captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productionsñ)i >> ifill: president obama slipped out of washington and made a surprise visit to afghanistan today. good evening. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown+

with peace. and pursuing a more hopeful fu as equal partners. to borrow words from this agreement, we are committed to seeking a future of justice, peace, security, and opportunity. and i'm confident that although our challenges are not yet behind us that the future before us is bright. >> ifill: later the president spoke to u.s. troops he plans to address the american people from afghanistan at 7:30 eastern time tonight. for more on all this, we turn to patrick quinn, kabul bureau chief for the associated press joining us now by telephone. patrick, when did you learn that a presidential visit was imminent? >> well, we only found out just shortly before he arrived. there were rumors he was coming. but it was a complete surprise, i think, to almost everybody in afghanistan that barack obama decided to come here on the anniversary of osama bin laden's death to sign this agreement. >> ifill: tell us what you can about this agreement. how significant is it?

>> well, the deal is not... the deal is significant in that it defines or broadly defines the u.s. presence here after 2014 when most troops are scheduled to leave here, most combat troops. a lot of afghans have been concerned about how the united states will remain here. this agreement basically says that we commit ourselves to supporting afghanistan economically, you know, we'll support its development and we will retain a number of troops here in a counterterrorism role in the post 2014 environment. mostly those to chase after what's left of al qaeda. but this is a... signifies sort of a long-term commitment of the united states to afghanistan and more broadly to the region. >> ifill: even in the negotiating of this agreement, there have been tensions. of course we have documented all the tensions in the

u.s.-afghan relationship specifically with president karzai. was any of that in evidence today? >> not really. i think president karzai got pretty much what he wanted for his own domestic audience. his contingency. let's not forget that we had these very controversial night raids that they wanted the afghans to take the lead on. we signed a memorandum of understanding with the afghan government on know. there was a detainee issue which was a big sticking point, a memorandum of understanding was signed on that issue. whether the afghans themselves can actually effectively take over the night raids and take over the detention centers is not important. what was important was the symbolism that allowed this thing to happen before. let's not forget the may nato summit in chicago. it is an election year. chicago is barack obama's hometown. >> ifill: we saw the president

arrive under cover of darkness. when he makes his address to the nation it will be 4:00 a.m. in the morning. how extensive was the security in anticipation of this visit? >> well, nobody had a clue he was coming so he basically flew in to another location. he did not fly into kabul. he flew into bagram which is a heavily secured u.s. military facility. then he flew to kabul where he met with president karzai and signed the strategic partnership agreement and then flew back to bagram and then flew home all under the cover of darkness. which is very interesting given the fact that we have been here for ten years and the president has to actually fly in in the middle of the night. >> ifill: the president said today, "together we have made much progress." is that the commonly held view as well among afghans? >> well it depends on which afghans you're talking about. we've made progress in transitioning parts of afghanistan to afghan security

control with the united states and the coalition troops being in a support role. but there is... peace has not come to afghanistan. the taliban are still fighting. the peace negotiations are... have broken down. we're in the middle of a major offenseive in the eastern part of the country. i'm not quite sure how much has been achieved in ten years here. the war is not over. >> ifill: patrick quinn, kabul bureau chief for the associated press joining us by telephone. thank you so much for joining us. >> you're welcome. >> ifill: for more on the president's visit >> ifill: for more on the president's visit and the strategic partnership agreement he signed today, we turn to seth jones, who worked for the commander of u.s. special forces in afghanistan from 2009 to 2011, and is now a senior political scientist at the rand corporation. and brian katulis, a senior fellow at the center for american progress, where he analyzes u.s. foreign policy in the middle east and south asia.

seth jones, does this... what you know of this agreement, does it represent a step forward in our relationship with afghanistan? >> well i think what it does do is it ensures that the united states does not make the mistake that it made in... at the end of the soviet wars, and that is completely leave. but what it doesn't do is we have no indication of what the u.s. military footprint will be, how much aid it's going to continue to give, and what the very specifics of the u.s. relationship with afghanistan will be like after 2014. none of that is in this agreement. >> ifill: does this mean that this agreement, brian katulis, this agreement is about what's not going to happen as opposed to what is going to happen? >> i actually think this is a very important agreement in sending a message, reassuring the afghans of enduring support at a time of transition. the u.s. is bringing its troops home. we have a plan to get down to 68,000 troops by the end of this year. they're going to reassess those levels but i think it sends the signal and cuts through a lot of the debate here at home of whether we're staying or not.

as seth said, it sends this message of enduring support for at least another ten years. now the devil is in the details of the financial commitments. and then how many troops will actually stay there in the longer term though. >> ifill: that's exactly the question. i'll ask you this and then seth as well which is i always wonder about sending messages and whether the long-term commitment means anything more than those words. we don't have those numbers attached. >> the second thing that i think the agreement does do is set up a structure for this relationship that didn't exist before. there's a bilateral commission that puts the issue... focus on issues like corruption and political reform in afghanistan. i've not read the agreement itself but i've been told it has serious commit manys from the afghan government on fighting... political reform which is as important... we could be building security forces on a foundation that's not very stable without those commitments in our afghan partners. >> ifill: seth jones? >> well i think one issue that is still is not addressed--

and i know afghans continue to be concerned about-- is what will the structure look like that will fight against the taliban and the range of other insurgents groups including the ha cany network. many afghans are concerned about their own survival. will the taliban take control of territory. will they eventually overcome? it still doesn't get by some concerns that the u.s. is militarily abandoning afghanistan especially when we have neighbors like iran and particularly pakistan that are supporting insurgent groups there was a sunny annual report that came out of the pentagon. one of the things they said is there were long-term and acute challenges from neighboring pakistan. and widespread corruption in the afghan government. does this do anything to address that or do we just tiptoe around those issues? >> this agreement again highlights the importance and the urgency of the afghan partners to actually deal with those issues especially corruption. the biggest problem longer term will be pakistan. this is a major challenge

we've not been able... you know, the bush administration and the obama administration has had significant challenges in getting compliance from the government in pakistan. i think we're still working those issues. that's the biggest strategic challenge right now. >> ifill: is this in the end, the visit, the agreement, everything, is it more substantive or symbolic? >> well, i think it is mostly symbolic. again, i would say it is useful to let afghans and neighbors know that the united states will be committed to some degree over the long run. but again the devil is in the details. we don't have the details. the administration hasn't provided the details of what the military commitment will be like over the long run. i think that in the end will be crucial. >> ifill: let me ask you about the symbolism because of course today is the one-year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden. do you doubt that there is any coincidence there? >> i actually think that they were trying to get this agreement before the nato summit in about two weeks in chicago. i actually think, yes, the

symbolism is very important. it closes a chapter in a sense. i think what was driving this was policy not politics. because the details of what is the enduring commitment not only from the u.s. but from our nato allies will come in discussions at chicago and then follow-up conferences in japan. i think having this agreement makes those discussions much more constructive and productive both in chicago and japan. >> ifill: seth jones, do you agree with that? >> i do agree. the chicago meetings were incredibly important. were viewed as important. and this long-term strategic partnership, i think, of what was important was signed before chicago. again we have a lot of issues that have not been entirely addressed especially the role of neighbors. this document does talk about the importance of a strategic regional relationship. but again we don't have that right now. >> ifill: we have been tracking, brian, the drawdown, the gradual drawdown of the u.s. footprint in afghanistan. does this or this discussion

affect that at all? >> i don't think it does. i think as i understand general allen, our top commander in afghanistan will conduct an assessment of the surge troops are home. we'll be down to 68,000 this fall. they'll do another reassess many of the security situation, importantly how the afghan security forces are doing. so i think those calibrating the pace of withdrawal will be based on the conditions on the ground and whether the afghans are actually stepping up. i think this agreement again sends this message that we're going to be there for a long time but it also calibrates it in such a way we're stick ing with the transition plan as well. >> ifill: being there for a long time, seth jones, does that mean continuing military civilian training, u.s. forces doing that job? >> well, the document does note that it is important that the united states remains to conduct training of afghan national security forces. i would also assume it means training for the afghan local police. it's the tribal/sub-tribe clan element that are providing security in rural areas but again the numbers are not

clear and what kinds of forces, whether they'll be conventional or special operations. what role they'll play is not identified in the document. >> ifill: i have to ask you both about another item in this pentagon report because we've been covering every few weeks it feels what the report calls significant shocks to the relationship, whether it's burning of krans or the killing of civilians or the mutilation of corpses. does this diffuse that tension, brian? >> i don't think it necessarily diffuses all of those tensions but it sets a new tone. again it structures the relationship in such a way that if there were shocks like this that we have a structure to absorb those shock. the shock absorbers. we have commissions that will sit down in a bilateral way and talk about the long-term commitments that we have. the incidents of afghan soldiers killing our soldiers are tactical shocks but overall we have a structure that's being built to provide enduring support for afghanistan something that didn't exist when we left in 1989. >> ifill: are those emotional shocks that nothing can speak

to? >> to a certain extent they are. but those emotional shocks can spill over into politics. if you don't have a structure in our bilateral relationship that can absorb those. i think what we're doing in this is saying let's turn the page on this and let's figure out how to move forward in the transition. >> ifill: what do you think about that, seth jones? >> well, i think among other things what this agreement does is allow the u.s. to establish a... relationships with key partners in the region and in afghanistan, establish a long-term training issue. so it is very useful in that sense. most afghans do remember the 1989-1990, 1991 abandonment by the u.s. of afghanistan. at the very least this document gets the u.s. out of that fear. >> ifill: i have to ask you both briefly also at the end of this seth jones starting with you, do you believe that karzai is a reliable partner at this stage? >> i think hamid karzai has

been a reliable partner for at least part of the time. in a sense though that point may be moot soon because there are elections that are expected to happen. the dates actually have now been... gone back and forth between 2013 and 2014. but i think in general he's been good enough. that's really the question in afghanistan. can you have a leader that is good enough? if you look at his support polls among public opinion polling data, he still gets up in the 60% category which is frankly better than what we have in the united states and in most of europe. >> ifill: brian katulis, good enough. >> it's been mixed. the key question though is how do we help him execute a political transition? we talk about a transition as a security dynamic and what our military does but equally important are what are the political institutions and the economic institutions that are being built? president karzai is going to have to step down some day. what this agreement does is elevates those issues of political and economic sustainability. >> ifill: brian katulis of the

center for american progress and seth jones of the rand corporation, thank you both very much. >> thanks, gwen. >> thank you. >> br >> brown: still to come on the newshour, consumers and banks after the financial crisis; babies born addicted to drugs; research on growing new human tissue; and rights and wrongs for the u.s. and china. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: five men have been arrested in an alleged plot to bomb a bridge near cleveland, ohio. the f.b.i. announced today that the men were taken into custody overnight. they allegedly targeted the brecksville-northfield high level bridge, which crosses part of the cuyahoga valley national park. agents said the suspects thought they had planted explosives at the site. in fact, an f.b.i. informant had sold them "dummy" explosives. >> coordinated and investigative technique in order to eliminate the risk of violence and protect the public. at no time during the course of this investigation was the

public ever in danger. >> sreenivasan: the f.b.i. said at least three of the men were self-described anarchists, but were not affiliated with international terrorism. some had attended occupy cleveland events in the past. but an occupy spokesman said they were not affiliated with the group. across the globe, protesters marked this may day with outrage over tough times and austerity measures. in spain, thousands took to the streets of madrid to oppose government budget cuts and other steps. there were similar protests in greece and in france. meanwhile, in new york, hundreds of protesters with occupy wall street marched on the offices of major banks and media organizations. marchers also descended on downtown oakland, california, blocking traffic in places. they tried to close down some businesses that ignored calls for a "general strike." wall street got a lift today. stocks rose on news that manufacturing expanded last month at the fastest clip since june. the dow jones industrial average added 65 points to close at 13,279. the nasdaq rose four points to close at 3050, its highest closing in more than four years.

automakers saw mixed results in the u.s. for april. chrysler reported today that truck and jeep sales boosted its business by 20%. and toyota reported sales increases of 12%. it said inventories have returned to what they were before last year's earthquake and tsunami in japan knocked out plants. on the other hand, ford and g.m. reported april sales fell 5% to 8%. a parliamentary committee in britain condemned media magnate rupert murdoch today. the panel's report came after months of investigating illegal phone hacking by a murdoch tabloid and his influence over politicians and police. but the committee was deeply divided, as labor party members blasted murdoch, and conservatives objected to the findings. we have a report from tom bradby of independent television news. >> reporter: these people corrupted our country. they brought shame on our police force and our parliaments. they lied and cheated, blackmailed and bullied. we should all be ashamed when we think how we followed them

for so long. rupert murdoch is not fit to run an international company like this. >> reporter: taken to its logical conclusion that would mean taking from murdoch an enormously profitable tv station he founded but there's not the evidence to justify this said the tories. >> no member of the committee could find it in their hearts to say that either murdoch had misled theommittee. nobody. even in the reports as published. therefore, it did appear to us that something negative had to be found to say about rupert murdoch since nobody would conclude that either he or his son had misled our committee. >> reporter: what did committee agree on? some executives had misled them. >> ...the extent of phone hacking. do you have anything to say about that? >> it's already out there. >> reporter: this committee report lost a lot of clout by

being so obviously split along party lines but labor's total declaration of war is a fascinating gamble. a bold and brave or absurd and foolish one. depending on your point of view. >> sreenivasan: murdoch said today he found the report "difficult to read," and deeply regrets what took place. now, the agency that regulates british broadcasting will review the findings. it could force murdoch to divest part of his stake in b-sky-b, british sky broadcasting. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: and we turn once again to our series, "after the fall," our look at what's changed and what hasn't since the financial meltdown of 2008. in recent days we've examined the housing market and risk and regulation on wall street. our focus tonight: consumers and banks, and attitudes toward credit and debt. for that, we're joined by adam levin, chairman and co-founder of credit.com, a consumer education advocacy group. he's former director of new jersey's consumer affairs division. james chessen, chief economist for the american bankers association, an industry trade group.

and kathy kristoff. she reports on personal finance for cbs "moneywatch" and "kiplinger's personal finance." kathy kristof, let's start with consumers. are people generally more willing to take on debt now? if so, who is doing it and what kind of debt? >> consumers are definitely taking on more debt. certainly on average. what you see are two different groups of consumers. we have people who never really had a problem in the financial crisis. they didn't lose their jobs. they never were over extend extended. they've never had difficulty in paying their bills but they've been very cautious over past couple of years. right now they're in very good shape because rate now the debt they have is is at lower interest race. mortgage rates in particular have gone down. for most families that means that 30% of your budget is actually at a lower price. you're in good shape. the other side of the coin are the consumers who did have real problems in the financial

crisis. some of them lost their homes. a lot more declared bankruptcy. and oddly enough, those consumers are also actually in a better spot right now because, while they lost assets, they also lost that debt. so going forward they're better able to borrow. and now you have.... >> brown: let me bring in jim chessen here. does that jibe with what you're seeing, a two-tiered market? >> that's absolutely correct. debt levels are down. we've also seen that the amount of monthly income that people have, the amount that they devote to debt, is at a 28-year low. so we've seen a significant reduction in the amount of debt held. we've seen savings go up. so we've seen a very good improvement on consumer debt levels. now as kathy said we know there's people that have had trouble but the good thing now is is they have an opportunity for a second chance. in products that will help

them rebuild the credit that they need to buy the kinds of product that they want. whether it's a car... or so they can buy a house. >> brown: what impact have regulatory changes had? i know you've looked at this push for more transparency in loans, in ending. >> well there's been a great deal more transparency. there has been a great deal pour restraint in certain areas of fees on the part of financial institutions. and consumers in general are in a position where more information is available to them but it's now their responsibility to be able to actually read that information, digest the information, and make an intelligent decisions based upon that information. plus we also have the consumer financial protection bureau. we have more people actually looking at the problems, studying the problem and trying to see if what we see today is a good owemen or a warning sign and the head lamp

of the oncoming locomotive as opposed to the light at the end of the tunnel. >> brown: adam, just to stay with you. what do you see in terms of consumers' attitudes? is there for a fear of taking on debt? were there lessons learned after what happened four years ago? >> again i think that some people may well be taking on more debt out of necessity because we have a stagnant economy. and we also have a stubborn unemployment rate. some people may in fact have a much healthier attitudes about credit and debt than they've ever had before. remember while we're looking at this particular kind of debt, there's another horrifying debt that's exploding right now that also impacts so many people. that's student debt which is now eclipsed auto debt and credit card debt. so this may also be part of an entire mosaic where consumers are looking at the entire picture and saying i really have to be more responsible in this area because i'm being eaten alive some place else. >> brown: kathy kristof, fill

in that picture a little bit more. you start talking about the riskiest borrowers? do you see them getting into the market more and do you see lenders reaching out to them once again as they were earlier? >> you are seeing them cautiously getting back into the market. where they can. but there are some people who are not borrowing because they don't have the opportunity. their credit got so trashed in the financial crisis that they will not be allowed to borrow for a little while. there are tentative feelers out to get some of these people and certainly to get people with thin credit files as opposed to bad credit files so college students, for instance, are being segregated from the bad credit risks to the new credit risk. and those people are being offered credit. and they're taking it. you know, again consumers are in a better position to handle the credit they're getting. and so i don't see this as a

worrisome trend. >> brown: jim chessen, are banks or some banks getting back into this business of lending to risky borrowers again? one of the big problems, of course, from the bubble. >> there's a whole range of risk, right, from the best credit to the people that, as kathy said, really have very poor credit. banks are treading cautiously. i agree with kathy on that. they want to make loans. they know now with the economy improving and jobs and income improving that the risk of lending is now much lower than it was before. so they want to look at those consumers that really have the ability to repay that debt. it doesn't do banks or customers any good to put hands... to put credit in their hands if they can't repay it. we don't want to repeat the lessons we've had before. so both banks and consumers i think are being much more prudent, much more cautious. i think that's appropriate. >> brown: some of the regulations took some of the ability of banks to make money,

to charge some of the fees they did in the past. >>. >> banks are in the business of making loans, right? that's what they do. they're their bread and butter. they want to make loans. it may shock some people that two out of every three years, fdic-insured banks have been in business for more than 50 years. you don't stay in business unless you treat your customers right, make sure they have the credit that they need and that they can repay it. that's what banks want to do now. the risky lenders are out of business now. the banks that have survived today are the healthy ones that are going to be here for the next 50 or 100 years. they want to get credit in the hands of their customers that can handle it. >> brown: adam levin, what do you see in terms of the side of the banks respond to go the various regulations that were put in place over the last few years? >> well, the banks they find themselves in a bind. they're looking for alternate revenue generation sources. a lot of the bankers i've talked to said, look, we have to find ways to increase our footprint with your existing

customers and make a compelling case with other customers because frankly there was a period of time when the bigger banks were getting hammered by credit unions and smaller banks as consumers were expressing and manifesting their anger. so, you know, there is the continuing search for fees. if they will shift from one to another and they'll go with it. for instance, consumers, the question is, how consumer credit card limits, have they increased because consumers are moving away from debit cards that they had been moved into because once the swipe law went into effect and limited fees on swipe and rewards were taken away from debit and fees were raised on debit, the consumers then were migrating back to credit cards and there was also a greater demand for credit cards. banks are going with the flow on that too. is it because the boat is rocking or because there really is a new attitude about

it? this is a work in progress. >> brown: kathy kristof, the last word from you. is it a work in progress and which direction is it going? >> credit is always a work in progress. like everything else, there are business cycles. we've left the cycle or the point in the cycle when nobody is lending and nobody can get credit unless they don't need any money. and we're going into the credit is easing and people... but people are still cautious. banks are still cautious. then we'll go to the point where they're not cautious and people overspend and banks lend too much money to them until everybody hangs themselves and we start all over again. it's kind of the nature of the beast. at the moment i think we're still in a position where people are borrowing in a judicious way and banks are lending in a reasonable way. so at the moment there's nothing to worry about. >> brown: all right. we'll stop there then. kathy kristof, adam levin and

jim chessen, thank you all three very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: now, a new study highlights a troubling spike in babies born addicted to painkillers. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: on average, every hour a baby is born in the u.s. addicted to a class of drugs that ranges from her wynn to prescription pain killers. a new study published this week in the journal of the american medical association looked at the growing number of mothers taking pain killers and the babies born hooked on drugs. the lead author of the study is dr. stephen patrick who practices medicine at the university of michigan and he joins me now. dr. patrick, welcome. what did you study to conclude that the number of babies with drugs in their system hadn't just increased over the last decade but nearly tripled? >> well, we looked at neonate al syndrome which is a

syndrome that new borns experience after they're born. it happens after the new borns have been exposed to op yates during the pregnancy. we found that the rate of babies diagnosed with drug withdrawal grew by three fold. in 2009 we noted that more than 13,000 babies were born with drug withdrawal or about one baby born per hour. >> suarez: what drugs are we talking about here? drugs we already knew americans were taking a lot more? >> the other part of our study we looked at mothers using opiate at the time of the delivery. that increased five fold over the last decade. we were not able to tell the exact type. but opiates are a brought class. it includes everything from heroin to pain relievers like vike din and even meth don. >> suarez: are these prescription drugs? >> unfortunately from our study we were not able to determine that. that was a limitation of our study. what we do know looking at

data that's been reported by the centers for disease control, we know that over the last decade, prescription opiates have kraud quadrupled in the sales and deaths have also quadrupled. we think that might be one explanation for the rapid increase we see. >> suarez: if we already knew there was a problem with these drugs, was it inevitable they were going to turn up in the bloodstreams of babies? >> you know, i don't know if i would say that. i would say that the increases i think this study shows that multiple people are affected. i hope this study gets attention to think about ways that we can prevent this. i think that this should get the attention of federal and state government policy makers to think about ways that we can control our opiates maybe in a more optimal way. often in our health system we react to problems. i think that this study calls for a public health approach. many states are already doing things to limit the uses of opiates such as registrys of prescriptions that are written

so that we can tell if some of the doctor shopping are going from one doctor to another to get the same prescription. it's strategies to limit opiate exposure that will prevent this problem way before it becomes an issue especially in our new borns. >> suarez: many states have moved to a more punitive, more criminal justice-based response to women who take drugs during or after pregnancy. is that part of the answer? >> i think blame is not always helpful. what i think would be most help ifal is again thinking about this from a public health perspective, preventing this before it even becomes an issue. i think that does come from a public health standpoint limiting opiates before they're even used. i think we can do this through robust public health programs to think about the way we prescribe and think about statewide programs that can limit abuses and diversion of these drugs to things that are legal uses. >> suarez: what are the consequences for new borns who

have been exposed to drugs during their mother's pregnancy. >> the new borns who experience drug withdrawal often are more irritable. they're inconsoleable and sometimes have breathing problems. they often times have difficulty feeding and loose stools. rarely they can have seizures. they're more likely to be born low birth weight. >> suarez: your study found significant increases in the cost of caring for those children. what is driving those increases? >> we found that from 2000 to 2009, the costs or the average hospital bill actually for these new borns across the entire united states increased from 190 to 720 million dollars. we think that this increase is probably driven by the average length of hospital stay. these babies on average had a length of stay of around 16 days compared to all other u.s. hospital births of three days. as well as the rapid increase in the sheer number of these babies. >> suarez: what's the long-term

prognosis for these babies? do we even know? >> that's a great question. the data is still out there. i think this study, i hope, will gain attention to this issue. and get more research dollars to study this. we know that over the last couple of decades that there have been some studies that have followed babies that have been exposed to opiates and found there are adult developmental delays. there are studies that show no issues. what we need are big, robust studies to follow these babies as they grow into school age and adulthood to get an idea of what the consequences are beyond the time of birth. we don't know what the consequences of some of these opiates are. we don't always know the exact consequences of some of the medicines we use to treat these babies either. >> suarez: we know many american women get little or no prenatal care. should the prenatal care that women taking drugs are getting include more advice, more screening, more diversion to lower the number of babies born with drugs in their system? >> prenatal care is a good thing. i think anything that allows women to, you know, spend more

time with their obstetrician and get good counseling will improve care. certainly from my perspective as someone who takes care of babies after they're born knowing some of these issues before the babies are born helps me identify and treat these babies most appropriately. >> suarez: dr. patrick, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> brown: and to a second science story about developments in growing new tissue to replace damaged skin. our story was a collaboration by two pbs stations, produced by perry stoner of net-nebraska and narrated by andrea kissack of kqed-san francisco's "quest" science program. and a warning: this story contains some graphic images. >> reporter: lee has felt at home on the softball field for as long as she can remember.

>> t-ball when i was like kindergarten, first grade. a long time ago. >> shortstop, number 12, lee gramkey. >> reporter: she ended high school as one of the state's best players, earning a spot in the nebraska all-star game. in december of 2010, life changed for grakey in many ways. >> i was coming home after a night and lost control of my car and went into a creek and the car caught on fire. a couple who happened to be following me saw my lights disappear. and pulled me out of the vehicle. saved my life. >> reporter: the accident left her with burns on 40% of her body. and put her on a long road to recovery. in the u.s., about 450,000 people every year require

medical treatment for burns. about 45,000 are like gramkey requiring specialized care at a burn center. >> we talk about the scar formation. >> reporter: dr. david voght is the surgeon at saint elizabeth regional medical center in lincoln nebraska. he says that currently the best treatment for serious burns is skin grafting. that's the progress of... the process of using a patient's own skin from an undamaged part of the body to replaced burned skin. it's done by removing a layer 4/1,000ths of an inch thick and hoping it will mesh the two skin layers. >> you can't take very thick grafts or we cause a wound that won't heal at a donor sight. so the thinner the graft when we place it on the burn the more likely it is to contract the scar. the donor site can contract a scar as well. that's the down side. if you have a 30% burn you're

going to end up with 60% wound. >> reporter: and skin grafting, which has been the standard treatment for more than 60 years, comes with other concerns. infections occur during the healing process and scarring creates problems that are more than just cosmetic. >> the scar that comes after an injury does not resemble the skin. it doesn't function like skin. it doesn't stretch. it doesn't sweat. >> reporter: dr. mark carlson is a surgeon with dual appointment at the university of nebraska medical center and veterans administration medical center in omaha nebraska. his lab is one of thousands around the world attempting to devise better skin replacement techniques. >> one of the important aspects in wound healing is how much protein particularly collagen a cell is going to make to aid in the process of healing. based on the results we get

with these test tube experiments, we then try to optimize the design of the... that the skin replacement to put into a living subject. >> reporter: in his research lab, carlson is working on a spray-on liquid bandage which could help address the wound healing challenge. >> the liquid bandage is made of a sugar molecule, a chain of sugar molecules hooked together called a polymer. it forms the backbone or a matrix. the body can absorb this so it's not like a cotton bandage where you have to put on and take off. you can put this bandage on and leave it there. >> reporter: the liquid bandage research is part of a project funded by the department of defense. goal is to quickly stop blood loss which could save lives on the battlefield. carlson's liquid bandage is successfully doing that on animals in his lab.

the white areas on this pig liver are areas where liquid bandage stop bleeding. he calls it a starting point for growing new skin. if he's able to successfully add cells and growth factors the bandage could one day also regenerate tissue. >> a lot of people call that the holy grail of wound healing. you know, instead of getting a scar you get regeneration. we're not there yet but that's kind of the big picture. >> reporter: while carlson is trying to heal wounds from the skin's surface, another group of researchers is approaching skin regeneration from deep inside the body's cells. at nature technology corporation in lincoln, nebraska, scientists like this one are working with d.n.a. to develop new ways to treat burns or diseases. >> it looks like you have a pretty good yield on this batch. >> i believe so. >> reporter: they've developed genetic engineering manufacturing called hyper grow. it could be a way to

dramatically increase the yield of therapies and vaccines to make them affordable for patients who urgently need them. for wound injuries, it could shorten the recovery period. but all research has a long road before any products are approved for use in the real world. >> the last 50 years or so of biomedical research, there's just numerous examples of therapies which have been touted. then when taken to, say, a large animal model or even to patients falls completely flat and fails. and then you never hear about it again. >> reporter: dr. carlson isn't yet sure of his liquid bandage approach will make it that far either. but he's encouraged by the amount of research addressing the issue in biomedical labs and nebraska and around the globe. for burn victims like lee gramkey tissue regeneration research could allow them to get back in the game of life much sooner. >> seeing other people run and

going to the gym and doing stuff, i kind of want to do that again. >> reporter: and although gramkey probably won't be able to resume her college softball career, she's hoping by next summer she'll be spending a lot more time playing the game she loves with friends. >> brown: you can watch a full- >> brown: you can watch a full- length version of this report. you'll find a link to the kqed "quest" program's web site on ours. >> ifill: as secretary of state clinton arrives in china for a previously scheduled visit, the obama administration's human rights policy is back in the spotlight. judy woodruff has the story. >> woodruff: for many, the images from the 1989 crackdown in tooenmen square remain the most vivid example of human rights violations in china. in 1992, then candidate bill

clinton denounced those he called the butchers of beijing. eight years later, nearing the end of his time in office, president clinton signed legislation creating permanent normal trade relations with china. >> the more china opens its markets, the more it unleashes the power of economic freedom, the more likely it will be to more fully liberate the human potential of its people. >> woodruff: in august of 2008, president george w. bush criticized china's human rights record during a speech in thailand. >> america stands in firm opposition to china's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists. >> woodruff: the next day mr. bush attended the opening ceremonies at the summer olympics in beijing. in 2009 china was one of the stops on hillary clinton's first trip as secretary of state. at the time she said,

"pressing on those human rights issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis." but now escape dissident is apparently under the protection of american diplomats in beijing. and human rights is back at the forefront of u.s.-chinese relations. secretary clinton acknowledged as much on monday before leaving for a long scheduled trip to china. >> i can certainly guarantee that we will be discussing every matter including human rights that is pending between us. >> woodruff: that's on top of an agenda that includes the nuclear programs in iran and north korea and a long-standing dispute over china's currency valuation. two views now on how the obama administration has handled human rights. among the many issues on the u.s.-china agenda. kenneth lieberthal directs the

china center at the brookings institution. he served on the national security council during the clinton administration and sophie richardson is the advocacy director for the asia division of human rights watch. we thank you both for being with us. sophie richardson, do you first. and briefly tell us what is the state of human rights, right now, in china? and has it improved at all in the last few years? >> we're at a point in time where the chinese government has made numerous commitments to uphold and protect rights on paper and indeed the constitution was amended to that effect in 2004. and yet very few of those laws are actually upheld in the... with respect to the use of the death penalty, the lack of due processes, forced disappearances, arbitrary detention. garden variety difficulties when people access justice. i think the gaps between what's on paper and what happens in reality is quite significant still. >> woodruff: how do you size up how the obama administration has done in

dealing with this? >> well, the administration i think got off to quite a wobbly start. in the first year-and-a-half. but sort of i think found its voice and found greater confidence to talk about these issues and engage in some of the more established diplomatic practices. i don't know that they really kept up necessarily as the situation has deteriorated over the last year-and-a-half. what we would really like to see them do is not just integrate human rights concerns across a much broader and more complicated bilateral relationship than what the u.s. and china had 10 or 15 years ago but to also do a better job of not just welcoming the chinese government's rise as is mentioned in almost every speech but also to welcome the rise of people like the dissident and the work that they're trying to do to hold their own government accountable largely because that's consistent with what the administration has said it wants. >> woodruff: of course you're refer to go the dissent who we think it is believed is in the

u.s. embassy. in beijing. ken lieberthal, what about that? i mean, off to a wobbly start? maybe hasn't been consistent? how do you see the obama administration handling of human rights. >> i would give them somewhat higher marks than sophie. i think the administration decided from the start that china's major power. we have an array of very, very serious issues that we have to deal with them on. nuclear proliferation. north korea. now the south china sea. a vast array of economic and trade issues. human rights issues. so the administration's approach has been quite clear from the start. we will stress human rights and push that as effectively as we can but we can't let any one of these issues, nuclear proliferation, human rights, economic and trade, whatever it is, to be a pre-condition of making progress in the other areas because each of these areas is vital for u.s.

security, prosperity, and our relationships throughout the world. >> woodruff: sophie richardson, what about that point that in his view human rights can't be a pre-condition? >> well, look, i think while there are issues that don't necessarily have a human rights component to them that are unbelieveably important to the bilateral relationship and deserve attention, the fact of the matter is that there are quite a few issues across the relationship that fundamentally rest on better human rights protections inside china, whether you're talking about the free flow of information inside the country in anen censored press and product safety on down through a legal system that will both defend people's rights to freedom of expression and uphold contracts. human rights aren't a boutique issue that set off in one corner. they're legal reforms and political reforms that will help the u.s. accomplish progress across the board. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal, i think if i'm hearing sophie richardson correctly she's

saying that human rights are part and parcel of all those other issues including economics. >> if you look at for example our economic negotiations with china we focus on the issue that sophie has identified. we don't call them human rights issues but issues of legal reform and due process. certainly the sanctityy of contracts, protection of intellectual property rights, running your system according to your own laws and regulations. we stress those all the time. there's also a specific civil liberties dimension on this: protection of dissidents, protection of free speech and so forth. we raise that all the time. we tend to raise that less publicly because the administration thinks-- i happen to agree with them-- that a significant part of this has to be done privately if it's going to be more effective. >> woodruff: can these conversations in private serve the need that you're saying needs to be served? can it accomplish what you're saying needs to be done? >> sure. there's plenty of room for private diplomacy.

that's 90% of the diplomacy that takes place everyday. you're not going to get an argument against that. i don't think that this administration or indeed plenty of its press setors have necessarily taken advantage of all of the opportunities they're now afforded across a much bigger relationship to connect the dots in the way that ken is suggesting happens. i don't think that happens as effectively as it could. there are points where the u.s. simply has to stand on principle and make that case publicly. i think that doesn't happen as often as it should either. >> woodruff: ken, you want to respond quickly to that. go ahead. >> i'm not sure if... how you measure whether the administration is doing everything it possibly could or not. there are a lot of areas as sophie mentioned a number of things that effectively relate to santity of contracts and business conditions and so forth. we're very public about that. we press it constantly. we do it in bilateral

interactions through our corporations, through our various trade associations and so forth. if you look at what the president has said repeatedly about china, it is that china will do better itself if it does a better job implementing its own laws and regulations, respecting the rights of its own people, recognizing that in the modern era of social media and so forth, the demands of the chinese people are such that you're not going to have stability going forward unless you're more responsive. i think the spirit is the same, whether you should do it a little more or a little less is something that frankly is very hard to calibrate. >> woodruff: finally one sentence from each of you on what the administration should do with regard to the dissident. >> i think it's important that they do what he wants. i think the most important dimension right now is to protect him and his family members and those who helped him get out from house arrest. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal? >> total agreement with that.

i think we should do what he wants if possible. that means having him stay in china but fully protected. if not possible, certainly giving him the opportunity to leave china under our protection. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal and sophie richardson, we thank you both. >> thank you. >> brown: again, the major development of this day. president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan. he signed an agreement with president karzai that spells out the long-term u.s. commitment after combat forces withdraw in 2014. online, we have a story that will interest investors. hari sreenivasan explains. >> sreenivasan: if you're underwater on your mortgage, you owe more than it's worth. but what about holders of devalued stocks? can they walk away? paul solman answers a reader's question about that on his making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill; and that's the newshour for tonight.

schools grappling with ways to teach climate science . i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you online, where we'll live-stream the president's speech, and have more analysis. and we'll be here again tomorrow evening. for now, thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> citi turns 200 this year. in that time, there have been some good days and some difficult ones. but through it all, we persevered. supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours.

>> nordic natural. >> at&t> >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is "bbc world news america." >> funding for this presentation is made possible by -- the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers work hard to understand the industry you operate in, working to nurture new ventures and help provide capital for key strategic decisions. we offer expertise and tailored solutions in a wide range of industries. what can we do for you? >> and now "bbc world news america."