The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

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

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Thursday; then, a Newsmaker interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; perspective on new rules of war training for U.S. troops in Iraq; a taste of the debate over enforcing immigration laws at the workplace; and a book conversation about the one, the only National Spelling Bee.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. military today ordered new training on battlefield conduct for American troops in Iraq. That followed growing reports that U.S. Marines murdered two dozen civilians last November at Haditha.

A top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, said the training will take place over the next 30 days. He said, "The challenge is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many."

In Washington, President Bush was asked about the move as he finished a cabinet meeting.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: Our troops have been trained on core values throughout their training, but obviously there was an incident that took place in Iraq that`s now being investigated. And this is just a reminder for troops, either in Iraq or throughout our military, that there are high standards expected of them and that there are strong rules of engagement.

JIM LEHRER: We`ll have more on the new troop training later in the program tonight.

The president promised today to release the military findings of what happened at Haditha. A report in the Washington Post said one investigation will conclude Marine officers gave false information to superiors.

In Baghdad, Prime Minister al-Maliki said Iraq will conduct its own investigation, and he complained of repeated violations by coalition troops. He called it "a phenomenon that has become common: no respect for citizens and killing on suspicion or a hunch."

The prime minister also announced he`ll present his own nominees for defense and interior ministers on Sunday. He said he`s forced to act because political factions have deadlocked.

Around Baghdad today, scattered attacks killed at least 18 Iraqis, wounded dozens more.

But it was calm in Basra, a day after the prime minister declared a state of emergency there. Iraqi police and British troops set up checkpoints and searched cars for explosives.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan came under strong criticism today from President Karzai. He condemned the use of gunfire to quell riots in Kabul on Monday; 20 people were killed.

American officials have said the rioters opened fire first. They`re still investigating whether U.S. troops aimed into the crowd.

Six world powers agreed today on incentives and penalties to get Iran to freeze its nuclear program. Secretary of State Rice met with counterparts from France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China. They spent the day hashing out the details in Vienna.

Later, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett pressed Iran to accept.

MARGARET BECKETT, Foreign Secretary, United Kingdom: So there are two paths ahead. We urge Iran to take the positive path and to consider seriously our substantive proposals which would bring significant benefits to Iran. We will now be talking to the Iranians about our proposals.

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday, the U.S. agreed to direct talks with Iran if it stops enriching uranium. Today, Iran officially rejected that condition.

But President Bush said, if Iran does not reconsider, "the world is going to act in concert" at the U.N. Security Council.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers formally accepted blame today for the flooding of New Orleans. It issued a 6,000-page report on why its levees and flood walls failed in Hurricane Katrina.

The report said the barriers varied widely in quality because they were built piecemeal over decades. It said too often projects used outdated information on soil quality and other factors. Their report was issued on the first day of the 2006 hurricane season.

This was also the day New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin began his second term. He took the oath of office at the convention center. During Katrina, thousands of people were stuck there for days. Nagin said the city is better prepared now, but he warned of what the new season may bring.

RAY NAGIN, Mayor of New Orleans: How can we do an inauguration on the same day that hurricane season starts? Lord, have mercy.

And the weather experts have predicted a very active season of storms. With the new hurricane emergency plans we have instituted, in conjunction with the state and federal officials, we are better prepared, our levees are better built, but we could see a summer of several evacuations.

JIM LEHRER: The mayor said the city is steadily coming back, and he promised to travel the country appealing to people to return to New Orleans.

The Homeland Security Department defended plans today to cut terrorism grants to New York and Washington. Officials in the two cities condemned the cuts, but the department said it wants to spread the money across more of the country.

We`ll talk to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about the terror grants and the hurricane season right after this news summary.

A U.S. Army helicopter crashed in southern Georgia today, killing four soldiers. The Chinook helicopter was on a training mission when it clipped a wire near a television tower. It was unclear if the helicopter was already having trouble before the collision.

The state of California agreed today to send National Guard troops to the Mexican border. It`s part of the president`s plan to support the Border Patrol.

Governor Schwarzenegger had been at odds with the administration over the details. Today, a spokesman said the state will contribute 1,000 Guard troops; the federal government will pay the bill.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 92 points to close at 11,260. The Nasdaq rose 41 points to close above 2,219.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff; retraining the troops for Iraq; immigration at the workplace; and the coming again of the spelling bee.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, two different kinds of storms, and to our interview with the secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff.

Mr. Secretary, welcome.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Homeland Security Secretary: Good to be here.

JIM LEHRER: Storm one: the announcement yesterday of funding grants for homeland security, anti-terrorism, the cuts to New York City and Washington, the two target cities for 9/11. Why?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, Jim, I don`t think it`s fair to describe them as "cuts."

Take New York, for example. Last year, New York got $200 million. This year, we`re going to give them $124 million under this particular program. But last year was an artificially elevated number to make up from the very low grant the year before.

If you average out the prior three-year grants, you`re going to see this year is directly in line with what we`ve done over the last four years.

The larger point is this: We`ve invested over half a billion dollars in New York since this department was stood up. We`ve given New York more money, by more than double, than any other city in the country. We`ve put a substantial investment in security which has built the baseline up.

It`s always been understood that, as we fortify New York, we`ll begin to be able to spread the money to other places. So we`re not minimizing the risk to New York; we`re simply saying that we have built a lot of security and now we can afford to look to some communities that need some additional help.

JIM LEHRER: Then why is everybody in New York so upset, Mr. Secretary?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, that may be a question that`s a little bit beyond my capability of answering. I think people reacted to the initial comparison of this year`s number with last year`s number.

What they might not have realized is last year`s number was artificially high to make up from the prior year which was artificially low. So I`ve suggested let`s look at the average and you`ll see that this year`s grant is right in line with the average funding we`ve given New York, which has always been significantly higher than any other city in the country.

JIM LEHRER: Peter King, Republican congressman from New York, who is, in fact, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee of the House, who certainly you would think would know all of this, what you just said, he said what you`ve done is indefensible. And he said, "I`m going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision."

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, you know, I think it points to a larger issue with grant-making, and homeland security, and other areas. Obviously, people feel strongly about their home communities and they tend to see their own risks to the exclusion of others. Our job is to balance.

And one of the things we did here was we put the maximum amount of money up front in those cities that were at the greater risk, but that doesn`t mean that we keep rebuilding the same security over and over again.

As we improve security, we ought to have the ability to begin to manage the risk by looking to communities that haven`t gotten the help. And if we make the process political, if we start to make it personal, we`re actually going to frustrate good public policy, in terms of managing this money.

JIM LEHRER: Well, speaking of the political, Congresswoman Maloney from New York put out a report today comparing per capita expenditures from your budget by city, and she made the point that the per capita for New Yorkers was $2.78 a person compared to $14.83 for residents of Wyoming.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, part of this is an apple-and-oranges thing. And I have to say, I agree with some of the criticisms that some have made about that state program which allocates the grant money on a very rigid formula all across the country, with a certain percentage to each state. That is a different program that the one we`ve been talking about involving New York.

I agree with Congresswoman Maloney. All the programs ought to be risk-based, but that doesn`t mean that all the money will go to one or two cities. It means that we`ll be able to do the kind of analysis that is tailored to each particular city and each particular state as warranted by the risk.

JIM LEHRER: Were these decisions that were announced yesterday, the ones that`s caused all the furor, risk-based?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: They were. And, actually, we did two things. First, we did rank everybody by risk, and New York comes out number one.

JIM LEHRER: Now, who`s "we"? Who did this?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, we actually brought in state or local officials who were not involved in these particular decisions and asked them to form a peer review committee. And having formed that committee, first we took all of our information and our data, and we ranked the cities by risk. And New York did come out number one by a significant margin.

JIM LEHRER: Was Washington number two?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I don`t know if it was number two, but it was well up there.

JIM LEHRER: It was right up there, yes.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: The second thing we did was said, OK, we`ve now identified the risk, but what do you want to do with the money? Because it`s not enough to have risk; you`ve got to have a meaningful use for the money we give you.

And here where the fact that we`ve given over half a billion dollars to New York really plays a role, because New York has already made a lot of investments in the kinds of things which you`d expect to have as basic security.

So we had our state and local officials, our peer reviewers, look at the investment requests, and rank them, and allocate them based upon how useful they are in promoting the goals of homeland security. And that is how we made the final decision.

JIM LEHRER: Well, several of the stories this morning made the point that while New York -- you`ve just explained what the figures are, but it`s less money than they got last year, where there were huge raises for, like, Sacramento, California, Louisville, Kentucky.

Does that mean that there`s a new risk for Louisville, Kentucky, and Sacramento, California, compared to New York? Explain what that means?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: What it means is that a lot of communities were working from a very low base. They either had very small grants the prior year or even no grants.

And so, obviously, if you give them a portion of money, even if it`s not that large, it is a significant increase. New York was working from a very large base.

And one of the oddities about this particular year is a lot of people wanted to compare this year with last year, but last year was abnormally high compared to the year before. So that`s why I said, if you look at the average, you would see the money New York got this year was in line with the average across the prior three years and substantially more, by a country mile, than the money given to any other city.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you mentioned you want to keep politics out of this. But, of course, the Wyoming figure that I mentioned, immediately everybody says, "Oh, where is the vice president from? He`s from Wyoming." There are no terrorist threats toward Wyoming. Why are they getting a larger amount of money per capita than New York, if not politics?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, I mean, Congress did originally set the formula for the state grants, and they guaranteed every state a minimum formula. So that was a congressional decision.

JIM LEHRER: That was a pure pork decision?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, let`s just -- I`ll let you characterize it as pork or not...

JIM LEHRER: All right, OK, all right.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: ... but that was a decision made by the Congress directly.

JIM LEHRER: Not based on risk?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Correct. That was based on their view that every state ought to have a little bit of money guaranteed.

The urban program and the other programs that we`ve operated have been risk-based, and we`ve always advocated to move all of the programs to a risk-based approach. And that, of course, would eliminate some of the anomalies that people point out when they criticize the comparison on a per capita basis.

JIM LEHRER: So you`re going to change this?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, I don`t have the ability to change the law.

JIM LEHRER: Have you asked Congress to change the law?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Last year, there was a movement for that. Actually, Representative King was one of the leaders in this, to eliminate the state minimums.

We supported an elimination or reduction of state minimums; that was not successful in Congress. We want to continue to work with Congress to reduce those minimums so there`s more money available to do based on risk.

JIM LEHRER: Are you satisfied with this list that came out yesterday? Are you making any revisions as a result or considering revisions as a result of the storm that some of these things have stirred up?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, you know, what I`ve said in the past remains true, is if there is a factual issue -- a significant one, not a trivial one -- that people bring to our attention that changes the mix a little bit, we`re willing to pay attention.

But I think the worst thing for me to do would be to say, "Oh, wow, there is a firestorm. I got criticized; people called me names. Let me revise the list so that nobody criticizes me."

I mean, that would be to take this program and make it a hostage to political fortune. I am committed to not doing that.

We have a program that has gotten better and more precise each year. This peer review takes it out of the hands of the politicians. I myself do not make any individual decision about what particular community gets a grant; I only look at the general approach and determine whether I agree with it, and, in this case, I did.

JIM LEHRER: You`re satisfied that New York, and Washington, and the other major risk cities did not get shortchanged?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I think they got a very fair shake.

JIM LEHRER: And do you take seriously Congressman King`s threat that he`s going to do something to you all for doing this?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, I hope that everybody takes a deep breath. There are a hundred members of the Senate, 435 members of Congress. In any array of grants, someone`s going to win and someone`s going to lose.

There`s a lot of committee chairmen; there are a lot of appropriators. If we ever start down the road of people trying to punish a department because they didn`t like a grant, we`d be forced to deal with these grants, what they had to do with the BRAC, with the base closing process, which is to take it and put it in the hands of an independent body.

And I have to tell you, it`s a defeat for the political system if we can`t manage our grant program in a way that says, even when people are disappointed, as long as they understand what the process is, they are willing to abide by the decision and come back and make an argument on the merits.

If the way we deal with it is by getting angry or by trying to exert political pressure, I think we`re doing a disservice to the American people.

JIM LEHRER: Second storm, Mr. Secretary, and that, of course, is hurricane season began today. How would you describe your department`s readiness, as we speak?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, we are much readier than last year and much readier than in any prior year. We have finally built a set of 21st- century tools, including computer tracking of commodities, better communication...

JIM LEHRER: What is that, computer what?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Tracking of commodities.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, I see.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Ability to track supplies from the warehouse down to the place we`re sending them, better communications equipment. We`ve built tools that we never had before.

But beyond that, we have sat down with local communities and state officials, and we have really worked on a good set of plans. Planning is a very important part of being able to respond.

And all across the country, and particularly in the Gulf which is vulnerable this year, we`ve been shoulder to shoulder with state and local officials working to make sure we are planning together.

JIM LEHRER: What`s your level of confidence that we`re not going to have another Katrina?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, I can`t tell you what the storms this year will look like.

JIM LEHRER: I don`t mean the velocity of the storm; I mean all of the things that went wrong as a result of that storm.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I`m quite sure we`re not going to have that kind of a result or another Katrina, from the standpoint of response.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: That`s not to say I`m free from anxiety about hurricane season. I think we`ve got a particular challenge this year on the Gulf Coast with hurricane fatigue.

There are about 70,000 trailers in Louisiana. I`ve seen them. They`re on concrete blocks. They will not stand up even to a low-level hurricane. People are going to have to evacuate when their local officials make the decision, even in a comparatively low hurricane, that people have to leave.

I`m worried that, after two or three evacuations, people may get tired. My message is: You`ve got to listen to your local officials. They have the authority and responsibility; they`re going to be looking out for your best interest. It`s better to be safe and inconvenienced than to be sorry if, in fact, your trailer gets impacted.

JIM LEHRER: You personally, and your department, and people who worked under you caught much, much heat as a result of what happened last year. What are you personally, as head of homeland security, going to do differently this season than you did last?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, I began well in advance of the season. You know, I was six months on the job last year when the hurricane hit. And having now gone through an intense preparation period, in terms of planning and lining up supplies, I realize how much of what you do in hurricane season depends on what you did before hurricane season.

It`s like a football team. You know, the preparation pre-season is what determines how you perform during the season. So we put that work in, and I`ve been personally engaged.

I went down earlier this week to kick the tires, literally, on the bus and to walk through the Orleans plan. I don`t want to substitute my judgment for the operators. We`ve brought some very skilled people in; we`ve got them down to the Gulf. They`re working as a team with state and local officials, but I will be very much personally focused to make sure that my people are doing what they have to do.

JIM LEHRER: Bottom line, Mr. Secretary, somebody listening to us talking right now, and they want to know how much responsibility are you taking for what may or may not happen, in terms of the response, to any bad hurricane that comes?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I`m certainly taking responsibility for my department, what we do, what we bring to the table. I obviously don`t have the authority as a local official or state official to order evacuations or to do the things that local and state officials do. They`re going to have to take that responsibility.

What I can do is work with them to help them do what they have to do and to exercise their authority.

JIM LEHRER: But all the things that you feel that you have the authority to do and the responsibility to do, you`re prepared to do it and accept responsibility if they go wrong?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Right. For things that I have authority to do and that are my mission, I will discharge. Those things I don`t have authority for, I will work with those who have the authority to make sure that they can discharge their responsibility.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see your principal responsibility -- just so people get a framework here -- is, yes, to prepare, but then, if the storm hits, is to reduce calamity, to reduce injury, reduce damage, and all of that sort -- is that what you see as your number-one responsibility?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: In the normal course, in a normal hurricane, local and state officials are going to take the responsibility and have the authority to order the evacuation and get people out. We`re going to be there to help them with the planning, with, in some cases, buses and transportation, if necessary.

JIM LEHRER: You`re prepared to provide those?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Correct. And we have that. We`ve got much more than we had last year, and we`ve got the ability to track where it is and make sure it gets where it`s supposed to be.

Now, if you had a truly extraordinary event, an incapacitation of state and local government, then we might have to take a more direct role. And part of the planning we`ve done this year is we`ve gotten the Defense Department very closely tied with us so that the capabilities that they can bring to the table are ones that we`ve identified, we`ve prepared -- what we call mission assignments -- so we can call on them, and we could deploy those much more quickly than last year.

JIM LEHRER: You have the authority to call the Defense Department and say, "I need 30,000 soldiers in New Orleans tomorrow?"

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Not quite. What I have the ability to do is, based on our agreement, to say, "I want to trigger the assignments that we`ve agreed upon previously." And then the Department of Defense will honor that, and they will provide, whether it be supplies or soldiers or whatever, they will supply that.

Now, I do want to be careful, Jim, to point out that, when it comes to supplying security, there are a series of very complicated legal issues and some things only the president can do: invoking the Insurrection Act and actually federalizing troops.

That`s really in exceptional circumstances, and that`s a presidential power. But, in terms of these mission assignments, we have these agreed upon and I`m confident the Defense Department will act on them.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Good to be here.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Coming up: immigration at the workplace; and the story of the spelling bee.

But now, Margaret Warner looks at the order to retrain the troops in Iraq.

MARGARET WARNER: All coalition troops in Iraq -- 150,000 soldiers, Marines, Air Force and Navy personnel -- will get new training in battlefield ethics and values.

The order follows allegations that U.S. Marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha last November.

In a statement today, Commanding General Peter Chiarelli, said the training would emphasize "the importance of disciplined, professional conduct in combat and Iraqi cultural expectations." Chiarelli added, "As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies."

For more on this, we turn to Retired Lieutenant Colonel Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps lawyer and judge who served two tours in Vietnam. He taught the law of war at West Point and now teaches that at Georgetown University Law School.

And Paul Rieckhoff, an Army National Guard lieutenant who led a platoon in Iraq in 2003 to 2004. He`s now executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an organization that advocates on behalf of troops still serving.

And welcome to you both.

Colonel Solis, how big a deal, how serious is this, for the commanding general of all forces in Iraq to issue an order like this?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS, Marine Corps: It`s extremely serious, and it`s also extremely unusual. Stand-downs from aviation units are not as unusual, but for ground units like this, it`s extremely unusual, because they come up only in the most extreme circumstances.

During the Vietnam War, for example, you had stand-downs to stress racial relations, to stress things like drug prevention programs. But there hasn`t been a stand-down for ground units for a long time, many years.

MARGARET WARNER: Lieutenant Rieckhoff, would you agree this is serious? And do you think it`s warranted?

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF, U.S. Army National Guard: I think it`s very serious, and I think it is warranted. It definitely can`t hurt.

The military is constantly retraining and updating training, and they`re under increased pressure everyday, and I think we all understand the gravity of the potential of what`s happening on the ground in Haditha.

And it definitely would do us some good to take some time to retrain, to emphasize the Army values and the Marine Corps values, and just remind soldiers about the rules of engagement, the proper use of the escalation of force, and how to minimize civilian casualties. I think it is appropriate.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Colonel Solis, you`ve led training sessions like this. What do they entail? How are they really going to work? How are the commanders over there going to do this retraining?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: Well, I believe they will probably stand down, as the order implies.

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning they step back from...

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: Exactly. There will be no patrolling today. There will be no details today. Everybody reports back to the FOB, to the forward operating base. We`re going to have a session at a certain time.

The Marines, the soldiers come in, sit down, either in a conference room, if they have the luxury of a conference room, or wherever. "Sit on your helmets, gents, ladies. We have something that we have to talk about today."

And for the next hour, the officer or lieutenant, captain, perhaps a major, is going to stress the very things that you mentioned a few minutes ago: professional conduct on the battlefield.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the statement from the general said that they were going to use a slide show and that they had training vignettes. That was the phrase. What are those? How do those work?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: Well, vignettes are essentially little scenarios where the individual who`s giving the class may say, "OK, Smith, let`s say that you`re out on a roadblock and you have a vehicle approaching you at 50 miles an hour. What do you do?"

"Well, I would fire a warning shot, sir."

"And the car continues come on. What would you do then?"

"Well, then I would fire at the engine block, sir."

"And the car still continues. What then?"

So it forces the soldier to relate to a specific situation and give his assessment of what should be done.

MARGARET WARNER: And when you said that the basic message here is to uphold the professional values but, in layman`s terms, what is that?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: Well, it means how one conducts oneself on the battlefield as a professional. That is to say our forces in Iraq today are the most professional and best-trained, most intelligent of any force that we`ve ever had before. But people can forget that there are guidelines, there are tenets that one must follow in combat.

You can never intentionally target civilian non-combatants, for example. Reminding individuals that, just because one of your soldiers has just been killed, your anger can`t be taken out on whoever happens to be in the area.

MARGARET WARNER: Lieutenant Rieckhoff, before you were deployed to Iraq, what kind of training did you and your colleagues, your fellow soldiers, receive in this area?

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF: Well, we received extensive training. I think all soldiers and Marines from the start, in basic training, are ought about the laws of war, are taught about the Geneva Convention, are taught about appropriate use of force.

When I went through infantry officer basic course at Fort Benning, Georgia, we go through an area called the schoolhouse. And we were all taught about My Lai and Lieutenant Calley`s role in the My Lai massacre as a case study of what not to do.

So I think it is extensive. And I think it also, you know, is a testament to the fact that the military does a pretty good job of disseminating this information and ensuring that high level of professionalism.

That`s one way this military is different from Vietnam and past generations; the higher level of proficiency and professionalism is really different from past generations.

MARGARET WARNER: And was the training specifically tailored to counterinsurgency situations, versus, say, being out in a real battlefield, head to head with another enemy?

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF: It`s evolved. I think the military does a good job of evolving its training to meet the adapting and evolving enemy.

So we were constantly going through scenarios, talking through case studies, just like the other guest mentioned, where you sit down with your soldiers and you talk about, "What would you do here? What would you do there?"

And also emphasizing to each soldier, down to the lowest level, that the use of force is a last resort; you only use that deadly force if you`re immediately in danger, your unit`s immediately in danger, or civilians are immediately in danger.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Colonel Solis, how much of this training sticks with a 19-year-old who is living in this and operating in this threat- filled environment? Every other minute, he`s got a threat coming from here and there, and he just sees one of his best buddies blown up by a roadside bomb.

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: It`s tough. This is the most dangerous, the difficult kind of warfare one can imagine: insurgency. And the forces that are operating on young soldiers and Marines are tremendous. I don`t think anyone can imagine them unless you`ve been there.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you tell your students?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: I tell my students that: Remember, you are the officers that are the governors on the conduct of your soldiers. It`s the duty, the responsibility of NCOs and officers to ensure the professionalism of those under their command, to ensure that their soldiers and Marines know, are reminded, are constantly in mind of the rules on the battlefield. It`s not a free-fire zone.

MARGARET WARNER: And what about the soldiers themselves? What about those 19-year-olds?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: It`s very tough. And that`s why you have to have good leaders and why we do have good leaders. That`s why things like Haditha are so unusual, because these leaders, these NCOs and officers are constantly reminding them, "Don`t do anything stupid, gents. Remember, ladies, this is what we`re here for. You cannot, et cetera."

MARGARET WARNER: Lieutenant Rieckhoff, what`s your view on how well these lessons stick when you`re out in that kind of a stress-filled situation? And what does it take to make them stick?

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF: Well, I think they do stick pretty well. And I think the fact that Haditha so far is an isolated incident, if it is in fact proved to be true, is an indication of how well most of our people have performed.

We`ve had hundreds of thousands of troops through theater over the course of a few years, and we`ve had relatively few incidents so far.

So I saw on the ground the tremendous restraint that our soldiers demonstrate on a daily basis. Where they`re being fired at, and they don`t have a clear shot, or civilians are potentially in danger, they exercise a tremendous amount of personal restraint, professional restraint, often at their own peril.

It`s a tremendously tough situation. But I was continuously impressed everyday by how well these soldiers perform, even the young ones, 19 years old in a country where they don`t understand the culture, they don`t understand the language.

They do understand the gravity of the situation, and they understand that everything they do has an impact, not only on that immediate area, but on our global standing. I always told my men, "Remember, you`re here on behalf of 300 million Americans. Everything we do will have an impact on all of those people and how we`re viewed globally."

MARGARET WARNER: And what is the role of the senior officer on the scene, whether he`s a non-commissioned officer or, say, a platoon leader, a lieutenant, in a sudden emergency, firefight combat situation like that?

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF: Well, that`s where the buck stops. I mean, that unit commander is ultimately responsible for everyone that is subordinate to him or her.

And they have control over fields of fire. They have controls over which weapons are employed and where, the magnitude of force. And they can call cease-fire; they can adjust fire. And they really have control over that unit, whether it`s a team, a squad or a platoon.

So, ultimately, it does come down to that small unit commander, and that`s a tremendous amount of responsibility. But our people are up to it, and they`ve demonstrated that they can do well under increasingly tough situations, when they`re going back on third and fourth tours. They`ve still performed pretty well, despite the hardships.

MARGARET WARNER: So, really, Colonel, it all comes down to, not just the command skills, but the character of the senior officer on the scene?

LT. COL. GARY SOLIS: Absolutely. I think leadership is all important. If you find a breakdown in discipline, you`re going to have problems. And so it`s the NCO on the ground, it`s the lieutenant on the ground that really bears the brunt of the combat in Iraq today.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Colonel Solis and Lieutenant Rieckhoff, thank you both.

LT. PAUL RIECKHOFF: Thank you, ma`am.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Next, how immigration reform could change hiring practices, and to Jeffrey Brown.

JEFFREY BROWN: Continuing his push for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, President Bush went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today and touted a new system that would enable employers to determine the legality of those they were hiring.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: I think this is sensible. I think, if we want to enforce our laws, people ought to be required to check to see whether or not names and numbers match.

JEFFREY BROWN: The provision, included in both the Senate and House bills, is called the Employment Verification System.

The nation`s 6.5 million employers would be required to check an electronic database to determine if future workers are here legally and entitled to work. Those who knowingly employ illegal immigrants could face fines as high as $20,000 per worker and jail time for repeat offenses.

During Senate debate on the plan, both sides of the aisle stressed its significance.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This is probably the single most important thing that we can do, in terms of reducing the inflow of undocumented workers: making sure that we can actually enforce, in a systematic way, rules governing who gets hired.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), Iowa: What we are trying to do is balance the needs of workers and employers and the immigration enforcement.

JEFFREY BROWN: It`s been a crime to employ illegal workers since the passage of the 1986 immigration law, but studies have shown that penalties have not been widely enforced.

The new program is intended to replace one known as Basic Pilot, an optional verification system in place since 1997. To date, only a small fraction of the nation`s employers have participated.

And we look at some of these issues now with: Laura Reiff, chair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents business interests in the debate over immigration reform; and Kevin Jernegan, a professor at George Washington University, who specializes in labor and immigration.

And welcome to both of you.

LAURA REIFF, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition: Thank you.

KEVIN JERNEGAN, Professor, George Washington University: Thank you very much, Jeff.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Jernegan, starting with you, we hear both sides saying that this is something of a linchpin in whatever happens. Why? Why is it so important?

KEVIN JERNEGAN: Well, it`s very difficult to enforce any sort of sanctions against employers unless you can establish that they knowingly hired undocumented labor.

Going back to 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, we`d identified that one of the major draws for undocumented immigrants was, in fact, these abundant job offers that they had here that paid substantially better than they could make on the other side of the border.

So we wanted to go after these -- we reduced the number of jobs that were available to them and hopefully stemmed the tide of illegal immigration. And it seemed to have worked temporarily, in that, after 1986, we saw that the apprehension of deportable aliens dropped by 50 percent during the first three years after that.

So there`s strong evidence to suggest that the employer sanctions against employers, in fact, helped. But pretty soon people figured out that there were ways around the system and that you could introduce fraudulent documents, for instance.

There was very little enforcement. The number of actual investigations of employers and penalties assessed against them was very minimal. And so, pretty soon, you found that the number of undocumented started to go up again.

But, basically, in order for any of the employer sanctions to be effective, you have to have a reliable way of knowing who is and who is not lawfully present. And, right now, if you look at someone who`s got a bogus identity card, a stolen identity, how can you really establish that that employer really knowingly hired someone who was lawfully present?

JEFFREY BROWN: What is your sense of why things have not worked? We`ve said now several times the law is that you cannot hire illegal workers. Why hasn`t it worked?

LAURA REIFF: Well, in 1986 -- the true reason why it hasn`t worked is, in 1986, we only fixed half of the problem. We had undocumented workers here who needed to have some kind of stability in their life, and we have the act that changed their status to permanent residents.

What we didn`t do was provide a mechanism for allowing workers to come into this country when we couldn`t find U.S. workers, and that`s what you hear the president saying now, willing workers for willing employers.

We didn`t have a spigot, a valve to have those workers come into this country. So what happened was we had an economic boom here and employers had job openings, couldn`t find U.S. workers, and we`ve got 500,000 undocumented workers coming into this country now illegally.

So we had a problem with that system. And when those workers come into the country, they have the fraudulent documents, like Kevin said. And so employers, when they`re looking at the documents, which we`re required to do under the Employment Eligibility Verification System, can`t look beyond those documents.

If they look like on their face they`re valid documents, we have to accept them. We do accept them; we do our compliance, and they`re here. They`re working. So we have a severely broken system which started in 1986.

JEFFREY BROWN: So is it fair to say now that there is a consensus on having some kind of verification program, but there is problems with the details?

KEVIN JERNEGAN: Yes, I think that`s a safe assessment. There certainly is a broad consensus that this has to happen.

If we`re going to have any sort of enforcement, we need to be able to identify which employers are making good-faith efforts to comply with the law and which ones are, in fact, willfully non-complying.

And so you get down to the fine points of, you know, how can you make this happen? And the existing Basic Pilot system that`s been tried over the last 10 years here seems to work fairly effectively, by providing a database that allows for external verification of a person`s work authorization and eligibility used in primarily the Social Security number, but also using IRS records and Department of Homeland Security records.

You know, there`s still some bugs in the system. The system works very, very well for U.S. citizens who have been in the system since childhood. We`ve all had Social Security numbers, and so we get very high rates of approval for U.S. citizens.

The problem tends to come up more with people who are newly arrived but quite probably or possibly legally, you know, present immigrants and who have not been in the system very long.

They may have some discrepancies in their records related to different spellings of names, you know, juxtaposed dates of birth. Maybe they use a day-month format for birth instead of a month-day format. These sorts of little things can throw off the computer verification of that, resulting in delays.

What happens when an employer gets what`s called a tentative non- confirmation from the system, do they, in fact, know to wait and actually give the person advice on how to appeal that, or provide additional information, or wait for a final confirmation, you know, or do they simply pass that person over and move onto the next person whose employment eligibility is more readily verifiable?

JEFFREY BROWN: And from the business side, what are the concerns? There are concerns that have been raised with this new potential provision.

LAURA REIFF: Yes. Actually, the business community would prefer not to be the document police. We believe it`s within the purview of the government to have to check employment eligibility and make sure that workers that come into this country actually have the documents and the proper work authorization. Employers shouldn`t have to bear that burden.

JEFFREY BROWN: Why not?

LAURA REIFF: Because it`s the government`s job to make sure that our borders are secure and that, when employees or when workers come across the border, they have the proper documentation.

However, we understand post-9/11 that, you know, we`re willing to chip if and do our part, but we need a system. I guess what I`m saying is we`ve accepted the fact that we need to have an employment eligibility and verification system.

JEFFREY BROWN: Something`s going to happen?

LAURA REIFF: It`s going to happen; it`s already happening. But we need a system that is foolproof, it`s fail-safe, that it is reliable and it provides blanket protection from liability for employers when we do what we`re asked to do.

We need something that`s fast, that`s efficient. And what Kevin has just described here is a system right now that can take -- you know, it can take up to two months to get a Social Security number for somebody.

And if you`re relying on the current Basic Pilot program, you`re not going to be able to put somebody on the payroll for two months, because they don`t have a Social Security number, so there are a lot of things that need to be worked out in order to make this system really smooth-sailing for employers.

We`re worried that we`re going to -- if we have one of the systems that`s actually been proposed, that we`re going to end up turning down U.S. workers, which nobody wants.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, you raised some of the civil libertarian concerns over this, about privacy, about potential discrimination. Are there protections being debated now or built into the bills?

KEVIN JERNEGAN: There are. It`s a tricky situation. You have to find a balance, and that one of the great problems from a point of view of enforcement is right now, with the existing I-9 process, there are a wide variety of documents that a person can submit in order to establish their identity and employment eligibility.

That means that a prospective employer has to be able to identify all of these documents and know which ones are real and which ones aren`t. That`s kind of a heavy burden to put on an employer.

So there`s a strong desire to try and consolidate, you know, the list of documents down to one standard I.D. that, you know, everyone can recognize, but then you get into issues like, you know, a national I.D. card. And, you know, is that going to come with privacy issues that we should be concerned about?

You know, oftentimes, people who are, in fact, lawfully present may not have those kinds of documents. For instance, where you talk about -- some of the compromises that were discussed were requiring a Real I.D. Act- compliant identity documents. These identity documents are not yet available, will not be for quite some time.

JEFFREY BROWN: You`re both raising technical issues, and I guess there must be a cost issue, as well. What is at stake here? What are the costs, and is there any evidence that people are ready to bear it?

LAURA REIFF: Well, you know, one of the proposals was to actually have employers bear the burden of verifying the employment eligibility of these workers, and that`s a, you know, straight-out hard cost to employers.

But there`s also a cost of having to implement a new system, obtain equipment. A lot of our employers are small businesses. I`m an employer. I employ people to work in my home.

What am I going to have to do to comply with this? What are small businesses going to have to do? So there are those kinds of costs.

And then, with some of the proposals that have required re- verification of the entire workforce, think about the administrative and the human resource costs of going back, and getting these folks in, and then the logistics of just dealing with re-verification.

So there are all kinds of costs that are incurred in dealing with this system and, frankly, employers don`t want to have to bear the brunt of that.

JEFFREY BROWN: We just have a few seconds left. What are the prospects here? We`ve said everybody wants it, but there`s all kinds of issues you`ve just brought out. What are the prospects?

KEVIN JERNEGAN: Well, that`s the $50,000 question, isn`t it? I think that -- I mean, realistically everyone agrees that this is sort of a necessary thing that has to happen, given the current, you know, time frame, given the current zeitgeist.

You know, people are concerned about illegal immigration. We need do something about it, so this is probably going to happen. The points that are left are relatively minor ones.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK, Kevin Jernegan, Laura Reiff, thank you both very much.

KEVIN JERNEGAN: Thank you, Jeff.

LAURA REIFF: Thanks, Jeff.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a spellbinding competition, and to Ray Suarez.

FINOLA HACKETT, Spelling Bee Competitor: Bdelloid. B-d-e-l-l-o-i-d, bdelloid.

RAY SUAREZ: The word means "like or relating to a leech." And correctly spelling it just put 14-year-old Finola Hackett a step closer to being crowned the queen bee of this year`s annual Scripps National Spelling Bee, a competition that`s always been popular but has gained more and more attention in recent years.

This May, roughly 275 regional champs descended on Washington, D.C., for the annual event. The contestants hail from all 50 states and sometimes use their own peculiar methods to survive to the next round.

And international competitors travel from as far away as New Zealand to throw their hats in the ring. The prize: a big trophy; big checks, totaling over $37,000; and bragging rights for a lifetime.

Since 1994, the bee has been broadcast exclusively on the cable sports network, ESPN, but this year, as it grows in ratings, the bee makes its debut on ESPN`s broadcast parent network, ABC, on its primetime lineup, tonight at 8 o`clock Eastern.

ANNOUNCER: ... only on ABC.

RAY SUAREZ: The two-hour finale also includes mini-profiles of the contestants.

SAMIR PATEL, National Spelling Bee Champion 2005: I am Samir Patel, and I am a verb-a-maniac.

RAY SUAREZ: The competition`s switch to primetime was the latest in the growing buzz around the bee. It`s also inspired big-screen hits.

SPELLING BEE COMPETITOR: Logorrhea. L-o-g-o-r-r-h-e-a.

SPELLING BEE JUDGE: That is correct.

RAY SUAREZ: The 2002 documentary and Academy Award nominee "Spellbound," last year`s "Bee Season," based on a best-selling novel by the same name, and "Akeelah and the Bee," released this April...

LAURENCE FISHBURNE, "Akeelah and the Bee": You want to win what?

KEKE PALMER, "Akeelah and the Bee": I want to win the National Spelling Bee!

LAURENCE FISHBURNE: Yes!

RAY SUAREZ: ... a fictional account of an African-American girl from the inner-city of Los Angeles who wins the national bee. Bee-fever has even hit Broadway. The musical, "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee," won two Tony awards last year.

In the meantime, tonight these 13 finalists will have a chance to become a celebrity in their own right, provided they get their ABCs in the right order.

For more about the bee and the students who participate, I`m joined by James Maguire, author of the book "American Bee: The National Spelling Bee and the Culture of Word Nerds."

Well, why do spelling bees suddenly seem to be in the national cultural fast lane? What happened?

JAMES MAGUIRE, Author, "American Bee": They are big right now. We have seen a little boomlet in spelling bees.

I think the thing that really sparked it was the 2002 spelling documentary "Spellbound." But I think the thing that has really enabled it to catch on is, you know, the spelling bee is the original reality TV show and, of course, reality TV is very big right now.

I kind of hate to make the comparison, because I think the spelling bee has a lot more value than a lot of reality TV, but it`s very similar. You know, we go round by round. Spellers are eliminated. We sort of get to know the spellers and their little idiosyncrasies, and finally we get to those last few rounds that we see, you know, who`s going to win.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, this afternoon a lot of spellers were eliminated. They`ve gotten down to the final 13.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: From what you saw in your reporting, what are those kids likely to be doing in these final hours before they head to the big, final round?

JAMES MAGUIRE: Right. Well, of course, worrying and being anxious and tense, to be sure, but there`s probably some last-minute studying. And what these kids do to be able to handle these large words is they really do a lot of root word work.

So they study, you know, roots of, you know, Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, Spanish. That way they can spell words they`ve never actually seen before.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let`s talk a little bit more about that, because to be a speller at this level you can`t just be a good reader or someone who`s gradually acquired a wide vocabulary. You have to do special prep, no?

JAMES MAGUIRE: You really do. I mean, the bee organizers put out something called "The Consolidated Word List," which is 23,000 words long. And these top spellers, most of the kids tonight, will have memorized that entire 23,000-word list.

So they`ve memorized an enormous amount; they know their word roots. And, of course, there`s also an element of luck. I mean, there`s no way around that. Because in the Webster`s Unabridged Dictionary, there`s 475,000 words. And so, you know, you never know what word you`re going to get or what word your competitor is going to get, and there`s always upsets every year.

RAY SUAREZ: So you could go out on a word that, if you had been one kid ahead or one kid behind, you would have gotten?

JAMES MAGUIRE: You know, the winds of fate really blow unpredictably at the bee.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you call it in your subtitle "The Culture of Word Nerds."

JAMES MAGUIRE: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: Are these kids like a tribe apart, a different cut of kids?

JAMES MAGUIRE: You know, these are kids who really love to study, many of them, which, you know -- call that an unusual trait, but they study often, you know, seven days a week, you know, month after month, sometimes year after year until they finally make it to the bee.

You know, after I`ve talked with a lot of them, though, I`ve found out that they`re a lot more normal than you might expect. When you actually get to know the kids, I mean, they`re more well-rounded, really just very, very interested in this one topic.

RAY SUAREZ: They disproportionately are drawn from immigrant families, families from South and East Asia.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: Have you thought about why?

JAMES MAGUIRE: Yes. Well, you know, Indian-Americans are very, very strong at the bee. And, of course, an Indian-American boy won in 1985, and I think it inspired a lot of immigrant pride.

I think recent Indian immigrants said to themselves, "Well, if one of our own can win this quintessentially American contest, then we really want to be, you know, interested in this." So Indian-Americans put a lot of emphasis on it.

Actually, of the last seven championships, five have been won by Indian-Americans.

RAY SUAREZ: That`s a tremendous number.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Yes, really, it`s a very strong presence of Indian- Americans at the National Spelling Bee.

RAY SUAREZ: There are some knocks on the bee, one that rote learning is prized over real comprehension and knowing what these words mean.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Well, the thing is, you know, these kids have a sprawling vocabulary. I mean, there`s a lot of homonyms there. And so if you are just doing rote memorization, you don`t make it to the finals. You might make it to the national bee possibly, but to get to the final rounds it is really all about understanding.

RAY SUAREZ: But, on the other hand, having just brought in a criticism, I guess I should say that it`s nice to see kids that age celebrated for something other than athletic prowess or being pretty.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Yes, exactly. I mean, that`s the thing I really love about it. I mean, it is not just spelling, you know? It`s etymology; it`s vocabulary; it`s parts of speech. You know, the bee really encourages reading. All these kids are really big readers.

So, I mean, I love the fact that it`s on primetime. It`s going to advertise the idea of, you know, studying, and reading, and learning.

RAY SUAREZ: Is this a harder competition to win than it would have been 20 or 40 years ago?

JAMES MAGUIRE: It`s far harder. I mean, if you look back at some of the earlier decades, the words were much easier. I mean, the word "knack" was the winning word one year, you know, k-n-a-c-k. You know, "therapy" was a winning word one year.

You know, in simpler times, kids just showed up and spelled. Now these kids are really working year-round so those kind of words would just be, you know, round one or two words.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, how do they handle the pressure? I mean, they are, what, nine to 15 years old or so, and they seem to be handling themselves quite well on national television. Are there some who aren`t handling the pressure that well?

JAMES MAGUIRE: You know, handling the pressure is a big part of it. And it is difficult for these kids. And I know they really feel the stress of it.

But if you look at the winners and the top finalists, these are kids who can really handle pressure. And it really sort of distinguishes the kids who can just spell well from the kids who can really, you know, handle the trial by fire.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there any cases that you came across where kids were really sort of heavily burdened by this and it wasn`t fun anymore?

JAMES MAGUIRE: Well, I`ve seen some kids -- there was one boy last year that I know is extremely well-prepared. He had just studied, and studied, and studied. And there was an early round, and he came across a word that was not too hard, and he just sort of psyched himself out.

And he spelled it really rapidly, even before he thought, and you could just see him sort of bolt upright like, "Oh, no, I`ve blown it." You know, the pressure got to him.

RAY SUAREZ: James Maguire, thanks a lot.

JAMES MAGUIRE: Thanks, Ray.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day. The U.S. military ordered new training on battlefield conduct for American troops in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister said his government will investigate reports U.S. Marines murdered Iraqi civilians. The U.S. and five other powers agreed on incentives and penalties to get Iran to halt its nuclear program.

And, on the NewsHour tonight, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff defended cuts in terror grants to New York City and Washington. He said the funding should be tied to calculations of risk, not politics.

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.