldiers. They will work mostly in eastern Afghanistan, not in the volatile south, and they won`t deploy until February.

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards died Wednesday at her home in Austin. She`d battled cancer of the esophagus since last March. Richards` battles with the Bush family brought her to national attention.

NewsHour correspondent Judy Woodruff narrates our report.

JUDY WOODRUFF, NewsHour Special Correspondent: Ann Richards galvanized the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta with one jibe about then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.

ANN RICHARDS (D), Former Governor of Texas: Poor George. He can`t help it; he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

(APPLAUSE)

JUDY WOODRUFF: With that, the housewife-turned-politician catapulted into the national spotlight, using her sharp wit to champion minority and women`s rights.

ANN RICHARDS: If you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did; she just did it backwards and in high heels.

(APPLAUSE)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Richards was elected as governor of Texas two years later, becoming the first woman to hold the office in half a century and the first elected in her own right. She celebrated the win by holding up a t-shirt that read, "A woman`s place is in the dome."

Four years later, she lost her re-election bid to the younger George Bush. She remained an active force in politics, giving speeches and serving as a political commentator.

She once told an interviewer, "I did not want my tombstone to read, `She kept a really clean house.` I think I`d like them to remember me by saying, `She opened government to everyone.`"

Ann Richards was 73 years old.

JIM LEHRER: In a statement today, President Bush said, "Texas has lost one of its great daughters."

Ford Motor Company will offer buyouts and early retirement to more than 75,000 workers. The company confirmed that today. It plans a formal announcement tomorrow. An official with the United Auto Workers said the packages range from $35,000 to $140,000.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 16 points to close at 11,527. The Nasdaq rose one point to close above 2,228.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: terrorism struggles in Congress; Senator Frist; airport bombs; highway rollovers; and combat brain injuries.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Defining the rights of suspected terrorists. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush traveled to Capitol Hill today for a visit that was part lobbying trip, part rescue mission. His proposals to establish military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees and other suspected terrorists and guidelines for their treatment are on the ropes.

They`ve been embraced by House Republicans but are being challenged openly by key Republicans in the Senate. The president spoke this morning after a meeting that included only Republicans from the House.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland, and yesterday they advanced an important piece of legislation to do just that.

KWAME HOLMAN: That legislation came from the House Armed Services Committee, where 52 of 60 members approved a bill that mirrors what the president has proposed. It would mandate military commissions much like those the president installed after 9/11 but which were struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

Testimony against detainees obtained using coercive methods would be permissible in court and so would classified evidence that the accused never would get to see. The bill also would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment, so as to give American military personnel more flexibility during interrogations.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said U.S. troops also would be shielded from prosecution for their interrogation tactics unless their acts went too far.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), House Armed Services Chairman: It has to be treatment that, under our case law, shocks the conscience. That is, it has to be a real crime.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Hunter`s counterpart in the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, has crafted an alternative proposal with colleagues John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Theirs would not allow the use of coerced testimony or permit secret evidence.

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), Virginia: I recognize fully that there are honest differences of opinion with respect to very complicated legal issues.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Warner argues the House bill, like the president`s proposal, would lower the standard for the treatment of detainees, putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

The president`s former secretary of state, Colin Powell, echoed that sentiment in a letter sent to McCain and released today. He wrote, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Redefining Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions "would add to those doubts."

Asked about the letter at the White House this afternoon, Mr. Bush responded that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions must be altered so that interrogators can adequately reap information from terrorists.

GEORGE W. BUSH: If there`s ambiguity, if there`s any doubt in our professionals` mind that they can conduct their operations in a legal way with support of the Congress, the program won`t go forward and the American people will be endangered.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, Senator Warner pushed through his proposal on military tribunals with support from all committee Democrats, despite the concerns of several conservative Republicans. Alabama`s Jeff Sessions said the debate over Article 3 already was having a negative impact on American intelligence personnel.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), Alabama: We have agents around the world that are getting nervous and frustrated. They are there because we sent them. Many of them are at great risk, and they`re now beginning to wonder if their service to the country could actually lead to them being charged or sued and buying insurance and that kind of thing.

KWAME HOLMAN: The battle now shifts to the floors of the Senate and House. Both chambers would have to reach agreement to get a bill to President Bush before they adjourn at the end of the month.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, our interview with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee. It follows one with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid last night. I spoke with Senator Frist earlier this evening from the Capitol.

Senator, welcome.

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), Senate Majority Leader: Good to be with you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you. So the president is not going to get the military tribunal legislation from the Senate that he wants?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Jim, we`ll wait and see. We had the product that came out of the Armed Services Committee today. There are several very contentious issues in that bill that clearly the president will not agree with, and I think the majority of Republican senators, anyway, will not agree with. So not until we get to the floor will we know what the final product will be coming out of the United States Senate.

JIM LEHRER: There was a suggestion today that you might take the version that the president wants directly to the floor in competition with the one that came out, the Warner-McCain-Graham alternative. Is that correct?

SEN. BILL FRIST: That is correct, and a decision has not been made. We`ll wait and look at both bills. But either way, senators will have the opportunity to express themselves.

I, as majority leader, can take either bill out, the president`s bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the House, their committee, as you well know, or the committee that came out today. Again, the differences are about three or four major differences. There are about 85, maybe 90 percent of the bill are very, very similar, both of those bills.

JIM LEHRER: Now, one of the major differences has to do with whether or not defendants have access to the testimony and evidence against them, these terrorist suspects. Which version do you -- the president says no. The alternative today says yes. Where do you come down?

SEN. BILL FRIST: That is one of the major issues of disagreement. The president feels strongly that sources and methods, classified information should not necessarily be given to the terrorists themselves. Why? Because typically that information can be shared, either through an attorney or elsewhere, with terrorists around the world.

You are correct in the bill that came out of the Armed Services today that classified information, including sources and methods, will be given to the terrorists in a trial. A fundamental difference, and I, of course, believe strongly that you should not be giving to somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attack, you should be giving him classified information.

JIM LEHRER: So you agree with the president on this?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Another issue has to do with interrogation rules. And where do you come down on that?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, that`s the other big area, and a lot of time will be spent on that. It comes down with what`s called Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

SEN. BILL FRIST: And people better get used to hearing that, even though it`s very confusing. And there the issue is pretty clear, as well. The president clearly defines what Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention means, and that way an interrogator will know how far they can go, what they can do. What does degrading treatment mean?

Well, the McCain approach or the Armed Services Committee approach leaves that very, very vague. So what does degrading treatment mean? And if a terrorist says, "Well, that`s degrading a treatment," are you then all of a sudden going to have broken an international treaty and U.S. law?

So what the president says is, no, we better define that very specifically. And that is a fundamental difference. And I, again, strongly support the plan and proposal put forth by the president.

JIM LEHRER: As you probably know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Senator McCain that was released today, and he took the opposite position that you`re taking. He supports the McCain approach, and he said the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. Do you agree with that?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, I`m not sure. The larger statement, that may well be the case, but I think the implications for an interrogator, for the people who are doing the questioning and getting information, that does affect the safety and security of America, of the people who are listening to us, if they basically say that I in some way can be held responsible because and by a standard that`s set out by an international community, because of vagueness or uncertainty of what I can do, we`re going to lose our interrogators.

And that`s exactly what the president and the administration and the secretary of state, the current secretary of state, and five JAG officers in letters today have said, that the program is going to shut down and we`re not going to be able to access information that is very important to the security and the future security of America.

JIM LEHRER: So you reject the argument that also Secretary Powell and Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and Senator Warner say -- and others -- say that this -- if we change the rules under the Geneva Convention, as you just outlined, or interpret it our way, this would put our own troops in jeopardy when they are captured by any enemy force?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, I reject the way you phrase that. And I support what Secretary of State Condi Rice has said, Ambassador Negroponte, who`s our chief intelligence officer, General Hayden, who is head of the CIA, all believe, and that is, if the Armed Services bill, put forth by Chairman Warner and McCain and Graham, if we were to take that approach, that shuts down the program that has been very and will be very useful to protecting the interest of the United States of America.

JIM LEHRER: So you`re with the president all the way on this?

SEN. BILL FRIST: I am.

JIM LEHRER: Last night, Senator Reid was on the program, and he said that you pretty much are always with the president. And as a consequence, you`ve surrendered the power of the United States Senate to President Bush. What do you say to that?

SEN. BILL FRIST: I`d say, "Wake up, Harry Reid. Wake up, Harry Reid." And you can look -- you can look in a number of areas. I do strongly support the president of the United States. I think that he has got it right, that we`re not going to do what Harry Reid wants to do, and that is surrender, to wave a white flag, to cut and run at a time when we`re being threatened, as we all saw just three or four weeks ago, in a plot from Britain that was going to send 10 airplanes over here.

We just need the Democrats to wake up. And then the next question you`ll ask and others will, you know, start giving examples, and one example I give is on stem cells, where clearly I have taken a very different approach than where the president is on that particular bill.

JIM LEHRER: But Senator Reid says that`s the only exception.

SEN. BILL FRIST: No. And again, he`s trying to oversimplify, because they wanted to go through the one size fits all. I can tell you where our interest is: It`s the safety and security of the American people.

It is going to be a wake-up call to the Democrats who basically belittle in many ways this war on terror, who do want to wave this white flag and surrender. And surrender is just simply not a solution, and that`s very likely going to play out here over the next several weeks, as we address these bills that you talked about on the floor of the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Let me make sure I understand what you`re saying, Senator Frist. You`re saying that the Democrats are waving the white flag to the terrorists and are surrendering, that`s what they want to do?

SEN. BILL FRIST: I`m saying -- I`m saying that, right now, you look - - and we can use the example of Iraq -- when we`ve taken it to the floor now about eight weeks ago, and if it comes back to the floor again, all, most all Democrats, at least the Democratic leadership, is going to say, "Let`s withdraw. Let`s get out. Let`s cut and run. Let`s surrender."

JIM LEHRER: But on the specifics that we`ve been talking about earlier, John Warner is a Republican. John McCain is a Republican. Lindsay Graham is a Republican. So we`re talking about -- these are two different issues, right?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Yes. No, I thought you were referring to Senator Reid`s comments last night.

JIM LEHRER: Yes, well, but he was talking about -- well, all right. But he was talking about the general thing of your going with the president and he says surrendering the power of the third branch of government.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Yes. Well, again, we can go back and look for examples.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

SEN. BILL FRIST: If you want to talk about stem cells, we can move to that issue, as well.

Again, this oversimplification of Harry Reid and the Democrats trying to avoid the substance of the issues because we are talking about very important issues. We`re talking about -- the bills we were talking about - - security, getting surveillance, getting information, and those are the bills that I`m taking to the floor.

I was just down in Guantanamo Bay last Sunday and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- I didn`t see him, but I know he was several blocks away -- and to think that right now we`re going to give him classified information in a trial, the man who -- the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks -- to me is just, you know, beyond comprehension.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, how important do you think it is that the Republicans maintain control of the Senate in the November elections?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Very important.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, because we`ve got a bold vision of where this country needs to go, whether it`s an issue on the issues we`re talking about, in terms of security and fighting this war on terror, and not cutting and running in Iraq, whether it`s keeping taxes low to make sure we secure the prosperity of America.

The Democrats have said they`re going to throw the Bush tax cuts overboard, and that`s going to increase the average person listening to me -- a family of four, $62,000 -- that would increase their taxes by 58 percent.

There`s a lot at stake in these elections. It`s clear where Republican leadership will take us, and it`s clear where Democratic leadership would take us.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, are you uncomfortable at all by the way the Republican Party rallied to the side of Senator Linc Chafee in Rhode Island, despite the fact that all the issues that you have named and others, he`s usually votes against you and the Republican leadership? And yet you and the others supported him for re-election or re-nomination in the Republican primary.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Very proud of Linc Chafee. He is a colleague who I strongly support.

Listen, I don`t demand what maybe the other side does, and that is that everybody follow us all the time. And right now, Linc Chafee -- I don`t know, he probably votes with me 85 percent, maybe 90 percent of the time, maybe 95 percent of the time.

He is an honest, strong integrity, strong character. I strongly support. And that`s why you saw the Republican Party -- both the leadership, our grassroots, as supported through the RNC -- strongly support him. And hopefully we all contributed a little bit to the victory.

He deserved to win. He is a great United States senator, and we`re going to welcome him back.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Reid again last night said that, if there is a Democratic majority in the Senate after November, that the Democrats would use the power of the purse to influence Iraq policy, to change Iraq policy. Is that something people should be concerned about?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, you know, again -- first of all, we`re not going to see Democratic leadership, at least not in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. And if we`re going to threaten to starve our troops overseas, I`d be very concerned, if that`s the implication.

JIM LEHRER: But do you think Iraq policy needs to be changed?

SEN. BILL FRIST: I support both the generals on the ground, the boots on the ground, and I support the direction of the president of the United States.

I do believe that we should not surrender and that Iraq is a part -- a part -- of this larger war on terror, that, again, the United States was threatened by again just four weeks ago with this British plot that unfolded. I think 9/11, the remembrances of 9/11 just a few days ago, brought back the fact that the post-9/11 world means that we are at risk.

And we need to be aggressive; we need to be bold; we need to be aggressive. And that`s right where the president is.

JIM LEHRER: I finished the interview with Senator Reid last night asking him how he would characterize his working relationship with you. He said it was good. He said you were a wonderful man, but you always followed the Bush administration, and you`ve taken away the third branch of government, and that is not good for the country. How do you respond to that?

SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, it sounds like -- I didn`t see your interview with him last night, but it sounds like he didn`t want to talk about the issues. He didn`t want to talk about securing America`s homeland, securing America`s prosperity, securing America`s values. And that`s where we`re going to stay: It`s on the issues.

He can try to lump everybody together and run against everybody and hope that wins elections. The American people are smarter than that. They want to be safe; they want to be secure; they want their children to have the opportunities that they have had and even more. And that`s where the Republican focus is.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Frist, thank you very much.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Thank you, Jim.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Still to come tonight: reducing rollover accidents; and war veterans coping with significant brain injuries.

But first, detecting explosives at airports. Last month, British authorities said they thwarted a plot to blow up airplanes headed for the United States, raising anew questions about airport security measures. NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles has our report.

JEFFREY KAYE, Reporter, KCET: The alleged plot to smuggle liquid bomb components onto planes not only led to the banning of most liquids and gels from carry-on luggage, it also laid bare the limitations of explosives detections systems at airports.

Even though U.S. airport security has been transformed over the past five years, late last year, the 9/11 Commission gave explosives detection at passenger checkpoints a grade of "C."

That score was too generous, according to Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Gregg chairs the subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security`s spending.

What grade would you give?

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R), New Hampshire: Well, "D-plus" at best. I mean, the fact is there`s -- the situation occurring with those aircrafts coming out of England reflected how many different opportunities to use explosive devices there are and how little we really screen for them.

JEFFREY KAYE: Among the reasons for the bad grade, serious problems with walk-through machines that analyze chemicals. Government officials promised there`d be 350 so-called "puffers" in operation by the end of this year. But only 94 have been deployed, and further installations have been stopped because of maintenance and reliability issues. That`s according to Randy Null, technology chief at the Transportation Security Administration, who would not talk on camera.

Most of the machines bought by the government are made by General Electric. The detectors are based on the principle that people who have had contact with bombs or their components will have at least a trace amount of chemicals on them, according to G.E. spokesman Steve Hill. Hill would not discuss deployment problems.

So, as a passenger, I`m standing here. I`m seeing this little green walking man that tells me I should go in.

STEVE HILL, General Electrics Spokesman: Absolutely.

PUFFER MACHINE: Enter.

JEFFREY KAYE: "Enter," I hear, "Enter." I walk through, set my feet here.

PUFFER MACHINE: Air puffers on.

JEFFREY KAYE: I`m puffed from all sides. What`s going on?

STEVE HILL: These jets of air are being used to dislodge particles of explosives that might be present. They`re being drawn up using the convection plume around your warm body into the overhead sensor, where trace detection is analyzing them for the possible presence of explosives.

JEFFREY KAYE: Charged molecules pushed through an electric field arrive at various speeds, allowing the detector to differentiate among chemicals it`s programmed to pick out.

STEVE HILL: And in about 15 seconds, you`ve passed, and you`re free to go on your way to your flight.

PUFFER MACHINE: Exit.

JEFFREY KAYE: I get the green light.

STEVE HILL: That`s right.

JEFFREY KAYE: But the red light given these devices, according to government officials and scientists, is symptomatic of organizational problems that have plagued TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

SEN. JUDD GREGG: There`s no question that we should have been much further down the road on using technology on screening passengers and on screening baggage.

JEFFREY KAYE: And the fact that we`re not, is it attributable to management organizational issues, or just the complexity, the challenge of getting these things to work?

SEN. JUDD GREGG: I think both. Initially, it was because there was no -- the technology was still new, and it was still evolving, and nobody was really comfortable with whether it was working well. And now it`s really evolved into more of a bureaucracy.

JEFFREY KAYE: Gregg`s frustration is shared by Thomas Chamberlain, a scientist who ran explosives detection programs for a succession of U.S. government agencies between 1997 and 2005. Now a consultant to industry and government, one of Chamberlain`s first priorities as a trace explosives lab manager with the Federal Aviation Administration in 1997 was to develop and fund the so-called "puffers."

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN, Scientist: I don`t think there`s any doubt they could have had them out there at least two to three years earlier.

JEFFREY KAYE: We`re two to three years behind the deployment of puffers where we could be?

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: I think so.

JEFFREY KAYE: The problem, says Chamberlain, was that, in recent years, research and development dollars were used instead to hire screeners and shifted into management. As a result, engineering work on the puffers wasn`t completed.

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: They`re still being tested. There are still being changes made. And I think if we were allowed to put more funding into this and more resources -- we had limited staff, but we still needed people to guide the further development of them.

JEFFREY KAYE: Among other projects Chamberlain contends were shortchanged is a next-generation puffer. The new devices, produced by a California company, Syagen, can detect more chemicals than those currently in use. The liquid chemicals the alleged London plotters were planning to use, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, posed a sophisticated and new threat.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Homeland Security Secretary: ... what was particularly challenging with respect to this plot was the great effort to which these plotters appear to have gone in order to disguise the components and to disguise the liquids so that they would appear to be innocuous in packaging.

JEFFREY KAYE: But Chamberlain says, to researchers, that alleged scheme was nothing new.

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: We knew how to disguise things. I mean, we`ve known for a couple years how to disguise some of the peroxides.

JEFFREY KAYE: And so you...

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: ... and to stabilize them.

JEFFREY KAYE: ... so you had been actually working...

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: ... on countermeasures...

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: ... to look behind the disguise?

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: And so the fact that these bombers would try to carry components did not surprise you?

THOMAS CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. Oh, no.

JEFFREY KAYE: Chamberlain last worked for the Department of Homeland Security`s research arm, the Science and Technology Directorate, now housed in this anonymous office building in downtown Washington, D.C. The billion-dollar division has come under sharp bipartisan criticism from members of both the House and Senate, who say the directorate cannot account for all the money it`s spent.

SEN. JUDD GREGG: "Dysfunctional" would be the term I would apply. Science and Technology had no plan. When you walked into an airport, as far as Science and Technology was concerned, you were on -- you know, it was, "Good luck." You know, I mean, they didn`t have a game plan as to how that machinery should be developed or what was the priority.

They basically haven`t pulled together all the different research components and made them coherent. Instead, they`ve just had them all in various operating rooms within their directorate. And they are not functioning as a team; they`re all rowing off in different directions, if they`re rowing at all.

JEFFREY KAYE: Fred Roder saw the problems from the inside. Roder is currently chief technology officer at a company, Astrophysics, Inc., that makes x-ray screening equipment. In the `90s, Roder helped develop the system now widely used to scan luggage at U.S. airports.

For 28 months, until the beginning of this year, Roder headed the explosives countermeasures division of the Science and Technology Directorate. Roder says, even as a high-ranking manager, he wasn`t able to set priorities or to track spending.

FRED RODER, Scientist: I could say, for example, that identifying suicide bombers is a major priority for us. And I could come up with requirements for identifying suicide bombers. I would then provide those requirements to a different organization within the Science and Technology Directorate.

JEFFREY KAYE: Right.

FRED RODER: And at that point, I no longer had any oversight over how the work was conducted, and what was actually funded, and what was actually done. For me, as an R&D manager, it was my personal feeling that the work could often be misdirected or going in wrong directions. And I had no ability to correct it.

JEFFREY KAYE: The Department of Homeland Security would not grant an interview to the NewsHour for this report. But the department`s former assistant secretary for technology, Penrose Albright, says that, while there were management problems, the perception of a division in disarray is, to some extent, a reflection of the challenge of setting priorities.

PENROSE ALBRIGHT, Former Homeland Security Official: How do I assess the relative risk of a biological threat, which can kill 20 million people? And how do I compare that to, say, an aviation threat, right, which, you know, we know from experience people keep trying? Or how would I compare that to the rail security threat?

Risk management is: You identify your risks; you in some sense quantify them; and then you decide on what the mitigation strategies are and that are cost effective. That`s what risk management means.

JEFFREY KAYE: Former Navy Admiral Jay Cohen, the directorate`s new boss, is its third in as many years. Senator Gregg considers Cohen a good choice, but says the directorate needs more discipline. He and other congressional leaders want to cut its requested budget by nearly $200 million.

SEN. JUDD GREGG: I want to use the purse strings to say, "Hey, do a better job, we`ll give you more money."

JEFFREY KAYE: As for passenger screening at airports, federal officials are not saying when, if ever, the prohibition against carrying liquids and gels might be lifted.

JIM LEHRER: Admiral Cohen told Congress yesterday that he`s reorganizing his department and will make liquid bomb research a top priority.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, new auto safety rules to reduce rollover accidents. Ray Suarez has our story.

RAY SUAREZ: Rollover crashes like this can be harrowing. Today, the government announced it`s taking a big step to reduce them.

NICOLE NASON, Administrator, NHTSA: I am extremely proud to announce our proposal to make electronic stability control a standard feature on all passenger vehicles by model year 2012.

RAY SUAREZ: Speaking to reporters today, Nicole Nason, who heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said electronic stability control, or ESC, is the biggest breakthrough since seatbelts and could save thousands of lives.

NICOLE NASON: Electronic stability control uses computer-controlled breaking of the individual tires to help control the vehicle. It helps the driver maintain control in situations where the vehicle would otherwise spin out. By helping to keep the vehicle on the road, it could be possible to prevent the crash entirely.

RAY SUAREZ: A 2004 agency study found that ESC reduced fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 30 percent for passenger cars and 63 percent for SUVs. Over the past two years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has urged car manufacturers to include the safety feature as standard equipment. ESC is already standard in about one out of four 2006 models and half of rollover-prone SUVs.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the proposed new rules and the new technology, I`m joined by Susan Ferguson, vice president for research at the non-profit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The organization tracks safety trends and statistics for auto insurers and others.

What makes a vehicle roll over in the first place? Why does this happen?

SUSAN FERGUSON, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Well, it`s a combination of things. You know, for some vehicles, like SUVs, they are somewhat more unstable to begin with because they tend to ride higher off the ground.

But usually what precedes it is some kind of a loss of control. The vehicle runs off the road. Maybe there`s a change of surface, there`s a ditch they roll into. So, really, I think, you know, it`s the loss of control that will often precede it.

RAY SUAREZ: The administrator in our taped report began to explain how it works. She mentioned differential braking on the wheels. How does that stop a car that`s going to roll over from doing it?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Well, what it does initially, obviously, is brings it under control. So if you imagine, it`s really based on anti-lock brake technology. So it can sense the wheel speed and it can brake individual wheels.

But what it does on top of that, it senses where the driver is intending to go by monitoring the steering. And if it senses at any time that the car is not or the SUV is not going in that intended direction, it brakes those wheels, as appropriate -- depending if you`re spinning out or plowing out -- and then often will reduce engine throttle. And it does it so quickly before a driver often even knows they`re losing control. So it`s something that the driver that hasn`t even -- would have had a chance to respond to.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, we have limited experience now. Some of the national fleet has this. You keep the numbers. Do we know whether it really stops rollovers?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Well, actually, it stops a lot of single-vehicle crashes, crashes that just involve your vehicle. And those typically are loss of control that may happen because you`re going at high speed or perhaps you`re on a slippery surface.

And our data would suggest that it reduces single-vehicle fatal crashes by more than 50 percent and when you look at just those that involve rollover by about 80 percent. So it`s particularly effective in those kinds of crashes.

RAY SUAREZ: Those are terrific numbers, but there are, what, more than 200 million vehicles, personal vehicles in the United States. If automakers are required to put it in by 2012, how long does something like that take to really penetrate something as big as America`s fleet?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Well, you know, people tend to keep their cars for as much as eight years. So it may take decades before they`re in all vehicles on the road.

I think, you know, we`re not going to see the results immediately, but they are so dramatic that, when all vehicles have it, we will save as many as 10,000 lives a year.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, a lot of safety equipment has been introduced over the past 40 years. Do we know from experience whether people take to things quickly, start asking for it, have we seen with seat belts, anti- lock brakes, air bags, other things, so that we know how this will eventually become commonplace?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Well, one of the things that happens when people go to dealerships is that there are some vehicles on the lot. And the dealers are trying to sell certain vehicles.

If you package something like electronic stability control with a lot of other things and make it expensive, people probably aren`t going to buy it. So I think the best chance we`ve got is if it is offered as standard equipment or if it`s an option, just have that as a standalone. In that way, maybe you can get it for $300 to $500, as opposed to more than $1,000 if it`s packaged with something else.

But you make a good point, which is that, when these kinds of technologies are options, they`re not always bought at very high rates by consumers, who often will look for the stereo system or the sunroof before they`ll think about these systems which they don`t expect to use.

RAY SUAREZ: Does making it mandatory eventually drive the cost down because many more of them are made and many more of them are installed?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Well, yes, obviously, cost is an issue, and the more you have, the less it costs. And what happens with any of these new technologies, they`re expensive to begin with, and so they tend to be introduced on luxury vehicles where that, you know, cost difference won`t really be noticed by the buyer, who obviously is used to paying more. And it`s over time that they`re introduced to the more moderately priced cars.

But what`s interesting now is we`re beginning to see ESC in moderately priced cars, like Hyundais and, you know, Toyotas, so that just the average man on the street will be able to buy it, you know, in a lot of the vehicles they want.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, some of the big producers have already announced that they`ll start including it before the 2012 deadline. Is there something that drivers who are experienced in driving cars without this will have to know about how it handles on the road? Will they have to brake differently?

SUSAN FERGUSON: See, that`s the great things about ESC, and I think that`s really why we`re seeing these tremendous benefits, is that the driver really doesn`t have to do anything differently than they`ve done before. So if you`re taking a curve, you just point that steering wheel in the direction. And if it starts to lose control, the vehicle does everything else.

That`s quite different than with anti-lock brakes, where the driver had to learn how to brake differently. You don`t pump anymore; you just slam those brakes on. And we found, because of that, that the benefits we thought we`d see, we didn`t see.

RAY SUAREZ: But it doesn`t encourage more reckless driving, more chance-taking, because you know now the car will be able to handle it?

SUSAN FERGUSON: Right. There is always that possibility that people will know that they can drive this vehicle faster. But certainly, when we look at the data -- and we`re looking at however people drive with this on their vehicle -- we`re still seeing great benefits. So even if some of that is going on, it doesn`t seem to be taking away from the benefits.

RAY SUAREZ: Susan Ferguson, thanks a lot.

SUSAN FERGUSON: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, veterans coping with brain injuries they received fighting in Iraq. A version of this report aired earlier on "California Connected," a program produced by PBS stations in that state. The reporter is Lisa McRee.

STAFF SGT. JAY WILKERSON, Injured War Veteran: I`ve heard so many great things about going to Iraq and helping the people and the government there, so I thought it was a great opportunity to do something great.

LISA MCREE, NewsHour Correspondent: His name is Staff Sergeant Jay Wilkerson, and today his greatest challenge is picking up a paper clip.

STAFF SGT. JAY WILKERSON: The feeling, it`s slowly coming back. And there`s two nerves that go through your thumb the operational therapist told me that need to attach.

LISA MCREE: The same year she became an American citizen, Claudia Carreon joined the Army National Guard.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON, Injured War Veteran: I had the opportunity to come to this country, and I wanted to say thank you to this country for opening their doors to me and my family. I don`t remember how the accident happened, but somehow my knees got hurt.

LISA MCREE: And while Claudia and Jay`s injuries may look manageable, down the hall it`s a different story. It`s been six months since Frank Sandoval`s brain was damaged by an explosion in Iraq.

MICHELLE SANDOVAL, Wife of Injured War Veteran: He joined the military shortly after 9/11.

FRANK SANDOVAL, Injured War Veteran: I miss you.

MICHELLE SANDOVAL: I miss you, too, baby.

He wanted to make a change. He wanted to be something important.

LISA MCREE: Michelle is Frank`s wife.

MICHELLE SANDOVAL: We`ve been married going on four years. Of course, we have our beautiful daughter. Frankie`s such a strong person, and him being here is one thing that I know is going to be OK, because he`s making such a big improvement.

LISA MCREE: Here is Ward 7-D of the Palo Alto V.A. Hospital, one of four polytrauma units in the United States.

HARRIET ZEINER, Neuropsychologist, Veterans Administration: It`s set up to receive individuals who have received multiple wounds, multiple system damage.

LISA MCREE: Dr. Harriet Zeiner is a clinical neuropsychologist.

HARRIET ZEINER: You may notice some of the patients here are wearing helmets, and that`s because part of their injuries have actually destroyed some of the bone. And all that`s there is some skin. So they wear the helmet until such time as surgeons can make a prosthetic skull and replace it.

LISA MCREE: In a matter of weeks, that will happen for Frank, and his head will again have a normal shape. But elsewhere on the ward, there are injuries less visible that are nonetheless devastating.

It`s not an obvious injury.

HARRIET ZEINER: No, they look like everyone else. They look like themselves.

LISA MCREE: It is the signature injury of this war: TBI, traumatic brain injury.

HARRIET ZEINER: A traumatic brain injury is an injury to brain tissue, which is extremely soft stuff. It has the consistency of, like, Jell-O left at room temperature. It`s so soft that, when they do surgery on the brain, they don`t use knives. They use little suction pipettes.

LISA MCREE: And the reason brain injury has become the signature injury has a lot to do with the signature weapon of this war: the improvised explosive device.

U.S. SERVICEMAN: Get up! Get up!

HARRIET ZEINER: There`s a concussive force that moves through them. When this moves back and forth, it hits the boney part inside your skull. That`s where a lot of damage occurs from these improvised explosive devices.

STAFF SGT. JAY WILKERSON: I`ve suffered a traumatic brain injury in Baghdad, Iraq. It`s something that most people, if they`re not in the medical field, they`re not aware of the phases of it. But if I didn`t have on this neck brace and I was walking around normally, you wouldn`t know anything`s wrong.

DOCTOR: We`ll make a copy of it, and then we`ll give it back to you.

LISA MCREE: But even if you can`t see the damage, you can see the symptoms.

HARRIET ZEINER: They`re slowed in their information processing. So they`re focusing very hard to listen to you one-on-one. They`re sort of 45 RPMs in a 78-RPM world.

DOCTOR: It`s a long journey.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: No, no, say that -- you`re speaking too fast.

DOCTOR: OK, the journey to the center of your heart...

INJURED VETERANS: The journey to the center of your heart is like the journey to the center of the Earth.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: You guys are speaking too fast for me.

DOCTOR: The journey to the center...

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: One at a time, please. One at a time. One, one.

HARRIET ZEINER: You see a lot of irritability. And it`s not because there`s an irritable center in the brain that gets released; it`s because life gets so hard that you`re frustrated, and you`re using up all your energy, and you`re overwhelmed. You`re over-stimulated.

LISA MCREE: Even alone in her room, Claudia`s frustration remains, because in her case, the greatest injury she sustained was to the part of the brain that allows her to remember.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: It`s a daily struggle. I have to write everything down every day, everything that I do, everything that happened. And if I don`t do it, at the end of the day or during the day, the next day I might not remember.

LISA MCREE: And it`s not just the everyday events of her life she loses; it`s the people in it, as well.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: People that are close to me, I have to have pictures of them, otherwise I stop seeing them for about a week or two, their image will be gone.

LISA MCREE: Even the image of her own child.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: To the best of my recollection, I have never been pregnant. I don`t know what it is to be pregnant. I don`t know what it is to give birth, and basically I don`t know what it is to have a child.

All that I know is that I have a baby. She is my daughter. She is two years old. I talk to her every day. She says, "Mommy," because she sees pictures of me, but I don`t know. I don`t know.

I do not have the feeling in the relationship between a mother and a daughter. How is it possible that I forget such a great event in my life, when it`s something that nobody will never, never forget?

HARRIET ZEINER: You know, 20 percent of the people who have been injured are women who had head injuries. And I actually think some of the head injuries and some of the traumas that occur are experienced somewhat differently by women than by men.

Men certainly hate the loss of memory, the loss of information. Women experience it as a change in their ability to relate. And that, again, is what I meant by the wound internally, the wound in who you want to be in this life.

LISA MCREE: But that`s not to say the ability to relate doesn`t matter to men, too. Just ask Jay.

How does it feel when you realized that the person you didn`t recognize was actually your own brother?

STAFF SGT. JAY WILKERSON: It felt weird. I cried. And he told me, if you feel like crying, you go ahead and cry, because you`re still a man if you cry. You know, because I always thought crying was -- a soldier wasn`t supposed to cry. But I couldn`t help it; I cried because I felt like I`ve lost too much memory.

LISA MCREE: If we saw each other tomorrow, you may or may not remember our conversation.

STAFF SGT. JAY WILKERSON: I`m hoping that I will remember, but to be very truthful and honest, I don`t really know if I will remember even having this conversation tomorrow.

LISA MCREE: And there`s another cause of brain injury that`s also unique to this war.

HARRIET ZEINER: About half of the injuries are motor vehicle accidents, and I was very surprised by that. When you`re driving in Baghdad, from the minute you leave the compound, you`re told to floor it, because that basically makes you a quicker target for snipers, for IEDs that are remotely detonated.

LISA MCREE: And even though Claudia can be taught how to drive again, her devastating brain injury makes that harder than it sounds.

DOCTOR: Please turn on the radio. Please slide your climate control to the right.

LISA MCREE: And the driving simulator isn`t Claudia`s only high-tech helper. Because her injury destroyed her ability to remember, she`s being trained on a personal data assistant, a PDA, to help her remember everything from when to take her medication to the names and faces of her family members.

HARRIET ZEINER: Let`s look at today`s appointments, OK? You`ve got yours?

It`s a memory prosthesis. A prosthesis is something like a brace like she`s wearing on her knee right now to help support the knee. Well, this is a support for her memory.

For example, if you`re going to do something on Saturday...

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: Basically, this is my memory. It`s just that my memory is not in my head any more; it`s in my hands.

LISA MCREE: And traumatic brain injury is not just a problem for soldiers like Claudia who`ve come home.

HARRIET ZEINER: We`re getting calls from the military on these military conference calls that there are people who are being exposed to five and six blasts now.

LISA MCREE: Dr. Zeiner says the military is now realizing it`s got a big problem on the battlefield.

HARRIET ZEINER: The military`s concern is: Are they still battle- ready? Can they follow orders? Can they protect their buddies?

We tell sergeants, if you have someone who is operating pretty well and suddenly they`re starting to look like a screw-up, they`re starting to look changed and different in some way, you suspect that something has happened, and it`s time to get that person screened.

LISA MCREE: In fact, that is exactly what happened with Claudia.

SPC. CLAUDIA CARREON: She was significantly injured, but they thought it was her knees and her back. No one recognized that she had a head injury. And so she is one of those people who had a stellar record before and now suddenly was seen as, "You`re not following orders. You`re lazy. You`re screwing up." And she was actually demoted.

LISA MCREE: And the number of brain-injured victims like Claudia may be grossly underestimated.

So we know we have hundreds, but we could have thousands?

HARRIET ZEINER: We have thousands. We have thousands of people who don`t know that they are brain-injured. And we think what`s happening is that a truck goes over, an IED goes off, and one guy or two guys are really seriously injured.

And so the system goes right into play for them. They`re MedEvaced. They`re taken care of. But the other five guys in the truck were thrown against the walls, and they had a blast effect. They just pick up and they go.

LISA MCREE: While the V.A. estimates it`s treated some 800 soldiers for TBI, Zeiner says the real number of victims could be 10 times that.

JIM LEHRER: Since that report was produced, Specialist Claudia Carreon and Sergeant Frank Sandoval have returned home.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day. The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush and voted to give terror suspects greater protections. And a suicide bomber near Baghdad killed two U.S. soldiers and seriously wounded several others. Three more Americans were killed in separate attacks.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.