The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a primary eve focus on New Hampshire with a Gwen Ifill look at the Democrats and some overview observations of two New Hampshire editorial writers; then, the official U.S. and European views of a new deal on genetically-modified food; and a Ray Suarez conversation with a most-honored international architect. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: This was the last campaign day for the New Hampshire presidential primary, and all of the candidates were out and among the voters. Late polls showed Vice President Al Gore with a lead over Bill Bradley in the Democratic race. Senator John McCain was in a tight race with Texas Governor George W. Bush on the Republican side. We'll have more on tomorrow's vote right after this News Summary. Governor Bush remains the runaway leader in fund-raising with a record $68 million. His campaign reported that total today to the Federal Election Commission. Senator McCain has raised $13.6 million. Democrats Gore and Bradley have raised about $28 million apiece. The figures include money collected through December. Overseas today, rescuers found only a handful of survivors from a Kenya Airways crash. The jetliner plunged into the sea last night off the Ivory Coast. We have more on this report from Neil Connery of Independent Television News.

NEIL CONNERY: In the darkness of night, rescuers desperately try to reach the crash site, just under two miles from the shore. Rescue boats combed the sea, trying to throw searchlights across the area where the Kenya Airways Airbus 310 ditched. The plane had just taken off from Abidjan Airport with 179 people on board. As the operation to find survivors got underway, the extent of the loss of life soon became clear. Most of the boats returning to harbor came laden with corpses, but amazingly, at least ten people were plucked alive from the sea. Rescuers described the carnage they found. This man said, "When we saw what happened, I went straight into the sea. I gave my clothes to somebody standing there. There were fishermen around the plane, but there was nothing we could do." The Airbus was diverted to Abidjan after bad weather had originally prevented it from landing in Lagos.

SPOKESMAN: It was running back through Lagos, which is how we determined precisely who was onboard, because we had both passengers in Abidjan and passengers backtracking from Abidjan tracking to Lagos.

NEIL CONNERY: The cause of the crash still isn't known. There were no reports of technical problems on the Airbus.

JIM LEHRER: Israeli Prime Minister Barak said today there'd be no more peace talks with Syria until it reins in Hezbollah. He spoke a few hours after the Islamic guerrillas killed three Israeli soldiers in Lebanon. He accused Syria of aiding Hezbollah's campaign. Syria is the main power broker in Lebanon. It had no immediate reaction to Barak's statement. Secretary of State Albright today appealed again to Russia to open peace talks on Chechnya. She said the Russian military is using excessive force in the rebel republic. She spoke at a news conference, which began a three-day visit to Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov was also present.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: There has been an incredible amount of misery injected upon the civilian population of Chechnya, both militarily and also because of the creation of so many refugees and the humanitarian situation is very bad, and that in order to deal with what is clearly a problem of terrorism, there has been excessive force.

JIM LEHRER: In response, Ivanov said Russia's military campaign was the only way to deal with terrorism. The European Union threatened to break political ties with Austria today. It said that would happen if the far-right Freedom Party joins a new Austrian government. Party leader Yorg Haider has praised some aspects of Adolf Hitler's rule of Germany. His group also advocates a near ban on immigration. Back in this country, the governor of Illinois announced a moratorium on executions today. Governor George Ryan said he acted because 13 Death Row inmates in Illinois have been cleared since capital punishment was reinstated in 1977. That's more than the number executed. Ryan said he's naming a panel to look into the matter.

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: I now favor a moratorium, because I have grave concerns about our state's shameful record of convicting innocent people and putting them on Death Row. I can't support a system which in its administration has proven to be so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life.

JIM LEHRER: Writer Kurt Vonnegut was in critical but stable condition today at a New York hospital after suffering smoke inhalation. He was rescued from his Manhattan home after a fire there last night. There was no word on the cause. Vonnegut is 77. His books include "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Cat's Cradle." St. Louis celebrated its first Super Bowl title today. Thousands of fans welcomed the Rams home from Atlanta, after they beat the Tennessee Titans 23-16. Coach Dick Vermeil and his team were honored at a rally and parade. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to New Hampshire; genetically-altered food; and a master architect.

FOCUS - TURNING UP THE HEAT

JIM LEHRER: On Friday night, we had a final report on the Republican race in New Hampshire. Tonight, Gwen Ifill looks at the Democrats.

SPOKESPERSON: Come on, let's play a little game

GWEN IFILL: This is what an underdog looks like. Or is it? Bill Bradley, the former basketball star, former U.S. Senator, former college lecturer, has one day left to make his mark in New Hampshire.

BILL BRADLEY: Is everybody ready to work? Does everybody know we're going to win? What?

CROWD: Yes!

BILL BRADLEY: It can happen. Thank you. (Cheers and applause)

GWEN IFILL: His task is a formidable one because his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, knows a thing or two about running in New Hampshire.

AL GORE: And keep America going for the 1st century. Thank you. (Cheers and applause) -- we're going to go shake some hands down the sidewalk here.

GWEN IFILL: Gore ran unsuccessfully for president once, successfully for vice president twice, but this time he's in a suddenly hot race.

AL GORE: Thank you for coming out.

GWEN IFILL: For the past several days, polls have shown Bradley closing in on the vice president. The turnaround came when Bradley, the self-described unconventional candidate, took a politically conventional route. He went on the attack.

BILL BRADLEY: He has made misleading statements about my health care plan. I corrected him three times in public forums. He persisted in making the same misstatement. And also, he's running away from his own record on abortion. And so I have to acknowledge those things. But ultimately, you have to take care of yourself. I'm a big guy. I can take care of myself. That's what we're doing now. But the main reason that I'm trying to do politics in a new way is because I think that's the only way that we're going to get big things done again for our country.

GWEN IFILL: Is abortion an issue that can really be a cutting issue among voters?

BILL BRADLEY: Um, I don't know, frankly. I think it's an issue that's important to many people. It's an issue that's important to people on both sides. And I've always been pro-choice. I've been that way throughout my whole life. I have deep respect for those who have a different view than I because I know they hold deep religious convictions. And in this campaign, the question was, "how did Al Gore go from an 84% right to life record when he was in Congress to being pro-choice?" I'm glad he made that evolution, but I think he needs to tell us what was the moral... what was the journey that he made to get to this change.

GWEN IFILL: Gore responds that he has always favored abortion rights, that he only questioned for a time whether the federal government should pay for it.

GWEN IFILL: Is it worth battling Bill Bradley back charge for charge?

AL GORE: Well, I'm not going to get down to the level of personal attacks. I never have, and I never will. I simply, I haven't even mentioned him in my ads. I have mentioned some of the proposals and differences on the issues. Again, I think that's healthy, and I'll continue doing that. I think that is worthwhile, but I'm not going to respond in kind to some of the things that he's said. I just don't... I don't like that way of campaigning. I don't really think that voters do either. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they do.

GWEN IFILL: That was Saturday. By Sunday, Gore's tune changed.

AL GORE: I am proudly pro-choice, and Senator Bradley knows it. And I believe the people of New Hampshire are not going to be fooled by Senator Bradley's last-minute, manipulative, negative, politics-as-usual campaign.

GWEN IFILL: This suddenly close race has taken both sides by surprise. First Vice President Gore was the front-runner, trying to stay above the fray. Bill Bradley was struggling to overcome a resounding defeat in Iowa. But just like the weather in New Hampshire, things can change fast. Dayton Duncan, a New Hampshire resident and Gore supporter who worked for Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988, has been monitoring the shifting political winds this year.

DAYTON DUNCAN: About a week before the Iowa caucuses, the momentum seemed to me to shift to Vice President Gore. But one thing I know about the New Hampshire primary, is that there is an overwhelming amount of people who literally do not decide until the last few days, and anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen in New Hampshire is usually wrong.

GWEN IFILL: As the campaign heats up, both Bradley and Gore are in pursuit of the same small pool of undecided voters.

BILL BRADLEY: People say you're never going to provide health insurance for everybody in America, never, never, never -- never has happened, never will happen -- but new possibilities guided by goodness. People say we're never going to keep this economy growing, this productivity increase, this incredible growth rate, the wealth creation that's going on in America, and at the same time move working families up that ladder so that their children know that they'll have a higher standard of living than their parents because that's the promise of America fulfilled through yet another generation. But in a world of new possibilities, both of those things can happen, and one follows the other like the morning follows the night.

GWEN IFILL: People like Sheryl Loscola, a worker at a shoe and clothing factory Bradley visited, are making up their minds and then changing them.

SHERYL LOSCOLA: I was going to vote for Gore until I came down today. I listened to everything that Bradley had to say. It was refreshing. I have listened to a few of the political candidates that have come up here, and everything seems very canned and, you know, this is my speech and I'm going to deliver that message. So I have a great deal of respect for him. And I think that's got the right values - you know -- to deliver a good presidency. So I'm going to switch.

AL GORE: Thank you very much.

GWEN IFILL: Other voters, drawn to the countless town meetings held around the state, have switched to Gore. So you came today out of curiosity. And what did you come away learning?

SIMON WEATHERILL: I am more impressed with Gore than I have been previously.

LYNNE WEATHERILL: I thought it was great how everything was off the cuff. I mean, he didn't have any notes, and he wasn't stilted at all in his answers. He just seemed to have the informationin his head and respond very, you know, respectfully and appropriately when people asked all kinds of questions.

AL GORE: Good to see you.

MAN: Thank you, sir.

WOMAN IN CROWD: You have to hear this. - called because there were police outside our door. Unbelievable -- there's 20 people walking down the street.

GWEN IFILL: Gore has the obvious advantages, not the least of them familiarity, political lineage, and ties to a President still popular within his own party.

GWEN IFILL: Did the State of the Union speech help you?

AL GORE: I don't know. I don't know. My guess is not, just because it's his, it's the President's speech, and I, you know, don't think there's any great talent to sitting up there. (Laughs) I don't think the people vote for somebody based on the job they have held. I think people give me credit for doing a good job as vice president, but I think they know that that job is very different from the job of President. And I think that I started gaining some more support, not because I was better at communicating what I'd done as vice president, but when I became better at communicating what I want to do as President.

AL GORE: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: Still, Gore can make a connection Bradley cannot. He can and does claim part of the credit for the nation's robust economy.

AL GORE: I say if we begin to do things right, we've only just begun to prosper in America. If we balance the budget every year and pay down the national debt every year, we have only just begun to prosper in America. If we invest the surplus wisely instead of blowing it, we've only just begun to prosper in America. If we move toward universal health care the right way, we have only just begun to prosper in America. If we help families afford college, we have only just begun to prosper in America.

SPOKESMAN: Good luck, Bill.

GWEN IFILL: But Bradley is also attracting independent voters who can switch parties right up until election day. Political scientist Dean Speliotis of Dartmouth College.

GWEN IFILL: How important is that independent vote here?

DEAN SPELIOTIS: I think it has the possibility of being particularly important this time around. Usually independent voter turnout is somewhat lower than declared party members, maybe somewhere around 30%, but this time, because both races are exciting, McCain and Bradley both as sort of outside, reform-oriented insurgents, a little more excitement for independents, and the idea that they may be able to tip the balance in one of the two races I think will increase turnout, provided the weather cooperates.

GWEN IFILL: Bradley's goal during this primary campaign's final days: To paint Gore as untrustworthy on bedrock Democratic issues-- abortion rights, health care, and campaign finance reform.

BILL BRADLEY: If you don't trust the people to tell the truth in a campaign, then you don't trust the people to tell them the truth when you are President of the United States?

GWEN IFILL: But do voters want to hear charges and countercharges? Ronnie Robinson, a nurse from Lebanon, New Hampshire, told Gore no.

RONNIE ROBINSON: When you put out a good idea and you try to fight it and get legislation for it, it ends up being voted down party lines and the left fights the right -- the Cowboys versus the Indians.

AL GORE: Right.

RONNIE ROBINSON: We're past this and we're wasting time on important issues. One question is: What can be done to change that?

AL GORE: I think that the main pause on the problems that you're identifying is not so much that we have different parties and not so much that we have a two-party system, it is rather that we have allowed a level of partisanship to creep into our politics that is excessive and dangerous.

GWEN IFILL: For months, it seemed there was little difference between the two Democrats. Both cut their political teeth in Washington. Both came from their party's liberal wing. But both men are determined to prove that the choice between them is very clear. Tuesday's New Hampshire results may be critical, but for Bradley, who still has millions of dollars in the bank, the race is far from over.

BILL BRADLEY: But just remember, the game isn't over until the game is over. And we want to make sure that at the end of that game we're on top. Let's go!

GWEN IFILL: In the final hours, Bradley and Gore are looking for any advantage. At last night's Super Bowl, it was Al Gore's Tennessee Titans against Bill Bradley's St. Louis Rams.

AL GORE: So we decided to take a few hours off to watch the Super Bowl. Then we're going right back out there and win the primary.

GWEN IFILL: For what it's worth, St. Louis won.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, some additional insight on the Democratic and Republican contests on the eve of the primary. We hear from two New Hampshire editorial page editors: Mark Travis of the "Concord Monitor," which endorsed Vice President Gore and Senator McCain in the Republican race, and Bernadette Malone Connolly of the "Manchester Union Leader," which endorsed Steve Forbes. Welcome both of you. Mark Travis, give us a quick snapshot of today on the Democratic side. How did the candidates spend their final hours?

MARK TRAVIS: Well, I think it was a day where they were more trying to rally their troops and get a positive feeling about their campaign as they headed into the election tomorrow.

MARGARET WARNER: And I gathered from the wires that Bill Bradley backed off his attacks a little bit on Vice President Gore.

MARK TRAVIS: It seems to be true. Certainly the tone over the past few days has been one where Bradley is finally taking a very aggressive position against Gore. Until this point really all the punches have been thrown from Gore's side. And I think that had the effect of heartening Bradley's supporters. There's some evidence to suggest that he's drawing closer in the polls. Whether it's too little too late is a good question. And whether it might be counterproductive ultimately is another good question, because after all, Bradley's presented himself for months now as someone who's kind of above the normal kind of politicking.

MARGARET WARNER: Bernadette Connolly, give us a snapshot of today on the Republican side.

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: Well, today the Republican candidates were very concerned with voter turnout efforts. Governor George Bush went to a pancake breakfast this morning, but it was largely obscured by the fact that Republican candidate Gary Bauer fell off the stage while trying to catch one of those pancakes. Another interesting point from the campaign trail today is that Governor Bush skipped a rally that was planned for Exeter, New Hampshire. Our senior political reporter, John DeStasio, was there to cover it, and it was very surprising to him and a lot of Governor Bush's supporters that he wasn't there to greet the many people who had assembled. So we ask in the final hours whether those sort of things will affect voter turnout. Steve Forbes spent a large part of the day doing television appearances, designed to capture undecided voters at this late stage of the game. And he also spent some time at one of his phone bank operations. John McCain had a good day rallying troops around him at various town hall meetings around the state and continues to have a lot of energy.

MARGARET WARNER: Bernadette Connolly, staying with you, every political reporter both in New Hampshire, here in Washington, I plead guilty, also, have been pouring over these polls that come out now daily every afternoon. How reliable historically have these polls been about the New Hampshire primary, these very late ones?

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: Well, Margaret, it's so difficult to tell, especially this year when the emphasis is on the independent vote, whether they will turn out and how they break. In 1996, Pat Buchanan's victory was not easily predicted by reading the polls. And so that's what Steve Forbes is counting on, that he'll over perform his relatively low poll numbers. And Senator McCain and George W. Bush, who flip back and forth, I think it's impossible to read what that means when one of them has a five-point lead one day and the next makes up a seven-point lead the next day and the margin of error is anywhere between 3% to 5%.

MARGARET WARNER: Mark Travis, you've both talked about the fact that now it's all about turning out your vote. Who has the strongest ground organization among these candidates for tomorrow?

MARK TRAVIS: Well, certainly Governor Bush by inheriting the establishment organization of Judd Greg here in the state, the Senator from the state, and Vice President Gore by inheriting the support of Governor Jeanne Shaheen and the Democratic machinery in the state have a big advantage. But the other candidates all have cause for hope, and the people who rallied to their support, as well. McCain has made a particular point of appealing to veterans in the state. And in addition to the normal procedure of finding a town chairman, he's also found a veteran's chairman. And he's trying hard. He's hoping that veterans throughout the state, VFW posts and the like, will help him in the turnout effort tomorrow. Bradley has attracted a level of enthusiasm among college students that reminds some people of Jean McCarthy many years ago. And they'll be there in numbers for him tomorrow. Steve Forbes...

MARGARET WARNER: Sorry. Go ahead.

MARK TRAVIS: Steve Forbes has spent heavily on all aspects of his candidacy, from television advertising to beautiful t-shirts that his supporters wear at rallies. So I'm sure he's spent heavily on turnout efforts and organization, too.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Bernadette Connolly, on the Republican side, are Bush, McCain and Forbes, if you had to sum each one up in a sentence, who are they really counting on turning out for them tomorrow?

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: McCain, independents. Bush, I would say party loyalists. And Forbes I would say anti-tax and anti-abortion activist.

MARGARET WARNER: And then social conservatives really aren't much of a force in New Hampshire. They had a lot of force in the... on the Republican side in Iowa, but not much in New Hampshire, is that right?

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: Well, given Gary Bauer's 1% standing in the polls, one might draw that conclusion. But then one would have to ask why Alan Keyes is faring so well as a social conservative and why Steve Forbes is doing relatively well considering his long-shot status. And anyone who disputes the power of social security... Sorry, social conservatives in a primary would probably have to refer back to '92 and '96 when Pat Buchanan campaigned largely as a social conservative.

MARGARET WARNER: Mark Travis, what would you add to that about social conservatives?

MARK TRAVIS: Well, I'd say though the state's traditions are firmly conservative, are really kind of a traditional conservatism, or libertarian conservatism almost that emphasizes a small government and individual rights. The state recently adopted Martin Luther King Day. The state recently overturned a lock-standing ban on adoptions by gays and lesbians. This is in a Republican legislature. So I think that if you were to add up to cumulative support for Forbes, but Bauer and Keyes who have all appealed to social conservatives, they wouldn't come close to the candidates who have oriented themselves more towards the center, Bush and McCain.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Mark Travis, staying with you, give us a quick snapshot of Gore versus Bradley. Which voters are each now counting on trying to turn out tomorrow?

MARK TRAVIS: Well, I think as in the Republican race, the insurgent, Bill Bradley, is counting on independents primarily. The state's Democratic establishment and many Democratic voters rallied to Gore early on. I think that one of the interesting dynamics of this race of course is that independents -- who both Bradley and McCain in particular are seeking -- have their choice of which ballot to choose tomorrow. Our own polling shows that independents are choosing among Gore, Bradley and McCain. Which way they'll go is hard to say. But they certainly, although this in a sense isn't their election, it's a party primary election they may be the ones who settle it.

MARGARET WARNER: Bernadette Connolly, historically independents... I know that the Secretary of State's office in the past doesn't really know which race they went into when they came into the polling place. But how heavy has the turnout been among independents as a percentage of those who voted?

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: Percentage-wise it hasn't been very high at all. And so the assumption is to equate independent with apathy. I don't know that that's going to be the case in this year because more New Hampshire residents have made the effort to go and change their registration from Republican or Democrat to independent. And I think that indicates a little bit more enthusiasm. And Secretary of State Bill Gardner is now predicting that as many as 25% of the votes cast on Tuesday will be independent votes, which would be remarkably high.

MARGARET WARNER: Mark Travis, what's your view on that turnout? We actually had someone in Gwen's piece said 30% was the average. I thought maybe that was a little high. But what do you think? How much impact will they have?

MARK TRAVIS: Well, I think they'll have a big impact. And I think it may be one that's escaping the pollsters now. They certainly catch independents in their net when they do polling, but one group that gets screened out are independents that tell the pollster they intend to vote but don't know which party they're going to vote in yet. And I think given that independents anecdotally, I know many of them who are looking at McCain and Gore or McCain and Bradley. They're an X factor, I think, probably a small group on the whole, but perhaps in close races big enough to make a difference.

MARGARET WARNER: Which all goes to show, Bernadette Connolly, doesn't it, what I think Mark Travis said earlier. These four leading contenders are really very much in the center.

BERNADETTE MALONE CONNOLLY: Well, that is true. But I think another thing that has to be noted about independents is that some of them, granted a small percentage, but a significant portion of independents are former Republicans disaffected by the moderation that the party represents these days. And so some independents seem to be breaking for Steve Forbes. Some would be inclined to vote for Alan Keyes. And I think those kind of independents might be more motivated to go to the polls than the ones who are at this point saying, yeah, Bradley and McCain, either/or. That indicates they're not interested in this ideologically. And conventional wisdom says that those voters who have an ideological agenda are more likely to go out to the polls if - you know -- the date scheduled becomes inconvenient.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mark Travis, a final prediction from you, a fearless prediction, the weather and the total turnout?

MARK TRAVIS: The weather's going to be great. Good snowball weather, I think. Turnout will be high. I think the interest and enthusiasm in this primary is as high as I can remember.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Bernadette Connolly and Mark Travis.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, an international food deal, and an award-winning architect.

FOCUS - FOOD FIGHT

JIM LEHRER: Tom Bearden begins our look at new rules for genetically modified food.

TOM BEARDEN: Nearly half of the corn American farmers planted last year was genetically modified to be resistant to insects and herbicides. The same is true for about a third of the U.S. soybean crop. It's big business for U.S. farmers, who sold about $50 billion worth of products to the rest of the world last year. The United States pioneered bioengineering technology, which has allowed U.S. farmers to grow bigger crops while using less water and fewer pesticides. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of genetically engineered products and requires scientific trials to prove their safety. But many governments and consumers in Europe and elsewhere are not persuaded by that evidence and question the safety of the products both for human consumption and in the environment. They fear that resistance to herbicides could be transferred through pollination to undesirable plants, creating "super weeds," for example. Protesters from the environmental group Greenpeace have invaded fields and destroyed crops, and other environmental groups have launched a campaign against the products. This past week, delegates from 140 countries met in Montreal to draft trade rules for the altered foods and organisms. The result was an agreement which requires exporters to get permission from the receiving country before shipping genetically modified organisms, or GMO's, if they are meant for release into the environment, such as seeds. Advance permission is not required for products meant for human consumption. The agreement does require that the shipment be labeled as "possibly containing GMO's." The agreement must still be ratified by 50 countries before it takes effect.

JIM LEHRER: The American and European interpretations of the agreement. Frank Loy is undersecretary of state for global affairs. He led the U.S. delegation to the trade meeting this past weekend in Montreal. John Richardson is deputy head of the European Commission's delegation to the U.S. Mr. Secretary, what will be the practical effect of this agreement?

FRANK LOY: The practical effect will be that the nations of the world have put together a regime that will give to each other information that will permit the nations, the receiving nations, to judge, to access the benefits and the environmental risks and environmental benefits of the products that they get. And I think in the long run it will depolarize the kind of dispute that has existed in the last few years. And I think it will be good for the biotech industry.

JIM LEHRER: Depolarized, Mr. Richardson? Does this depolarize this argument?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Yes, I agree with that analysis. This is about winners. The industry will win - the biotechnology industry - on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere because of predictability for what it's doing. I think consumers and citizens will win because they're now reassured that their concerns will be taken care of. And I think this planet which we live on will win because it gives us a chance to move towards something which I would describe as genuine sustainable development in the long run.

JIM LEHRER: But the argument is not over. I mean, Europe still believes that genetically modified food is not safe in some respects, and the United States does not, correct?

JOHN RICHARDSON: I don't think that's correct at all. It's not a question of belief. It's a question of examining what the risks are, what the potential risks are to the environment and to human health and to making judgments about those as information becomes available. In Europe, we are not sure that that process is over. So we are taking an extremely cautious attitude towards the approval of genetically modified substances -- more cautious than in the United States. That's a difference of degree. It's not a difference in fundamental approach.

JIM LEHRER: Not a difference in fundamental approach, Mr. Loy?

FRANK LOY: Well, I think we both believe in caution and precaution. Some say we actually invented the concept. And we've certainly been practicing it in our domestic regulatory scream for a long time. We think that in the area of human health, there simply is no evidence whatsoever that anybody's ever been hurt by eating genetically modified food. In the area of the environment, we recognize that there are potential unintended consequences of introducing a particular seed and that you have to manage that. But we think it's quite manageable. And we think that in the long run this agreement will make that distinction and will enable trade in these products to take place and will enable the harnessing of the benefits of genetically modified foodstuffs, which after all, we think are going to benefit the developing world particularly as it tries to feed itself.

JIM LEHRER: But you all believe that there is... this is a question. Do you believe that there is scientific evidence that the United States reads differently about this whole issue?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Yes. Scientific evidence on these subjects is not complete because we're dealing with new technology. We're dealing with new products. And the jury is still out, if you will, even scientifically. But I agree with Frank that we are dealing here with a technology, which has enormous potential benefits. I give you one example. Two weeks ago there were research results published in Europe showing that we can now introduce new rice varieties containing beta carotene, which will increase the Vitamin A content for this particular rice. There are 250 million children in this world who suffer from blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency. With any luck, this new technology will be able to cure those 250 million children. That's enormous. We're talking here enormous potential. And if we want that potential to be realized, we must make sure this technology is well examined were we adopt it so that it's acceptable to our populations and then introduced successfully so that we can realize those benefits.

JIM LEHRER: So Mr. Secretary, what's the argument about then? What was the argument? What was the argument that brought you to Montreal and that caused all these problems to begin with?

FRANK LOY: Well, the European Union and the United States had a somewhat different approach to this agreement. We have always viewed it as an agreement that dealt with bio safety, dealing with the risks of the biodiversity. And we were very concerned about introducing new varieties into the world and making sure that no unintended consequences happened. The European Union dealt with this more as a consumer protection agreement. We're quite for consumer protection and we want our consumers protected. In fact, the United States regulatory system has protected the consumer exceedingly well. That's one of the reasons I think we don't have the kind of concern that the Europeans have where the Europeans believe that perhaps they've not been served so well by their regulatory schemes. So that difference of approach, I think, has characterized much of the discussion that we've had over the last year.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that? Do you agree with Mr. Loy's characterization?

JOHN RICHARDSON: I think to some extent I do. Certainly what we've done in this particular case is come at the problem from a different point of view. But I think we would both agree that what you need in this type of agreement is a balance between the rules designed to promote the introduction of technology to promote the trade in these products, and the concerns of our citizens for their health and for the health of their environment. It's balance between the two, which is needed, and I think this is a very important agreement as a precedent for other areas where we need a similar sort of balance. Connect it for example with the further development and liberalization of trade under the WTO. It's balance - where we need it -- and that's very important. This is a breakthrough in Canada I think this week.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, let's go back to the practical effect. What happens as a result of this agreement that wasn't already happening? Let's be specific. Let's say there are some U.S. seed product that wants... that is now being sold in Europe or wants to be sold in Europe. What will this... how will this agreement affect that sale in any different way?

FRANK LOY: Well, once this agreement is in effect, then when there is a sale of a U.S. seed intended to be planted, there will be information given by the U.S. to the recipient country as to exactly what is contained in that seed.

JIM LEHRER: And that was not done before?

FRANK LOY: That was done frequently before. In fact, it was probably done all the time, but it wasn't required.

JIM LEHRER: It wasn't required. It will now be required?

FRANK LOY: It will now be required.

JIM LEHRER: And then that goes, say, to a European country. And, now what can the European country do with that information under the agreement that it couldn't have done before?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Well, we can check of course whether this information is sufficient for us to be able to accept the product, to approve it for use in Europe. But I think asking about Europe and the United States here is a bit of a red herring, if I may say so. The great benefits I think from these products come particularly from developing countries. What they needed, I believe, is reassurance that their interest would be looked after. They don't have the experts, the scientists that we have on both sides of the Atlantic and Europe and the United States. They needed something I think that would give them reassurances that what they were doing would protect their environment and their consumers. I think they're going to have that now.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's go back to my question. What happens -- a European country gets this information and reads it and interprets it and decides we don't want these seeds in our country. Under this agreement, can you say no seeds?

JOHN RICHARDSON: You can say no seeds if you think the information is insufficient to come to a conclusion about the health risks of the seed concerned or the environmental risks. If there is doubt, if there is scientific doubt, if two scientific interpretations of the data are possible, then we still have the precautionary principle and could in this agreement, which allows governments under those circumstances to say, "well, we don't want to take any risk. We want to lower the level of risk which our population is exposed to. Because of that, we will not yet approve these seeds until we know more about them." So the answer is, yes, we can still say no to them, but only provided we've done the scientific analysis.

JIM LEHRER: So that's a loss for the U.S., is it not, in this agreement?

FRANK LOY: I don't think so. This is not a market-opening agreement. And the markets that have been closed aren't automatically opened by what we agreed to in Montreal. On the other hand, I think in the long run this exchange of information and this ability of countries to access what it means that they're getting I think will actually begin to make trade flow more easily and permit countries to decide whether they want this product but do so with a lot more information. Let me add one thing about the Vitamin A case that John mentioned. He's absolutely right. I think it's an enormous breakthrough. I have to say, I think the United States' insistence that there be room for the biotech industry to experiment and to sell its products and to develop new products is one of the things that has made discoveries like that possible is going to make future discoveries possible. We can imagine easily that we're going to end up with products that will permit you to grow more food with less land and less water and fewer pesticides so that it is really our insistence that we make sure that that development is not throttled that I think is one of the good things in this agreement.

JIM LEHRER: You mentioned red herrings, Mr. Richardson. Another underlying theme that that's been running through the reporting on this has been that Europe has been motivated politically to protect its farmers from U.S. farm products and the U.S. has been motivated to protect its producers from unfair substancization by the Europeans. Has this been wrong?

JOHN RICHARDSON: I don't think that's right at all. Europe has been motivated largely by the concerns of its voters. And you have been watching earlier in your program all this reporter from New Hampshire. We live in democracies, and we must listen to our voters. If they want us to be cautious, our policies have to be cautious - otherwise we're going to lose the next election. That's very important. But we have an interest, too, in the introduction of biotechnology. It's European research I cited on Vitamin A - it was supported by the way, by the European Union money. So we have exactly the same interests here to have this technology adopted. It's not about our farmers. It's about our consumers, our voters, yes, but also our industry is involved.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Loy?

FRANK LOY: Well, in our case, one of the important factors in our thinking were our farmers, who are producing very good quality crops and in our opinion many of those crops were shut out from European markets. The motivation for that I will leave to John to describe. But in our opinion, it was based not on any scientific analysis, not on any scientific assessment of risk, but listening to what we would consider quite hyped noise from a lot of voters, as John suggests. And we think it was quite unfair. And we think that we suffered. Now, we have said that to them, and we hope that we will be able to work that out.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

JOHN RICHARDSON: Thank you.

CONVERSATION - MASTER BUILDER

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the joy of building, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The prestigious American Institute of Architects gold medal was presented to Mexico's most renowned architect, Ricardo Legorreta, this weekend. The award, the highest honor the AIA bestows on an individual, recognizes an architect whose significant body of work has had a lasting influence on the theory and practice of architecture. Legorreta, the 57th AIA Gold Medallist, joins the ranks of Frank Lloyd Wright, IM Pei, and 1999 medal recipient Frank Gehry, names etched into "The Wall of Honor" located in the lobby of the AIA's headquarters in Washington, DC. Born in Mexico City in 1931, Legorreta went on to study architecture at UNA, the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. In 1959, Legorreta started his own architectural firm, Legorreta Arquitectos. And since its opening, the architect has worked extensively in Mexico and the Southwestern United States. His early projects include the Camino Real Hotel in Mexico City, designed in 1968. In this work, the architect's design is in keeping with the traditions of Mexican and southwestern architecture. For centuries, Hispanic builders have used water as a building material. It is incorporated into courtyards and patios, in pools and fountains. Here, Ricardo Legorreta used water in an unconventional way in a hotel lobby. Legorreta's first commission outside of Mexico was the residence of Hollywood actor Ricardo Montalban, with its stunning view of the Los Angeles basin. During the 40-year span of his career, some of his most celebrated works include the Metropolitan Cathedral in Managua, Nicaragua, and the Monterrey Central Library, in Monterrey, Mexico. Legorreta's signature integration of landscape and building is his 1985 design for the Renault factory in Durango, Mexico. But there is also a sense of humor to Legorreta's work. Take, for example, the large watermelon slices at the Camino Real Ixtapa Hotel, or the less obvious geometric shapes, cutouts, and columns designed to playfully interplay shadow and light at the San Antonio main library. Legorreta's use of water, walls, and light-filled spaces has set him apart. But most of all, Legorreta's work stresses color. Legorreta remains busy in his native Mexico while the demand for his work in the U.S. increases.

RAY SUAREZ: And Ricardo Legorreta joins us now. And as exciting as it is to get an award any time, it is especially exciting to get one from your pierce?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: It is very special to get the recognition from your colleagues. It is much significant than anything else.

RAY SUAREZ: When you design a building, do you want people to be paying a lot of attention to the building, or do you want it to work so well with them that they don't even notice it so much?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: I want them to be very happy. If the buildingcalls attention, that's another thing. The most important thing for the building and for architecture is really to understand that our profession is to make life of the people more pleased, not imposing our ideas, but really understanding what it's all about, the building.

RAY SUAREZ: So how does the architect in his studio with his drafting tools on his table understand human happiness? Do you have to go out and be with people?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: Of course, yes, you have to go out, at least each one of us has a different way of doing things. But I personally, I want to understand people for who we're designing. And very often, more often than not, we during the design process, we work together, not only with the client, but with the users. In a house, in a home, of course you get with the client and the user, which is the owner -- when you are in another type of building such as a library, school or whatever, we start to talk about people. And I don't like that. I want to really get together with them, have their reactions to the design, and to really understand what they want out of the building.

RAY SUAREZ: Because you designed a children's museum in your native country, Mexico, and a lot of things that are designed for children are sort of an adult's idea of what a children...what children would like rather than what a child's idea of what children would like.

RICARDO LEGORRETA: I'm glad you give that example. That's a very good example of what we're talking about. Every time we adults talk about children, we immediately draw little house with a fireplace and the smoke going out. And that's not the idea of the children. In that museum what I thought was the important thing was to offer the kids the possibility to dream to, feel free, and to have the space belonging to them. And fortunately we had found out that they love to go again and again to feel they know the building, the building itself. And we did some things, some parts of the building in which only they can get in. The parents can't. And that has developed that idea of property for them, of freedom. There is no other users here. They can run back and forth, et cetera. So that's a good example of trying to understand the users of the building.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, where-- we're in Washington, D.C. where many buildings are saying to the street, I am serious, and one of the ways they say I am serious is by being all one color, often white, marble, a cold, solid material. Let's talk a bit about materials and color.

RICARDO LEGORRETA: Well, it depends very much on the environment. One important thing I will go back a little bit is that I believe we have to respect the environment. If there's something I think we architects have to do now is to really devote our time and effort to do better cities, not only outstanding buildings. So the first thing is to react to the environment. And that doesn't mean to fall into an anonymous thing. If it's very simple, you should do it very simple. If it's in the case of a specific building, you have a to do it. Light is very different. I was looking at Washington this morning with the snow. Even if it's bright, there's a complete different light than what you would find in California or in Mexico. So that's again a reaction. Culture has to do with it. Mexico is a country of color. So to use color in Mexico, I sometimes say that we are almost irresponsible in use of color. To use color on the East Coast is completely another thing.

RAY SUAREZ: So a building in Mexico that would have roses and pinks and turquoise blues, if you weredoing it for Boston, you wouldn't use those?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: I would use different colors, and I would use it very carefully. We're doing the students residence for the University of Chicago. It's very interesting because they're asking us for color, and at the same time, we want to respect Chicago and not just arrive there and say, here we are, the Mexicans, with our bold colors. And that goes for materials. It has to represent the philosophy of the building.

RAY SUAREZ: When you build on a green field site where there's no other building, you can do one kind of thing. But what about a block where there are already many other buildings and there's just a lot. How much does that building have to speak to the other buildings on the street?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: It has to speak 100%. I think it's a mistake in that case, which is very common, to come and say, "now I'm going to do a building that is completely different on the block." Because what... You don't have the right of changing the environment just because... A very good example is every time we talk about the cities we like. And let's say we talk about beautiful Barcelona, for example, outside of Mexico and the United States. And the value of Barcelona, those streets which are very simple, very humble, it has certain specific buildings. But the rest, the city is just the city that was based in a very regular block. And that's what makes a city. So I think that just by... Just because you want to do a very outstanding building in the middle of the block on just one lot and then hurt the other properties I think is a mistake. We have to respect our neighbors.

RAY SUAREZ: Recently in the United States a lot of architects have talked about the separation that exists between architects and the people, the people who walk by their buildings, who use their buildings, who live and work in their buildings. Now that we're in this new century, and as someone who has been at this a long time, 40 years, do you feel that that gap is narrowing, that architects are ready to build buildings, build places that respond to people's desires more?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: Yes. I see a new movement towards that. I think we hit the top of that attitude some years ago, especially the young people are much more willing to design buildings to really connect with the people and even the... I see that reaction. I'm optimistic by nature, and I see that movement coming which I think is the right thing to do. I don't think architecture should belong to an elite. We design for us. Sometimes I say that women dress for women and architects design for architects. >> Well, you've done all kinds of things, museums, factories, library, private residences. Are there any projects that you are still getting... Waiting for a chance to do you haven't had a chance to do yet?

RICARDO LEGORRETA: Yes, there are some. I want to keep going, but there is one particular one that I'm really interested on it, which is affordable housing. The reason is because we talk about that always that it has to be cheap and ugly and that we don't want to get involved because politics and all that plays a very important role. To me that's an excuse. We all go for inspiration to the hill towns in Italy, to the villages in Mexico. And those were affordable housing. So I think that that's a problem I would like to get involved, even if it is a tremendous effort. But that's the problem of the world.

RAY SUAREZ: And a real challenge for an architect because to keep the costs modest and make something beautiful at the same time and easily used, very difficult.

RICARDO LEGORRETA: It's very difficult, but that's a real challenge. To have an open budget is not easy. It's a possibility of making a lot of mistakes. I prefer the other, those limitations. That's one of the things I would like very much to get involved with.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, thank you very much for being here.

RICARDO LEGORRETA: My pleasure. Thank you very much for inviting me.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday. The presidential candidates spent a final day campaigning in New Hampshire before tomorrow's first-in-the-nation primary. Governor Bush's campaign reported raising a record $68 million so far. And nearly 170 people were presumed dead in a Kenya Airways jetliner crash into the sea off the Ivory Coast. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.