The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

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

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Wednesday; then, the latest on World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz; the selection of an Army lieutenant general to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a Science Unit report about studying the northern lights; the latest on the deadly power struggle between two rival Palestinian groups in Gaza; and some dramatic testimony about a hospital room confrontation among top administration officials.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: There were conflicting reports late today about the future of Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank. He`s been under mounting pressure over his handling of a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend.

It was widely reported he was negotiating a resignation agreement, but later in the day, his lawyer said Wolfowitz would not resign under a cloud. Instead, the lawyer said, "He wants the bank board to vote." We`ll have more on this story right after this news summary.

The U.S. Senate rejected new attempts today to overhaul U.S. policy on Iraq. Senators held procedural votes, trying to work out a new war funding bill. But they rejected attempts to end combat operations or to tie U.S. aid to Iraqi progress.

NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reports.

SEN. JON TESTER (D), Montana: The motion is not agreed to.

KWAME HOLMAN: In its first vote of the day, the Senate refused to move forward on withdrawing combat troops by March 31st: 29 senators voted in favor, and 67 against, ending the debate.

Nonetheless, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who co-sponsored it, argued the 29 Democratic supporters have sent a significant message.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), Wisconsin: Today, a majority of the Democratic senators said it is time to end the mission, as we have it, and to bring this mistake to an end. That is a huge change.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Minority Whip Trent Lott countered it was a relief that no more senators voted yes.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R), Mississippi: The significant thing is today that the vote that would just, you know, surrender now, basically, only got 29 votes.

KWAME HOLMAN: Another amendment, by Virginia Republican John Warner, tied economic aid to political progress. It got 52 votes, still short of cutting off debate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader: The Iraqi government, it strikes me, needs to understand that they`re running out of time to get their part of the job done. And those kinds of messages, I think, were sent in the Warner vote and could well be a part of a final conclusion on the supplemental appropriation.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Democrats` whip, Dick Durbin, said the vote also sent a clear message to the White House.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), Illinois: Even the vote on the Warner resolution is an indication that many Republicans are getting nervous about supporting this president blindly. They understand the American people don`t support that position.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate is expected to approve a bare bones proposal tomorrow, expressing support for the troops; that will clear the way for final negotiations on a bill the president might sign.

JIM LEHRER: In Iraq today, at least nine mortar rounds hit the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, killing two Iraqis. It was the second attack there in as many days.

And, overnight, a car bomb killed 32 Iraqis near Baquba. Residents there killed 12 al-Qaida militants last month.

To the south, thousands of U.S. troops spent another day looking for three missing U.S. soldiers. Army Major General William Caldwell said they`re not giving up hope.

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM CALDWELL, U.S. Army: We`re sure praying that our soldiers are still alive at this point. We have no indications to reflect otherwise at this point, so that`s reason why the intensive search will continue, regardless of the status, until we find our missing soldiers.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. military also offered $200,000 for information that leads to finding the soldiers. An al-Qaida group has said it captured the three Americans last Saturday.

The British Army announced today Prince Harry will not deploy to Iraq after all. The 22-year-old prince is third in line to the throne. He would have led an armored reconnaissance team. But General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief of staff, said the danger was simply too great.

GEN. SIR RICHARD DANNATT, Chief of Staff, British Army: There have been a number of specific threats, some reported, some not reported, which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats expose not only him, but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable.

JIM LEHRER: Prince Harry would have been the first member of the royal family to serve in a war zone since 1982. His uncle, Prince Andrew, was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War with Argentina.

New fighting killed 16 Palestinians in Gaza today, despite calls for a cease-fire. In one clash, Hamas gunmen killed six guards from Fatah, and Hamas drew Israel into the mix by firing rockets across the border. The Israelis answered with an air strike that killed five gunmen. We`ll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

France ushered in a new political era today. Nicolas Sarkozy was formally installed as president. We have a report narrated by Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News.

JONATHAN RUGMAN, ITV News Correspondent: He`s promised a break with France`s past, though today Nicolas Sarkozy was reveling in it. And at 52, Sarkozy the first French president to be born since World War II ended.

So in with the new and out with the old. Jacques Chirac, now 74, handing the former protege the keys to the Elysee Palace and the codes to France`s nuclear arsenal. Chirac, twice president, twice prime minister, so long in office, yet accused of achieving so little, famous above all for opposing the Iraq war.

And beneath the palace chandeliers, Sarkozy appearing like a king before his court. His once estranged wife, Cecilia, and their 10-year-old son at his side as he was awarded the Legion of Honor.

He said he wanted to unite France, to revive its work ethic, and to tackle its violence. Observers noting how the president had disowned the Chirac years just as soon as his predecessor had walked out of the door.

Sarkozy listed human rights and global warming as his foreign priorities, though tonight he`s in Germany with Chancellor Merkel, trying to resuscitate an E.U. constitution.

But France`s internal problems loom far larger: This president is a man in a hurry to cut taxes, reform France`s 35-hour week, and reduce the right to strike.

JIM LEHRER: Sarkozy is now pointing toward winning a conservative majority in the national assembly.

The eldest child of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Yolanda King, has died. She collapsed last night at home in Santa Monica, California. A family friend said it may have been a heart problem. King was a baby when her father gained fame leading the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. She grew up to be an actress and author and producer. Yolanda King was 51 years old.

Congressional Democrats agreed today on a budget for the coming fiscal year. The non-binding outline totals $2.9 trillion. It promises a surplus in five years` time if most of the Bush tax cuts expire. It also reinstates a rule that calls for tax hikes or spending cuts to pay for new domestic outlays. The House will vote on the plan Thursday. A Senate vote could come this week, as well.

On Wall Street today, stocks surged after big-name investors bought major stakes in Citigroup and several railroads. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 103 points to close at 13,487. The Nasdaq rose 22 points to close at 2,547.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: the Paul Wolfowitz situation; the new war czar; the northern lights; trouble in Gaza; and a big confrontation.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, the latest on World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Krishna Guha has been covering the story for the Financial Times. He joins us from the paper`s Washington bureau.

Krishna, where do things stand as we speak?

KRISHNA GUHA, Financial Times: Well, the situation is moving very quickly, Jim. We understand that Mr. Wolfowitz and his advisers are in negotiations with representatives of the World Bank board about terms and conditions around a possible resignation, the circumstances, in short, under which he would agree to leave the bank.

JIM LEHRER: And what is your understanding of the things he wants in exchange for resigning?

KRISHNA GUHA: Well, Jim, as you know, he`s under a tremendous cloud at the moment, following the publication of a report on Monday that found he broke the bank`s code of conduct, the bank`s rules, and his own employment contract when he arranged for a generous secondment package (ph) for Shaha Riza, a bank official with whom he had a romantic relationship.

Mr. Wolfowitz is determined he will not leave under a cloud. He wants the board to make a statement that recognizes both his service at the bank and, in some ways, shares responsibility for what happened in the Shaha Riza case.

JIM LEHRER: His claim being that there was some cloudy rules that he did or did not follow or whatever -- in other words, the situation that caused him to do what brought this thing down against him, he`s claiming that the bank itself was responsible for some of it. Is that correct?

KRISHNA GUHA: He`s claiming that. The problem is that the panel that wrote the report published on Monday considered these issues and, frankly, rejected Mr. Wolfowitz`s arguments. They found that, while in some cases the instructions he received were not, in their words, "a model of clarity," nonetheless, it was essentially quite clear what he was supposed to do. And he didn`t do it.

JIM LEHRER: All right, now, where things stand now, is there going to resume negotiations, resume meeting tomorrow? Is that correct?

KRISHNA GUHA: My best guess is that the haggling will continue into the night tonight. At any point, they could strike a deal termed satisfactory for Mr. Wolfowitz to walk.

If not, the negotiations will continue. I expect the haggling will drag on through tomorrow, perhaps. And if that happens, there`s always a chance that, in the end, these talks break down and it goes back to the threat of a vote to fire him on the board.

JIM LEHRER: And that would be the next step, if these negotiations don`t work, right? and they do have the power to do that, the board does, correct?

KRISHNA GUHA: Yes, they do, although, probably, what you`d see first would be an interim step. The board would, perhaps, formally endorse the devastating findings in this report. That would be a clear signal that they were going to move next to censure him or fire him.

JIM LEHRER: Remind us, Krishna, about the board. Who makes up the -- how many people on the board? And who are they?

KRISHNA GUHA: The board has 24 executive directors. These are representatives of the World Bank`s shareholder governments. And if it came to a vote, the votes would be weighted according to the shareholdings of their countries and others that they represent on the board.

In broad-brush terms, obviously, the U.S. is the single biggest shareholder, but if you add all the European states together -- and they`re determined to get Mr. Wolfowitz out -- they have many more votes than the U.S. The U.S. appears to have only one ally left on this, and that`s Japan.

JIM LEHRER: Would a majority vote do it one way or another?

KRISHNA GUHA: Nobody wants this to end in a majority vote. The World Bank has always operated through a tradition of consensus. And at a time when the bank is already riven with strife, it would be further damaging to force this to a vote with Europe and its allies in Asia, and Latin America, and many other parts of the world voting down the U.S., but that remains a possibility at this juncture.

JIM LEHRER: So if I understand you correctly, the board is balking at the Wolfowitz demand that it accept some of the responsibility. They want all of this, or blame, whatever you want to call it, to go directly and fully to Wolfowitz, correct?

KRISHNA GUHA: I think how I would characterize it at the moment, Jim, is that there`s a haggling process underway. I think it`s likely that, in the end, they`ll reach some kind of compromise formula, but as I said, I don`t rule out the possibility that these talks fail and we go back to the prospect of a vote.

JIM LEHRER: Now, if he leaves, either by a board vote or by resignation, what are the terms of his departure? Does he get a package, a payoff, a severance of some kind?

KRISHNA GUHA: Well, even that is quite unclear and that, presumably, would form part of the discussions around his possible resignation terms. Would he be given one year`s pay -- it`s close to $400,000, tax-free -- possibly even the rest his contract, three years.

There are some people on the board who privately will tell you they would give him whatever it took to get him out of the door, but there are a lot of others who feel very strongly that he should not be seen to be rewarded for what they view as a very serious ethical lapse.

JIM LEHRER: What does your reporting tell you now about what the position of the United States is now in this dispute?

KRISHNA GUHA: Well, the U.S. is still publicly standing by Mr. Wolfowitz. Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said again today that the U.S. supports Mr. Wolfowitz. But while they support him, the administration seems largely to have come to the view, or at least be very close to coming to the view, that it can`t do anything more to save him and all it can do is ensure that he leaves on the least-embarrassing terms possible.

However, there do seem to be divisions within the administration as to how this should be handled. And some people in the administration may well not have finally given up hope of saving his job.

JIM LEHRER: And if he does, in fact, leave, the custom of the president of the World Bank being an American, is there any sign that that would change, no matter what the reasons for Mr. Wolfowitz`s departure?

KRISHNA GUHA: There are already quite widespread calls for a much more fundamental rethink as to how the World Bank president is chosen and really whether that person should be nominated by the U.S. and have to be a U.S. citizen.

In the short term, however, my sense is that the Europeans and others who have been leading the fight against Mr. Wolfowitz would be willing to settle for a U.S. citizen nominated by the Bush administration, provided -- and it`s a big proviso -- that person was someone who commanded universal international respect.

JIM LEHRER: There was a report today that Tony Blair was on -- the outgoing prime minister of Britain -- was on the possible list. Have you heard that yourself?

KRISHNA GUHA: Well, look, I personally feel that Tony Blair might make a very good head of the World Bank, and there are certainly many people, including some within the administration, who share that view. But it`s not obvious that Mr. Blair actually is keen to take the job himself. There`s been no indication of that thus far.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Thank you, Krishna, again, for helping us out to understand what`s going on. Thank you.

KRISHNA GUHA: My great pleasure. Good night.

JIM LEHRER: Good night.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now Judy Woodruff has our war czar story.

JUDY WOODRUFF: After a long search and many rejections, White House officials said they had filled a new job to manage and oversee the Iraq and Afghan wars. The man they tapped, Army Lieutenant General Douglas Lute. He has been serving as chief operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He`ll be coordinating policy among government agencies, including the Pentagon and the State Department. He`ll report directly to President Bush and will serve under National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

At the White House, Press Secretary Tony Snow responded to questions about the job.

TONY SNOW, White House Press Secretary: What you have now is somebody who`s going to be able to coordinate with folks on the ground. Keep in mind, also, that he has experience both in Central Command and with the Joint Chiefs in operations and, therefore, has a very keen sense of precisely how operations unfold and, therefore, I think, has a very practical base of knowledge about how to get things done, and also where the bottlenecks are, including information.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on why the job was created and what it might accomplish, we turn to Philip Zelikow, former counselor at the State Department from 2005 to 2006. He also served on the National Security Council staff during the administration of the first President Bush. He`s now a professor of history at the University of Virginia.

And Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, was White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration. He served 16 years as a member of Congress from California and is now co-director of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy.

Philip Zelikow, to you, first, why is this position needed?

PHILIP ZELIKOW, University of Virginia: This position has been needed for more than a year in order to get a more proactive role for Washington in managing both the Iraq war and the Afghan war. Remember, this is a position that covers both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Washington had been in a role of being too passive, too slow, using the ordinary interagency processes to provide quick turnarounds on guidance that are needed in the war. That tended to mean Washington was passive and reactive.

The administration has made a decision, finally, that Washington needs to get involved in a much more energetic and proactive partnership in the strategic management of our role in these two wars.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But why isn`t that something that the defense secretary, the secretary of state, the national security adviser could be doing?

PHILIP ZELIKOW: Because everything we`ve learned about fighting insurgencies is that it`s a civil military job. And it`s very difficult for people in the civilian departments outside of the White House to get involved in telling the military what to do or interfering or intervening in their chain of command. So you need to get the White House involved to bring the civilian military sides together.

Now, the national security adviser needs to staff the president and develop policy on every issue in the world that concerns national security. So if these two wars, let`s say, require several hours worth of work every day alone -- and that seems like a modest number -- that`s all the time you`re taking away from the attention Steve Hadley could give to all the other issues in the world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me interrupt and bring in...

PHILIP ZELIKOW: And that really is unfair to him and to the president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I`m going to bring in Leon Panetta. You`ve been the White House chief of staff. You were on the Iraq Study Group. Does this make sense to you?

LEON PANETTA, Co-Director, Panetta Institute for Public Policy: Well, you know, I have a very high regard for General Lute, and I`m sure this is being done under the best of intentions, but I`m afraid it`s not going to work.

First of all, I don`t think the national security adviser can contract out the responsibility that that person has to coordinate policy. I mean, that is the role of national security adviser. Iraq just happens to be the most important issue that they`re dealing with. It`s probably about 80 percent affecting our foreign policy abroad. This really needs to be the role of the national security adviser.

Secondly, you know, after four years of failing to coordinate, a lot of bad habits have developed out there. And I don`t think, frankly, that, you know, a deputy national security adviser is going to have the power or authority to break those habits. This is a three-star general who`s going to be operating in a four-star world.

And I guess the last point I would make is, you know, this is not about a bureaucratic need of trying to make the trains run on time. This is a strategic problem that involves where the trains are going. And I think the president and the national security adviser are going to have to decide what the broader strategy and mission is all about before you can have somebody then coordinate how that`s going to be accomplished.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Philip Zelikow, let`s take two of those points. One is his point that this is a job for the national security adviser himself and, number two, that this is a strategic position, not something more tactical.

PHILIP ZELIKOW: It is a strategic position, but the point is, how do you give the president a directed telescope who can track this at the level of detail the president needs every day and work the guidance issues every day without making Steve Hadley the desk officer for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Hadley is a secure and capable guy. He`s going to be involved in what`s going on. General Lute basically is a force multiplier for him and for the president. If he has the access to the president, it just enables the president to be more engaged and more proactive in shaping the strategy.

It doesn`t necessarily mean you`re going to have a better strategy or worse strategy, but it adds capability to the White House in managing these two ongoing wars.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that point, Leon Panetta, that, to use Philip Zelikow`s words, this is a force multiplier, it enhances what Steve Hadley, the national security adviser, is able to do?

LEON PANETTA: Well, you know, again, it`s a question of just exactly what is the mission of this individual? This person is coming on as a deputy national security adviser. In my experience, it`s very tough for a deputy national security adviser to be able to tell the secretary of defense, or the secretary of state, the CIA director, or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff what to do.

And if it`s that kind of coordination they`re after, frankly, they haven`t put that person in the right position. That is the responsibility of the national security adviser. After all, that is the role of this individual, is basically to sit down with the principals at the State Department, at the Defense Department, at CIA, at the military, and coordinate policy.

That`s what they should have done a long time ago. And, frankly, that`s what they should be doing now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Philip Zelikow, it sounds like what Mr. Panetta is saying is that General Lute is not going to have the clout to do what needs to be done.

PHILIP ZELIKOW: Well, with all respect, I disagree with Leon about one point. The national security adviser is not the guy who tells the secretary of defense and the secretary of state what to do. The president of the United States does that.

The national security adviser or even the chief of staff can only tell cabinet secretaries what to do, if the cabinet secretaries know he`s speaking for the president. And if General Lute has the kind of relationship with the president that they`ve announced and envisioned, he`s going to be able to play a strong coordinating role.

Look, Bob Gates and Condi Rice know Doug Lute. They were involved in the decision to create this job. Frankly, the personalities will either make it work or they`ll let it fail. If they want it to succeed, they can help it succeed. And I think, actually, you have a group of personalities in place now in which this kind of idea can work. That wasn`t the case last year.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Leon Panetta, what about this point that, if these personalities who are at the level they are -- secretary of defense, secretary of state -- if they want to make this work, they will. Otherwise, it won`t.

LEON PANETTA: Well, again, look, in the interest of the country, I wish them the best, because, you know, I hope that they can sit down and try to coordinate policy and that these personalities will, in fact, work with one another.

But I have to tell you that, in my experience, the national security adviser -- you know, no, he`s not somebody who tells the secretary of defense what to do or the secretary of state what to do. But what that role is about is sitting down with the secretary of defense, sitting down with the secretary of state, and deciding what recommendations to the president ought to be and coordinating policy and providing accountability on that policy.

Very frankly, this administration has not done that for four years. And now they`re coming to the point with a year-and-a-half left in this administration`s history where they`re trying basically to put the pieces together that have fallen apart over the last four years. That is a tough job to do, particularly if you`re giving it to a deputy national security adviser.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Philip Zelikow, is that what`s happened?

PHILIP ZELIKOW: Well, I think Leon`s got a good point. I think they should have created a job like this more than a year ago. I think they need to have strengthened and integrated the civil military policy drive in the government so that Washington could play a more active role in guiding strategy instead of passively reacting to things coming in from the field. I think that`s been a problem.

But my point of view is, all right, if they`re getting ready to try to work that problem, they`ve created something that`s going to help them do it, I`m for it. They know what the situation is. They think this will help.

Bottom line is, these bureaucratic innovations aren`t going to either make -- they`re not going to give you a good strategy. They`re not going to give you a bad strategy. They`re just going to help you do the things that you`ve decided to do. And, really, the fate of our effort in Iraq is going to turn on the quality of the thought, not the wiring diagram.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, gentlemen, we are going to leave it there. Philip Zelikow, Leon Panetta, thank you both very much. We appreciate it.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, learning about the heavens. NewsHour correspondent Betty Ann Bowser has our Science Unit story from Alaska.

BETTY ANN BOWSER, NewsHour Correspondent: For centuries, scientists have been fascinated by auroras, the mysterious lights that blaze across the sky in the far northern and southern regions of the Earth.

Some things about the auroras are known: that they happen when the sun blows storms of electrons toward the planet and interfere with the Earth`s magnetic field. Those same storms can also disrupt communications, affect satellites, and even make astronauts sick.

But a lot of questions about auroras remain. Some scientists have come to an out-of-the-way place to look for answers: Petersburg, Alaska, and the playground behind Mr. Trautman`s 11th-grade geology class.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN, Science Teacher: This is the real deal. This is real science. And what it`s really trying to do is to determine the effects that we find the sun has on Earth. And, really, what would happen without our Earth`s magnetic field, the Earth wouldn`t be here. We`d lose our moisture. We`d lose our atmosphere. We would look like Mars or we`d look like the moon.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In February, NASA and scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, launched five satellites to find out exactly where the storms that cause auroras originate. Spaced out in different orbits, the satellites measure smaller solar bursts called substorms that disrupt the Earth`s magnetic field. They can also cause the beautiful shimmering and dancing the auroras do in the nighttime sky.

But the scientists need to make other measurements closer to the Earth`s surface, so magnetometers, Earth-based data collectors, were placed in Petersburg and nine other northern locations. Petersburg, a town of 2,600, was chosen because it`s remote and far away from magnetic interference found in densely populated areas.

Scientists also thought it would be a rare chance to involve rural kids in a real-world science experiment, kids like Carl Hernandez, who plays drums in the pep band. He`s been watching the auroras all of his life.

CARL HERNANDEZ, Student: Usually over the mountains, you`ll see kind of a faint coloring. And it`s usually kind of starts off as a light green or blue, and then, I mean, these ribbons of light will just light up the whole sky. They come out, and they`re just sort of flowing, and dancing, and it`s really beautiful.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They may be beautiful, but Trautman says they can cause havoc. That`s why scientists want to know more.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN: The first place you would see it, if you`re in -- like a dish TV or you have cable television, it will begin to disrupt those communications. And it has been known in some severe cases to start causing long metal wires, for example, power grids to charge. It causes a current to flow in the Earth.

So the Alaska pipeline, which is about 800 miles long, is a huge conductive wire. It would actually cause a current flowing into that, which could technically cause some of the corrosion problems that have been plaguing our pipeline in the past.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: After a heavy snowfall, the magnetometer that measures subtle changes in the Earth`s magnetic field sometimes has to be dug out. It`s a great teaching tool for Trautman.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN: So what we`re going to try to do here today is, are there ways that we, as a group, can make the magnetic field move, like a solar storm would?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: He wanted to show the kids that even a small magnet can make a difference if it`s close to the magnetometer. When one student held a magnet over the device, another student, in a nearby pickup, could monitor the change in the Earth`s magnetic pull at that point. It showed up as a spike in a graph on the Web site that tracks the magnetometer`s readings.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN: There is this feeling that nothing important ever happens in Petersburg, but this really has. It has given us a direction, that, hey, science is important.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: That`s certainly true for 17-year-old Hernandez, who had never set foot inside a science class until last year, when his family moved to Petersburg. Before that, Hernandez spent most of his young life living in a house with no electricity in the Alaskan wilderness.

CARL HERNANDEZ: We`d go out in the mornings, split firewood, bring it in, heat the house, cook breakfast, and then go down -- we have all trails. There`s no roads where we live. And then we use small boats on skiffs with outboards, and go three miles -- it`s open water -- three miles of open water to the nearest town and go to school. There`s a small public school there.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But things have changed since moving to the big city and meeting Mr. Trautman.

CARL HERNANDEZ: Mr. Trautman, he`s my science teacher, and he really made it come alive for us. I mean, he made it interesting, and fun, and I sort of got hooked.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Carl now has a hunch about the auroras.

CARL HERNANDEZ: It could potentially be a form of alternative energy, because the magnetic fields and the collapse when the auroras happen creates a lot of electricity in our outer atmosphere. And I think that maybe, if we learn more about it, we could understand how to harness some of that and maybe draw it into the Earth and use it for power.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN: You find with, like Carl, a lot of it is amazement. He`s part of the actual process. You know, when you`re isolated, everything happens every place else. Nothing ever happens to you, unless it`s bad. And so it gives kids like Carl a chance to participate in something that he`s actually part of and it`s part of a big picture.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The project has also made a strong impression on 17-year-old Laura McKay. She`s now thinking about a science career.

LAURA McKay, Student: It is a really big deal, because it`s nationwide. It`s not just a little small town. We`re included in something that`s really big. It`s going to affect people everywhere to get this data and to use it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sixteen-year-old Erin Streuli is now also interested in a scientific-based career. At her home computer, she can follow the readings from the school`s magnetometer, to track the substorms and the auroras they create, whetting her younger sister Sierra`s curiosity.

SIERRA STREULI, Student: When it`s really high, is that when there`s going to be lots of northern lights?

ERIN STREULI, Student: Yes, and it`s saying that there`s a big magnetic storm, and it only -- it`s going to have northern lights if it`s clear out.

I know when to go look for them now. And instead of just like waiting outside, I know when they`re going to be there and I know, like, if it`s going to be like a clear day, then I`ll probably see northern lights that night.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The auroras project has become infectious. A number of Trautman`s students have developed podcasts on their computers, which are now being used to teach lower-class students about the program.

VICTOR TRAUTMAN: If you have any questions, wait until the end the podcast. But the key is, don`t ask me. These guys are the experts.

PODCAST NARRATOR: Looking up at the night sky, colorful bright lights flash before you, different colors, shapes, patterns. Have you ever wondered how they`re formed?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: If the kids at Petersburg High School are any indication, the science genie is out of the bottle. Living far from the scientists, they`ve joined the mainstream of science.

JIM LEHRER: You can send questions about this project to a NASA expert and to Betty Ann Bowser by visiting our Web site at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, that deadly Palestinian power struggle. Ray Suarez has our story.

RAY SUAREZ: Gunfire rang out across Gaza today, the fourth day of fighting between rival Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas. More than 40 people have been killed in the latest battles, the highest toll since the unity government was forged two months ago. The interior minister resigned two days ago in frustration.

In a pre-dawn attack today, Hamas militants stormed the house of the Fatah security chief, killing six of his employees. The security chief was not home at the time.

Yesterday, fighters loyal to Hamas killed nine when they attacked presidential guard troops. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, has appealed to end the fighting.

MAHMOUD ABBAS, President, Palestinian Authority (through translator): The Palestinians` first priority is ending lawlessness and chaos, and also we must do that by implementing the security plan, without any reluctance or delay, to put an end to civil strife and the ghost of internal fighting.

RAY SUAREZ: Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza two years ago and has also been drawn in to this conflict. Yesterday, Hamas launched a salvo of rocket attacks on a town just outside Gaza, wounding five Israelis. Today, Israeli helicopters responded, firing missiles at a Hamas command center in southern Gaza, killing at least four.

But the latest fighting pits Fatah against Hamas. Fatah has dominated Palestinian government and politics for four decades. The Fatah government of President Abbas has financial backing from the U.S. and other nations, including $43 million for Abbas` presidential guard.

Hamas refuses to acknowledge or negotiate with Israel. It won parliamentary elections last year. But the U.S. and European Union refused to release money to a Hamas government because of its stand on Israel and terrorism.

That forced the two parties to the negotiating table in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, two months ago, where they forged the power-sharing unity government. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh spoke to reporters just after the agreement.

ISMAIL HANIYEH, Prime Minister, Palestinian National Authority (through translator): The Palestinian people -- Fatah, Hamas, and all the factions -- God willing, will prove to the sons of the Arab nation that they are able to undertake this responsibility, they will protect this agreement, will be committed to implementing it. It will have positive effects on our people.

RAY SUAREZ: Several cease-fires between Fatah and Hamas have been declared, including one today, but so far they`ve not held for more than a few hours.

Now some analysis of what`s behind the strife in Gaza. We get that from Rafi Dajani, executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, a nonpartisan organization in Washington that advocates a two- state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And Oliver McTernan, director of Forward Thinking, a British nongovernmental organization that promotes conflict resolution in the U.K. and the Middle East. He`s in Washington after meetings with Hamas and Fatah officials in the Middle East.

Rafi Dajani, the truces that have been called have, you know, lasted merely hours before the killing goes on unabated. What are Hamas and Fatah fighting each other about?

RAFI DAJANI, American Task Force on Palestine: I think Hamas and Fatah are fighting each other over two fundamental disagreements. The first disagreement is how to deal with Israel and the occupation. And the second disagreement is over actual power sharing within the Palestinian political system.

It`s important to remember that, for Hamas, hasn`t quite resolved the issue in terms of how to deal with Israel. What comes after the end of occupation? Does it recognize Israel? Does it want a state in all of Palestine or only the part that is occupied after 1967?

Whereas Fatah has resolved that issue. It wants a state on the land that was occupied after 1967 and has decided and adopted a platform of negotiating with Israel and doing it through the use of nonviolence.

RAY SUAREZ: But if there`s that difference in approach, why does it end up with armed men in the streets shooting at each other, if they`ve got a political difference about how to move forward, tactics and strategy for dealing with Israel?

RAFI DAJANI: Because they haven`t been able to resolve those political differences through negotiations, and the armed violence is sort of an extension of the political process through violent means.

RAY SUAREZ: Oliver McTernan, these parties have clashed before. Is there a difference this time in the level of violence?

OLIVER MCTERNAN, Director, Forward Thinking: I find (inaudible) with Rafi`s overall analysis. I wonder whether, in fact, what we`re witnessing on the streets of Gaza is, in fact, Fatah against Hamas or is it factions within Fatah fighting with factions within Hamas. The latter would be my opinion. And, therefore, I think there is hope that it can be solved, the immediate fighting, and then address the political issues, as Rafi rightly said, that need to be addressed.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, even if it is factions within these two opposing parties, there is no other armed authority above them. If you`ve got parties that are armed parties, who is there, in the occupied territories or in Gaza, to make them stop?

OLIVER MCTERNAN: Well, I think this is part of the problem, and I think it`s a problem that has been partially created by the international community. The international community`s response to the Hamas victory in the election was isolation. You know, we put preconditions before engagement; that has resulted in severe economic hardship.

And, as a consequence, as I think when you have an over-armed society, it`s inevitable that you will get tension spilling into the street. Recently, $84 million was given in rearming the security forces, which are fully identified with Fatah. Now, if the international community had given that $84 million to pay salaries, put bread on the table, I doubt whether we would be seeing these clashes at the moment that we`re witnessing now.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you agree with that analysis, that the preference toward Fatah, in fact, stokes the violence by arming one side and not other?

RAFI DAJANI: Well, I think that the policy of strictly isolating Hamas, whether through economic sanction or other means, hasn`t worked, because it hasn`t forced Hamas to face its basic identity crisis of whether it is a movement that calls for an Islamic state in all of Palestinian or part of historic Palestinian, whether it negotiates with Israel or not.

And I think the way out of this is for the international community to engage in a meaningful political process with Abbas and with the government, which will force Hamas to face up to its identity crisis and force it to answer the questions of whether it, in the final analysis, will negotiate with Israel, will renounce violence, and will accept a Palestinian state in the lands occupied after 1967.

RAY SUAREZ: But the outside world, often in these cases, in this particular part of the world, makes cessation of hostilities a precondition toward moving forward with a political solution, and these two groups seem unable to stop killing each other.

RAFI DAJANI: Yes. We have, obviously, a very serious situation where the paralysis in the government, a government that was really not as much a unity government as actually a coalition government, has not resulted in the international community responding in the way that the government initially hoped it would.

You know, the initial hope was that the government would be formed and then international sanctions would at least be alleviated. They haven`t, because the international community has stuck to its conditions of the -- the quartet conditions, of recognition of Israel, of renouncing violence, and of respecting past agreements. And I think that is the way forward.

RAY SUAREZ: Oliver McTernan, help us understand a little bit of just what we`re talking about here. Is this a standing army? Is it a constituted militia? Are these people who maybe, at other times during the week, are in an auto repair shop or a bakery or a store and take up arms episodically? Who are these people?

OLIVER MCTERNAN: I think it`s a mix of what you described. Several months ago, Hamas made the decision to bring the executive forces onto the street, to give them a uniform, give them a purpose. Now, the explanation behind that was to help them to buy into the political process, because Hamas is essentially a resistance movement that is in the process of becoming a political party.

Now, that`s a very difficult transition. And I thought it was a very wise move by them to give young men who are armed, who would otherwise be idle, to give them a purpose, give them a sense of daily responsibility. Sadly, I don`t think that was understood, and it was seen as a threat to the security forces under the president, Abu Mazen.

Again, I would come back to the role of the international community. We expect two parties that have different political outlook horizons to get an agreement and then stick by it. We`ve done nothing to help them understand each other. We haven`t facilitated a dialogue with them.

I think, had the wider community brought Fatah and Hamas together, helped them to realize there can be no future without them working together, I think it would have been a much more positive response.

RAY SUAREZ: You saw in the earlier report, Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas- aligned prime minister, saying that there could be an agreement, that it could be worked out. One solution, one suggested solution, was to take both armed forces and put them under a unified military command. Are these people grasping at straws? Or is this the germ of an idea that could...

OLIVER MCTERNAN: No, I think that`s obvious way forward. What I think has to happen is now the political will on both sides to make this work. I was worried, when I heard this recent outbreak -- I was in Gaza just a few days ago, and the situation was very tense -- I was worried with this recent outbreak, is that the political leaders on both sides were actually losing control of the militant sections.

Hopefully, that`s not so. Hopefully, there are enough people in both in Fatah and in Hamas who see that it`s not in the Palestinian interest what`s happening now and will work to find the sort of solution that you`ve suggested.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Mr. McTernan`s point, Rafi Dajani, brings up the question, are these groups under some sort of control of somebody? Or could the fighting get to the point where it goes on, whether the Haniyehs and the Mahmoud Abbases say yes or no?

RAFI DAJANI: Well, at this point, I think they are barely under control. But as the violence spirals, if it does, and as the fighting becomes out of control, then these heads, Haniyeh and Abbas, will have less and less control over the forces on the ground, and we`ll see splits within the forces where local groups won`t answer to national groups anymore. And that is the real danger, because they will no longer have control on telling them to stop the fighting.

RAY SUAREZ: Then what does Israel do? We saw today some, because of an over-border incursion, Israeli retaliation. Today, the Israeli foreign minister said, "Until now, we`ve demonstrated restraint, but this is not a tolerable situation."

OLIVER MCTERNAN: I think the greatest fear at the moment is that the ordinary people, whether they`re Fatah supporters or Hamas supporters, are losing confidence in the political process.

Now, if that happens, I think the inevitable result will be a collapse of the Palestinian authority. That will be the biggest security threat for Israel, because they will have chaos on the doorstep. They will have legal responsibility to administer a chaotic society. And I think what we will witness is violence that will spread beyond the borders of Israel, and that is the real risk.

RAY SUAREZ: Oliver McTernan, Rafi Dajani, thank you both.

RAFI DAJANI: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a tale of political intrigue in a hospital room and elsewhere in Washington. Margaret Warner tells the story.

JAMES COMEY, Former Deputy Attorney General: That night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life, so it`s not something I forget.

MARGARET WARNER: With that, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, appearing yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, began his dramatic description of the events of Wednesday, March 10, 2004.

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had just undergone emergency gallbladder surgery at George Washington University Hospital, and Comey was serving as acting attorney general. At that same time, White House officials were seeking Justice Department recertification of the secret domestic wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency.

Comey said he and Ashcroft had discussed the program a week earlier and had decided against recertifying it.

JAMES COMEY: Over the next week, particularly the following week, on Tuesday, we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that, as acting attorney general, I would not certify the program as to its legality, and explained our reasoning in detail...

MARGARET WARNER: Under questioning by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Comey said that, on the evening of March 10th -- one day before the program`s authorization was due to expire -- he learned that then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card were on their way to Ashcroft`s hospital room.

JAMES COMEY: ... told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and ran up, literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), New York: What was your concern? You were in obviously a huge hurry.

JAMES COMEY: I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that. And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card.

They came over and stood by the bed, greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there: to seek his approval for a matter. And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and, in very strong terms, expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which...

MARGARET WARNER: Comey said Card and Gonzales left, but within minutes he got a call from Card.

JAMES COMEY: ... Mr. Card was very upset and demanded that I come to the White House immediately. I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present. He replied, "What conduct? We were just there to wish him well."

I was very upset; I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general, because they had been transferred to me.

MARGARET WARNER: Comey pulled then-Solicitor General Ted Olson out of a dinner party, and the two met late with Card and Gonzales at the White House. The next day, Comey said, he learned the wiretapping program had been reauthorized without Justice Department approval. Comey drafted a letter of resignation.

JAMES COMEY: I couldn`t stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis. I just simply couldn`t stay.

MARGARET WARNER: Comey said he was told others, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and Ashcroft, also were prepared to resign. But on March 12th, Comey and Mueller met separately with President Bush. The president told Mueller to amend the wiretapping program to meet the Justice Department`s standards for legality.

JAMES COMEY: And so we then set out to do that, and we did that.

MARGARET WARNER: This past January, the Justice Department announced a secret court would oversee the surveillance program. James Comey continued to work at the Justice Department until August 2005.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day.

It was widely reported Paul Wolfowitz was negotiating to resign as World Bank president, but his lawyers said he would not leave under a cloud. Wolfowitz has been criticized over a promotion given to his girlfriend.

And the U.S. Senate rejected attempts to cut off funding for the war in Iraq or to tie U.S. aid to Iraqi progress.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, when we`ll talk to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, among other things. For now, I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.