The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, three private contributors of contra money told their stories to the Iran contra hearing. A Navy Board of Inquiry began its investigation of the U. S. S. Stark tragedy and President Reagan vowed to keep open the Persian Gulf shipping lanes. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, we continue our special coverage of the Iran contra hearings, with extended excerpts from today's testimony, followed by analysis by two Committee members. Next, a News Maker interview with the Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitsky on the Waldheim controversy. Finally, a Roger Mudd essay on the powers of the Presidency. News Summary MacNEIL: Wealthy Americans testified today that they gave large sums to the Nicaraguan contras after briefings by administration officials, like Lt. Col. Oliver North. One witness, brewery executive Joseph Coors, said he was sent to North by then CIA Director William Casey.

JAMIE KAPLAN, Senate Associate Counsel: Did you tell Casey that you were interested in providing monetary support for the freedom fighters? JOSEPH COORS, contra aid donor: Yes, I did. Mr. KAPLAN: And what was his response to your expressed interest? Mr. COORS: Well, his response was that he couldn't do anything for me along those lines, but that he knew of a person -- a mutual person that we knew that could help me. And that was Col. Oliver North. Mr. KAPLAN: Did he tell you why he couldn't do anything along those lines -- that is, Mr. Casey? Mr. COORS: No, he didn't. He just made point blank. He said, ''Ollie North's the guy to see. '' MacNEIL: Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, who is conducting a criminal investigation, issued a subpoena to David Kimche, former Director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, who was involved in arms shipments to Iran. And House Speaker Jim Wright said today it is increasingly evident that laws banning U. S. military aid to the contras were ''systematically violated by members of the Executive Branch of government. '' Mr. Reagan has recently said that the laws prohibiting the aid did not apply to him. Speaker Wright said in a statement, ''If any President were free to pick and choose which laws he would faithfully execute and which he would not, ours would cease to be a government of law. '' Jim? LEHRER: The search for answers began in earnest today for what happened to the U. S. S. Stark. A U. S. Navy Board of Inquiry started its work on the ground in Bahrain with the surviving crew of the Stark. Thirty seven American sailors died Sunday when an Iraqi missile hit the ship. In Washington, Defense Secretary Weinberger and some members of Congress demanded that Iraq let U. S. investigators question the Iraqi pilot who fired the missiles. Meanwhile, President Reagan told a group of energy executives he did not intend to abandon the U. S. military mission in the gulf.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Let no one doubt our resolve to protect our vital interests in the Persian Gulf, or anywhere else. The Gulf is a particularly volatile area, but an area of utmost importance to us and to the free world. Our fleet has been there for almost 40 years, helping to ensure freedom of navigation and protect commerce. Achieving this requires American military and political strength, the cooperation of our allies, as well as economic strength and independence, especially on matters concerning energy. LEHRER: One political victim of the Stark attack may be a planned sale of 12 F 15 fighters to Saudi Arabia. White House Spokesman Marlon Fitzwater said the administration would now delay sending the sale request to Congress indefinitely. The Saudis declined to intercept the Iraqi plane Sunday night after the Stark attack. Also today, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy briefed reporters on the risk to U. S. forces in the Persian Gulf. He said the main threat came from Iran. But he did not think they would attack U. S. ships.

RICHARD MURPHY, Assistant Secretary of State: We cannot be totally sure of anything where Iran is concerned. Iran, first of all, has not previously attacked American military vessel in the Gulf. Additionally, there have been a series of official statements by Iranian officials that they will not attack unless provoked. The United States has no interest in provoking Iran. We have interests, and a very strong, very longstanding, historic interest, in freedom of navigation and access for free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. LEHRER: The Senate passed an amendment today that would temporarily halt putting U. S. flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf. The administration recently announced the plan to protect the ships from attack by Iran. Today's Senate action requires the President to send Congress a security plan for U. S. and allied forces in the Gulf before reflagging the Kuwaiti ships. Meanwhile, Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, said the threat to U. S. ships described by Secretary Murphy is serious enough to invoke the War Powers Act.

Sen. SAM NUNN, (D) Georgia: It seems to me, if indeed top officials in the State Department are talking about the United States and Iran getting into a war based on our latest plan to help transport and protect those Kuwaiti vessels, it seems to me that in itself should trigger the White House sending us some notice under the War Powers Act, or at least very intensive consultation with Congress. It seems to me that the spirit of the War Powers Act, whether its been technically reached, it seems the spirit of it is at least in question. MacNEIL: In Washington, Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitsky appealed to President Reagan to rescind an order barring Kurt Waldheim from this country. The Reagan administration made the Austrian President persona non grata for alleged crimes during World War II. After the meeting, Vranitsky spoke to reporters.

FRANZ VRANITSKY, Austrian Chancellor: This decision was a decision which brought dismay and upset to the Austrian political system, to the people of Austria and to the President himself. Ahead, however, the answer and the reaction by the President and by Secretary Shultz that the American administration could not act in any other way as they did, in following the United States law. MacNEIL: In Vienna, two Palestinians received life prison sentences today. The men who used the aliases Tawfik ben Chaoval and Mongj ben Saadaovi were convicted for the 1985 terrorist attack at the Vienna airport. Three persons died and 39 others were injured in a hail of gunfire and exploding hand grenades. A third terrorist was killed by Austrian police during the assault on the El Al Airline counter at the airport. Authorities say they still don't know the true identities of the two men sentenced today. LEHRER: Two African nations sounded separate cries for help today. The Prime Minister of Uganda told an international conference in Kampala that the spread of AIDS in his country had reached epidemic proportions. He asked the rest of the world to launch a rescue operation immediately. From Ethiopia, the call was for tanker trucks and food to rescue 330,000 victims of drought. A government official said the lives of those people are in jeopardy unless equipment to distribute water and food comes quickly. MacNEIL: The U. S. Customs Service has charged 34 people in San Diego and launched a nationwide crackdown on a ring allegedly smuggling body building steroid drugs into the U. S. Customs spokesmen said the ring began in Mexico and was headquartered in Southern California. Among those charged were Pat Jacobs, Assistant Football Coach at the University of Miami, and former British Olympic Medalist David Jenkins, now of California. That's our news summary. Coming up, the Iran contra hearings, the Chancellor of Austria on the Waldheim affair, and a Roger Mudd essay. The Money Trail LEHRER: This was private cash day before the Iran contra hearings, as wealthy Americans talked of contributing money to the contras of Nicaragua. Our special coverage remains in the hands of Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The three witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee today contributed tens of thousands -- and in one case, millions -- of dollars to the contras after meetings with former National Security Council aide Oliver North. Joseph Coors, Vice Chairman of the Coors Brewing Company, and a long time friend of President Reagan, gave $65,000. New York oil and gas executive William O'Boyle, contributed $160,000. And Ellen Garwood, the wife of a Texas Supreme Court Justice, and the daughter of a former Under Secretary of State, gave more than $2 million. Both Garwood and O'Boyle began by describing meetings they had with North and with fundraiser Carl Channell, who recently pled guilty to charges filed by the Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh. ELLEN CLAYTON GARWOOD, contra aid donor: Mr. Channell said that there was a crisis in the situation of the freedom fighting forces in Nicaragua. And then Col. North appeared and described this crisis. TOM FRYMAN, House Staff Counsel:Now, was there any discussion of any particular needs of the resistance forces in Nicaragua? Ms. GARWOOD: He said that they were in suchbad condition that they were out of food, they were out of clothes and medicine -- other necessities -- and also practically out of weapons. Mr. FRYMAN: What was said in that meeting between Mr. Channell and Col. North about weapons? Ms. GARWOOD: Col. North had said also that they might cease to exist if something weren't done about these various needs. And then Mr. Channell and Col. North spoke in low tones to each other, and after they had finished, Mr. Channell produced a list of weapons that they needed. Mr. FRYMAN: Could you tell that Mr. Channell and Col. North were discussing weapons in this lowered voice? Ms. GARWOOD: It only seemed that they were after this list appeared. Mr. FRYMAN: And did Mr. Channell give you this list? Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, he did. Mr. FRYMAN: And could you describe the list? What sort of information was on it? Ms. GARWOOD: The list had different categories of weapons, had hand grenades, I remember, and bullets, cartridge belts, possibly surface to air missiles, and they were quantities opposite each category, and after that there was a sum of money that was needed in order to provide those weapons -- what those weapons would cost. Mr. FRYMAN: Was there an amount of money for each type of weapon? Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, sir. Mr. FRYMAN: And was there also a total amount? Ms. GARWOOD: I think there was a total amount, yes. Mr. FRYMAN: What was the approximate total amount? Ms. GARWOOD: The approximate total amount was over a million dollars. I'm not sure just exactly what it was. Probably a million and a half, something like that. Mr. FRYMAN: Did Col. North in this meeting ask you to make a contribution for weapons? Ms. GARWOOD: No. Col. North did not. Mr. FRYMAN: Did Mr. Channell ask you to make a contribution. Ms. GARWOOD: Mr. Channell did after Col. North left. Mr. FRYMAN: What did he say? Ms. GARWOOD: He said, ''This is the list of things needed. '' and ''Can you do something about it? Can you help provide?'' WILLIAM O'BOYLE, contra aid donor: The group went over to the Old Executive Office Building, went through security at the Old Executive Office Building, and we went up to the conference room. We waited for Col. North to appear. Mr. FRYMAN: And did he speak to the group? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes, he did. Mr. FRYMAN: What did he say? Mr. O'BOYLE: He described the military and political situation in Nicaragua. Mr. FRYMAN: Did Col. North make any requests for any contributions from the persons attending this meeting in the conference room? Mr. O'BOYLE: No. Mr. FRYMAN: Did you have any discussion with Mr. Channell that evening? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes. He asked me to stay, to come to breakfast the next morning with himself and Col. North. Mr. FRYMAN: And did the three of you have breakfast together? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes, we did. Mr. FRYMAN: What did Mr. Channell say after Col. North arrived? Mr. O'BOYLE: Well, he introduced me as someone who was willing to provide money for weapons. I don't recall his exact words, but that was in effect what he said. Mr. FRYMAN: What did Col. North say in response to this? Mr. O'BOYLE: Well, Col. North made the point that he could not ask for money himself as a government employee. But that he could provide information. And he did that. He began to explain the type of weapons which were needed. He referred to a type of Eastern bloc ammunition that was being used by the contras that they needed. He gave prices for those. He also described a certain kind of aircraft that was needed. Mr. FRYMAN: What type of aircraft was that? Mr. O'BOYLE: It was a Maule aircraft. Mr. FRYMAN: Is that a brand of aircraft? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes, Maule is the manufacturer of the aircraft. Mr. FRYMAN: Was there a price identified for these planes? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes. They were quoted at $65,000 each. Apparently that was a reduced price. Mr. FRYMAN: Now, you say while Col. North was there he stated that he could not himself ask for contribution? Mr. O'BOYLE: That's right. Mr. FRYMAN: What happened after he left? Mr. O'BOYLE: Well, Mr. Channell and I talked a bit more -- pretty much about what we had been talking about all along, and I indicated that I'd be willing to think this over. And that I'd get back to Mr. Channell if I decided I wanted to contribute.

WOODRUFF: Both Garwood and O'Boyle were persuaded to donate money to the cause. Ms. GARWOOD: I returned on Sunday afternoon, and on Monday morning I took the list to Ms. Zanglanz, who is the manager of my trust account at First Bank in Austin, and asked her if -- I showed her the list -- and asked her if it were possible for me to supply the funds needed for that. Mr. FRYMAN: And what was her response? Ms. GARWOOD: She said, ''I think you can. But I think we will have to sell some stock. We certainly don't have the cash. '' Mr. FRYMAN: What decision did you make about making a contribution? Mr. O'BOYLE: I decided that I would make a contribution. Mr. FRYMAN: And what amount did you decide to contribute? Mr. O'BOYLE: I decided to contribute $130,000. Mr. FRYMAN: And what was this to be for? Mr. O'BOYLE: Two of the Maule aircraft. Mr. FRYMAN: How did you make this contribution? Mr. O'BOYLE: I hand delivered the check to Mr. Channell in Washington a few days later. Sen. WARREN RUDMAN, Vice Chairman Senate Select Committee: I want to ask Ms. Garwood a question, because we kind of got a -- well, I guess I can best describe it as a theory that is legal fiction -- not by Mrs. Garwood, but generally floating around -- that somehow because you were never asked directly by certain people to give money, that they didn't ask. I just want to go through a meeting that hasn't been covered, but is covered in your deposition. There was a meeting in Dallas December of '85, if I'm correct, of the U. S. Council of World Freedom. And Mr. Channell went to that meeting and said he wanted to take you to meet Col. North at the airport. Following the meeting -- because Col. North was going to be coming through Dallas and was going to stop to meet -- is that correct? Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, sir. Sen. RUDMAN: And Mr. Calero was also at that meeting of the U. S. Council, I believe. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, he was. Sen. RUDMAN: And Mr. Channell -- Mr. North met with you at the airport that day. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes. Sen. RUDMAN: And Mr. North told you of the -- according to your deposition -- that there was a need for all sorts of things down in Nicaragua -- particularly, I believe, possibly trucks and other supplies. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, he told me the terrible news that supplies had arrived, but there was no way to transport them -- much as supplies had arrived to feed the starving people of Ethiopia and they were left on the docks and rotted. Sen. RUDMAN: And they didn't have trucks to move them with? Ms. GARWOOD: That's right. Sen. RUDMAN: And then Col. North left. And then Mr.Channell took you back to your hotel in the cab -- is that correct? Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, sir. Sen. RUDMAN: And then essentially within a short timeframe after Col. North telling you, Mrs. Garwood, that trucks were needed, Mr. Channell said to you, ''Mr. Garwood, you can help. '' Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, sir. Sen. RUDMAN: And in fact you did. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, I did. Sen. RUDMAN: Then and there you issued a check -- or shortly thereafter -- for $32,000. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes. Sen. RUDMAN: That's -- -- where I come from, we call that the old ''one two punch. That's what we call that. '' Ms. GARWOOD: They didn't have to do a one two punch with me, because they knew I was already so interested and so eager to help to defend our country that all they had to do was ask me and if I had it I'd give it.

WOODRUFF: At one point, William O'Boyle was hesitant to describe a plan Col. North had shared with him. Mr. FRYMAN: Did Col. North, again in connection with your interest in helping the contras, tell you a secret plan to allow the contras to take power in Nicaragua? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes. Mr. FRYMAN: And can you describe that for the Committee, please? Mr. O'BOYLE: Well, you understand, of course, that Col. North indicated to me that that was secret? Mr. FRYMAN: I understand that he indicated to you that it was secret, and without disclosing any of the specifics, would you describe in general terms the plan? The Committee does not need to have the specifics, but just describe to us, please, in general terms the nature of the plan. Mr. O'BOYLE: Well, the plan itself, I took to be secret. And in general -- I mean, specific or general. Mr. FRYMAN: When did this classified briefing occur that you have alluded to? Mr. O'BOYLE: Again, I'm not sure whether it's correct to describe it as a classified briefing. Mr. FRYMAN: Well, the secret information you were receiving -- whatever you would like -- whatever term you would like to use. Mr. O'BOYLE: When -- it was April 29 in 1986. Mr. FRYMAN: Did he ask you at any time whether you had any kind of security clearance? Mr. O'BOYLE: No. Mr. FRYMAN: Did you volunteer whether you had or not? Mr. O'BOYLE: No. Mr. FRYMAN: Do you have security clearance? Mr. O'BOYLE: Not currently, no. Mr. FRYMAN: Did he tell you what category of classification it was -- did he every mention ''top secret'' or a code word, or secret, or confidential, or ''no foreigners'' or anything of that nature? Mr. O'BOYLE: No. Mr. FRYMAN: So he just -- ''very, very secret'' is the best description he gave you. Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes. The way he put it was ''You can't tell this to anybody. ''

WOODRUFF: Suggesting the information was not classified after all, Ohio Democratic Congressman Louis Stokes pressed for O'Boyle to reveal the plan. Rep. LOUIS STOKES, (D) Ohio: You have made the inquiry yourself of Mr. North as to what was the plan for Nicaragua, is that correct? Mr. O'BOYLE: That's correct. Rep. STOKES: And then in response to that, he then said to you something to the effect that he'd share with you, but it was really a secret. Is that correct? Mr. O'BOYLE: Yes. Rep. STOKES: After that, then what did he say? Mr. O'BOYLE: Are you requiring me to answer that? Rep. STOKES: Yes, sir. Mr. O'BOYLE: He said that there were two -- there was one plan that had two different -- there were two plans in one, so to speak. One would be implemented if Congress approved the money last year for the contras. One would be implemented if Congress did not approve the money. They involved the Nicaraguan contras seizing a part of Nicaragua, establishing a provisional capital, a provisional government, and the U. S. Navy going down, blockading the country, preventing the supplies coming in from Cuba to support the Sandinistas, and at that point the -- supposedly -- the Sandinistas would fall and the contra government would come into power. And then Nicaragua would be restored to democracy.

WOODRUFF: Joseph Coors testified that when he became interested in contributing to the contra cause, he went to see his old friend William Casey, the late CIA Director, who directed him then to Col. North. Mr. KAPLAN: And did you also express to North your interest in providing monetary support for the freedom fighters? Mr. COORS: Yes, I told him that I was interested in seeing what I could do. And I asked him for his recommendation. Mr. KAPLAN: I take it in response, Col. North was not quite as guarded or as circumspect as Mr. Casey had been. Mr. COORS: No. He was very anxious to provide me with an area where he thought I could be of most help. Mr. KAPLAN: And what was that area? Mr. COORS: That was in the area of providing a small Maule airplane. I was a little bit surprised to see that Bill O'Boyle also bought -- I thought I was the first and only one. But evidently that wasn't the case (chuckle). In any case, he told me that they needed this kind of an airplane in the worst way down there. Mr. KAPLAN: Did he tell you how you could make a payment to purchase a Maule plane for the freedom fighters? Mr. COORS: Yes, he indicated I could do that in any number of ways. But he suggested the possibility of a bank transfer to a Swiss bank account. And I chose that route.

WOODRUFF: Even though no one from the Reagan administration ever directly solicited money from them, the three who testified today all said they believed the administration endorsed such private donations. Sen. DANIEL INOUYE, (D) Hawaii: You were making a contribution because the administration wanted the contribution. Ms. GARWOOD: Yes, sir. Sen. INOUYE: When you say ''administration'' what do you mean by the ''administration?'' Ms. GARWOOD: I mean the Executive Branch of the administration, particularly. Sen. INOUYE: Is it any person, or just some vague thing that -- Ms. GARWOOD: Well, it isn't very vague. We know who's the President. Sen. INOUYE: Mr. O'Boyle, I think your testimony also says the same. Did you at any time doubt that the President wanted this? Mr. O'BOYLE: No, sir. Sen. INOUYE: Would you have provided the contribution if the President had been opposed to it? Mr. O'BOYLE: I would doubt that.

WOODRUFF: This afternoon, retired Army General John Singlaub returned to the witness table to talk about his role in aiding the contras. [voice over] Retired Army General John Singlaub has conducted a highly visible campaign to raise private funds for the Nicaraguan rebels. Testifying for the first time yesterday, Singlaub said that he arranged a $5. 3 million arms deal for the contras at considerably lower prices than Richard Secord charged. That he solicited the governments of Taiwan and South Korea for donations. That at Col. North's request, Singlaub served as a lightning rod to divert attention away from North's covert activities. That Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams played a more active role than Abrams has acknowledged in efforts to raise money for the contras. Since Singlaub retired from the Army in 1978, he has been associated with innumerable anti communist insurgencies around the world. He was Chief of Staff of U. S. Forces in South Korea until President Carter fired him in 1977 for criticizing Carter's proposal to remove U. S. troops from Korea. Today, Singlaub got a chance to explain why he thinks Nicaragua is so strategically important to the United States. Gen. JOHN SINGLAUB, U. S. Army, retired: Well, not only is the military force being created there, a threat, well recognized by Nicaragua's neighbors, but the bases that are being built there -- both naval and air bases -- are a direct threat to the United States. As Adolfo Calero talked -- mentioned -- yesterday. The Puntarenas big air base there is the largest air base south of the Rio Grande. It would enable the Soviets to base long range bombers and reconnaissance aircraft there that would be a direct threat to our security. The bases that are being built on the Pacific Coast would give them for the first time a base from which they could threaten the West Coast of the United States. The obvious place for a second canal -- ocean to ocean canal through the isthmus -- is through Nicaragua. I would not want to have a canal -- a second canal -- in the hands of the Soviets, which it would be if we allow the Sandinistas to consolidate this communist revolution there. Rep. JAMES COURTER, (R) New Jersey: Now, there came a time, did there not, that the Soviet Union shipped Hind helicopters to Central America -- Nicaragua? Gen. SINGLAUB: That is about the same time that our Congress cut off all aid to those freedom fighters. Rep. COURTER: Hind helicopters are pretty sophisticated fighting machines, would you not say? Gen. SINGLAUB: I've described it as the most effective people killing machine in the world. Rep. COURTER: They're fairly expensive to the Soviet Union, I would imagine. Gen. SINGLAUB: Quite. Rep. COURTER: There's been a great deal said about Soviet bloc aid to Central America, to the Sandinistas, since the revolution in 1979. From your experience in talking with people living in that part of the world, do you know whether the Soviet bloc gave training, gave aid, gave logistics, gave information and material to the Sandinistas in fact before they seized power in 1979. Gen. SINGLAUB: I believe that they did this through their surrogate, Cuba. That was open knowledge in the area that the Sandinista forces would go to Havana, receive training. There were Cubinr in the force. There were Panamanians, by the way, who assisted in that period. Today, there are roughly 11,000 foreign military forces -- military and civilian advisors, all from communist countries and from terrorist organizations in Nicaragua.

WOODRUFF: The members picked up on Singlaub's testimony yesterday about his going to Taiwan to solicit money for the contras -- but then being told to hold off by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Mr. FRYMAN: When you returned from the trip, you testified that you spoke to Secretary Abrams? Gen. SINGLAUB: That's correct. Mr. FRYMAN: And you told him it was embarrassing for you, that this was countermanded, this (unintelligible) by him to give the signal was countermanded by him? Gen. SINGLAUB: Yes. Mr. FRYMAN: What did he tell you was the reason why he changed his mind? Gen. SINGLAUB: He indicated that the solicitation was going to be made at the highest level, which as I testifiedyesterday, I assumed was someone in the White House. If that was true. Mr. FRYMAN: You're speaking with an Assistant Secretary of State, and he refers to the highest level. That would be normally something you would assume to be from the White House? Gen. SINGLAUB: Above George Shultz, yes. Mr. FRYMAN: How many people are above George Shultz in the U. S. Government? Gen. SINGLAUB: Not many.

WOODRUFF: Singlaub, who has sold, but apparently did not profit from selling, arms to the contras, was asked how he reacted when he learned that retired Maj. Gen. Secord was also selling arms, but at twice his price. Sen. RUDMAN: And you reported that to Col. North? Gen. SINGLAUB: I did, yes. Sen. RUDMAN: And he agreed when looking at what you showed him -- the documentation -- that your prices were enormously better than Gen. Secord's? Gen. SINGLAUB: That's correct. Sen. RUDMAN: As a matter of fact, the contras -- if you could have kept supplying at that price -- would have received two weapons for every one that they received under Gen. Secord's prices. Is that true? Gen. SINGLAUB: That is correct. Sen. RUDMAN: Since this whole story has broken, you have found out that Gen. Secord was in a very unique position. Gen. Secord was the recipient -- either in trust or otherwise -- of a huge amount of money that represented a markup on U. S. goods. Is that correct? You learned that like we all did. Gen. SINGLAUB: That's right, yes, sir. Sen. RUDMAN: And he was also in the position of controlling those monies to buy what the contras might want from him. Gen. SINGLAUB: I've learned that, yes. Sen. RUDMAN: You've learned that. And during that period that that money was being held, the contras needed a lot of things, did they not, General Singlaub? Gen. SINGLAUB: I must say that that is a source of great irritation to me that I was working very hard during that time to get the few hundred thousand dollars. If I had any knowledge that that money had been in a bank and was available, I would be even more furious. Sen. RUDMAN: And in fact, there were millions of dollars in accounts, and they had -- we have had testimony under oath to this committee that that money was being held for the enterprise -- that is, General Secord's testimony. Certainly, you could have done a lot with that $8 million to help the contra cause, could you have not? Gen. SINGLAUB: That's correct. The contras could have used it. Sen. RUDMAN: General, do you have a Swiss bank account? Gen. SINGLAUB: No. Sen. RUDMAN: You never had a Swiss bank account? Gen. SINGLAUB: Never. Sen. RUDMAN: I'll ask you a question which you may not wish to answer, and I will not press you on it. But I will simply ask it and -- you don't seem to be one who is hesitant to express a view. So if you feel like expressing one, I'll give you that opportunity. Do you think that in light of what you heard in terms of the Maule airplanes and who claims they own them, and all the other aircraft, and who owns those aircraft, and money in Swiss bank accounts, and doubling the price of arms -- do you think General Secord and his associates treated the contras as someone they really wanted to help or someone they wished to profit by? Gen. SINGLAUB: You're right, I'd prefer not to answer that (laughter). Sen. RUDMAN: You've answered it.

WOODRUFF: Committee members will get a chance to hear another side of that story from the next witness, General Secord's partner in the arms supply effort for the contras -- Iranian American businessman Albert Hakim. Hakim appears before the Committee next Wednesday when it resumes public hearings. Robin? MacNEIL: To wrap up this week's hearings, we go to two committee members, Senator George Mitchell, Democrat from Maine, and Representative Jim Courter, Republican from New Jersey. They both join us from a studio on Capitol Hill. Congressman, did these private contributors who testified today -- in the briefings -- did they get information that Congress did not? Rep. COURTER: I don't think so. It' very difficult to know, because Col. North has not yet testified publicly. We hope he will. The information we have is they received no information that the Congress did not. There was a great deal of discussion today, as we all know, about whether classified information was given. But when probed on that, I guess all we can say is that Col. North thought it was secret, didn't want it to be divulged. Whether it was true information with classification levels, we don't know. MacNEIL: For instance, Senator Mitchell, the so called secret plan that Mr. William O'Boyle said he was told about -- was that something that Congress had been briefed on and knew about? Sen. MITCHELL: No. And as Representative Courter said, there's some question as to whether or not there was in fact such a formal plan by the government. It is possible. It can't be ruled out, but the mere fact that Col. North represented it to Mr. O'Boyle in the context of the fundraising operation that was going on does not in and of itself prove that there was in fact such a plan by the government. MacNEIL: Senator Rudman said today -- we heard it in those excerpts -- that it was a fiction to pretend that this was not solicitation by th administration. Do you agree with that statement, Senator? Has that been demonstrated by the evidence you've heard? Sen. MITCHELL: Yes, I do. I agree with Senator Rudman. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Congressman? Rep. COURTER: No, not necessarily, I don't agree with it. We're going to have to wait and find out exactly what other people did. Solicitation is difficult to define in some circumstances. Certainly, the administration created a climate for this to occur. Whether there was a legal solicitation, we don't know. We also don't know whether in fact -- if there was one -- did it break the Boland Amendment. We don't know whether the Boland Amendment actually applied to the NSC. So the courts will have to much determine the legality of some of this activity. MacNEIL: Congressman, what has General Singlaub's testimony over two days contributed to the Committee's understanding of all this? Congressman Courter? Rep. COURTER: Yes, could you repeat the question? MacNEIL: What has General Singlaub's testimony contributed to your understanding -- the Committee's understanding -- of all this? Rep. COURTER: Well, he was, I think, a very forthright witness. There' no doubt about the fact, as far as I'm concerned, that every member of the Committee believed precisely his testimony today -- was very credible. Clearly he did what he could as a private citizen to help the Democratic resistance in Central America. He clarified, I think, a concern in the Committee that other witnesses -- particularly General Secord -- was acting with a desire of getting some profits besides just the motive of helping the resistance in Central America. That's what he talked about -- the operation. There were a great number of questions about the communist threat in Central America. But we all know about that. His testimony was interesting, didn't really add a new angle other than putting a cloud on the credibility of General Secord. And I think he did that. MacNEIL: Senator Mitchell, speaking of General Secord, it's reported that he has appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court to block your committee's access to the records, which in testimony last week he indicated he'd be willing to give access to. What conclusions do you draw from that, and what does it say about his credibility as a witness? Sen. MITCHELL: Well, the conclusion that I draw is that General Secord is more concerned with the possibility of a criminal prosecution by the Special Prosecutor, and he will use access to those records as leverage in bargaining with the Special Prosecutor over what may result there. He didn't come right out and say before our committee that he would make it available. He hinted at that, indicated -- certainly implied -- that he would, but never came right out and said it. MacNEIL: Let me ask you both about Adolfo Calero, the former contra leader who testified yesterday. Congressman Courter, how credible did you find him? Rep. COURTER: I found him absolutely credible. He's an individual who believes deeply in the contra movement, in the democratic resistance. It's important to keep in mind that he was one of those who was jailed by Samoza, so there's added credibility to the fact that now he's fighting the Sandinistas. I think his testimony was quite credible. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Senator? Sen. MITCHELL: Yes, I do. I think he was a credible witness, and I think he was a (unintelligible) advocate for his position. MacNEIL: What do you both make of all the testimony we've heard this week -- principally from Robert Owen about the resort to traveler's checks and the fact that many of them were cashed by Col. North, and some parts of them were used to purchase, for example, things like snow tires. What direction does that lead your thinking, Senator Mitchell? Sen. MITCHELL: Well, I think you have to reserve judgment on that until we hear from Col. North or obtain a full explanation. It obviously creates the implication that he converted some of this money for his own personal use. But I don't think that you can make a final judgment on that until you hear from him. I think the significance of Mr. Owen's testimony and also General Singlaub's is that it confirms the extent to which high government officials were actively involved in an effort to provide direct and indirect support to the contras at a time when that was prohibited by the Boland Amendment. I agree with Mr. Courter that that will ultimately have to be decided by a court of law. There are valid legal arguments made on both sides. But I do think that it's clear now that there was a major effort involving many government officials at very high levels to participate in a manner that avoided the consequences of the Boland Amendment. MacNEIL: Congressman Courter, the House Speaker, the Democratic House Speaker -- you're a Republican -- issued a statement saying today that it was increasingly evident -- to use his words -- that the various laws banning aid over a period were ''systematically violated by key members of the Executive Branch. '' Does the evidence you've heard so far justify the Speaker's statement? Rep. COURTER: I don't think so. But once again, we're going to have to have the courts decide on this. The Boland Amendment, which we have all heard a great deal about, at verybest is a piece of -- I wouldn't say mush or Swiss Cheese, but it's perhaps open to various types of interpretation. I would say that the good attorneys on both sides could make different things of it. It clearly was not a broadbase prohibition against the United States Government from assisting the contras. Otherwise it would have said the United States Government shall not. It referred to two agencies, and of course an agency involved in intelligence activities. It remains to be seen. It was unclear as written. There were two interpretations within the administration. Perhaps Mr. North is going to testify that he read one that allowed his activity. It's something that we're just going to have to wait on. Clearly, however, the -- Col. North did not follow the intent of that amendment. But whether that's indictable or criminal, we'll just have to wait and see. MacNEIL: Beyond the Boland Amendment, Speaker Wright's statement -- I have a copy of it here -- says, ''It's increasingly evident Sections 501 and 502 of the National Security Act, Sections 8042 of the Continuing Appropriation for FY196 and the Boland Amendment were systematically violated. '' Do you think, Senator Mitchell, that the evidence the Committee's heard so far justifies the Speaker's statement. Sen. MITCHELL: I have not seen the Speaker's statement before you read it, Robert. I think the broader issue, the principle involved here, is the relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches. And the intent of the Executive Branch. The President swears an oath to faithfully execute the laws. A democracy really doesn't function -- our democracy really doesn't function if there is not a presumption of good faith in the enactment, in the implementation of the laws. The fact is Congress -- no legislative body -- is capable of writing a law that would cover every conceivable contingency by an executive determined not only not to faithfully execute the law, but to avoid it. And I think that that's really the broader principle involved here. There are many good arguments to be made in behalf of the President's policy in Central America. I personally do not agree with it, and voted against it. But this is public policy debate in our society. But those arguments, it seems to me, are arguments to change the law, not to evade them. And I think that is particularly the case with respect to the President and the Executive Branch of government. MacNEIL: Speaker Wright says he is not seeking a Constitutional crisis, but how do you resolve the constitutional questions? Do you agree, Senator Mitchell with Congressman Courter, that the courts will have to resolve that? Sen. MITCHELL: Ultimately, of course, in our system, that is what the decision -- that is where the decision will be. That is, providing that the Special Prosecutor brings an action against persons -- allegedly he's thinking about the conspiracy to avoid the law. In that event, all of the defenses that have been suggested will be raised. But the reality is that our system has benefited enormously from the fact that we seek to avoid constitutional confrontation. There are many provisions in the Constitution which have not been interpreted. There is a rule of law that says if a court can avoid a decision on constitutional grounds, it should do so. And we are best off not pushing to the brink in every single instance merely for purpose of clarity the relationship between the two branches. MacNEIL: All right. Sorry to hustle you out there, but that is the end of our time this evening. Senator Mitchell, Congressman Courter, thank you both. Franz Vranitsky LEHRER: Next, a news maker interview with a man some say is in Washington on a mission impossible. He's Franz Vranitsky, the Chancellor of Austria, his mission, to reverse the decision that bars Austrian President Kurt Waldheim from entering the United States. The U. S. took the action April 27, saying there was substantial evidence that Waldheim participated in war crimes while serving in the Nazi army in World War II. Waldheim has denied the charge. Chancellor Vranitsky was 7 years old when World War II ended. He is the first of Austria's post war generation to lead his country. He's a socialist, a banker and a basketball player. He became Chancellor and Head of Government last year. Chancellor, welcome. You talked with President Reagan today about the Waldheim case. What did he tell you? FRANZ VRANITSKY, Chancellor of Austria: Well, we talked about Waldheim case among other topics we were interested in. And I have to say that I got invitation from President Reagan to visit here in Washington way back last year. So the Waldheim affair came on top of that. So we would have had other topics too. But to your question, I came, among other things, with a question in my package to urge the United States Government -- what and if they can do anything to reverse the decision, having Waldheim on the watch list. Well, the answer by President Reagan, by Secretary Shultz and by others was that this measure was not directed against the Austrian people, the Austrian government -- not even the Austrian Federal President -- but that it was a step which Americans think they had to take in fulfilling their law. LEHRER: Secretary Shultz told you yesterday, did he not, that the evidence against Waldheim was totally convincing? Chancellor VRANITSKY: Yes, that's what he expressed, and that -- what we knew already from some experts, the U. S. Justice Department has sent to Austria a few days ago. But I was actually directing my discussion at the political content of the issue. And I was making my point that from a political point of view, based on a decade old relationship, friendly relationship, between the U. S. and Austria, I didn't execute and I did not wipe out the expectation or the hope or the wish that political points might weigh more heavy than legal ones. LEHRER: Well, what happens now, Chancellor? You go back to Austria and you report to the Austrian people that no dice, and then what happens? Chancellor VRANITSKY: Well, first of all, I have to say that my expectation to really get the reversal of the U. S. decision before I came here was very low. So it's not much of a surprise what I am bringing back home. And I phoned to Mr. Waldheim this afternoon, conveyed the unpleasant message to him. Well, what we are going to do, we will think it over, but this, as I said, this is a serious case, a very important one. But not the only point of our relationship with the United States. LEHRER: There have been stories in advance of your visit that if you were unsuccessful in getting this decision reversed that Waldheim would probably resign as President, is that correct? Chancellor VRANITSKY: That is not correct, no. I heard those rumors, but just rumors, and it's not a point of discussion between the government I'm leading and the President. LEHRER: How serious a matter is this for your government -- the fact that your President cannot come to the United States and this action that's been taken? Chancellor VRANITSKY: Well, it's a very serious matter. And a very unusual matter. I think he's the first head of a state to be put on the watch list. And we had a lot of discussion about that. But you see, my approach to this issue is that the relationship between the United States and Austria, superpower with a small neutral country in the middle of Europe, on the borderline of East West (unintelligible) that we must not go into resignation or into isolation or anything like that. We have to work on our relationship to the United States. LEHRER: But is that possible as long as your President is on the watch list, persona non grata in the United States? Chancellor VRANITSKY: I think we will have to make it possible. Because there are so many other items that even with that dark shadow above our heads, I really do not think that a 40 year old friendship between two countries should come to an end without trying to use all possibilities to go on with this partnership. LEHRER: What is your own view of this? Do you believe that Mr. Waldheim and your country has been treated unfairly by the United States? Chancellor VRANITSKY: I wouldn't use the expression, ''unfair,'' but I would like to repeat that from the point of view of the importance of a well functioning relationship between the superpower which gave us our freedom by signing our State Treaty in 1955, and which -- two Presidents of which were hosted by us when they met their Soviet opposite numbers -- it was my thinking and my way how to approach the topic that this politic I mention would be more important than just fulfilling an American law. LEHRER: But what if -- what would you suggest the United States Government do if Secretary Shultz is correct -- that the evidence that's been gathered by U. S. investigators is totally convincing that the President of your country participated in war crimes in World War II, and the laws are on the books, say those kind of people are not allowed in the United States. What should the U. S. government do in that kind of situation? Chancellor VRANITSKY: I think we should make a very clear distinction between accusations and allegations. LEHRER: I was just saying what the Secretary of State -- Chancellor VRANITSKY: Yes, yes. Well, we are at the end of a very long talk with American authorities, and those people from the justice Department who visited in Austria only a few days ago, they did not say that they would blame Waldheim being a war criminal, and they also said he never was committed directly and personally, but their reading was that he belonged to the unit which committed the crimes. So this would make a lot of difference from our legal system. But we don't have the institution of a watch list. We don't have anything like a Holtzman Amendment, and therefore it's also a confrontation between two legal systems. And I really think that -- I still have to think it over, but my first impression, and I don't think it will change very much, is that it is no longer a judicial topic, but it's a political topic, and politicians have to work on political topics. LEHRER: Chancellor, thank you very much for being with us. Delusions of Grandeur MacNEIL: Finally tonight, our regular Washington essayist, Roger Mudd, has some thoughts on attitudes common to all Presidents.

ROGER MUDD: Call living in the White House what you will -- splendid, or miserable -- or frustrating -- Ronald Reagan is now learning what each of his predecessors discovered. They came into office feeling powerful, but they left feeling isolated. Ronald Reagan is now in danger of becoming isolated. Not the way Lyndon Johnson was in '66 and '67, when the only way he could avoid demonstrations was to appear on federal property. But the danger for the President is there. Mr. Reagan insists he has not been politically damaged, and he cites his travels around the country as proof. But Presidential travel is designed to convince a President he is not isolated or unpopular. And his design to convince the people that he is in charge, and on exactly the right track. Certainly Mr. Reagan's travel schedule since last November, when his party lost the Senate, and when the Iran scandal broke, would hardly have convinced him otherwise. Two California vacations, an elementary school in Missouri, some doctors in Philadelphia, a Prime Minister in Ottawa, a motorcycle factory in Pennsylvania, a college in Alabama, William Casey's funeral on Long Island, and just this week a high school commencement in Tennessee. Mr. Reagan insists that his public support still is high. And to prove it he cites the polls. His own poll, showing him with a 53% approval rating. But over the years, Presidents and their advisors who rely on the polls to prove popularity only prove they have stopped listening -- except to themselves. How do our Presidents, in an age of public politics and televised governing become so encapsulated? Why do Presidents and their advisors so frequently appear out of touch and unable to come to grips with political reality? The answer probably is that Presidents do not like bad news. And the bad news is they are not as powerful as they thought they were. The country expects a great deal from its Presidents. It wants quick solutions -- not excuses. It expects action. It expects results. Presidential candidates become expert at promising easy answers to the complexities of modern life. And once inaugurated, they feel the pressure to act. A dispassionate analysis of an intractable problem requiring a 10 year response simply will not do in our political system. A nation geared to microwave ovens and 30 minute newscasts, even our newscasts, will not wait that long. So Presidents find themselves having to resort to quick fixes, secret plans, half baked ideas and phony programs. John Kennedy thought he could solve his Cuban problem with a clandestine invasion of the Bay of Pigs. Lyndon Johnson thought he could solve his Vietnam problem by conning the people into believing they were winning. Richard Nixon thought he could solve his Watergate problem with deliberate deception. Gerald Ford thought he could solve his inflation problem with big ''Whip Inflation Now'' buttons. Jimmy Carter thought he could solve his Iran hostage problem with a gerrybuilt rescue mission. And Ronald Reagan apparently thought he could solve his hostage problem by secretly selling missiles to Iran. But none of it worked. It produced only national impatience, political trouble, growing frustrations, and bad news for Presidents. The old problem -- papered over with all those press releases, smothered by all those photo ops -- simply do not go away, revealing the real limits of Presidential power. But Presidents won't listen to bad news. They won't listen, because they are convinced they are powerful. Their staffs tell them that. They're convinced they're popular. Their travels around the country tell them that. They're convinced they're right. Their polls tell them that. Everything around them causes them to believe they can be bigger than life. Nothing around them causes them to believe they canalso be victims of self delusion. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. A Navy Board of Inquiry began its investigation of the U. S. S. Stark incident, in which 37 American sailors died. And President Reagan said despite the tragedy, the United States would keep the shipping lanes open through the Persian Gulf. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour, and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.