The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, full coverage of the continuing conflicts in and about Cambodia; a Jeffrey Kaye report on business and ecology in San Diego; and with poetry and other words a look at the excitement of Mars. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Contact with the Mars Pathfinder was cut off today. NASA scientists said there was a glitch in the spacecraft's computer software. The problem first occurred July 4th, when Pathfinder landed on Mars, and a second time last Friday. Communication was interrupted today while the lander was transmitting new pictures. A spokesman said NASA will attempt to re-establish contact with the Pathfinder later today. We'll talk about the attraction over the Mars mission later in this program. And there was more trouble aboard the Russian space station, Mir, today. This time it was human trouble. Mir's commander said he was experiencing heart irregularities, but the 43-year-old cosmonaut said he was not in pain. He blamed the problem on stress caused by having to cope with Mir's collision with a cargo ship last month. Russia's Mission Control told the cosmonaut it was not yet clear if he could make a space walk to fix the damages. Michael Foale, the American astronaut on board, may have to do the job instead. At the Hague in the Netherlands today judges at the International War Crimes Tribunal sentenced a Bosnian Serb man to 20 years in prison. Gaby Rado of Independent Television News reports.

GABY RADO, ITN: Although Dusko Tadic wasn't one of those who planned the persecution of Muslims in Northern Bosnia as the war began in 1992, the tribunal judge today spelled out what an active participant he had been.

SPOKESPERSON: Further, the trial chamber found that you killed two Muslim men in Kozarac by slitting their throats.

GABY RADO: In May Tadic had been acquitted of nine specific charges of murder because of difficulties in establishing truth, but he was found guilty of 11 offenses. Today he faced a maximum life sentence.

SPOKESPERSON: The trial chamber sentences you, Dusko Tadic, to 20 years imprisonment.

GABY RADO: His defense lawyer, who plans to appeal, called the sentence too severe.

LAWYER: If everything is true that he did, he's very low on the level of responsibility, either command responsibility, his activities, his actions, and the sentence ought to be much, much lower.

GABY RADO: Tadic carried out many of his crimes at the notorious detention camps around the Bosnian-Serb held town of Prijedor. The total number of Muslims who've died or who were tortured and raped there will probably never be known. The violent death of Simo Drljaca, the Prijedor police chief killed by British troops last week, showed those higher up the chain of command do now finally have something to fear. Tadic was able to carry out his crimes because men like Drljaca created a climate of brutality and intolerance. But attempting to bring suspected war criminals to justice has its risks, last night the car bomb exploded in front of an office housing international organizations in the Bosnian Serb-held town of Zvornik. It's likely it was in retaliation for the death of Drljaca and the arrest of another wanted man who will soon be following Tadic into the dock of the Hague Tribunal.

JIM LEHRER: In Cambodia today co-prime minister Hun Sen lashed out at foreign governments that condemned his coup last week. Hun Sen spoke at a monastery in Northern Cambodia. He said his government would withdraw its request for membership in the Asian trade partnership called AUSEAN. He accused the organization of meddling in Cambodia's internal affairs. Last week, AUSEAN members voted to delay the country's entry in response to Hun Sen's coup. We'll have more on Cambodia, including an interview with the man Hun Sen ousted right after this News Summary. A Boeing 747 took off from Kennedy Airport in New York today for a test flight, retracing the path of Flight 800. That TWA flight crashed one year ago this week, killing 230 people on board. The test plane was outfitted with monitors to examine each of the scenarios that could have led to the explosion. Investigators plan to conduct 10 test flights. Their genes should not be used to deny healthy people medical insurance. That's the goal of legislation President Clinton endorsed today at a White House event. He said the benefits of genetic research and testing would be undercut if people refused to be examined because they might be turned down for health insurance.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It is wrong for insurance companies to use genetic information to deny coverage. It's happened before, you know. It happened in the 1970's, with some African-Americans who carried sickle cell anemia, and too many women today fear that that will happen when they decide to test or to not be tested to see if they carry the gene for breast cancer. This kind of discrimination is really--it's more than wrong--it's a life-threatening abuse of a potentially life-saving discovery.

JIM LEHRER: The President said he would send Congress a modified version of two bills already being considered in the House and Senate. A government study released today said more than 30,000 Americans died from AIDS during the first nine months of 1996. That was a 19 percent decline over the previous year. The survey by the Centers for Disease Control said the drop in deaths was in all categories of people but was largest for white males. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Cambodia, conservation in San Diego, and the joy of discovery. FOCUS - COUNTRY IN PERIL

JIM LEHRER: Cambodia, an Asian nation with a tumultuous past and present. Charles Krause begins our coverage.

CHARLES KRAUSE: In 1991, the United Nations and an international coalition of countries decided to devote $2 billion in an effort to restore peace and stability to the battered nation of Cambodia. The country had suffered from genocide, civil war, and political turmoil since the mid 70's, when a nationalist guerrilla force, known as the Khmer Rouge, seized power and then killed over a million Cambodians viewed as potential opponents of the Khmer Rouge regime. In 1979, Vietnam invaded the country, setting up a government in Phnom Penh and forcing the Khmer Rouge and its notorious leader, Pol pot, into the countryside. Throughout the 80's, Cambodia festered. But in 1992, once a U.N.-brokered peace accord was signed in Paris, Cambodia suddenly became the recipient of one of the largest U.N. missions in history. The goal was to rebuild the country economically and to create political stability by holding free and fair elections. Within months after the peace accord was signed, U.N. workers had set up television and radio stations. Others traveled into the most remote parts of the country to educate and register voters.

ELECTION WORKER: And today we have come here to explain to you about the elections and about human rights.

CHARLES KRAUSE: By the time the election took place, the U.N. had registered almost 97 percent of the eligible voters, some 4.6 million people. The election produced a coalition government with two prime-ministers--Prince Norodom Ranariddh representing the royalist forces, who had narrowly won the vote, and co-prime minister Hun Sen, a former member of the Khmer Rouge, who later defected, and became a powerful figure in Cambodia's Vietnamese- sponsored government after 1979. Still, despite the peace agreement and the election, the Khmer Rouge refused to disarm, and low level violence continued throughout the country. At the same time in the capital, beginning in 1993, the two rival prime ministers-Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen--continued to vie for dominance. Then last month, the situation suddenly deteriorated. First there were reports, still not conclusively confirmed, that Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot had been captured. A top Khmer Rouge leader and his family apparently were also assassinated. Then, fighting broke out between forces loyal to Hun Sen and his Cambodian People's Party, Better known as CPP, and forces loyal to Prince Ranariddh and his party, known by the acronym FUNCINPEC. Last weekend, after two days of heavy fighting and the assassinations of several top government officials allied with the prince, Hun Sen declared victory and claimed control of the government. In all, at least 50 people were left dead and hundreds of foreigners living in Cambodia rushed to the airport and were flown out of the country. In protest, the United States temporarily suspended its $30 million aid program to Cambodia.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: We are aware of reports of political assassinations and political killings, including reports that the associate of Prince Ranariddh, Hosuk, was killed yesterday while he was in the custody of the political party, Hun Sen. The United States condemns this killing.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Meanwhile, ousted prime minister Prince Ranariddh was in France at the time of the coup and in the United States last week, lobbying for support and recognition. On Friday, he told us he had left Cambodia because he'd had advance warning the coup would take place.

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH, First Prime Minister, Cambodia: Oh yes, we knew very well. The coup was prepared for months, and he has decided on the 11th of June, and even Mr. Hun Sen, when he met with Her Majesty, the Queen, of Cambodia, he told when he see the queen that I will attack Prince Ranariddh residence; he will--I will attack the headquarters of Prince Ranariddh. Yes, we really were aware about the preparation and the execution of the coup.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Did you make any effort to either rally forces supporting you to head off this coup, or did you notify the United States and other countries that this coup might be underway in order to try to get their support before you were forced to flee?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: I think that the ambassador of United States to Cambodia know about it.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Did he urge you to stay, did he urge you to go? Did he offer help?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: I think that he would say that--that the real tension between the two prime ministers--it is what--what he told me--that he tried to see the two prime ministers in order to ease the tension and to urge the two prime ministers not to use any force to, you know, settle the difference.

CHARLES KRAUSE: In that case, hewas unsuccessful because one of the prime ministers, your opponent, went after you, didn't he?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: I think that--

CHARLES KRAUSE: Are you satisfied with the role that the United States has played up until now in terms of the internal situation in your country?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: For the time being I'm satisfied with the stand of the administration in saying that a use of force to topple the prime minister, which is by far--is not definitely acceptable, and the United States had decided to freeze her aid to Phnom Penh and to Cambodia, but for only 30 days. I think that if the administration could--should do much more.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Did you ever ask the United States for military support prior to the coup in order to forestall the coup?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: Not at all. Not at all. And I'd like to tell you that I would like very much to talk about any military aid because I know that the people of Cambodia have suffered too much in the past without talking--you know--about destruction and so on of my very poor country, Cambodia.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Tell me this. What is the situation in Cambodia at this time? Is the Hun Sen regime in power? Have your allies been defeated now?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: Yes. The fact is that after the coup Hun Sen is now controlling the capital, but we have to say that now all around capital and let's say all around the country now there are recurrence of fighting, even I think that we can talk about the beginning of resistance, if not the civil war, and the situation is--I have to say--very explosive and maybe we will step back to the situation before the peace agreement be signed in 1991 and if it would be the case, I think that it would be a real serious setback in terms of democracy, in terms of freedom for Cambodia.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Will you return to Cambodia to lead this resistance movement you've talked about?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: I would prefer to talk for the time being another kind of resistance, which is a political and diplomatical struggle, instead of, you know, a military resistance, because, as I told you, I think that the people of Cambodia who have suffered for too long deserve much better future. I think that we have to put political and diplomatic pressure--even economic sanction--on Hun Sen before talking about the military resistance.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What specifically would you like the United States and the European countries to do? You've talked about economic sanctions. What specifically would you like both in the area of economic sanctions and also diplomacy?

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: I think that the first thing that the United States and other countries had to do is to let Mr. Hun Sen know in very clear manner--in very strong manner that you will not accept any kind of a government coming out from the coup. And on the other hand, the only one government could be recognized is that one coming out from the elections organized by the United Nations in 1993, and that government has two prime ministers--myself and Comrade Hun Sen. I think that we have to stick to the Paris peace accord. Otherwise, I think that we will open the door to any kind of, you know, use of force, coup de ta, and to be legitimated later by the world community. I think that it is a question of principle.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Your Highness, thank you very much. Thank you for joining us.

PRINCE NORODOM RANARIDDH: It is my pleasure.

JIM LEHRER: And now to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: There have been several developments in Cambodia since Charles's interview Friday. Yesterday, Hun Sen urged the Royalist Party to choose someone else to serve as his coalition partner. He also urged human rights organizations and the media to remain active, and he promised that next year's scheduled elections will be free and fair. Separately, King Sihanouk, Prince Ranariddh's father, sent a message from Beijing congratulating Hun Sen and explicitly declining to call Hun Sen's victory a coup. And today, as reported earlier, Hun Sen lashed out at foreign governments that had criticized his coup. He accused members of the Asian Trade Partnership, AUSEAN, of meddling in Cambodia's internal affairs. For more on all this we're joined by Richard Solomon, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Bush administration; he was the point man on Cambodia policy when the 1991 peace deal was brokered. He's now the president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a research and educational organization in Washington. And Richard Walden, who is founder and president of Operation USA, a non-governmental humanitarian group that has worked in Cambodia since 1979. He was last there two weeks ago. And Richard Walden, I know you've been talking to people on the ground there. Give us a brief update on the situation there-- fighting, killings, et cetera.

RICHARD WALDEN, Operation USA: Well, so far, luckily, casualties are relatively light. There is no excuse for violence of any kind against anyone, but this is not a wave of mass killings, and we hope it doesn't become that on either side of the equation. A lot of the NGO's or non-governmental organizations, have pulled staff out of the rural areas. The ones that are U.S. government-funded were basically ordered by our government to evacuate their staff completely from the country. The other groups that are not dependent on U.S. government funds are staying in the capital of Phnom Penh and waiting to see when it's safe to get back to their programs, which are, after all, the main focus of our work.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Richard Solomon, let's go back to the beginning here. What triggered this complete breakdown and this power sharing arrangement?

RICHARD SOLOMON, Former State Department Official: Well, after the very successful elections of 1993, Hun Sen was not prepared to accept the fact that he had come in No. 2. Indeed, he keeps telling himself that he was cheated out of the results of that election. And ever since that time he and his party--the Cambodian People's Party--have used intimidation, some assassinations, use of force, for its threat to prevent an effective free press from fully organizing and opposition parties from developing a mass base, so that he's tried in that to limit the emergence of an effective opposition.

MARGARET WARNER: But what triggered him actually seizing power?

RICHARD SOLOMON: I think the anticipation of the elections next year--and we have seen now for some months the build-up of, in a sense, private militias associated with the factional armies. Ranariddh was sort of put in a position where he was trying to build up his forces to keep up with Hun Sen, and so you're at an escalation, and Hun Sen seems to have struck early to prevent an effective military force from countervailing his own power.

MARGARET WARNER: Richard Walden, do you agree with that assessment? It doesn't sound as if there was much of a power sharing if so.

RICHARD WALDEN: No. I'm one of the people who does not agree that the U.N. elections, which the U.S. taxpayer paid $600 million out of the $2 billion bill, were done in any fashion that was sustainable for the people of campaign. They did not get the Khmer Rouge to participate; they did not get a serious commitment from anybody to accept the election results. And what you had was a narrow victory by the Royalist Party, and then Hun Sen's refusal to accept it, and the king, who had newly been enthroned as king, said, fine, let's have two prime ministers. A lot of those things were not foreseen in the Paris talks, and I think you had a set piece, and each ministry in that government has had two lines of authority since they were set up. So it's been an impossible situation, even in the benign ministries like health and agriculture, to find where your authority comes from. It's not a good situation. I also disagree with Mr. Solomon's characterization of the activity. He leaves out the fact that the Ranariddh faction was negotiating with the Khmer Rouge and may or may not--we don't know yet--have introduced some Khmer Rouge fighters into their own militia's ranks, thereby provoking a somewhat paranoid reaction on the other side, which has led to this latest round in Cambodia.

RICHARD SOLOMON: But the other side of the argument is Hun Sen, himself, who had been dealing with the Khmer Rouge, there had been the negotiations with Ing Sarih last October, and--

MARGARET WARNER: Who is?

RICHARD SOLOMON: Ing Sarih was one of the factional leaders in the Khmer Rouge, so both sides were dealing with the Khmer Rouge. The one thing that was--the two things that really came out of the election that were effective--one is that the Cambodian people had a dramatic opportunity which they seized 90 percent of the eligible voters to express their will, and they expressed their will in a kind of semi-organized fashion for peace, stability, and to get on with economic development. The other thing that happened was the Khmer Rouge did isolate itself, and it has turned in on itself, and the question is whether the snake will now be buried. Your other commentator is quite right; that the follow-through on the elections and the building of an effective political structure was not carried out effectively.

MARGARET WARNER: And why was that?

RICHARD SOLOMON: You're always caught between the balance of letting the people who were a sovereign country manage their own affairs, versus outside pressure. And in this case up until today, almost 60 percent of the Cambodian government budget is foreign assistance, so they are still quite dependent on and need to have foreign involvement, but they, of course, want to play their politics by themselves.

MARGARET WARNER: Richard Walden, do you think the international community could and should have done something to prevent this? Was it in their power?

RICHARD WALDEN: It was hard preventing it, because even perhaps a majority, perhaps short of a majority of Prince Ranariddh's own party feel he's been an incompetent leader. So there's been a lot of strife within that one faction. It would have been very difficult. I saw the American ambassador in Cambodia two weeks ago. I don't agree with Prince Ranariddh's characterization that he somehow had advanced warning that this was going to take place. Was there an inevitable breakdown of lines of authority? Absolutely. I think we should take Hun Sen at his word that he's going to go through with the May elections. I think we should admonish him about trying to halt the violence if he has full control over his side of the equation. I also think we should take him at his word about letting the press go back, letting the newspapers reopen, and participating in election, only this time since we've had the benefit of the U.N. elections now, let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement. And it's not an American decision; it's an Asian decision.

RICHARD SOLOMON: I strongly disagree with that. I think that it would be extremely dangerous for us to rely on Hun Sen's word. While he's saying the right words publicly, privately, they're assassinating opposition leaders and using force. I think this is a situation where the international community, the AUSEAN countries have a strong interest not in supporting one leader or another but reconstituting the political process that came out of the U.N. Settlement. And I think the most urgent need is to reconvene the Paris conference. The international community has a tremendous investment in seeing that this play itself out right, and bringing the pressure of the international community to bear to re-establish the political process.

MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying that you think the U.S. and the international community should do what Prince Ranariddh wants, which is essentially use pressure to bring him back to power?

RICHARD SOLOMON: I think there should be a negotiation with the outside countries expressing their support. I think Prince Ranariddh should be involved in that process. Let's see what comes out of it. King Sihanouk has a major role to play as a source of authority in this country.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you something, Richard Walden. You both know both these men. Are their differences ideological? Do they have different visions of the country? Or is this just about power?

RICHARD WALDEN: This is about ego and power, after all. Most politics is about that. It is not a matter of Hun Sen being once until the age of 25 a member of the Khmer Rouge. It was then Prince Sihanouk who called on all Cambodians in 1970 to join the Khmer Rouge. So he's been sort of unfairly tarred with that. It should also be remembered that Prince Ranariddh was allied with the Khmer Rouge for 12 years fighting the government of Hun Sen and its Vietnamese backers. So you've got a lot of bad blood; you've got a lot of water over the dam. I'm not saying you don't do anything, but as a humanitarian agency, I don't want to have any part in withholding humanitarian aid or economic development aid to orphanages and rural poor people because of some struggle going on that fortunately, as of yet, has not resulted in the kind of mass bloodshed we saw in Bosnia and elsewhere. Do we want it to happen? We don't want any more violence in that country from any side, but I think we have to be aware of who suffers when we start playing these games and monkeying around with the economies of these countries that are feeble enough as it is.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree that this is really just about power?

RICHARD SOLOMON: Of course, it's about power, but, again, what we've tried to do through the UN settlement process is create a process not to support any one given leader and if Hun Sen is able to subvert this through the use of force, then the credibility of all UN peace efforts, whether it's Bosnia or elsewhere, is called into question.

MARGARET WARNER: And what about what would happen in Cambodia? Prince Ranariddh seemed to be suggesting there might be another civil war, but he didn't look like he was ready to lead it.

RICHARD SOLOMON: I think the short answer is Hun Sen wants us to accept the fact that this has happened and everything is under control. I don't believe that's the case. And he is extremely vulnerable to the pressure and the expression of concern by the international community. We've seen that already from AUSEAN. I think the various members of the United Nations now have an opportunity to reconvene the Paris conference.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Richard Walden, briefly, your prognosis?

RICHARD WALDEN: I worry about what happens when King Sihanouk dies of cancer because if there was ever a time for him to get on an airplane in Beijing and go back to his country, this was it. The fact that he's not able to--and he's not in any danger from the Hun Sen side--or his son's side--is a big problem for me, and I think if something happens, unfortunately, to him during the process and the run up to the election, then all bets are off in terms of how it's going to turn out.

MARGARET WARNER: Including the prospect of civil war?

RICHARD WALDEN: Well, I don't think anybody's going to support this, a civil war per se, on the outside. I sure hope not.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Well, thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight a San Diego story and the thrill of Mars. FOCUS - EARTHLY BARGAIN

JIM LEHRER: Approval is expected this week of a unique conservation plan in San Diego, California. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET- Los Angeles tells the story.

JEFFREY KAYE: In an ordinary looking field, San Diego botanists recently plotted the locations of a rare species, the Otai Tar plant. The plant is considered endangered by the state of California, so Pardee Construction Company, which owns the field, cannot build on it. Pardee, San Diego's largest developer, is putting a 3,000 house subdivision on adjacent property. The company has also wanted to build on the land with the imperiled Otai Tar plant, but government officials insisted the field remain undeveloped. Company senior vice president Mike Madigan said Pardee had no choice.

MIKE MADIGAN, Pardee Construction Co.: It was not a good deal for us. It took a great deal longer to process the changes than the city had committed to--a lot longer--that cost us a great deal of money, and so it's not a good deal. And it's a necessary part of staying in business.

JEFFREY KAYE: Since the development business in San Diego makes heavy use of the area's picturesque and often expensive landscape, there have been endless conflicts between the interests of nature and the needs of urban growth. Project after project has required bouts of detailed bargaining over federal and state endangered species laws. But if a sweeping new conservation plan takes effect, decisions will no longer be made tract by tract, species by species. The plan is unprecedented in scope, according to Marc Ebbin, special assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Interior, a prime supporter of the program.

MARC EBBIN, Department of the Interior: It takes a look at the entire San Diego landscape, and it thinks about what are the needs, not just for species that are heading toward trouble, but the whole range of species associated with a very, very unique ecosystem down here and also makes it very, very clear to landowners down here what they can and can't develop.

JEFFREY KAYE: The plan covers 900 square miles in Southwest San Diego. In addition to setting out which land can and cannot be built on, it establishes a 172,000 acre preserve system. The aim is to protect habitat and preserve 85 rare plants and animals. San Diego County is believed to have more endangered species than any other county in the nation. They range from the Tarry Pine to the Bald Eagle.

WOMAN: We have accomplished something that both people of San Diego and the state will remember for a long time

JEFFREY KAYE: The conservation plan was approved in March by the city of San Diego. The endorsement followed six years of negotiations among developers, environmentalists, and politicians. Other local and state government entities are expected to approve it soon. San Diego's Republican mayor, Susan Golding, is a leading proponent.

MAYOR SUSAN GOLDING, San Diego: Everybody wins. Property owners win that are outside the preserve because they'll have better use of their property, and less frustration in developing. I mean, we're talking about small property owners, as well as large property owners, The--we win because the environment will be preserved in a way that we were not able to do before, and our children and our grandchildren win--and the property owners inside the preserve win because we've committed to buy any property that is sold at fair market values.

JEFFREY KAYE: One area slated to remain open space is under constant surveillance by the U.S. Border Patrol, as well as by vigilant biologists, such as Keith Greer.

KEITH GREER, Biologist: Artemisia Californica is one of the main components of the gnat catcher habitat.

JEFFREY KAYE: Greer, an associate planner for the city of San Diego, says this scrub and chaparral is home to scores of threatened species, such as the coastal California gnat catcher. He says if the land is preserved, endangered species will also be saved.

KEITH GREER: And so that's why this area is being set aside. The importance of it maybe is from the species, itself, and the more habitat we protect, the more species you protect.

JEFFREY KAYE: The plan is being cautiously embraced by some groups normally at loggerheads, developers and environmentalists. The Sierra Club's Craig Adams says one attractive feature of the plan is the connections it establishes between environmentally sensitive areas.

CRAIG ADAMS, Sierra Club: It attempts to identify where there are existing natural areas and to connect those to other natural areas, because if you have isolated islands, that's where essentially species go extinct, because they need to be able to move, and they need to re-establish themselves. And so what this attempts to do is on a broad, 900 square mile basis and actually beyond, to identify a habitat system that will work over the long run.

JEFFREY KAYE: To link the habits, the plan sets aside corridors. Some corridors will run along freeways. Others will be bordered by fences. Even though the plan hasn't been implemented yet, Pardee Construction has agreed to install two thirty-foot tunnels underneath a road to a new subdivision. The tunnels are supposed to act as subways for animals. Pardee's Mike Madigan says that despite expenses entailed in meeting environmental conditions, the plan could end up saving developers money.

MIKE MADIGAN: If it works, we will be able to look at a map of this city and say, yes, that's developable land; no, that's not developable land. We then won't go buy land where we get caught in the middle of the process, having thought that something was developable and finding out that, nope, we've changed our minds, now you can't build on that land. That's a huge financial hit.

JEFFREY KAYE: And that's what happens all the time.

MIKE MADIGAN: That happens regularly.

JEFFREY KAYE: So just merely by streamlining the process, even if you aren't in 100 percent accord, agreement with the outcome, that's a big money saver for you.

MIKE MADIGAN: Time is, in fact, money, and if we can knock a couple of years off of the processing time of one of these projects, that's a benefit.

JEFFREY KAYE: The conservation plan does have broad support, but there are opponents on both sides. Some environmentalists say the plan doesn't go far enough. Some property rights advocates say it goes too far. Bill Horn, the conservative chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, says the plan is an unconstitutional land grab by the federal government.

BILL HORN, Supervisor, San Diego Co.: If somebody else can tell you what to do with your land, and you do not have that right anymore, I mean, where's the Bill of Rights here? I don't want the federal government into our jurisdiction, which is land use, and that's what this does.

JEFFREY KAYE: Horn's message may have wide appeal in conservative San Diego. He wants the plan put to a popular vote. But residents also enjoy the region's open spaces and environmentalists have wide support. However, some environmentalists say this conservation plan falls short of its stated goals and doesn't adequately protect endangered species.

DAVE HOGAN, Center for Biological Diversity: This is Carmel Mountain. It's one of the most sensitive biological areas in the county.

JEFFREY KAYE: Biologist Dave Hogan is with the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. Cindy Burrascano represents the San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. They provided a guided tour of an area they complain is not included in the preserve, even though it contains endangered plants, such as the Delmar Mansanita.

DAVE HOGAN: Very rare plant. It's only found on approximately 20 miles of the San Diego coast line.

JEFFREY KAYE: Another endangered plant here is the dime-sized Dudlia. Only a few thousand remain. Hogan and Burrascano say the plan's preserve area is too small, badly configured, and relies on inadequate scientific data.

DAVE HOGAN: The reality is that this plan, based on preserve line boundaries, is drawn up to protect the interest of the most politically powerful landowners.

CINDY BURRASCANAO, California Native Plant Society: There wasn't enough surveying done to find out what the resources are on any one area. And if you don't know what's there, how can you design a good plan?

DAVE HOGAN: Based on what we know is the best judgments that we can. Nothing is locked in place. We can make changes down the road if we find out that our assumptions are flawed; that we made a grievous mistake in our interpretations of the data. We can make those kinds of mid course corrections or adjustments.

JEFFREY KAYE: Clinton administration officials say if additional land is needed, they'll buy it. The federal government will also pay half the initial cost of private land for the preserve. Local governments would pay for the other half if they get voter approval for the funding, so there's some uncertainty about whether there will be enough money to manage the preserve and to buy needed land. Optimistic, federal officials say they expect the San Diego plan to go forward and to serve as a model for the nation. FOCUS - IRRESISTIBLE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, Mars and the thrill of discovery. U.S. Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky gives us a text.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: Discovery is a feeling, as well as a fact. It's a feeling that people who work here at the Observatory of Boston's Museum of Science can see in a kid's face when the kid looks in the telescope and sees the rings of Saturn. It's a feeling many of us have had as we see the pictures from Mars and follow the news from Mars. Looking for that feeling somewhere in poetry,I turned to the English 16th century, which was a period where the Europeans were writing poems at the time of great discovery. I'm going to read to you from Edmund Spenser's "Faerie Queen," part of the poem or prelude poem to Book II. In this passage, Spenser meditates on discovery, and he even, in a way, predicts some of our discoveries:

But let that man with better sence advize, That of the world least part to us is red: And dayly how through hardy enterprize, Many great Regions are discovered, Which to late age were never mentioned. Who ever heard of th'Indian Peru? Or who in venturous vessell measured The Amazon huge river now found trew? Or fruitfullest Virginia who did ever vew?

Yet all these were, when no man did them know; Yet have from wisest ages hidden beene: And later times things more unknowne shall show. Why then should witlesse man so much misweene That nothing is, but that which he hath seene? What if within the Moones faire shining spheare? What if in every other starre unseene Of other worldes he happily should heare? He wonder would much more: yet such to some appeare.

JIM LEHRER: Robert Pinsky. As regular viewers know, he's offering poetic additions to the NewsHour from time to time. More now on discovery. Science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson is the author of a trilogy on Mars. Author and producer Ann Druyan, who worked on projects with her late husband, Carl Sagan, she's co- producer of the new movie "Contact," based on a Sagan story. Valerie Neal, the curator of "Well Next, Columbus" exhibit at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington. And science journalist Jim Hartz, who covered NASA for many years, hosted the "Today Show" on NBC. He's now the host of the PBS series "Innovation." Ms. Neal, the thrill of discovery remains in us all, just like it did in the 16th century?

VALERIE NEAL, National Air & Space Museum: I believe it does, and we see it at our museum every day as literally thousands of people come into the National Air & Space Museum. Their coming is itself an act of exploration. They come to be on a mission to see something, have a direct encounter with something real they know about; or they come using their leisure time to expand their horizons and learn something new. So we see it alive and well every single day.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Druyan, what drives it? What do you think drives this? Is it the idea that there are other--there may be life out there in space somewhere?

ANN DRUYAN, Author/Producer: Well, of course, that's a powerful motivation, but I think the hardy enterprise that Spenser was writing about is in part the permanent revolution that is science; that error-correcting mechanism which is revealing these undreamt of worlds, and it resonates with everything in us. We have always been wanderers and we are wanderers still.

JIM LEHRER: But if were not--like say Mars--be specific--if we were not looking for life, would the drive and the excitement that we've all experienced these last several days be there, do you think?

ANN DRUYAN: Yes. Because even in the absence of life, which, of course, it's very possible on Mars, it's the potential of the frontier. I think that our ancestors were not always looking for life, but they were looking for new ecological niches to tenant, and I think that Mars, which reminds us so much of Death Valley when we look at that rocky prospect, is a great candidate.

JIM LEHRER: Kim Stanley Robinson, you've written novels about-- about Mars. How does the science fiction version of Mars compare with the real version that we've been looking at?

KIM STANLEY ROBINSON, Author, Mars Trilogy: Well, the science fiction version I wrote about was based on the real data that we had from Mariner and Viking, so it's really quite a bit the same- -at the beginning anyway.

JIM LEHRER: But what do you think drives this curiosity and this excitement that has been exemplified in all the news media and everything else that we've experienced over Mars? Is it a basic thing about curiosity and discovery, or is there more to it, just because it has to do with space?

KIM STANLEY ROBINSON: I think it's a basic thing that we like to look at landscapes, and that as primates, we like to look at new landscapes, and we don't really get to do that anymore because the Earth has been revealed to us. So those first pictures from Pathfinder were an extraordinary experience, one that's not really available to us very often anymore, a new landscape. The panorama being as varied and interesting looking as it was compared to Viking, I think is one component of this excitement. I also think that the announcement last year that there was possibly life that lived on Mars in the past is a big part of this excitement also.

JIM LEHRER: So you would agree with those who say that--if we weren't looking for life, it wouldn't be quite as exciting?

KIM STANLEY ROBINSON: Yes. You know, when we went to the Moon and the pictures came back and people looked at that and they said immediately, boy, this is a dead world, and they were right about that. And now, you look at these pictures from Mars, and everybody's commented, it does look kind of Earth-like, although they're not really remembering, I think, the thinness of the atmosphere. I mean, it is a very hostile environment there. But people say, wow, that looks like it could be lived on, and that also is fundamentally true. So life is a big component in this, yes.

JIM LEHRER: Life a big component in this, do you think, Jim Hartz, as a journalist?

JIM HARTZ, Journalist: Oh, yes, I think so. It did begin back with the rock last summer, with the possibility of their being fossil life inside that. That's still an open question obviously. But I think there is another factor as well, and that is the kind of American tradition of rooting for the underdog. Here was this mission that cost less really than $200 million, which is a lot of money but by NASA standards and by the Moon flight standards, is really not very much. You had this team of young, bright scientists and engineers out there at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who had taken on an extraordinary--nobody had ever thought about driving a spacecraft directly ballistically into the atmosphere of a planet and then bouncing it with a bunch of balls, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen times, it's going to turn right side up, and then this little--little creature. There's some anthropomorphic aspects of the little Sojourner, I think, comes out, and he's got his little lasers out there, and he's got his cameras, and he's tooling around, and he runs into the rock the wrong way. And you can't help but share in the excitement of those young people out there who have pulled off quite a coup, I think.

JIM LEHRER: Somebody suggested, Jim, that what makes this so different too is that these are not astronauts; these are not heroic astronauts; these guys work with this stuff back in laboratories.

JIM HARTZ: They're young scientists and engineers who had an idea, sold it to the agency, and carried it off almost flawlessly. Now, they're having some problems with the software, which I think probably will be solved. It sort of comes and goes. But it seems to me like from the point of view of Americans every day that they're up there is kind of, you know, gravy. The original mission was just to get there to test the equipment, and there's a lot more that are going to come beyond it.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Neal, people are coming to the--now if they come to the Smithsonian--I mean, you've got the history of space exploration and all that--but you keep it updated, do you not?

VALERIE NEAL: We certainly try to stay current with the dynamic world of space flights, space exploration, as well as the world of aviation. And we're fortunate in that right now we have a whole gallery dedicated to exploration. We have a Mars terrain in that gallery where people find themselves--

JIM LEHRER: Are you updating with these pictures?

VALERIE NEAL: We are. We have models of the Pathfinder lander and the rover. We have a link to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so that as the images come public, they're coming right into the museum. People can come into the gallery, feel as if they're on Mars almost. It's even cooler in that gallery.

JIM LEHRER: I'm sure it is. But what about--what about the point we've been talking about, that based on your observation of the folks who come to the Smithsonian, is it different because these are not astronauts, because they're folks who are running little toys and they're scientists?

VALERIE NEAL: I don't know if it's different, but I think this mission does demonstrate that the dichotomy between human and robotic exploration is really rather artificial; that in this robotic expedition you have a tremendous human component, as Jim was just saying. And the robots are operating as a result of human intention and human will, and human decision making. At the same time machines are tremendously versatile, rugged observers and data collectors. And they can do things for us, provide a tremendous wealth of data back. So I think a mission like this breaks down the kind of artificial barrier in the argument between human-- proponents of human exploration and proponents of robotic exploration. It's a partnership.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Druyan, where does it go from here now? Do we build factories and houses and schools and television stations on Mars? Do we go further? What does this open up that we didn't know about?

ANN DRUYAN: Well, I think it reminds me a little bit of a toddler who's clinging to its mother's legs and then it in 1976 ventures forth from the Viking project, and then there's a crisis of nerves, and it'll run back, scurrying back to the mother, and then another foray. I think this is the first of many forays. I'm very impressed with Dan Goldin's leadership of NASA and his plans for ongoing every two year a major mission of safe exploration, robotic safe exploration, and I think that the--getting up to speed of the international space station and the beginning of a kind of healthy presence in space as a mounting platform for greater journeys of exploration, of human exploration, I think we're at the beginning of another Golden Age, and I know that it will stimulate and excite our kids to start really studying science in a way that we were by Apollo in those early missions.

JIM LEHRER: A Golden Age for what purpose?

ANN DRUYAN: Well, this--you know, as a society, we used to be known as being capable of doing the impossible. That was one of our virtues. Kennedy's mandate to walk on the Moon was something out of Hereditist--like a mythical Persian King would ask his people to accomplish the impossible. And that ambition, boldness, in a benign enterprise with, of course, undeniable spinoff political competition and maybe some not so lofty aspects to it, that willingness to reach for something so far away stimulated an enormous cultural explosion. And I think that you don't have to go to stickless frying pans or Tang. You can see the kind of inspiration that it provides for our kids so that they know why they're studying, why they're going to school. And, of course, a program of ambitious science education really has to be part of this in order for it to really work.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Robinson, should we go on and on and on and on?

KIM STANLEY ROBINSON: In my opinion, I think we could kind of regard the solar system as an achievable goal for humanity. The rest of the universe is--

JIM LEHRER: But for what purpose?

KIM STANLEY ROBINSON: Well, these are places that could become second homes or vacation homes. Mars, in particular, is very well suited for the process of terra farming, giving it an earthlike environment, and this as a project would actually teach us a tremendous amount about planetology and how environments work that we're going to need to know to manage the Earth in the next couple of centuries where there's going to be some environmental problems bearing down on us, so that the next couple of centuries could be regarded perhaps as a kind of a choke point in history, where if we can get through that period, then we might, indeed, enter a kind of Golden Age. So Mars, I think, serves as a way to study the Earth. I think that's the most important way, a way to think about the Earth and also a way to appreciate the Earth; that you see those pictures from Pathfinder, and you think, oh, that's a stunning sight, and then you really can walk outdoors and see a much more stunning sight right outside your home; that the Earth is really the most beautiful planet in the system. And so just spreading around to the other ones is sort of just a way of enjoying our own world better.

JIM LEHRER: Jim Hartz, you've covered this whole space exploration almost from the very beginning. Do you see this as a new--as a new jumping off spot?

JIM HARTZ: I'm not sure.

JIM LEHRER: Possibly a Golden Age?

JIM HARTZ: I'm not sure, Jim. You flattered me a while ago. You called me a science writer. I'm a reporter that's written about science. I don't put myself in the category of some friends of mine who are very, very good. I'm not sure where we're going to go. I think possibly this exploration of Mars--probably more than possibly--probably really is going to be much more orderly, for example, than our exploration of the Moon, which was basically a political decision, to go there the way we did, and with the intensity that we did--six flights, one right after another. It was basically a political race with the Soviets. We don't have any competition right now. So it probably is going to be driven by the science and by the necessity. There's no real necessity to go to Mars right now and to go colonize their terra forma, or whatever you want to call it. That may happen in the future. And it may well be something that--

JIM LEHRER: You agree with Mr. Robinson, that there may be--

JIM HARTZ: Possibly.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

JIM HARTZ: Possibly. But it ought to be driven by what we need, because we'll find out what we know in an orderly exploration. And the key question right now in a lot of people's mind is this little rover is in there in a huge flood plain that was an ocean. We're not talking about just a little flood that came down the street. This was an ocean of water that came there and was there at one time on the planet. It's gone now. Nobody quite knows where it is. It may be underground. It may be frozen in the tundra, whatever. Now, that raises a profound question about what's happening here on Earth. We've got a lot of water here too. Is there a possibility that something catastrophic like that could happen to us? When we started looking at the elements in the beginning--say the simplest one--hydrogen--found out a lot about that--went to the next one, helium, that's what we're doing now kind of with the planets. We've learned a lot about where we are. We learned something more about the Moon, and now we're going to the next step, learn more about Mars, which is most like the Earth. We've got Galileo circling Jupiter right now. We've got Casini going to go to Saturn very soon. What we're doing is now an orderly exploration of the place where we live. I think that's good.

JIM LEHRER: Is it exciting, Ms. Neal?

JIM HARTZ: To me it's local news, by the way. The whole universe.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

VALERIE NEAL: I think it's tremendously exciting to be alive at this time when human beings are moving out into the solar system.

JIM LEHRER: All right. We'll leave it there. Thank you all four very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, NASA lost contact with the Mars Pathfinder because of a glitch in the spacecraft's computer software. Mir's commander said he was having heart irregularities but was not in pain. Russia's mission control told the cosmonaut he might not be able to make a space walk to fix damages to the station, and a Bosnian Serb convicted of war crimes sentenced to 20 years in prison by the international tribunal at the Hague. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.