The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, an American operated tanker hit a mine near the Persian Gulf. A key Congressional leader said the U. S. should consider laying its own mines in the Gulf, and Ohio industrial leader William Verity was named Secretary of Commerce. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we have three main focuses and an essay on the NewsHour tonight. First, a documentary report on why the navy is behind in building minesweepers. Next, an interview with Costa Rican's President Arias on the new Central American peace plan. Then, Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Robert Dornan debate it. An excerpt from Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's remarks on the Iran contra affair, and a Roger Mudd essay on presidential debate.News Summary LEHRER: An American operated supertanker hit a mine just outside the Persian Gulf today. The explosion blew a hole in the huge ship, but there were no casualties. The ship is the Texaco Caribbean. It is a 247,000 ton ship that had just taken on a full load of Iranian oil. It was on its way to the Gulf of Oman when it struck the floating mine. The Reuters News Agency said another mine has been found in the Gulf near Kuwait, and there were unconfirmed reports the United States Navy stopped a convoy because of it. Back in Washington, House Arms Services Committee Les Aspin warned Iran about placing mines in the Gulf. At a news conference, he suggested retaliation in kind.

Rep. LES ASPIN, (D) Wisconsin: The Iranians use the Gulf to get their oil out, too. And they are very dependent on Gulf traffic to get their oil out. They should not be getting a free ride. If maybe we do it, maybe the Iraqis do it -- it doesn't necessarily mean that we would do it. But the Iranians ought to know that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and they are clearly very, very vulnerable to mines. LEHRER: In the Gulf War today, Iraqi planes bombed several oil facilities in Iran. Iraq said it launched the attacks because Iran refused to accept a U. N. Security Council call for a cease fire. There was no word on damage from the raids. Also, in West Berlin, six Iranian consular officials were ordered out because of the fear they were planning terrorists attacks. Judy? WOODRUFF: The White House said today that the peace plan agreed to by the five leaders of Central American countries last week is a move in a positive direction. But it stopped short of a blanket endorsement. Presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater would say only that the Administration is encouraged by the proposal designed to end hostilities between Central American government and rebel insurgents. A Nicaraguan contra leader said today that his group has endorsed the Central American leaders' plan. But Adolfo Calero insisted the contras must be part of any cease fire negotiations, even if they are represented by a third party. LEHRER: Ohio industrial leader William Verity was named Secretary of Commerce today. The 70 year old retired head of the Armco Steel Company will succeed Malcolm Baldridge, who died in a rodeo accident last month. President Reagan made the Verity announcement late this afternoon at the White House.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I know that Bill, like his predecessor, Malcolm Baldridge, understands the importance of expanding international markets, maintaining our competitiveness, and enhancing our export capability. He also supports ongoing efforts to keep vital technology from falling into the hands of our adversaries. His extensive experience in business and overseas trade makes him eminently qualified to assume control of the Dept. of Commerce in these critical times. WILLIAM VERITY, Secretary of Commerce: I want to make it clear, Mr. President, that all the specifics that you mentioned, I endorse, and I'm looking forward to trying to help you in the job of making this country more competitive. LEHRER: On Wall Street today, the Stock Market rallied to close above the 2600 mark for the first time. And I. W. Abel died today in Malvern, Ohio. He was the founder of the United Steel Workers Union, and its president for 12 years. He died of cancer. He was 78 years old. WOODRUFF: Ten American Air Force personnel were slightly injured by a car bomb in Greece today. The explosion took place in an Athens suburb. Nine of the Americans were on a bus, and one, a woman, was walking nearby. The Greek driver was also injured. The Greek government condemned terrorism in any form, and called the incident a criminal attack. South Africa's mine workers' strike, which began yesterday, grew more serious today. The black mine workers' union said at least 340,000 miners had joined the strike, and called it the country's largest legal walkout ever. We have a report from James Robbins of the BBC.

JAMES ROBBINS, BBC: Throughout the morning, minibuses were being loaded for long journeys back to South Africa's tribal homelands, where the men's families must live -- or to neighboring countries from which South Africa draws many of its miners. Mine security staff patrolled close by. To prevent intimidation of nonstrikers, say the management -- to intimidate strikers, says the union. This morning, mine trains were still carrying some ore containing gold away from the mines for processing. But the companies accept they now face certain losses. Already many strikers are exultant. They sense victory. But the employers won't likely concede so significant a strike. Both sides are well aware of the latest message from the government -- if unions seem to have too much power, the law will be used to redress the balance. LEHRER: Back in this country, six people died today when a huge boulder rolled down a mountain and smashed into a tour bus on a Colorado highway. Another 16 persons were injured in the freak accident 60 miles northwest of Denver. There were 28 persons aboard the bus. Six escaped injury. Authorities said a crew was clearing rocks above the highway when the boulder was accidentally dislodged by a front end loader. One person was injured in a spectacular oil refinery fire in Philadelphia. A tank containing one million gallons of petroleum caught fire yesterday after being hit by lightning. This evening it is reported the blaze is still not under control, but has been contained to one area of the refinery. WOODRUFF: Finally in the news, two near air accidents over the weekend -- one over New York City, the other over Detroit. Air traffic controllers in both instances inadvertently transposed jetliner flight numbers. Spokesmen for the FAA said it was too early to tell if similarly number flights may pose safety problems. In the more serious New York incident, a Pan Am pilot took evasive actions, and the planes passed within 600 feet of each other. That wraps up our summary of the news. Still ahead on the NewsHour, a documentary report on the delay in minesweeper production, an interview with Costa Rican President, and a debate between two members of Congress over the Central American peace plan, some remarks from Iran contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, and a Roger Mudd essay. Sweeping Delay LEHRER: First, sweeping for mines. The Persian Gulf crisis has suddenly made minesweeping something important to the United States Navy. Until now, it's been a very low priority, so low that only now are the first new anti mine ships in 30 years being added to the U. S. fleet. We have a report from Wisconsin where those ships are being constructed in Sturgeon Bay and Marinette. The reporter is Art Hackett of Public Station WHA, Madison.

ART HACKETT, WHA, Madison: Pleasure craft in Sturgeon Bay on Wisconsin's Door County Peninsula has recently been sharing the water with U. S. Naval warships. Three of the 224 ships are moored in Peterson Builders Boat yard, where work continues. Two more are nearing completion at another shipyard in nearby Marinette. The remainder of the initial order of 8 ships are still skeletons in giant assembly buildings. The ships, which cost about $145 million each, started attracting national attention when it was discovered that the United States Navy had sent a task force of cruisers and destroyers to escort tankers in the Persian Gulf, but hadn't sent minesweepers to clear the waters. JACK SODERLUND, Vice President, Peterson Builders: I think the mine force today is the most sorriest part of our fleet, our 600 ship navy.

HACKETT: Jack Soderlund is a Vice President with Peterson Builders, the prime contractor for the new mine countermeasures ships. Mr. SODERLUND: Until 1982 when we signed a contract for the lead ship. That's the first minesweeper the Navy has considered building, and it has to be 20 years or better.

HACKETT: And the first of the new ships, the Avenger, is two years behind schedule. It will join the active duty fleet September 12. In the past, the Navy has blamed Peterson for the delays. Peterson, in turn, has blamed the Navy. But now both sides have kissed, made up, and blamed high technology. Commander ROBERT RAWLS, Commanding Officer: This is a prototype ship, this is a super complex ship, and I think that the systems are supercomplicated systems, state of the art stuff that we haven't had opportunity to work with that much. Basically because it's a prototype vessel. Mr. SODERLUND: If you compare the time it took us to construct the lead ship in this class as against the time it took England and France and Italy to build the lead ships in their mine hunting class, you'll find out that this ship has gone faster.

HACKETT: But House Arms Services Committee Chairman, Les Aspin, says the Navy's minesweeper program is the victim of intentional neglect. Rep. ASPIN: And indeed I would say it was a deliberate policy decision by the Navy to under fund it. It wasn't that people didn't see that and say, ''Why weren't you doing it?'' It was a deliberate policy decision, that given the money that they had, the Navy chose to buy warships with it. And when asked and pushed as to who was going to do the minesweeping, their answer was, ''We'll have to rely on our allies. ''

HACKETT: After the tanker Bridgeton was damaged by a mine in the Persian Gulf, the U. S. asked its allies to help search for more mines. The allies say they don't want to get involved. Congressman Aspin says counting on allies is risky. Rep. ASPIN: It's a hard thing to do. On the one hand, you don't want to just have everybody duplicating everybody else's navy. You'd like to specialize, and you'd like to be able to say, ''Okay, we'll concentrate on the aircraft carriers, and somebody else concentrate on minesweepers. '' But it's -- you know, the assumption whenever you do that is that there's a unity of interest and whenever we want to use our navy, our allies are interested in using their navy in the same -- for the same cause. And if there's a falling out or a difference of policy there, it can leave you pretty high and dry.

HACKETT: But many defense analysts say the navy's failure to prepare for a mine warfare is the result of more than just an effort to avoid duplication. NORMAN POLNAR, U. S. Naval Institute: The navy hierarchy as a whole sort of wants to ignore the mine question. And we in the United States always have.

HACKETT: Norman Polnar is with the U. S. Naval Institute. Mr. POLNAR: Mine warfare has always been looked upon as a weapon of a smaller nation, the smaller navy, and as defensive weapons. U. S. Navy is a big navy with an offensive outlook. Hence you see very little interest in mine warfare.

HACKETT: The navy's reluctance to fund mine warfare programs in the past made construction difficult to get started. Building a minesweeper is more than just putting together a wooden hull. Mr. SODERLUND: You can see behind you is probably the easiest part of the vessel to get together and get constructed. Our problem was in the equipments, the noise, the shock, the vibration, the magnetics. Our industry wasn't used to working in these fields for a good number of years. And they took a little tooling up, a little engineering. And that was part of the delay of getting the first ship going. Rep. ASPIN: -- partly because the navy never had this as a high priority. You end up with the fact that the people working on the navy ships program -- the minesweeper program in the navy -- have never given it a top priority, so they do keep changing their mind and do keep fooling around with the thing. Which makes life difficult for the builders, and the net result is that we haven't had much of a building program. But we weren't going to have much of a building program anyway. I mean, they just weren't building many ships.

HACKETT: There's supposed to be a total of 14 Avenger class boats built between now and 1991. Commander Rawls says the high tech equipment they carry will help improve the image that has plagued those who work in anti mine warfare for the navy -- that of mine duty as the dead end of a naval career. Com. RAWLS: I think just the fact that we're building these new and modern, really super (unintelligible) system ships is gonna help that image an awful lot.

HACKETT: This reel of cable will be unrolled into the water as part of one of those systems -- the mine finding sonar. The new ships are designed to identify what typesof mines are being used. The navy's existing minesweeping ships and the helicopters which can tow sludge to locate and destroy mines, have to be set up to deal with just one type of mine at a time. For instance, a minesweeper equipped to destroy mines detonated by a ship's magnetic field, could easily miss another mine designed to be set off by the noise and vibration generated by a ship's propeller. Com. RAWLS: The great thing about this is if they have a mixture of mines in there, that's fine. We can go down and find the mine and destroy the mine, and go on to the next one, and we don't really have to sweep the one certain type of mine and there was the possibility that you might have another type mine down there that we may not get. Lt. J.G. RICH NEELY, Avenger crew member: So we're basically simulating a magnetic signature of a ship, and the acoustics signature of a ship. So we fool the mine to make it detonate.

HACKETT: Still, the electronics systems aboard the new mine countermeasures ships are far from being truly state of the art. The Naval Institute's Norman Polnar: Mr. POLNAR: There's no question in my mind that some foreign mine hunting sonars, especially that developed by the French, is significantly superior to what we're putting into our brand new ships. Again, I can't stress this too much, it's a question of the U. S. Navy just not being that interested in mine countermeasures.

HACKETT: The Navy doesn't contest what Polnar says. Edward Pyatt is an assistant secretary of the Navy. EDWARD PYATT, Asst. Sec. of Navy: We're behind some of the European countries. I know, because we've taken their technology and applied it in sonar and one class of (unintelligible). And that's the reason we made the decision to rebuild some years ago. So it's time for improvement in the U. S. Navy. That's the reason we made that decision.

HACKETT: One sign of improvement is this $4 million submersible unit called the Mine Neutralization system. It can go down and look for mines and destroy them. Lt. NEELY: Okay, the vehicle has its own sonar system, and it has the capability to drop packages near the mines that we can detonate remotely and get rid of the mines. Okay? It's got its own camera system, and it's got its own power fed from the ship down umbilical. Mr. POLNAR: While the mine neutralization system, which we're now developing, which already exists, again, in European navies, is the way to do it, but we're developing it now. And that's the problem. We tend to be always behind the curve when it comes to mine countermeasures in this country. We've never quite caught up with what the mine threat is.

HACKETT: But Congressman Aspin contends the Avenger class ships will bring the U. S. Navy up to the level of technological development that is needed. Rep. ASPIN: I think that they've got the right kind of construction, they've got the right kind of equipment. I have no problem with the design. Now, they've had problems meeting the requirements of the ship -- in other words, the local builders there have had trouble. They, of course, blame the navy for keeping changing their minds and changing the specs, and I think that they've got a very good case. But if we could put those ships out there the way they're designed, I think they'd be very good ships.

HACKETT: But to meet the threat in the Persian Gulf, the Navy may not need such sophisticated equipment. The mines encountered there are pre World War I design. They're moored on the bottom of the sea and detonated by contact with a ship. Experts say the problem isn't the technology. There just needs to be more minesweepers deployed where they are needed. Rep. ASPIN: We've been pushing the minesweeper program for some time -- I would guess now in the light of what's going on in the Persian Gulf there probably would be some increase in the funding for the minesweeper program. And then on balance, that's probably a good thing. Mr. POLNAR: I think that Congress is very concerned about this situation. As I've said, the navy will take some action, will see more money coming from Congress, will see more plans being written, more people moving about, more flag waving for a few months. But in a few months, you then look at the line items in the budget for mine countermeasures, and they're falling off the cliff again.

HACKETT: Meanwhile, the money to build the second half of the fleet of Avenger class ships is still on hold until Congress determines whether the first ship works as it's supposed to once it goes onto active duty next month. WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Central American peace plan, some words from Iran contra prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, and a Roger Mudd essay. In Search of Peace LEHRER: We go next tonight to the Central American peace story. We have a newsmaker interview with one of the key players in Central America, Costa Rica President Oscar Arias, followed by reaction and debate between two U. S. member of Congress, Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Robert Dornan. The plan adopted by the five Central American presidents Friday in Guatemala City is called the Arias Plan. It calls for an end to hostilities and the beginning of democratic reforms. President Reagan plan of last week is similar. But there are differences. The Reagan plan ends U. S. aid to the contras and Soviet and Cuban aid to the Sandinistas. The Arias plan ends it only to insurgent forces. In other words, the contras, but not the Sandinistas. The Reagan plan says that as soon as the cease fire goes into effect, Nicaragua must immediately restore full civil liberties and prepare for new elections. The Arias plan leaves the timing of democratic reforms to be negotiated. The Reagan plan calls for a cease fire within 60 days. The Arias plan 90 days. For more on the differences and the overall prospect for peace in Central America, we have the author of the Arias plan. Costa Rican President Arias joins us from Costa Rica. Mr. President, welcome. How would you characterize the differences between your plan and the President's plan? Pres. OSCAR ARIAS, President, Costa Rica: Well, the essence of our peace proposal is the emphasis we put on democracy. Convinced as we are that it is not possible to reach durable peace in Central America unless there are democratic governments, we propose five major points to be taken simultaneously. The beginning of the process of democratization, the suspension of aid to the rebel forces, both in Nicaragua and El Salvador, an amnesty for both countries, Nicaragua and El Salvador, a guarantee that the national territory in Central America will not be used by the rebel forces, and finally, a cease fire. Those five major points would have to be taken by the seventh of November -- that is, in three months' time. LEHRER: And -- let's go through how that -- for instance, President Reagan wanted the democratic reforms in Nicaragua to be done immediately, when there is a cease fire. Your plan does not call for that -- is that correct? Pres. ARIAS: That is correct. Those five measures would have to be taken in a simultaneous way in 90 days. LEHRER: Why 90 days? Pres. ARIAS: Because they are difficult to implement. We had to give a lot of concessions. In my original proposal I was recommending 60 days -- two months. But there were some other colleague who wanted more time, even six months. So we had to compromise. And 90 days was the compromise. LEHRER: Was it your reading of the Nicaraguan president, Mr. Ortega, that -- well, did you get the impression that he was committed to making these reforms? The only question was when? Pres. ARIAS: Well, that's what he agreed. My interpretation is that both Ortega, Napoleon Duarte are giving some concessions. But mainly Ortega, because in the past, he never accepted that he would make any changes in the political system in Nicaragua -- that he would never attend any recommendations concerning any changes in the political aspects of Nicaraguan life. Here we are recommending the beginning of a democratization process -- by which by the 7th of November he would have to establish all individual liberties. And this, of course, includes the mass media. He would have to open up La Prensa, (unintelligible), and allow all the mass media to be used by all political parties by every Nicaraguan. By everybody. This is indeed quite a concession. LEHRER: And he's committed to doing that? Pres. ARIAS: Well, I hope that what we have agreed will be implemented. I hope that there is sincerity in what we have agreed. But if there is no sincerity, there is a verification committee. And they would have to verify if we have been honest with what we have agreed. And this verification committee, as you will note, is made up of the (unintelligible) foreign ministers, the foreign ministers of the support group, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and also the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, plus the five Central American foreign ministers. LEHRER: And they would have the power to go into each one of the countries and ascertain whether or not all of these five principles you outlined have in fact been followed? Pres. ARIAS: That is correct, sir. LEHRER: And then what happens if they come back and say, ''Well, Nicaragua did this, El Salvador did that -- they haven't done this,'' or whatever -- then what happens? Pres. ARIAS: Well, there are no penalties. There are no sanctions. But the moral sanctions of the whole world to that country which doesn't go on with what we have agreed in Guatemala. We'll hope that there has been sincerity when we reach this agreement. After all, there are 25 million people here in this region of Central America who want peace, who deserve peace. Who are quite aware that without peace it is not possible to improve the standard of living of those 25 million people in the region. And if one country's not sincere, I think that country will be isolated by the whole world. And a lot of pressure will be put on that country if this country doesn't comply with what we agreed on the 7th of August in Guatemala. LEHRER: Another specific, Mr. President. Your plan calls for the stopping of outside aid to insurgent forces -- meaning the contras -- that means the ones that the United States is supporting. However, it does not forbid outside aid from the Soviet Union and Cuba to the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua. Now, that's a problem, as you know, for some of the folks back here. Can you explain why that was done? Pres. ARIAS: Well, that's not precisely the way you put it, sir. LEHRER: All right. Pres. ARIAS: We are exhorting both regional countries and countries from other continents to suspend aid to the insurgents. And that is addressed both to the countries that are being -- helping the contras in Nicaragua, as well as those who are supporting the guerillas in El Salvador -- Cuba and the Soviet Union. LEHRER: But what about help from the Soviet Union and Cuba directly to the government of Nicaragua, which as you know, that has been the premise of the U. S. aid to the contras -- was that the heavy Soviet and Cuban involvement -- not in the insurgency in El Salvador, but directly into the government forces of Nicaragua? Pres. ARIAS: Yes, the issue of disarmament, or putting a limit to the arms race would have to be dealt (with) later on. It is not included in our peace proposal. And the reason why it is not included is because in Contadora, we have dealt with this problem for the last four years without reaching an agreement. Because simply it is not easy to reach an agreement on disarmament, as you Americans know quite well. But we are not asking the U. S. to cut aid to the Salvadorian government, because this would never be allowed or permitted by President Duarte. Being that so, we cannot ask Cuba or the Soviet Union to cut aid to the Nicaraguan government. We have dealt exclusively with the rebel forces. Cutting aid to the contras as well as to the guerillas. LEHRER: Are you satisfied, Mr. President, that if all the principles of this plan are carried out that the interests and the safety and the rights of the contras, who are now being supported by the United States, would be protected within Nicaragua by the Sandinista Government? Pres. ARIAS: I would say yes. They could go back if there is an amnesty in Nicaragua, and accept the new rules of the game, which I really expect that will be those of a true democracy. There are many people who might be very skeptical about Nicaragua becoming a democratic nation. I must admit that I am skeptical. My impression is that it is against the nature of the Marxist regime to allow the mass media to be free and to reestablish all individual liberties that we in true democracies enjoy. But, let us try. Let us prove their sincerity. If we have been betting in the past on war, why not bet on peace? After all, Central Americans deserve peace. I know, nevertheless, that that peace won't be reached and won't be a durable peace, unless there is democracy, unless the Nicaraguans can freely elect their future presidents. And this is why I have put so much emphasis on democracy. It's not Costa Rican imperialism on Nicaragua. It's just the fact that that premise, that condition for me is very important. Unless there are democratic governments -- we'll be able to live in peace for many years. So Nicaragua has to change. And we are trying to give now the chance to Nicaragua to change. In the past, they have used the contras, some excuse for explaining the failure not only of the Marxist experiment in their economy, but also they have used it -- contras -- as a good excuse to abolish all individual freedoms. So if we cut the aid for the contras -- and this is a calculated risk -- it's for three months -- if they don't go on with the democratization process, then they will be responsible for not fulfilling what we just have agreed in Guatemala. And they should be punished for that. I don't know what kind of punishment, but of course I'm sure that the whole of Latin America will ask them to pay a high price for that. And not only Latin America, Contadoran support groups -- but all the European democracies as well. LEHRER: Are you -- Pres. ARIAS: I'm sorry. LEHRER: No, I was just -- I didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to put the United States equation there in your answer as well. Are you satisfied thus far with the U. S. response to what happened in Guatemala City, and if not, what more would you like for the U. S. to do at this juncture? Pres. ARIAS: Well, you see, many countries, including the United States, complained in the past, deplored in the past, that we Central Americans were unable to find a solution to our own countries. To find a Central American answer to our problems. Well, that's exactly what we did in Guatemala. We have tried through consensus to solve our own problems. This is a Central American initiative. What we discussed was the Costa Rican Peace Proposal -- what you call the Arias Plan. So I think everybody should be satisfied. We have proved to the world that there is some rationality here in Central America. That reason has prevailed over madness. Peace over War. And this is a chance that is worth taking. LEHRER: All right. President Arias, thank you very much for being with us tonight. Judy? WOODRUFF: We get two views of the Arias plan now from two members of Congress, Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who joins us from Public Station WEDH in Hartford. And Republican Representative Robert Dornan of California. Senator Dodd, let me begin with you. What do you think of the Arias plan? Sen. CHRISTOPHER DODD, (D) Conn. : Well, I think it's a good plan. It's a first stage, obviously. There's a lot of dates -- 15 days the foreign ministers will be meeting, and then of course a meeting (unintelligible) efforts over the five points that Pres. Arias just discussed, a 90 day cycle and 120 days verification. Then 150 days of final verification. But I think it's an excellent effort -- five countries, at least two revolutionary groups, trying to bring e,6 of that together in a way that will ultimately result in peace and stability in the region. The absence of a fear of aggression on the part of the Nicaraguans democratizing inside of Nicaragua -- it's a large order. And anyone who suggests otherwise is terribly naive. But at this juncture, I think it's so important that we in the United States, Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, be as encouraging and as optimistic. President Arias is taking a great risk. President Duarte is taking a risk and Azcona. Certainly President Ortega by committing to democratization in his country as this document clearly states, is demonstrating at least at this juncture that there is a willingness to change. I think it's so important at this particular point that we be supportive of that, and not try and nit pick and find little points that we disagree with in this process, but do what President Arias just suggested -- and that is for the first time in almost 160 years give Central Americans an opportunity to resolve Central American problems. WOODRUFF: Congressman Dornan, should the United States give the plan a chance? Rep. ROBERT DORNAN, (R) California: Absolutely. When I left the White House on the morning of August 7, just as they were signing this plan, I told the press that the four most recently traveled congressmen to Central America, my congressional delegation, Duncan Hunter, Dave Dreier and Howard Nielson, that we all agreed with the President that we should give Mr. Arias a chance. I think the plan is better than excellent. I think it's superb. And I think you should have my good friend the Chairman of the Western Hemisphere back -- I'm the second senior Republican on our House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee -- have us both back on October 1, which would have been the Wright/Reagan deadline -- the senator, good senator -- and then have us both back on November 7. Because Mr. Arias has been as consistent with me as he was the day we had breakfast with Vice President Bush a few hours before he was sworn in May 8 of last year. He believes this plan will fail. I hate to say that when he's just left on a note of optimism, but he's saying he's skeptical -- WOODRUFF: You're saying that President Arias thinks it will fail? Rep. DORNAN: And he just said it to us again -- he said it's a calculated risk, he said, ''I must admit I'm skeptical,'' he said because he can't understand how Marxist Leninists will change their communist stripes -- I don't think they will either. And then he said they should be punished. Costa Rica has no army. They're not going to punish them. WOODRUFF: But the plan is on the table. Does it have shortcomings in your mind? I mean, is it perfect? Rep. DORNAN: His plan only has one shortcoming. And it's not his fault. It's a Costa Rican plan, signed by three small -- four small Central American democracies and one dictator. It's not an American plan. He doesn't have to worry about national security of this hemisphere, American national security of the Panama Canal. We do. So our plan has to be a little bit tougher and address itself to Soviet aid. WOODRUFF: Tougher in -- ? Rep. DORNAN: (unintelligible) Soviet -- he answered that very well, too. I'm all for him as a Costa Rican coming up with this plan, and he's correct. Duarte took the biggest risk in signing it, and as Chris said, so did Azcona, so did Cerezo, as a matter of fact. WOODRUFF: All right. Senator Dodd, how significant is it to you that the plan does not address Soviet aid, Cuban aid, to the Sandinista government? Sen. DODD: Well, I think if you heard President Arias respond and then read the plan, you'll find that Section 7 of that plan, not included in the first five points. The democratization, the cease fire, the use of irregular forces, and so forth. Point 7 of the plan speaks of security and verification, and refers directly to the proposed Contadora act which was never ratified, but says that those particular issues should be negotiated. And that's what President Arias just said. It's not specifically in the plan to be done in the 90 days. But those points in the Contadora proposal speaks specifically to reducing the size of the military forces in the region, the expulsion of foreign advisors, the not permitting of sophisticated hardware -- WOODRUFF: But there's no commitment in there on the part of -- Sen. DODD: That has to be negotiated between those countries, it seems to me, and groups on the outside. So I don't think you could possibly have achieved that within the 90 day framework that President Arias was talking about. But there is specific reference referring to the contadora act with regard to those other concerns. And I think they're legitimate ones. Rep. DORNAN: I just thought of a major flaw in the Arias plan -- because they didn't spell it out. And it's always the major sticking point when any communist government tries to democratize, which I don't recall happening in my lifetime -- and that's opening up the prisons. Now, I know that the good President means that in his point one, which he says is the main emphasis -- democratization. But for them to open up their prisons, it will be as painful as when Castro finally returned his quarter century prisoners -- WOODRUFF: Do you think they'll do it? Rep. DORNAN: Well, the torture stories are gonna come out of there -- stories of executions when the country doesn't have capital punishment, the Sandinistas. And it's the sticking point with Vietnam. With General Vessey on his trip last month -- communists hate to open up those gulags. For example, how can Gorbachev really be full of glasnost and open this one -- I think he's held (unintelligible) for 42 years. WOODRUFF: Senator Dodd, how optimistic are you that the Sandinistas will go along with this plan -- will live up to this plan? Rep. DORNAN: Do you think they'll open the prisons, Chris? Sen. DODD: Well, I don't know how -- I haven't talked with anybody since Friday -- I've spoken with President Azcona and President Duarte in the last -- in fact, this afternoon. They're optimistic about it. I've got to believe the Nicaraguans knew what they were signing, and the democratization points couldn't be more clear. I think they're also determined to try and have a far better working relationship with their neighbors. I never expected to see an Arab leader fly to Jerusalem. I never expected to see Richard Nixon go to China. There are events that occur that are unexpected. Rep. DORNAN: Do you think they'll open the prisons, Chris? Sen. DODD: Well, I don't know whether or not you're going to get the specifics. I would say to my good friend Bob. That's something they're going to have to move on in the next 90 days. But again I think if we're sitting down and trying to have a Bob Dornan or Chris Dodd agenda for Nicaragua, well then I think we're asking for too much. WOODRUFF: What if they don't, just quickly, what happens? Is it the scenario that President Arias described that the condemnation of other nations will come down on Nicaragua? Sen. DODD: I think so. I think for all of them. I think this is one of the attractive features of a region agreement. And one of the reasons I argued against a bilateral agreement, because I think it's far more difficult for countries to violate an agreement with each other -- in this case Nicaragua with, say, Costa Rica or El Salvador, Honduras -- than it would be for them to violate an agreement with the United States, given the outcry that's apt to occur both in Latin American and Europe and elsewhere. So the pressure there I think is significant. Rep. DORNAN: Well, one more sticking point. Resupplying. Will the Nicaraguan Sandinista Communists resupply the Farabundo Marti with food? Just food and medical supplies -- and will we be allowed to airdrop -- WOODRUFF: (unintelligible) rebels in El Salvador -- Rep. DORNAN: -- in El Salvador. And will we be allowed to airdrop -- will Sen. Dodd, as Chairman of Western Hemisphere Committee -- Subcommittee -- go along with resupplying the contras during this 60 or 90 day -- as a matter of fact, we only have 52 days left on the Reagan Wright plan. WOODRUFF: Well, the plan calls for a cutoff of aid to the contras. Rep. DORNAN: Well, are we gonna leave them in rags and tatters to straggle out of Nicaragua. It sometimes takes 30, 40 days to get there. Sen. DODD: I'd answer Bob this way. I think first of all that you've got to watch what happen with the democratization program. If in fact there's an amnesty program, and the contras are invited to come back, participate freely in a political process with theirelections -- there are the media outlets, too. It seems to me the justification as articulated at least publicly by the contras, for the reason for civil war has been eliminated. And so if that occurs, the necessity to continue to fund them, ad infinitum in the future, is eliminated. Rep. DORNAN: Duarte has always called for amnesty for the kidnappers of his daughter. And the murders of our four marines at Chile's Cafe in San Salvador. But if you listen to this stooge Bandana, when he goes on these shows -- WOODRUFF: This is an official of the Sandinista government -- Rep. DORNAN: Right, but he's the mouthpiece using all the cliches like Posner does for the Soviet Union -- he talks about the contras as clowns, fools, thugs, rapists -- how they gonna give them amnesty? WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you quickly about the contras. On its face, the plan calls for cutting off aid to the contras by the United States. You don't have a problem with that. You called the plan excellent. Rep. DORNAN: Military aid. WOODRUFF: Is there some of your conservative colleagues -- we should go ahead and approve aid to the contras now, and use that as a threat? Rep. DORNAN: I think the man third in line to the White House, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Jim Wright, I believe he will approve humanitarian aid on October l, just to keep them from starving to death in the bush in Nicaragua. And I would say the Nicaraguans ought to drop food, or get food -- smuggle it up to the Farabundo Marti guerillas so they don't starve to death in El Salvador. WOODRUFF: Sen. Dodd, in a word, should we all look for this to work, or should we reserve judgment? Sen. DODD: I think you should look for it to work. I think with that kind of support and backing, we increase the likelihood of it working dramatically. WOODRUFF: All right. Rep. DORNAN: I hope the Sandinistas are slain in the spirit. Infused with the holy spirit and opt for peace. I don't expect it to happen, but if it did, I truly would be pleased, and so would my hero, Ronald Reagan. WOODRUFF: All right, Congressman Dornan, we thank you. Senator Dodd, we thank you both for being with us. Pursuing Justice WOODRUFF: Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel in the Iran contra affair yesterday delivered his first public remarks since the end of the congressional hearings. The occasion was the American Bar Association's annual conference in San Francisco. Walsh, who had been careful not to read any news accounts of the hearings in order to safeguard his own investigation, related to his legal colleagues some humorous incidents caused by this news blackout.

LAWRENCE WALSH, Independent Counsel: Anyone who has investigated an area long enough can forecast to a large extent what's going to happen when a person testifies. There are relatively few options open. What sometimes is hard to forecast is the impact of testimony upon a public. And, of course, North was immunized, and we ignored his testimony. But these series of events happened. My daughter Sara, who is a lawyer, called me and said, ''Gee, until now I'd never realized how difficult your job was. '' Sara, thanks very much. I never thought it was easy, and then I went away (laughter). Then I got home and went out for a walk and a lady stopped her car and rolled down her window. She said, ''I think of you every day, you're having such a run of bad luck'' (laughter). This really began to perplex me. And I -- but it's still remarkable how well known it is that we're not looking at this -- because not one person has attempted to talk to me about it -- and I think this is equally true of my staff. Well, the third thing happened -- Mary went to Dallas, and I call her every night. And she said, ''I don't know whether I ought to tell you this, but a friend of mine came in and said that the lady in the hairdressing booth next to hers asked for a Betsy North hairstyle. '' (laughter). WOODRUFF: But putting jokes aside, Judge Walsh went on to stress the importance of the rule of law to his investigation.

Judge WALSH: The rule of law makes clear that no person is to be treated differently from any other because of high office, because of popular policies, because of well intended policies. And that truth among the branches of government is a matter of fundamental importance which never becomes diminished in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of the preservation of the law, that misleading or deceit or obstruction are not to be treated, ever, casually. Further, a fair observance of the standards which I refer, make clear that popularity is in no sense a proper factor for consideration any more than unpopularity would be. That the question that the rule of law contemplates a system in which each participant does his duty and puts forward the results of his work for the consideration of others. No one person in this marvelous system has a controlling voice. If each does his job, it will work out all right. If anyone pulls back, or hesitates, that will not be true. The system will be frustrated. So that as far as our office is concerned, the controlling policy will be a fair and careful review of the facts, the question of whether probable cause is established as to a significant crime and then appropriate action. The great merit of this system is that if it proceeds in this fashion. The courts, the judges and the jury are given a full opportunity to make decisions as to guilt or innocence, which otherwise would be denied. I might say that we have moved a long distance in our work. The Grand Jury's been sitting since January, two or three days a week, and there have been well over a thousand witness interviews outside the grand jury. There have been certain external matters which have caused us problems from time to time. External threat to the outcome, the fair outcome, of the investigation has come from the concurrent activities of the Select Committees of the House and Senate investigating the same area. Now they -- when I say threat, it's too strong a word. They have an extraordinarily important function to perform. And it's just inescapable. There's no way that we can avoid getting in each other's way to some extent. A longer moving investigation, such as the office of Independent Counsel, can develop facts from more peripheral sources, and work toward the center. But Congress can't do that. They have to move quickly, and they have to move for the center very quickly. And to do that, they have granted immunity to certain persons who are active in our area of investigation -- who were active in our area of investigation. This judgment is an important political judgment they must make. It is not a judgment for lawyers or for courts. It's a judgment entrusted under the law to political figures who day in and day out exercise the options available to our country in the best interest of the country. And they have decided in certain cases -- they've given us extended consideration and most courteous treatment -- but they have decided in certain cases it's important to the country and to the Congress that certain testimony be produced and immunized. Now that produces a serious problem for a prosecutor, and for our office. If there is no really serious exposure to the testimony, it's our belief that this kind of inevitable imperfection which must come in any attempt to shield ourselves from that testimony, will not be enough to defeat the prosecution. Never-ending Debate LEHRER: Finally tonight, some words from our Washington essayist, Roger Mudd, about presidential debates.

ROGER MUDD: American political wisdom has always held that it's best for an incumbent to avoid debate. Richard Nixon, who would debate neither Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern, once said, ''Never debate down. Always debate up. '' But in 1984, Ronald Reagan, the incumbent President, overturned that old tradition by agreeing to a series of three debates with Walter Mondale. He didn't have to. He was the heavy favorite. He would be giving Mondale status and publicity. He would be on the defensive, and he had nothing to gain. Indeed, the first debate with Mondale almost backfired. But Mr. Reagan, with the help of Mrs. Reagan, finally got his act together. And as a result, the quadrennial presidential debates are virtually locked in to America's political process. [film clip from Nixon/Kennedy debate]

MUDD: The transformation has taken 28 years. Since 1960, when the four debates between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy demonstrated, much to Nixon's dismay, that there was more to debating on television than just talking issues. Not for another 16 years -- 1976 -- did a presidential candidate -- it was the semi incumbent, Gerald Ford -- feel that he had to run the risk of a debate. During his second face off with Jimmy Carter, Mr. Ford stumbled. GERALD FORD, former President: There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.

MUDD: But every debate carries a risk, whether a slip of the tongue, lack of ease, an unfortunate mannerism, or the danger of being deflated by an opponent's one liner. Now comes the 1988 campaign for a White House without an incumbent, and with it comes an explosion not only in the number of candidates, but also in the number of debates. The season opened on July 1 in (unintelligible), with William Buckley's Firing Line on PBS. And the debate's usually one on one arrangement have continued through the summer. NBC and ABC will televise their debates in early December. But between January and early March, which is the heavy primary season, there will be a debate an average of once every 3 1/2 days. So furious will be the pace, that the Democratic candidates, for instance, scheduled to debate on a Friday night in Atlanta, must debate the very next night in Durham, New Hampshire. In addition, the two national political parties have announced four head to head debates during the fall campaign, hoping to supplant the League of Women Voters as the country's preeminent debate sponsor. But the League refuses to back down, and says it will put on four head to head debates of its own this fall. That makes a grand total of the entire 1988 campaign of 36 debates. Could it be that 36 debates, almost all of which will be televised nationally, will cause voter regurgitation? Probably yes. Will the candidates themselves be so exhausted by such a schedule that they will wind up debating by rote? Probably yes. Will the debates, despite the lofty (unintelligible) of the sponsors, really reveal more about issues and less about images? Probably no. But whatever its shortcomings, whatever its imperfections, TV debates do give the voting viewer a rare chance to see the candidates in condition they do not control. TV debates have now become the only available antidote to that other fixture in the American political process, which is the prepackaged, media smooth poll driven campaign. WOODRUFF: A final look at the major stories this Monday. An American operated tanker hit a mine just outside the Persian Gulf. The Chairman of the House Arms Services Committee said Iran was also vulnerable to Gulf mines, and suggested the U. S. should consider placing them in Iran shipping lanes. President Reagan nominated Ohio industrialist William Verity to be Secretary of Commerce. And on the NewsHour President Arias of Costa Rica said he is skeptical of Nicaragua's ability to democratize. But he said he believes the Sandinistas should be given a chance to try. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Judy. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.