The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, President Reagan described John Poindexter as an honorable man trying to protect the President. New problems were raised on a European missile agreement. And the House of Representatives began debate on a new trade bill. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After tonight's news summary, here's the News Hour lineup. We begin with the U. S. --Japanese square off on trade. Then Jerry Falwell talks about a possible holy war and other developments in the continuing PTL scandal. And finally, a year after Chernobyl, we have a documentary on safety questions about America's Chernobyl type nuclear reactor News Summary HUNTER-GAULT: President Reagan today called John Poindexter an honorable man, and speculated that he didn't tell him about money being funneled to the Nicaraguan rebels because ''He thought he was being in some way protective of me. '' In an interview with six newspaper correspondents, the President also said he was not worried that Poindexter, his former National Security Advisor, would claim that Reagan knew about the diversion of funds from Iran arms sales to the so called contras. He said, ''I was not informed. '' Meanwhile, the Independent Counsel in the Iran contra affair, Lawrence Walsh, urged the Select Investigating Committees not to grant immunity to any more figures in the case.

LAWRENCE WALSH, Independent Counsel: Our desires are -- that immunity not be given unless there's an assurance of truth in return. And second, that in giving it, the witness be evaluated as to whether he is a principal figure in a possible act of wrongdoing. And third, whether there's any person who is less culpable who might give the same information to the committee. HUNTER-GAULT: Walsh also said large sums of Iran contra money remained unaccounted for. He reiterated the scope of the investigation as including possible violations of law by past and present high government officials. Jim? LEHRER: The Soviets raised questions today about eliminating all medium range missiles in Europe. A Soviet negotiator at the Geneva arms talks also raised a new issue -- that of eliminating nuclear warheads on shorter range Pershing missiles in West Germany, which the United States says are not an issue in Geneva. At a news conference, the Soviet negotiator criticized the U. S. approach to the talks.

UNIDENTIFIED SOVIET NEGOTIATOR: Naturally, we are aware that we are facing difficult work, given the American approach as we now [unintelligible] at present, which contains a number of basically unconstructed elements. LEHRER: In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the new Soviet demand for dismantling West German missiles showed an apparent lack of serious intent. He said the Soviets had not raised the issue in previous negotiations. Also today, a House Subcommittee voted to subpoena State Department files on security at the U. S. Embassy in Moscow. Chairman Dan Mica, Democrat of Florida, said he was shocked and chagrined over the department's failure to turn over the documents voluntarily. State Department spokesman Charles Redman said he knew of no basis for Mica's statement. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Carolina today, the reconstituted board of the troubled PTL Ministry determined that the Reverend Jim Bakker will no longer be paid from PTL. At the same time, the board also accepted the resignation of the Reverend Richard Dortch as the Television Ministry's President. Dortch arranged the hush money payment to Jessica Hahn, the church secretary who had a sexual relationship with Bakker in 1980. The recent disclosure of the encounter led to Bakker's current troubles with PTL. During a news conference today, the Reverend Jerry Falwell said he would stay on as PTL chairman, but acknowledged that he was concerned about PTL's future.

Rev. JERRY FALWELL, PTL: I would be lying to you if I said that the members of this board are not concerned about the future of this ministry. But every one of us believes in a miracle working God. Every one of us believes in the power of prayer. Every one of us is committed to the future health and stability of this ministry. All of us have gone through those periods when we wondered shall we continue. I acknowledged to this board this morning in my first statement that I've spent the last week in personal heart searching and prayer. HUNTER-GAULT: Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service reportedly wants to revoke PTL's tax exempt status for the years 1981 to '83 because ''a substantial portion of its earnings went to Bakker. '' According to the Charlotte Observer, that portion was almost $1 million. LEHRER: The developing struggle between the United States and Japan over trade developed some more today. Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone flies to the United States tomorrow for talks later in the week with President Reagan. He comes as the House begins debate on a tough new trade bill that would impose strong penalties against countries like Japan with a trade surplus with the United States. Congressional Republican leaders met at the White House with President Reagan on the issue today. House Minority Leader Robert Michel said afterwards he thought it was too early to remove the semiconductor sanctions imposed on Japan only two weeks ago.

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, Minority Leader: I don't want to in any way give any indication that the members that we're representing up there on the Hill on both sides of the aisle, frankly, have some strong feelings about the incapacity of us -- of our country and our companies -- to compete on an equal basis within Japan itself. REPORTER: So you wouldn't want to see those lifted too quickly? Rep. MICHEL: No, of course not. Because then that indicates in my judgment that we haven't been all that strong as we're trying to indicate by this move. HUNTER-GAULT: The State Department said today that Austrian President Kurt Waldheim could be eligible to visit the United States, even though he has been barred from receiving a visa through normal channels. A spokesman said Waldheim could receive what is called an A l visa under a separate authority of the President or the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, in Austria Waldheim said in a televised speech that there could be no proof of wrongdoing, and demanded the right not to be accused in the absence of evidence. LEHRER: Back in this country, another prominent political figure almost announced for President today. He is former Republican Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada. He told a Washington news conference he will definitely run in 1988 if he can raise the money. Laxalt is a longtime personal and political friend of President Reagan and he said he was considering running in order to finish the work of the Reagan agenda. Today's announcement was of the formation of an exploratory committee. The U. S. Supreme Court today approved labeling three Canadian films as political propaganda. The films were about acid rain and nuclear war. The U. S. Justice Department put the political propaganda label on them when they came into the United States for distribution in 1983. Such designation is permitted under a law passed in World War II. The High Court in a 5 to 3 vote disagreed with those who challenged that law's constitutionality. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Africa today, a Supreme Court Justice threw out emergency regulations prohibiting protests and appeal on behalf of people being detained without charge. It was the second major legal blow in five days for the government's state of emergency restrictions on news reporting and opposition activity. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the News Hour, a U. S. --Japanese square off on trade, Jerry Falwell on the embattled PTL, and safety questions over the U. S. 's Chernobyl type reactor. Trade Trauma LEHRER: The war with Japan is first tonight. Not the one that ended 40 years ago, but the new one over trade. Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone will be in Washington tomorrow to try and end it. But peace will not come easily. The United States had imposed stiff tariffs sanctions against several Japanese products coming into the U. S. in retaliation for what Washington charges were unfair trade practices by the Japanese in the semiconductor industry. In Congress there are even stronger legislative actions on the horizon, all because of the trade deficit -- The fact that Japan exports nearly $60 billion more in products to the United States than it imports in U. S. products. Earlier today we taped a discussion via satellite between Tokyo and Washington that demonstrates clearly why peace will not come easily. In Japan, where Koichi Kato, a member of the Japanese Parliament and former Minister in the Defense Agency, and Masaya Miyoshi, a businessman and senior managing director of the Federation of Economic Organizations, a group made up of major Japanese corporations. In Washington, Congressman Richard Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, and a candidate for the 1988 Presidential nomination, and leader of the House effort to pass tough new trade legislation. And Senator John Danforth, Republican, also of Missouri, who is sponsoring similar legislation in the Senate. Our discussion was a joint project with NHK, the Public Television Network in Japan. I shared the hosting and interviewing chores with Taro Kimura, anchorman at NHK's nightly news program. TARO KIMURA, NHK Network: Here in Tokyo, we are really keen to know what's the circumstance in Washington. Congress Gephardt, do you see a trade war between the United States and Japan? If so, are the Japanese fighting back to the United States as well? Rep. RICHARD GEPHARDT, (D) Missouri: I don't see a trade war in the offing. I think that we can settle and work out our problems. I think the question for America is are we going to send a very clear message not only to Japan, but to all countries that we want barriers dropped, we want unfair practices stopped, and we want to be able to compete on an equal basis in your markets. And I believe that with that message being sent that we can negotiate and work out the problems between us and keep strong and stable the alliance between our countries, which has been so present and important since the last four years. KIMURA: Senator Danforth, the bill you have sponsored, in which Japan was characterized as a ''country performing adversarial trade practice. '' Are we hostile to you? Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: Well, I think that your trade policies are ones that are totally unacceptable in the United States. A $60 billion trade deficit -- close to $60 billion -- with one country is something that we are just not going to put up with. We have a very long list of grievances with Japan. We have found it impossible to do business with Japan, unless it's a product that you don't produce yourself -- certainly value added products that you produce shut out American competition, and competition from the rest of the world. We feel that Japan has not been a responsible partner in the world economic community. And there is absolutely no doubt that there is a strong mood in Congress to change this situation. Congressman Gephardt and I have slightly different views about exactly how to do it. But we would certainly agree that the present situation cannot continue and that the United States is going to have to be in a position of retaliating against unfair trade practices, just as we did in the case of the semiconductor matter. LEHRER: Mr. Kato, Senator Danforth says that Japan has not been a responsible trade partner with the United States. Do you disagree with that? KOICHI KATO, Member, Japanese Parliament: I disagree with it, because Japan is very good partner for the United States and its economy. And so we are doing everything to rectify the present trade surplus. We think the present surplus is not acceptable for [unintelligible] relations or for U. S. economy -- world economy. And the [unintelligible] will help. Besides that, we have been responding to various U. S. specific demands. Tariff reductions, and elimination of the non tariff barriers. And besides that, we have put lots of voluntary export restraints on textile a long time ago, and then of steel, automobile, television and quite recently semiconductor. We have done lots of things. But the point is, American competitiveness and its effort to make sales in Japanese market. LEHRER: What you're saying -- that there are no barriers to that? That the Japanese government and Japanese industry have not put barriers to American products to be sold in Japan? Mr. KATO: Well, there is -- maybe in any country there is certain barriers. But I don't think the Japanese barrier is so substantial one. And if you raise certain barrier complaints, we have been responding to rectify it. But the point is, the more we make effort to rectify it, and eliminate barrier, the more the trade imbalance with the United States increases. LEHRER: Now why is that? Mr. KATO: American competitiveness and productivity, frankly speaking. LEHRER: In other words, Japanese products are just superior to American products? Mr. KATO: I think so. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Miyoshi, that that's really the problem there, and it's not Japanese responsibility at all in terms of trade barriers and unfair trade practices? MASAYA MYOSHI, Japanese Business Representative: I would say Japanese market is very often -- I may here introduce often repeated stereotype expression regarding the openness of the Japanese market: Japanese market is not so closed as is widely believed by American policymakers or American people at large. However, at the same time I may be able to say that Japanese market is not so open as often [unintelligible] by us ourselves, the Japanese. The Japanese market is fairly open, but different market, and as such it may be a difficult market. And a difficult market is not a closed market. I would say it's open. Surely, we have had many success stories, hundreds and hundreds of success stories of American corporations penetrating the Japanese market. I'm afraid I cannot list them -- no time for doing that, the list is so long. LEHRER: But Senator Danforth says that it is impossible for American companies to do business in Japan if they are in the same business as the Japanese manufacturer. In other words, you can sell products -- Americans can sell American products in Japan if there's no Japanese manufacturer that good, but if there's a Japanese manufacturer, no way. Is he wrong? Mr. MYOSHI: He is totally wrong. We have very keen competition in the Japanese market. We have -- is there any other country where ten manufacturers are producing passenger cars? I would like to ask this question to Senator Danforth? Is there any other country where 200, 300 manufacturers are producing robotics, high technology items, and they're competing. Competition among Japanese manufacturers is so keen. So this may be making it difficult for foreign manufacturers or exporters to come into the market. The market is open, surely. As I said earlier, we have many success stories, competing with manufacturers producing same products. LEHRER: Mr. Kato, is it your position that there is absolutely no justification for the legislation that Congressman Gephardt and slightly different legislation that Senator Danforth are suggesting and pushing in the U. S. Congress? Mr. KATO: I don't think too much justification for Mr. Gephardt's amendment, because it sounds very protectionistic. And the treadmill itself is -- I think it's very good. It helps to create more competitiveness in American economy. It's good. But the Gephardt amendment, we cannot [unintelligible] on it. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have serious differences of opinions here. Bringing in Senator Danforth and Congressman to you to respond to you two gentlemen in Tokyo. First, Senator, what about his question -- he had a question specifically for you about robotics and car manufacturers -- Sen. DANFORTH: Well, I think it's fine as far as Japan is concerned that there is competition within Japan. But that doesn't mean that their market is open to what other countries produce. We have found that even where we have clearly superior products, we cannot get into the Japanese market. LEHRER: Give me an example. Sen. DANFORTH: One example that's made in -- well, where we live, St. Louis -- is silicone that's made by Monsanto Company. They have done everything they have been told by the Japanese, they've formed a joint venture with the Japanese, they've even put up a finishing plant in Japan, which they didn't want to do but they felt that they had to do it. Their share of the Japanese market is 3%. It's gone up from 2. 4% to 3% after Herculean effort. Another problem that is about to face us has to do with the FXS, an airplane, attack fighters which are made in the United States. They're made in Missouri, they're made in Texas. They're the best in the world. Japan doesn't have any such product. We believe that Japan is about to make its own. Why doesn't it buy it from us? There is a long list of horror stories with Japan, and we could go on and on reciting them. LEHRER: Mr. Myoshi, do you want him to go on reciting his list, or would you agree with any ofhis points? Mr. MYOSHI: If only we had time, I would be able to refute and counter the criticisms presented by Senator Danforth. But I'm afraid we don't have time enough. Rebutting to this [unintelligible], I think if gradually it's selling in this expanding market over here to my knowledge. So market is not closed. I think American export manufacturers, they have to exert additional efforts in penetrating the Japanese market. They have to establish closer contacts with customers, and they have to undertake thorough after sales service, and they have to maintain quality, and they have to assure steady supply, etc. There are other conditions which I do not enumerate at this time, but those are conditions applied to Japanese competitors (in the) same way. LEHRER: Congressman Gephardt, what about that argument -- it's the products and competitiveness that's hurting the U. S. trade surplus, not Japan's actions? Rep. GEPHARDT: In many cases, that is the case. I would not deny that we've got some problems being competitive in our country, and we need to face those. This is the point. The first step to getting America to be competitive is for our government to be able to look American workers and managers in the eye and say, ''You've got a level playing field to go and compete on. '' We can't say that today. And until we can say that -- until the Japanese government and the Japanese private sector can open up that market so that we can in good faith say that to American businesses, we're not going to get the kind of effort that we need to have in our own country. And so we're asking for the dropping of the barrier. We're asking ''stop the unfair trade practices. '' If they will, then we will have a free and fair and open competition. LEHRER: But Congressman, Mr. Myoshi and Mr. Kato are sitting there saying to you, ''There are no unfair trade barriers, there are no unfair trade practices. '' Rep GEPHARDT: I appreciate their statement. I think they're wrong. And what I hope we'll do is have some very tough negotiations about how to get that market open. One of the points that was made that Senator Danforth made was that Monsanto's been in the Japanese market for years in chemicals and fertilizers. This is one of the first times they've had a problem. They had to take on a Japanese partner to even get their foot in the door, and they're still having problems. The Japanese companies don't have to go through that kind of experience coming to America. LEHRER: Now, Mr. Kato, is that what you would call a tough market, or would you call that an unfair way to do business? Mr. KATO: Well, I think Japanese market is not as tough market as you persist. And we can guarantee the market opportunity, but we cannot guarantee sales. Whether you can sell your products in Japan or not is -- completely depends on your sales effort in this market. And as for the FXS, I think in any country, the government decides their defense weapons based on their own defense interest. And in our case, we decided on the defense interest and also with our defense cooperation with the United States. And this is quite a different story. And besides that, you say that Japanese market is closed, but a couple of years ago we repeat, you said open market in Japan is quite closed. But in recent years, the German cars are flooding into Japanese market in a very substantial quantity. So the point is Japanese market is open. But the point is whether it is American company is doing well in their effort to make sales in this country. LEHRER: Mr. Kimura? KIMURA: Mr. Nakasone is visiting Washington, and Senator Danforth, what can Prime Minister Nakasone do to ease all the pressure from the United States? Sen. DANFORTH: What we want is action, and we want measurable action and we want sales. I have to say that the comments that have been made by the other two guests on this program are absolutely typical of what we've heard for years. It said, ''Oh, there's no problem. The problem is the United States isn't competitive. '' We're told that on television, we're told that by certain Japanese officials. And yet, American engineers tried to participate in the construction of the Kansai Airport, an $8 billion project. We're told, ''Well, the soil is dissimilar in Japan. '' We tried to sell skis -- we're told that the snow is a little different in Japan. The question about the attack fighters -- it is said it is in Japan's defense interests to build their own. How can that possibly be when it costs 2 l/2 times more money to build their own than to buy one made in the United States? How about our beef, is that inferior to what's raised in Japan? Or citrus? Is that inferior to what's raised in Japan? We hear all of these protests that the Japanese market is open, and that the problem is an American problem. With some products that's true. But even where our products are absolutely the best in the world, we cannot do business with Japan. That's not just the United States complaining. The rest of the world feels the same way that we do. We feel that Japan has been a sponge on the world economy and that it's time to stop. And Congress is going to act, and we're not going to be moved by any verbal assurances by Prime Minister Nakasone or anybody else. KIMURA: Actually, Prime Minister Nakasone is bringing with him in his attache case, a five trillion yen domestic consumption plan. Are you saying it won't work in Washington? Sen. DANFORTH: I'm saying that we have received plans -- I would like to count up the number of plans we've been told about in the past. And they've amounted to nothing. And the time has come for action, and the time has come for real sales. We really don't -- my view, and I think Congressman Gephardt and I do have different opinions on how to handle the situation -- but my view is what we want is reciprocity -- that Japan holds the key to the American market -- that Japan is free to trade in the United States, provided that we are free to trade in Japan. And that is not the case today, and it must be the case if we are to continue to do business. KIMURA: Mr. Kato? Mr. KATO: Yes, Mr. Danforth -- Senator Danforth -- I think [unintelligible] Japan vision in economic field is very important and so interdependent. So I say that I agree that present surplus, trade surplus, is not healthy for U. S. Japan relations. So we are ready to cooperate with you, to rectify it. But even though we eliminate all the barriers, it has not improved too much the present imbalance. So the point is in your case competitiveness, and also in your case reducing your government financial deficit. In our case is to stimulate our domestic economy. So let's fight together to eliminate this kind of problems between the two countries. Because our two countries are so importantly connected. Sen. DANFORTH: We have a slogan in our state, ''Show me. '' And I think that that's what Congressman Gephardt and I are saying to you. Show us. KIMURA: Mr. Myoshi has something to say. Mr. MYOSHI: Senator Danforth and Congressman Gephardt, you've been telling us thatyou cannot wait any more. Please wait a little more. Because the signs are just showing up that this imbalance is going to be reduced. In terms of yen, our currency, not in your currency, dollars, but in our currency, yen. Definitely our exports to the United States are declining. And if not imports from United States expanding very much, but I think a number of financial institutions, including some investment banks of your country, New York Wall Street, they are projecting that Japanese global current account will register decline -- 223, $20 to $30 billion this year. And this would imply that bilateral trade imbalance and current accounting balance between the United States and Japan will accordingly register equally -- I mean proportionately -- declines. So please believe your country people -- I mean, expression of your financial circles. Rep. GEPHARDT: Under the Gephardt Amendment, even if it passes, and even if it becomes the law of the United States, there's a year and a half period for negotiation between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan to work out these problems. But it requires accountability. It requires reaching the goal. So what Senator Danforth said is exactly correct. We're going to give time -- over a year and a half, even if my amendment becomes law. But we need action. We need to be shown that there's more here than mere words. KIMURA: Congressman Gephardt, supposing that Japan fulfills her responsibility -- namely giving a chance in airport building, or selling more farm goods, or whatever it is. What will U. S. do in return? Rep GEPHARDT: Well, we believe that that kind of access to the Japanese market is the kind of access that Japan has had to our market for years. We're just asking for a two way street. If we get a two way street, then I think we have a greater capability in our own country to solve our own problems in being competitive and strong enough. Clearly that's the major part of our problem -- we need to attend to those challenges if we see an equal marketplace, a two way street, then I think America can increase its competitiveness in the years ahead. KIMURA: Mr. Lehrer? LEHRER: Well, thank you Mr. Kimura, Mr. Myoshi, Mr. Kato in Tokyo. Congressman Gephardt, Senator Danforth here in Washington. And that ends our special segment. PTL HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus is on the continuing saga of television evangelists. It was just over a month ago that the Reverent Jerry Falwell took over the reigns of the PTL Ministry from Jim and Tammy Bakker. But the scandal provoked by Bakker's sexual relationship with his church secretary has continued to grow. Within the past few days, the Reverend John Ankerberg, another TV evangelist, charged that Bakker had hired prostitutes, engaged in homosexual activity, and mismanaged the funds of his television ministry. Bakker has denied the charges. Instead, there are reports that he is threatening a holy war if he is barred from returning to his ministry. Here to discuss all of the above from Lynchburg is the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Reverend Falwell, is the holy war on? Rev. JERRY FALWELL, PTL: No. There's no such thing as a holy war. Someone asked me that today at the press conference. In order to have a war, you must have two hostile combatants. As far as Jerry Falwell's concerned, I have nothing but love, concern and compassion for those who would consider themselves our opponents. And there'll never be a war emanating from our camp. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is Jim Bakker effectively dead? Rev. FALWELL: No. I think he is especially loved of God, as is Tammy Faye, his wife. I have deep compassion for them. I cannot, I'm sure, comprehend what they're going through right now, having not gone through that. But as far as leadership and heading up that mammoth ministry in Charlotte, if it were Jerry Falwell in moral default in Lynchburg, I think that 22,000 members of this church find themselves a new pastor. It's just a matter of leadership. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there any possibility that he could ever come back? Rev. FALWELL: Well, ever's a long time. And only God can answer that question. I certainly am not pretending to play the part of the Lord on that. At this present moment, there's no question in my mind -- and this is unanimous with the board -- that cannot, that must not happen. HUNTER-GAULT: The Reverend Dortch -- it's been reported that today's meeting was a showdown between you and him. Now, was he fired, or did he step down? Rev. FALLWELL: Well, there's never been a showdown. I had a very warm relationship with Reverend Dortch. And I wish him well, and my prayers go with him. Everyone on the board concurs with that statement. HUNTER-GAULT: Why was it so important that he not be around any more? Rev. FALLWELL: We did ask him to step down and from the board and from his position of leadership there. Because right now, we're facing many, many new problems. Not just fiscal, but management problems, and we don't really know where we are. We're committed. We have a loyalty to everyone, but particularly to the investors, the lifetime partners, the creditors, everyone there, to seeing to it that that ministry remains a viable one. So we felt a clean slate, beginning with new leadership, was a healthy thing for the ministry, and that is what we have done. HUNTER-GAULT: I want to talk to you about the finances in a minute. But let me just ask you this about the new charges leveled against Bakker involving prostitution and homosexuality. I mean, have you seen any evidence that those charges are in any way substantial -- have any credibility? Rev. FALLWELL: Our board today met, and Genera Counsel brought before us allegations, some for the first time, we're hearing second hand the information, some, like myself, had been in meetings where Reverend Ankerberg and others had graciously brought to us those persons who made allegations. But the board decided in consensus that until each of the board members has first hand knowledge and has talked with those making the accusations, and until we've given opportunity for those accusers and Reverend Bakker to be together, it would be less than Christian to talk about it publicly. And so that is our position. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you plan -- whatever the outcome of your investigation -- do you plan to make it public? Rev. FALLWELL: We don't know that that's our role at all. We very frankly are committed to hopefully some creative and positive planning and working at Heritage Village. And our goal is to guarantee the stability of that ministry. I'm optimistic now that we can make the turn. We have a long way to go. You know, President Reagan has proclaimed May 7 as a national day of prayer. And Dr. Bill Bright and I have been designated as national co chairmen. We're calling for a national day of fasting, prayer and repentance -- that this terrible, terrible blight that we've had for about 6 weeks might in fact be turned around and become the seeding ground for revival of spiritual awakening in America. HUNTER-GAULT:I said I would get back to the question of financial charges. There are reports today in the Charlotte Observer that Bakker drew close to a million dollars more than he should have from PTL. Do you have any comment on that? Rev. JERRY FALWELL , PTL: Well, our executive committee was charged today, along with the auditors and the new chief operations officer, Harry Hargrave, to find out all those things, and within two weeks, we promised the press conference that we would try to have that information -- all of it -- together so that we can give a definitive answer. Yes, we will make it public, but we don't have all that in hand at this time. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that the first you had heard about it when it was published in the newspaper today? Rev. FALWELL: No. Our audit committee and executive committee both have been reporting to the full board that there were some concerns and some irregularities. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the reports that the IRS wants to revoke PTL's tax exempt status because of this fund diversion? Rev. FALWELL: I'm not sure they want to revoke the tax exemption, but I'm sure they will unless the new board moves quickly to correct all the inequities and to meet any and all demands made by them. We are to be in submission to the powers that be. And in recent years at PTL we have not been, obviously. And the new board has the charge to real quickly make Uncle Sam happy and do whatever is necessary and possible to heal that breach. HUNTER-GAULT: If the tax exempt status is revoked, what does that mean for PTL? Is that the end of it? Rev. FALWELL: Probably. Yes, probably. HUNTER-GAULT: If you had known what you know now before you undertook this role of taking over from Bakker, would you have gotten involved in it? Rev. FALWELL: You know, through my 35 years as a Christian, I've tried to follow the Lord's leading, and many times important things in my life have not been known to me in advance. I think you're right. If we could know the end from the beginning, we'd probably not turn down any of those roads that have been a little tough, but important. This is a tough road. I have over the last weekend contemplated, even publicly talked about, resigning. It's been tough for all the ministries. We have lost about $2 million in anticipated revenues in the last five weeks. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you calculate that? Rev. FALWELL: Well, we know what our average income is. We haven't gotten a lot of bad mail -- people saying, ''we're mad at you. '' Just they haven't written. They've been very silent. And I think that nationally -- most of the ministers nationally have told me -- even pastors of large churches now telling me -- that there is a softness there. There is a lack of credibility. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has taken a broadside, and that's why I think the May 7 National Day of Prayer and Repentance is so important. HUNTER-GAULT: What about this credibility crisis? How do you think you can overcome that? Do you expect new revelations to come out? You've discussed this whole business in the board today -- the allegations of the homosexuality, etc. Are you expecting other things, and how are you going to meet that? Rev. FALWELL: I certainly hope not. But our main concern right now is not the past or what may have happened. Our main concern right now is to take some positive and definitive and creative steps forward in the way of raising necessary funds, cutting unnecessary expenses, getting our house in order, meeting man's laws, the laws of the state and nation, and getting into pliance on every front so that we first -- PTL begins to mean ''Please the Lord. '' And I think if we please the Lord, that will provide our needs. And that's what our total board is committed to. HUNTER-GAULT: But on the matter of new -- of anything else coming out. It seems as if this scandal continues to ripple and reverberate. Do you think that the whole issue has been -- all of the issues have been put to rest, all of the charges that could be made have been made? Or is there likely to be more? Rev. FALWELL: Well, I don't know of any more. And I certainly hope we've seen an end of it. But basically, I think we've taken the broadside. I don't think we've -- I don't think we have any major, major, major thing to come down the way that I haven't -- I can't imagine what it would be. You know, most of the ministries, most of the radio and television ministries of this country -- and I've been on the air 31 years, I know most of the broadcasters -- are aboveboard, are above reproach, are sincere and Godly men, Godly ministries. And it is not new to have a default like this. It is just that this is the first time that I recall that a ministry of this magnitude has had a collapse. And it is not to be unexpected that it is a big, big international story. I think that like the Irangate, Watergate, Chappaquidick, all those stories -- they rise, they had their peak, they hurt, all the politicians are bad for a while -- right now all the preachers are bad for a while. But I think we're going to learn something from it. I think there's going to be an openness and a sense of accountability on the part of preachers, all of us. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you put this scandal in the category of those things you just mentioned? Rev. FALWELL: I do. I think it's just as serious, if not more so. I think when you damage the cause of Christ, I don't know what you can do more severe than that. HUNTER-GAULT: You said you hoped to begin raising money and restoring the ministry. What are you going to tell people that will restore their confidence so that they'll continue to give money -- or start giving again, those who stopped? Rev. FALWELL: Well, I'm going to tell them the truth. We're going to begin unfolding as our financials are available -- unfolding those facts, making financial statements available. We're going to begin doing some things -- for example, an open door policy with the press. That's new at PTL. I [unintelligible] some of the press about a month ago. We had about two or three hundred, four hundred today. And I almost had a heart attack. So they could come in, walk anywhere, take pictures anywhere. That's the policy. Always has been in Lynchburg. It's now that way down there. You know, many preachers who are very good, solid men, resent the potential of government regulation or media investigation, and they just in arrogance say, ''Nobody's gonna tell us what to do. '' That day is over. This is a day of information. It's a day of disclosure, a day of honesty and openness. And I think that those ministries that are willing to say, ''Here it is. Let it all hang out. '' Pastors tell what their salaries are -- leave nothing to the imagination. I think those who come forward will get the necessary credibility to go on. I don't think the media ministers are going off the air. But I think that those who refuse to commit to openness are in trouble. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think they can stand the scrutiny? The vast majority of them? Rev. FALWELL: I think the vast majoritycan. You know, we have 1600 members of the National Religious Broadcasters, of which I am member of the Board of Directors. Of those 1600, I haven't heard scandalous things about over four or five or six in all the years that I've been a member. So I'm very encouraged. HUNTER-GAULT: With Reverend Dortch gone, who's going to take his job? Especially the PTL job on camera? Has that been discussed? Rev. FALWELL: Yes, it has been. But we'll begin interviewing tomorrow, and auditioning tomorrow in a private way persons to fill that spot. I'm going to spend the next two or three days with some people from PTL talking to the PTLonians about what's happened. I'll be playing part of the press conference tomorrow, answering questions, and beginning a candid discussion with the family of supporters and asking for -- even pleading for -- their time, their indulgence, their continuous support. In my opinion -- I met with all 2000 staff members this afternoon. Several minutes they stood in an ovation. I promised them my total commitment. I introduced the new executive people who've just moved in there. I think that we have a team effort now, and I think the partners there will join with us. We're going to make it. HUNTER-GAULT: All right, Reverend Falwell, thank you very much for being with us. Sacrificing Safety? LEHRER: Finally tonight, an anniversary story. The Soviet nuclear accident at Chernobyl happened a year ago this week. It raised many general questions about nuclear power and safety in this country at the time, and since. Some of the most specific of those questions had to do with a nuclear reactor run by the U. S. Department of Energy at the Hanford Reservation in Eastern Washington State. It's called the End Reactor. We have a year later report from Lee Hochberg of Public Station KCTS, Seattle.

LEE HOCHBERG, KCTS, Seattle [voice over]: Even before Chernobyl, many experts considered the Hanford End Reactor in Washington State suspect. The government designed the reactor in the 1950s, put it on line in 1963, and was only supposed to operate it for 20 years. The Federal Government wants to run the outmoded plant today, not because it provides electricity, but because the fuel rods used to make electricity yield plutonium. And plutonium is needed to make nuclear warheads. The end reactor at Hanford is a key part of America's bomb building apparatus. The government became alarmed about safety at Hanford after Chernobyl. Hanford is the only American reactor with a graphite core like Chernobyl's. Last year, the Department of Energy named a commission of top nuclear engineers, headed by Louis Roddis, the former president of the New York utility, Con Edison. The commission's goal was to determine whether Chernobyl could happen here. The government was surprised at the finding. HAROLD LEWIS, Roddis Commission: My assessment is that we should shut it down permanently. That's what I wrote to the Secretary in October, and that's what I think.

HOCHBERG [voice over]: Two of the six members of the largely pro nuclear Roddis Commission said End Reactor is a hazard and should be shut down immediately. Dr. Harold Lewis, for two years a member of the President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee, is one of them. Mr. LEWIS: This is a reactor that without any serious question is less safe than the run of commercial reactors we have in this country. There are many reasons for that. One reason is that it's an old design. It was designed in the '50s, and is kind of one of a kind reactor. It was never meant to live more than 20 years.

HOCHBERG [voice over]: The panel as a whole said if the reactor were to be used, more than 80 equipment and procedural changes should be made. Repair workers in protective suits are making some of those changes today. The End Reactor is shut down right now for six months of repairs. [on camera] It's scheduled to go back on line July 7. The question is how safe will it be when it goes back on line.

WALLY RUFF, Hanford contractor: I'm convinced that we're as safe, or safer, than when the reactor was new. HOCHBERG [voice over]: The man in charge of preparing End Reactor for the July restart says that it will be ready. But the Roddis recommendations will not be complete if the workers return in July. Many changes will not even have been attempted. Contractor Wally Ruff says they're not needed. Mr. RUFF: You're talking about improvements that are involving accidents of a very low probability -- one in ten million years, one in a hundred million years type of cases. You just think it's a good idea, therefore you're going to do it. But it doesn't really significantly impact the safety to the environment or the population in general. HOCHBERG [voice over]: The Roddis members disagree with Ruff. They say the plant will open some crucial safety problems. For example, almost every commercial reactor -- like the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon -- is covered by a containment dome -- several feet of concrete and steel to prevent radiation from escaping in case of an accident. The reactor at Hanford has no containment dome. Mr. LEWIS: If Chernobyl had had a containment of the kind that we have around commercial reactors, it would have greatly limited the amount of radiation exposure to the Soviet public. It wouldn't have eliminated it probably, but would have cut it down. Three Mile Island -- the containment held when there was a lot of stuff inside that containment. It just never got out into the public. Mr. RUFF: That's not feasible to put a dome on. Therefore we're going to prove that confinement provides the same protective function as containment. HOCHBERG [voice over]: Hanford's confinement system, says the contractor, ensures that radiation from an accident will stay inside the plant -- clean, hot steam that might normally blow the top off a reactor would be released through these vents -- which would slam shut before any radioactive steam. But Dr. Lewis says that scenario is theoretical at best. Mr. LEWIS: It's never been tested, and one doesn't know whether it would work. Even if it did work, it's simply not the same as being able to contain 50 or 60 pounds per square inch of radioactive steam inside the situation with nothing getting out. HOCHBERG [voice over]: Another major problem -- a hydrogen explosion at the Chernobyl plant helped make the incident there the worst nuclear accident in history. The Roddis panel says End Reactor is more susceptible to a hydrogen explosion than any commercial American reactor. The contractor Wally Ruff said safeguards will be installed. Mr. RUFF: What we're doing right now is installing hydrogen monitors, the same design as commercial plants use -- and we're putting in a hydrogen mitigation system. HOCHBERG [voice over]: But that system, and many others, won't be in place when End Reactor's scheduled to go back on line next July. [on camera] (to Mr. Ruff) Why not wait until the improvements are 100% done? Mr. RUFF: You're making the assumption that it's unsafe. It's not unsafe. You can always improve or lower risk a little more. But we're a hell of a lot safer than most other plants. You have to admit on an absolute framework you can be safer. But we are a very safe plant. Mr. LEWIS: They really believe that an accident is not possible. And the Soviets were complacent before Chernobyl, and they got creamed because of it. The people at Hanford said to us, ''Well, the reactor's been operating for 24 years without an accident. How can you say that there are problems?'' And I have to remind them that at NASA, the argument in sending the Challenger up was that they had had 24 straight shots without any tragedy. It's unthinkable not to make some provision for hydrogen or hydrogen explosion in the event of an accident. It's unthinkable to have a confinement system that has not been tested or really validated in some way. There are a whole batch of things that are weaknesses. Each one of them can be fixed. We're going to insist that when you have authoritative panels like the Roddis group that make proposals for significant reforms that the Justice of Energy implement those reforms, or give us a darn good case for doing otherwise. They simply haven't done that. HOCHBERG20 [voice over]: Oregon Congressman Ron Wyden, says End Reactor can escape safety regulations like no other nuclear plant in America, because it's owned and operated by the U. S. government. Under Federal law, it evades the provision by the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, because it's operating in the National Security interest. Its operation is vital to the production of nuclear weapons. Rep. RON WYDEN, (D) Oregon: There is no question in my mind that safety is nowhere near as important as production to those who run these plants for the Department of Energy. The same people who produce these dangerous wastes are the ones who have the authority to make the determination if everything's all right from a health and a safety standpoint. It's a little bit like letting Dracula guard the blood bank.

HOCHBERG [voice over]: At the Department of Energy in Washington, D. C. , Deputy Assistant Secretary Del Bunch tells reporter Jeff Goldman that safety is important to the DOE. DEL BUNCH, Department of Energy: We're giving a strong, high priority to meeting our safety needs. And we're not subordinating safety to production. The more important equipment changes will be in place, to the point where we can say that there's been a substantial improvement in safety. HOCHBERG [voice over]: To many of the locals in Eastern Washington, this is much ado about nothing. Most are convinced that nuclear energy is safe. On the streets, there are clear signs that people are proud in their role in developing nuclear bombs. BOB FERGUSON, local business leader: The safety of End Reactor has been demonstrated through its long history of operation -- and that is, I don't believe -- a major issue within this community. We don't believe that it's been safe for 20 years, and tomorrow it's unsafe. People who work out there, who are intimately familiar with the reactor, know that it can be operated safely. HOCHBERG [voice over]: Their confidence in End Reactor safety shows up at the bowling alley, at the automobile shop -- even at the grocery store. The surrounding cities of Richland, Haskell and Kennowick, depend on the economic benefits of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Mr. FERGUSON: The some 14,000 jobs and about a $1 billion a year annual budget -- about 70% of that is related to the production of special nuclear materials. And at the heart of that is the End Reactor itself. If there is going to be the production of special nuclear materials, we in this community believe that it ought to be at Hanford. HOCHBERG20 [voice over]: In the rich farming area, downwind from the reactor, there are some cracks forming in that facade. The farmers there stand to suffer most from any nuclear accident. At a truck stop along rural Interstate 90, activist Tim Connor says many farmers have been shaken up by recent DOE admissions that other installations at Hanford have released large amounts of radiation into the surrounding atmosphere. TIM CONNOR, Anti nuclear activist: What would happen if we had an episode like Chernobyl here in the breadbasket of our state -- would we ever be able to sell our agricultural commodities again for decades following an incident like that? If that's the risk, why are we taking it? Who wants to buy Ukrainian wheat this year? Or Ukrainian potatoes a decade from now? HOCHBERG [voice over]: And, for the first time, in a region that boasts of its role in building the nation's nuclear arsenal, some downwinders are questioning whether America even needs the plutonium that End Reactor helps produce. Mr. CONNOR: We have a hundred metric tons of [unintelligible] plutonium available now. It took 12 pounds to destroy Nagasaki. What is the national security imperative to run plants like End Reactor in ways that are questionable in terms of their nuclear safety? Mr. BUNCH: We still have a shortfall in our production needs. And we need to keep our facilities going to meet those needs.

HOCHBERG [voice over]: The DOE says it's considering a Congressional proposal to go ahead with the July opening only if the National Academy of Sciences approves. But opponents say that one panel of scientists has already looked Hanford over and turned thumbs down on the plant. A July power up they say is a move that the Pacific Northwest later will regret. HUNTER-GAULT: Once again the top stories on this Tuesday, President Reagan described John Poindexter as an honorable man trying to protect the President. New problems were raised in Geneva on a European missile agreement, and the House began debate on a new trade bill. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.