The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Austrian President Kurt Waldheim was barred from entering the United States because of Nazi war criminal allegations. The Interior Department announced a new five year plan for offshore oil drilling. And the value of the U. S. dollar hit another record low. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, here's tonight's News Hour lineup. First, we'll find out more about the barring of Kurt Waldheim and get reactions. Then a debate over the new government pan for offshore drilling between Interior Secretary Donald Hodel and Sierra Club head Michael Fischer. And we'll have a newsmaker interview with independent counsel Lawrence Walsh on the Iran contra probe.News Summary LEHRER: Kurt Waldheim may not enter the United States. The Justice Department announced the prohibition this morning in Washington. Waldheim is the current President of Austria, and the former Secretary General of the United Nations. A Justice Department investigation revealed evidence he was involved in war crimes as a German army officer in World War II. U. S. law prohibits such persons from entering the country. Justice Department spokesman Terry Eastland explained the action:

TERRY EASTLAND, Justice Department spokesman: The Department of Justice and the Department of State are announcing today that the Department of Justice has determined that a prima fascie case of excludability exists with respect to Kurt Waldheim as an individual. And his name is being placed today on the watch list. This determination was based on United States law that prohibits entry to any foreign national who assisted or otherwise participated in activities amounting to persecution during World War II. LEHRER: The decision was transmitted to Waldheim through high level diplomatic channels. The Austrian Ambassador to the United States was told by President Reagan at the White House this morning. A Foreign Ministry official said the decision had produced great dismay within the Austrian government, and this afternoon the government recalled its U. S. Ambassador in protest. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: The Interior Department sent a five year offshore drilling plan to Congress today that was specifically tailored to meet objections of environmentalists. The plan rules out exploration in additional areas of Alaska and New England. But requests from Florida that the Florida Keys be exempt were turned down. And controversial provisions for California remained largely intact. Today, Interior Secretary Donald Hodel defended the plan.

DONALD HODEL, Interior Secretary: If the United States takes steps to curtail exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and in the Outer Continental Shelf of United States, it is like putting a sign on us for the rest of the world that says, ''We're incapable of taking care of ourselves. Go ahead and take advantage of us. '' HUNTER-GAULT: The plan will go into effect in 60 days if Congress doesn't change it. LEHRER: Peace demonstrators took their cause to the Central Intelligence Agency this morning, and more than 500 ended up arrested. They came to protest Reagan administration policy in Central America and South Africa. Those in the crowd included well known figures from past political protests, Daniel Ellsberg, Daniel Berrigan, and former C. I. A. official John Stockwell. Their tactic was to tie up traffic leading to C. I. A. headquarters in Langley, Virginia, a Washington suburb. No violence was reported. In Geneva today, the Soviets put a draft European missile treaty on the negotiating table. Soviet spokesmen said the treaty contained a plan to eliminate all U. S. and Soviet medium range missiles in Europe. The specifics were not announced, and the U. S. delegation spokesman declined all comment. HUNTER-GAULT: In economic news, the dollar hit a new record low today against the Japanese yen, and also plummeted against some European currencies to lows not seen in seven years. In Tokyo, the dollar fell 1. 40 yen, closing at just above 138 yen. Traders said the fall reflected pessimism about U. S. economic performance and a feeling that exchange rates will not stabilize until the trade deficit between the U. S. and Japan is narrowed. It now stands at $58. 6 billion. Meanwhile, President Reagan reaffirmed the U. S. commitment to ''do what is necessary to see that other nations live up to their obligations in trading agreements. '' But in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce, the President urged Congress not to require retaliation against U. S. trading partners.

President RONALD REAGAN: We've used the full range of tools available under the law to work for more open markets. I have found they're good tools that fit any different situation. Both those that require firmness and those that need finesse. That's why some trade legislation now before Congress is dangerous. Legislation before the House of Representatives would make us use a steam roller against unfair practices every time, no matter whether the steam roller would open the trade doors or flatten the entire house. LEHRER: The U. S. Supreme Court also spoke today on the issue of U. S. --Japanese trade practices. It threw out a 17 year old lawsuit which sought billions of dollars from Japanese television manufacturers. Two American companies, Zenith and the former Emerson Radio Company, had charged Japanese companies with illegally dumping television sets in the United States by selling them at artificially low prices. Lower courts had killed the suit before it went to trial. Today's Supreme Court decision upheld that action. The vote was 5 to 4. HUNTER-GAULT: In New York today, the man widely known as the subway vigilante went on trial for shooting four young blacks. He said he feared they were about to attack. Thirty nine year old Bernard Goetz, who is white, was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and gun possession. When the incident happened two and one half years ago, it touched off a nationwide debate over vigilante ism and self defense. The trial is expected to last about a month. LEHRER: There was more violence in South Africa today that occurred on the campus of the University of Cape Town. It followed a midday rally of anti apartheid student groups called to protest a South African commando raid into neighboring Zambia this weekend. Reporters were able to cover the incident after a court last week overturned censorship regulations imposed by the government under the nationwide state of emergency. There was no official report on casualties, but the journalists at the campus said at least five students were injured. HUNTER-GAULT: In Belgium the Herald of Free Enterprise was finally refloated today. The British car ferry that capsized last month with 543 person aboard was towed back to Zeebrugge Harbor after divers found another four bodies. That makes the known death toll 182. And it is believed there are another dozen bodies still aboard the vessel. While the ferry made the 1,000 yard trip into the port of Zeebrugge, a public hearing in London was being told that open doors on the car deck were the only tenable explanation for the disaster. A British official said the crewman responsible for securing the doors was asleep because he thought he was off duty. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the News Hour, reaction to the U. S. move barring Kurt Waldheim from the country, a debate over a new offshore oil drilling plan, and independent counsel Walsh on the Iran contra probe. Persona non Grata LEHRER: The Waldheim decision is first tonight. That decision was to bar Austrian President Kurt Waldheim from entering the United States. It was made by the Justice Department, which concluded there was prima facie evidence that Waldheim participated in the commission of war crimes while a German officer in World War II. We'll have two perspectives on this decision, an American and an Austrian. But first, some Waldheim background that led to today's action. It's in this excerpt from a BBC report we aired before last year's Austrian Presidential election. The reporter is Julian O'Halloran.

JULIAN O'HALLORAN, BBC: In 1936, when Kurt Waldheim was 17, he joined an Austrian Cavalry regiment for a year of national service. The next year, he enrolled in Vienna's Consular Academy. In the spring of 1938, Hitler's troops moved into Austria. In spite of the applauding crowds on the newsreels, many Austrians were bitterly opposed to Nazism, and Waldheim claims he was one of these. Nevertheless, it appears that to protect his family, he felt he had to appear not to oppose Nazi rule. Wartime documents in Vienna list him as being in the SA, that is, Brown Shirts Cavalry group, and in the Nazi Student Union. Nazi hunters regard these as having been largely harmless fringe groups. Dr. Waldheim says he wasn't even aware he was in them, and that the members of sporting and social groups at the Consular Academy must have been automatically listed in the Nazi groups. SUSANNE LEDERER-KEMPERS, fellow student of Dr. Waldheim: He was a very quiet man and a very humane man. And it was impossible for him to be a Nazi. He loathed them. Dr. KURT WALDHEIM, President of Austria: I do not have a Nazi past. This is just a mean campaign against me. And as far as my war record is concerned, there's nothing whatsoever which could be interpreted as having committed crimes and things like that.

O'HALLORAN: Dr. Waldheim's case is supported by a report from the local [unintelligible] in 1940, which suggests that prior to Hitler's takeover in Austria, Waldheim had shown hostility to the Nazi movement. And whatever Dr. Waldheim's involvement on the fringes of Naziism, it did not hold him back after the war. By 1968, he was Austria's Foreign Secretary. Four years later he was elected to the top job at the United Nations. Back in 1941, Lt. Waldheim had been in an Austrian unit that was ordered to the Eastern front. He sustained a leg wound which turned septic. What happened next he tells in his autobiography, ''In the Eye of the Storm. '' He says he was evacuated, had a bad limp, and was discharged from further service at the front. Then he says, ''I made a formal request to be permitted to review my law studies and take a masters degree. And rather to my surprise, this was granted. I still had my pay as a lieutenant, and this helped to see me through. He then tells what he did in Austria for the rest of the war. ELAN STEINBERG, World Jewish Congress: The only problem with that is that he was indeed wounded in the leg, he did return to Vienna in '42, but he was back in military uniform by March of '42. Dr. WALDHEIM: I said I was incapacitated to fight at the front. And that was also the reason why after I was wounded I was never sent to the front. That was the reason why they asked me what languages are you speaking, and I said English, French, Italian -- and they said, ''Well, we need an Italian interpreter. '' So what I wanted to say is that I was never sent back to the front. But I didn't mean to hide that I was in staff units to use my language experience. But there was no reason to explain what is in the book.

O'HALLORAN: The announcement by Goebbels of the invasion of Yugoslavia was followed by one of the most brutal campaigns in the Second World War, though the barbarities weren't confined to one side. It emerged that Dr. Waldheim had been posted to Yugoslavia only a few months after he had been evacuated from the Russian front. The war here between the Nazis and their fascist allies on the one side, and the communist led partisans on the other, led to the extermination of hundreds of thousands of civilians and prisoners. There's considerable evidence that the German forces were in time in the habit of executing as many as 10 -- or even 100 -- defenseless hostages for every German soldier who was killed. Dr. Waldheim says the fighting was hard, but he was doing an interpreting job. O'HALLORAN: So your basic position is that you knew what was going on, even when what was going on went far beyond the bounds of normal warfare, but that you didn't personally play a part in the killings. Dr. WALDHEIM: I wouldn't really agree with your statement. I can only repeat that this was a very tough military confrontation. You are talking about the suffering of the Partisans, which I deeply regret. It was a real tragedy -- O'HALLORAN: I'm not talking about your fighting, I'm talking about -- Dr. WALDHEIM: You never mention the German forces had also their casualties. There are thousands and thousands of casualties of Germans, so please, be a little more objective. I deeply regret the way this war took place, but I want to state really that first I wasn't involved in it -- cruel warfare, and secondly that casualties were on both sides. O'HALLORAN: While Dr. Waldheim was U. N. Secretary General, he paid his respects to the Jewish dead of World War II by visiting Auschwitz. More than 40,000 of these victims of the ''Final Solution'' were deported from the norther Greek city of Salonica in the spring of 1943. The young Kurt Waldheim was based near there at the time. (to Jacques Strumsa) Dr. Waldheim has said that he didn't know about the deportations of the Jews until very recently, the deportation of the Jews from Salonica that is. JACQUES STRUMSA, Salonica survivor: My opinion is this is impossible not to know for many, many reasons. Dr. Waldheim had a very good position as an army officer in the [unintelligible]. And the [unintelligible] was 5 kilometers -- perhaps 4 or 5 kilometers -- from Salonica. O'HALLORAN: The headquarters? Mr. STRUMSA: The headquarters, yes. And the peoples that run and come in Salonica, the Germans took the Jews to the other part of the city, and they die. Dr. WALDHEIM: Our department had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish deportations, and we didn't even know about it. I knew that there were the concentration camps, and I knew of the tragedy in Germany and in different countries of occupation, but I had no knowledge of those deportations from Salonica. O'HALLORAN: Vienna's famous Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, has supported Dr. Waldheim on the relative unimportance of the prewar Nazi groups. But he is deeply skeptical about his claim of ignorance about the Greek Jews. SIMON WIESENTHAL, Nazi hunter: He called me, asked me to believe him, that he knew nothing about the deportation of Jews from Yugoslavia and Greece. And I say, ''Sorry, I cannot believe you, because in my opinion you are an intelligent man, when an ordinary soldier had to tell me I knew nothing. '' O'HALLORAN [voice over]: Dr. Waldheim's feeling that he's a victim of guilt by association is no doubt increased by this picture, which helped to spark off the whole controversy. It shows him at an airport in Montenegro in 1943 with an Italian officer and an SS General, Artur Phlepps, who led the Prinzeugen Division, notorious for its brutality. Dr. Waldheim says he was merely interpreting. It wasn't for interpreting that Dr. Waldheim was put on a list of alleged war criminals by Yugoslavia. The documents so far revealed from Belgrade referred to alleged civilian murders. It appears that may be hundreds of German officers on such lists against whom no action was ever taken. [in interview] The allegations that were made in that dossier by the war criminal Egbert Hilker, that you could be held responsible for the burning of three villages and the killing of 114 people on the road between Kocani and Stip in Macedonia -- is that allegation -- Dr. WALDHEIM: It's completely wrong. It's a lie. It's an invention. We were flown over, usually from one place to the other, and even on the road there was never for me, being a staff member, to get involved in this kind of cruelties. O'HALLORAN [voice over]: In Austria, not even the severest critics of Dr. Waldheim researching his past now in detail, believe that he was a war criminal. Dr. WALDHEIM: My people know that hundreds of thousands of Austrians went through the same experience and they feel that I am an honest man, that I haven't done harm to anybody, and therefore I have the support of my people. LEHRER: That was a BBC report. Now to our American and Austrian reaction to today's Justice Department decision. The American is Allen Ryan, who ran the Special Investigations office at the Justice Department from 1980 to 1983. It is that office that gathered the U. S. information on Waldheim. He is now on the legal staff of Harvard University, and joins us from Boston. The Austrian perspective comes from Klaus Emmerich, the Washington correspondent for Austrian Television and Radio. Mr. Ryan, to you first. Do you believe today's decision by the Justice Department was the right decision to make? ALLEN RYAN, former Justice Department official: Yes, absolutely, Jim. It was the right decision, and it was a well justified decision. LEHRER: Justified on what grounds? Mr. RYAN: Justified on the considerable amount of evidence -- and there's -- it's that thick if you look at the document -- that substantiate Dr. Waldheim's involvement with the persecution that took place under army groups while he was there on the intelligence staff. LEHRER: What is the point of the action -- putting him on the watch list, which makes it impossible for him to come into the country as a private citizen? Mr. RYAN: Because the United States law says that any person who took part in -- for whom there is reason to believe took part in the persecution of innocent people can be barred from the United States and can be admitted only after a hearing to determine the final truth of the allegation. This action today is not a court's action, it's not a judicial finding of culpability, it is a determination -- and a justified determination by the Attorney General -- that a prima facie case exists. That is, the evidence taken for what it seems to be would indicate his culpability. And if he wants to contest that, he's welcome to it. But as a diplomatic matter, that's not going to happen. LEHRER: You don't think it's going to happen? Mr. RYAN: I don't think there's any chance at all that Kurt Waldheim would subject himself to the process of trying to prove or to explain away the evidence that has so seriously mounted against him. He's simply not going to come to the United States. LEHRER: Let's ask Mr. Emmerich that question. Do you agree that Kurt Waldheim will not come to the United States? KLAUS EMMERICH, Austrian Television: No, I don't think so. It's a sad day for our country, because he's our President, elected in a properly done democratic election, and the Americans taught us over 40 years ago to handle democratic processes. No, I don't think so because -- well, he was living in this country for more than 20 years as a diplomat of our country, and as Secretary General of the United Nations. So he knows -- or he should know -- what's going on, and well -- LEHRER: In other words, you do not believe that Kurt Waldheim will challenge this ruling today, is that correct? Mr. EMMERICH: Well, I have no information about that, because President Waldheim didn't release a statement like that today in Vienna. But I would say, it would be unwise for him to challenge a system which is very strange for us to understand. But it's, the system -- the legal system of this country -- it's done law by law, so we have to accept that. LEHRER: What do you think the reaction in Austria is going to be to this? Mr. EMMERICH: Well, unfortunately, it will be a real setback. Because our legal system seems to be different -- not seems to be, it is different to yours in this country. And then Mr. Meese is doing his decision on the base of American law, but by Austrian law it's unthinkable what's going on, because -- Mr. Ryan is saying there are evidences -- you know, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Waldheim and our President, our former President, Kirshlagger, who is an honest man, a decent man, and with a high moral reputation in our country and around the world, he was visiting this country a week ago -- LEHRER: This is the man Kurt Waldheim succeeded as president? Mr. EMMERICH: Mr. Kirshlagger, our former president said there are no evidences. And I think -- I hope we are talking about the same issues, the same problems and the same past -- evidences coming from World War II. Nobody knows precisely, because Mr. Shear, the boss of the Office of Special Investigations was in Yugoslavia some weeks ago. So I don't know what's going on, what documents are seen. LEHRER: But, Mr. Ryan, you're saying there's no question about that, right? Mr. RYAN: No disrespect, Mr. Emmerich, but your president is a liar. He first said he was a law student, then he admitted he was in uniform, then he said he was a translator. There have been documents since that film clip was made that showed his signature as intelligence staff officer over reports of atrocities that took place. I have nothing against the people of Austria, but this was a democratic process. Ninety percent of this evidence was out when the election was held. They elected him anyway, which was their right. But now I think they have no reason to claim that they are being humiliated by the United States. Mr. EMMERICH: Well, you see the verdict -- I know that -- that it's coming up many time. You're saying he's a liar. I'm not -- I'm not sure that's the right classification of a man -- well, who was serving since 40 years and -- perhaps he made some mistake at the very beginning of the whole action coming from some organization -- okay, that's true. When he started more than a year ago, Mr. Waldheim shouldn't do a kind of explanation step by step. But you are saying he is a liar. I don't believe that. LEHRER: Do you believe that even if there were some actions that Waldheim took in World War II that were reprehensible in somebody's eyes -- if not his own -- that the 40 years since then should have wiped the slate clean, that his record since then, that he should not be penalized as now the President of Austria. Mr. EMMERICH: Well, that's a different question, you see. As an Austrian I must say we have to clean our own past as a country. Well, Hitler was Austrian born, and some of his racistic ideas which led at least to the concentration camps, came from a very specific situation in our country 80 or 90 years ago like that. So there's no excuse for that. I'm not asking for an excuse. But I must say in the particular case of Kurt Waldheim, I'm not convinced that there are evidences enough by our law -- I'm not talking about your law, I'm a guest in this country and like this country, and -- but in that particular point, I cannot understand your legal system. Whatever the system would be and the Holtzman Amendment in that particular law makes it very difficult to understand. Some American friends were saying to me, this Holtzman Amendment is -- LEHRER: Holtzman Amendment is the law -- is it not, Mr. Ryan -- that makes this action today permissible. Mr. RYAN: Yes, it does. And the law says when it's applied to aliens who might seek to come to the United States, as opposed to people who are already here, that the government, the Justice Department, the Attorney General, may put those people on a watch list -- which is what Mr. Meese did today -- if there is reason to believe that they took part in Nazi atrocities. If Mr. Waldheim were not the President of Austria, this action I think would have been made routinely. I think it was looked at very, very closely, and I think it was done because he is the President of Austria, and it's not a decision that the United States wants to make -- LEHRER: What about, to Mr. Emmerich's thought about the difference in the legal systems, Mr. Ryan? Let's look at it from our point of view, the U. S. legal system. You've seen the bulk of this evidence. Do you believe that Kurt Waldheim could be convicted as a war criminal, based on the evidence that's now available, in our courts? Mr. RYAN: I think so. I think so. If he wants a trial in that sense, all he has to do is apply to come to America, and he will receive one, and then we will know the answer. I don't think that's going to happen. But I think the evidence right now -- if the Justice Department had to -- I think it could go into court and prove the case. LEHRER: So your position is that if he could not be tried in Austria in fact -- Mr. EMMERICH: -- he's living in this country -- in our country -- as a politician for 40 years. He was ambassador, he was foreign minister, he was Secretary General of the United Nations. So it's very difficult to understand on a higher level, as an Austrian [unintelligible] after 45 -- my generation, for instance -- started -- let's build up a real democratic society. And we are believing in that principle, including justice. And it's very difficult -- it really is -- let me say in a journalistic as well as patriotic aspects -- to understand now what's going on. LEHRER: Mr. Ryan, how do you respond to that concern. Mr. RYAN: Well, I don't know what it takes to convict someone of being a Nazi criminal under Austrian law. But I do know what it takes under American law. And I think that the evidence that has come to light here is certainly sufficient. I don't think it ought to be taken as anything more than what it is -- which is a finding that was made in the case of Kurt Waldheim. Now, he is President of Austria, to be sure. But I don't know as I would go as far as Mr. Emmerich in talking about how it affects the history or the recent efforts by the Austrian people. I wouldn't want to take this too far. I think it is an individual judgment made on an individual case, and the Justice Department said this morning that it does not affect -- or should not affect -- relations between the American people and the Austrian people. But I think it's an important point to be made that the evidence is there against Dr. Waldheim. LEHRER: All right. Allen Ryan in Boston, Mr. Emmerich here in Washington, thank you both very much. HUNTER-GAULT: Still to come on the News Hour, Interior's Hodel and Sierra Club's Fischer, disagree on offshore oil drilling. And independent counsel Walsh on the Iran contra probe. Exploring or Exploiting? HUNTER-GAULT: The Interior Department today released a five year master plan for leasing offshore waters to oil companies for exploration and drilling. Two years in the drafting, the plan is a scaled down version of an earlier, highly controversial one put forth by former Interior Secretary James Watt. But despite concessions to environmentalists, it makes only minor changes in the provision for California. It is there that the battle lines have been most clearly drawn, as we see in this background report from Steve Talbot of San Francisco's Public Station KQED.

STEVE TALBOT [voice over]: California boasts one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world. From the rugged shores of Northern California, to the warm beaches in the south, the coastal waters are a surfer's dream, a fisherman's necessity and an elephant seal's sanctuary. California's coastal waters are also rich in oil. The state is one of the nation's major oil producers and has been pumping oil off its southern coastline for almost 90 years. But support for offshore drilling in this state declined dramatically following the disastrous 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. Since then, environmentalists, the tourist and fishing industries, and the state's congressional delegation have been able to restrict offshore oil and gas production to the Santa Barbara channel and an area south of Los Angeles. Sheila Lodge is mayor of Santa Barbara. SHEILA LODGE, Mayor, Santa Barbara: When the oil spill occurred in 1969, an organization was formed called GOO, Get Oil Out, and most of us had that attitude -- get oil development out of the Santa Barbara Channel area. Well, we've had to face reality, and we realize that there's going to be oil development in the channel, but we must insist that it be done in the least damaging manner possible. And that has been very difficult to get some of the oil companies to agree to.

TALBOT [voice over]: When the Reagan administration took office, it launched a major new effort to open up almost all the potential oil areas in federal waters off California. This effort, initiated by former Secretary of the Interior James Watt was fought by California's congressional delegation. Watt's successor, Donald Hodel, has come up with a new plan. Hodel's plan would allow oil companies to lease 1,120 offshore sites covering 10,000 square miles of coastal water. Not only would this greatly expand production in the Santa Barbara area, it would extend drilling to the previously untouched Northern California coastline. But Senator Cranston has proposed an ocean sanctuary bill which would ban oil drilling here. Cranston's proposal would allow some new drilling north of Santa Barbara, but it would protect most of the state's coast. [on camera] This is where the ocean sanctuary movement began -- here in Mendocino County, along California's spectacular northern coast. This is also where the first government oil lease sale is scheduled to take place in February 1989. But the local economy is heavily dependent on tourism and fishing, and people who work in those industries fear that oil will damage the environment and threaten their way of life. NAT BINGHAM, salmon fisherman: Here in this county, opposition to development is solid. I don't know of any support for offshore around this county at all.

TALBOT: Nat Bingham is a salmon fisherman and president of the state's largest federation of fishermen. Mr. BINGHAM: And in the event of a major spill, the oil would go right in with the tide and follow those estuaries, and I think they'd be impossible to clean up.

TALBOT [voice over]: There have been no major spills from California oil drilling platforms since the 1969 Santa Barbara accident. But there have been serious spills from oil tankers and barges. In 1984 this tanker exploded off the coast of San Francisco. The oil contaminated a nearby bird and marine mammal sanctuary on the Farallon Islands, located 20 miles outside the Golden Gate Bridge. Thousands of birds were killed. Environmentalists fear that increased oil activity off the California coast will lead to more frequent spills and permanent damage to coastal ecology. But the oil companies insist that offshore drilling is not a major threat to the environment. CLAIR GHYLIN, Chevron oil: I think you can be almost absolutely safe. We have an outstanding safety record. It's not al voluntary. We have 44 laws that govern what we do.

TALBOT [voice over]: But many coastal residents remain skeptical. The ocean sanctuary proposal has enormous grassroots appeal in California. The state's congressional delegation has already managed to delay the first sale under the Hodel plan until after the Reagan administration has left office. Anti drilling activists plan to make protection of the California coastline a major issue in the 1988 presidential elections. Sen. ALAN CRANSTON, (D) California: California may play a vital part in the presidential campaign next year among Democrats and Republicans. There will be efforts made to get people seeking California's votes for the presidency to get them to understand this, and pledge that they will see to it that California's coast is not raped if they make the White House. TALBOT: In the long run, if Californians hope to win their ongoing battle with oil companies and the Department of the Interior, it will have to convince the rest of the country that what they want to protect is not just a local privilege, but a national treasure. HUNTER-GAULT: Here with us to discuss this report and its implications for California and elsewhere, Donald Hodel, the Secretary of the Interior. He joins us from Houston. We also have one of the chief critics of the plan, Michael Fischer, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, a national environmental group with over 400,000 members. Mr. Fischer joins us tonight from San Francisco. Starting first with you, Secretary Hodel, you made only minor changes in the provision for California. Why is that? Do you feel that you have met the concerns that we've just heard expressed in the taped piece? DONALD HODEL, Secretary of the Interior: Well, Charlayne, actually I made major changes in the proposal for California as compared to both the program put forth by Secretary Anderson under the Carter administration and by Secretary Watt in the first years of this administration. The amount remaining available in the areas that have previously been in moratorium is 13%. So I think that's a very substantial change. In fact, I've been receiving criticism from the developmental side of the ledger as well for this particular proposal. HUNTER-GAULT: What is that? Thirteen percent of what? Sec. HODEL: Thirteen percent of the areas that have been off limits to drilling in the past, we are suggesting in this 5 year plan be available for consideration in the lease sales. Charlayne, it's important to recognize that that's just the beginning. That is the point from which we then do additional environmental work and ultimately may in fact exclude many more tracts. The history of the program has been you start with a large number, and you narrow it down. In this case we've done a lot of narrowing up front in an effort to try to accommodate as best we can those concerns. But let me emphasize -- this is a national resource. The United States is facing in the '90s serious problems on energy supply, and we don't want to put OPEC further back into the driver's seat when we think there's a resource that can be developed without having to choose between the environment on the one hand, and an adequate energy supply on the other. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, why wouldn't the proposal that Senator Cranston made -- that is to do more drilling in the north of Santa Barbara -- be enough to meet the need there? Sec. HODEL: If all of this area is explored and the other areas in the United States that are currently available for exploration, nobody is suggesting we're going to prevent the United States from importing oil. We're going to require imports. But as you look up the coast, you do not know in which areas there is exploration that will find oil. The fact is 60% of the California coastline is excluded from exploration under this proposal, and that's what's generating opposition from developmental interests. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the other complaints that we heard -- that the drilling will damage the environment and threaten people's way of life, that a tanker may explode, run aground and have all this oil damage to the ecology -- have you found something that either corrects that or just makes that a wrong look at things? Sec. HODEL: Well, actually, we're talking about two different questions. The question with regard to the offshore program is what are its risks. And we've looked at that closely. I've participated in 10 town hall meetings along the coast of California, and heard from I think every category of interests along that coastline. And what we came away with was a conviction that we can solve and satisfy every single one of the environmental concerns except the view. If somebody objects to seeing structures -- and these are three or more miles offshore -- then we can't solve that. But tanker traffic will be increased if we don't have an offshore leasing program. And frankly the history of tankers is that there have been many more accidents, many more spills from tankers than from the offshore leasing program. So from an environmental standpoint on that tradeoff alone there between tankers and offshore drilling, it's definitely more environmentally safe to have an offshore leasing program. HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, how extensive is your plan to explore in other areas of the country, and what kind of compromises have you made there? Sec. HODEL: Well, with the exception of areas off Florida and in certain areas off Alaska where there was a concerted effort at the environment and oil industry level to come up with some compromises, we have basically suggested that the areas be designated at the beginning of this process. And then what we will do is we will cut back on the number of leases as we actually get into the process. We call it focused leasing. Early in the process in those other areas, we will start excluding areas, but not at the beginning do we exclude nearly as much as we have off the California coast. This is by far the more extensive exclusionary area. HUNTER-GAULT: And in how many areas all over the country will you be doing this? Sec. HODEL: The outer continental shelf of the United States is a billion acres -- that's about one third as much as there is land mass in the United States. And that's been divided over time into 21 different areas in which we're proposing leasing. I think there's something like 27 areas altogether. Some have no prospect and are not on this list. But all those that have a prospect are on the list more or less frequently to be considered for leasing, although they may not be if there's not adequate interest. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let me just turn to you Mr. Fischer. Briefly, for the California plan. You've heard Mr. Secretary say there have been major concessions made there. How do you feel about the plan now as you've heard him describe it? MICHAEL FISCHER, Sierra Club: Secretary Hodel describes his plan as a focused leasing program. We agree. It's focused in the areas that the oil industry have interest in. He's felt free to exclude those areas where there is very little energy company interest, and he now is proposing to open up areas offshore San Francisco Bay, offshore the Point Rejas National Seashore, both north and south of Big Sur, and the Wild Coast up in the Mendocino area that you saw pictures of. We believe that this program, which as you indicated earlier, will open up 10,000 square miles of ocean off California, is a gigantic giveaway. It plays too fast and loose with the precious resources of the coastal area of California. Beyond California, you asked questions -- how about the rest of the country? HUNTER-GAULT: Let's just hold the rest of the country for a moment and ask the Secretary to respond to what you just said. Giant giveaway, Mr. Secretary? Sec. HODEL: Charlayne, there is a law called the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, which requires the Secretary of the Interior -- whether it be me or my predecessors or my successors -- to try to put forth a program that balances the competing interests of environment and energy needs of the country, and come up with a program which permits this nation to obtain those resources that are essential to its energy requirement. Now, obviously, there are some who would like nothing to be drilled, and others who would say it's all right where they're not -- but the fact is my obligation is to try to come up with something that balances those interests. And I think this program has done a very solid job, and I'm hopeful that Congress will agree with that. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Fischer, you don't agree that more drilling is necessary to make us less dependent on foreign oil and that there has been a balance achieved here? Mr. FISCHER: It's clear that the nation depends upon foreign oil, and it's clear that this nation must provide a portion of its energy from its own waters and its own lands. Yes, we believe that the Secretary must attempt to find a balance that's required of him by law. But you're absolutely right. We do not believe that he has reached that balance. We believe that this proposal, taken nationwide, is an action that's designed to please the constituency of this administration, which all too often seems to be the oil industry. Balanced energy policy, Charlayne, needs to look at both supply and demand. And this administration has done nothing to dampen demand. We believe that the answer is in conservation. Just an increase in the miles per gallon of five miles per gallon of the automobiles in this country -- if that standard were raised, we would save every year the amount of energy that Secretary Hodel projects to find off California. HUNTER-GAULT: And these drillings wouldn't be necessary? Mr. FISCHER: That's correct. HUNTER-GAULT: What about that, Mr. Secretary? Sec. HODEL: Well, Charlayne, this last year, the United States lost 800,000 barrels of domestic production of oil -- which is about 8 to 10% of our domestic production. Our imports are up a million barrels a day this year over last, and next year will be another million barrels at the rate we're going. So even if we were to do -- which I think we should be doing, incidentally -- I support conservation, and when I was Secretary of Energy, I think Mr. Fischer will recall both renewables and conservations were things I talked about constantly as an important part of our energy mix. We still need to worry about where the energy is going to come from for the middle '90s. Let me emphasize -- if this program went forward, Charlayne, the earliest you could expect to have oil coming into the pipelines for use in our refineries and therefore by you and me as consumers, would be in the middle '90s. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me just ask you, Mr. Fischer -- we're not going to resolve this, it's clear -- do you expect -- he said that not all decisions had been made, and Congress does have 60 days in which action has to be taken to change all this if it's going to happen. Is there going to be a big fight in Congress over this? Mr. FISCHER: There will be a big fight in Congress. And there'll be a big fight each lease sale that goes forward. As Mr. Hodel indicated, this is the beginning. He has set in motion a chain of events which industry and his department will aggressively pursue. And given the history of the last 7 or 8 years, we know that if there is energy industry interest in any of these basins -- regardless of how environmentally sensitive -- this department will give the balance to industry's interest. We believe that this sort of rush to flood the market and to provide 46% of this nation's OCS -- Don O'Dell indicated there are a billion square miles out there -- we're proposing to provide almost half of that for open bid in this process. But that represents a ''drain America dry'' process. We in this five year period are rushing to dump our public resources, our energy resources -- which belong not only to this generation but to future generations. We're proposing to dump it into the hands of the oil industry at a time when supply is relatively high. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Fischer, we're going to have to obviously pursue this as the 60 days goes on and beyond. So we'll come back. Thank you very much for being with us. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us. Newsmaker Interview Lawrence Walsh JIM LEHRER: Next, a newsmaker interview with independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, the man in charge of finding out if any laws were criminally broken in the Iran contra affair, among other things. Judy Woodruff will conduct the interview. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: Lawrence Walsh was appointed independent counsel in charge of the Iran contra investigation last December. He is now in a race against the clock. With public hearings set to begin next week on Capitol Hill, Walsh and his staff are gathering information as fast as they can, because any information that comes from witnesses who expect to take the stand and testify under a grant of immunity cannot be used in prosecuting them for criminal offenses. So far, the House and Senate Select Committees have granted partial immunity to 12 people. Judge Walsh, thank you for being with us. There was a report out of your home town of Oklahoma City this afternoon that your law firm handled the legal papers for the purchase by the Southern Air Transport Corporation of three planes -- two of which were later released to Richard Secord to use to ship arms to Iran and the contras. Can you confirm that that happened? LAWRENCE WALSH, Iran contra Independent Counsel: No I can't -- I don't know any of the facts, but my firm probably handles more airplane registrations and sales than any firm in the country. They have specialized in that for many years, and the FAA center for this sort of work is Oklahoma City. So they probably handle 1500 transactions a year, and it could well be that one or more of those aircraft, or one of those transactions -- WOODRUFF: You then can't deny that that might have -- Mr. WALSH: Oh, no, I wouldn't know. There's a very high -- if the aircrafts were sold, they would have had to be registered in Oklahoma City. And there would be -- I'd say -- a 90% chance my firm would have done it. WOODRUFF: Now, as I understand it, you heard about this story over the weekend. Mr. WALSH: I heard about it yesterday. WOODRUFF: Have you spoken with your law firm about it? Mr. WALSH: I have talked to him, yes I have. WOODRUFF: And what has he told you. Mr. WALSH: Mr. Gotti said that -- he's checked back in his files -- there were two transactions with Southern Air. He didn't know which aircraft they were, but there were two transactions, one I think in '85, and one I think in '86. WOODRUFF: If it turns out that those planes were later used to ship arms to Iran, is there a conflict of interest there for you? Mr. WALSH: No, there would be no conflict of interest at all. That's a mere technical step in the sale of the firm. It's no more than it would be a conflict of interest to the FAA. WOODRUFF: But is there an appearance of a conflict? Because it's your law firm -- Mr. WALSH: I don't think there was anything -- it's very much like if you buy a house and want to borrow the money and put a mortgage on it -- if you -- you go to the bank, the bank will tell you that they want a lawyer to check the title to that house. They will select a lawyer, and they will charge you the lawyer's fee and the closing costs. So you would pay the lawyer, but the lawyer is selected by the bank -- in this case Crowe & Donlevy would have been selected by the lender, not by Southern Air. WOODRUFF: Just one other thing. Do you think you should have known about this before your appointment to the -- Mr. WALSH: No, I don't think so. Because at that point, I don't think anyone was interested in Southern Air. And I -- it -- actually, if you think of 1500 transactions -- and this is a one shot thing -- the chance of my knowing about that person having done business with the firm is very small. He's probably never been in the office. I doubt there's any contact with him, other than perhaps a phone call for information. WOODRUFF: On your investigation, just how much of an impediment is it to you that the Congressional Committees have now granted immunity to -- what is it, a dozen individuals? John Poindexter, Alban Hakkim and others. Mr. WALSH: The impediment to our investigation turns on who the immunity is granted to. If it's to a lesser figure, why then there's no great loss. But if immunity is granted to a central figure in a combination, or group action, to defraud the government, why that causes us a great deal of problem. Because it's difficult to conduct a prosecution if a major figure has been immunized. WOODRUFF: May cases be lost -- do you believe at this point -- because immunity has been or will be granted? Mr. WALSH: I think that has to be always considered as a very serious possibility. WOODRUFF: How are you going to work around it? Because clearly the Congress sees this differently from you on a number of these witnesses. Mr. WALSH: We've had very pleasant relations with Congress. They have a different point of view, and they have a sense of urgency that we respect. But we have been able to talk with both committees. And, for example, on Poindexter and North, they gaveus additional time to protect the record against any claim that we learn something from the immunized testimony. WOODRUFF: Is that enough? Mr. WALSH: No, it's never enough. really, but we have to strike a balance with their feeling that it's urgent that the full facts be disclosed to the public as soon as possible. So it's a balancing situation. Now there are others whom we have urged that they not give immunity to, because we need their testimony -- WOODRUFF: Thomas Cline -- Mr. WALSH: Thomas Cline, for example -- the need for the testimony -- WOODRUFF: -- former C. I. A. -- Mr. WALSH: -- yes -- is not as apparent, and why give immunity unnecessarily that could frustrate a prosecution. WOODRUFF: Senator Warren Rudman, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee, criticized you last week on this show. He said there are too many important issues facing the country -- and I'm quoting him -- for them to ''wait while your investigation goes on ad nauseum. '' Has this been going on ad nauseum? Mr. WALSH: No, I -- it's not going on -- I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. We think we're going on very fast, and indeed the investigation is going very well. So there's nothing ad nauseum about it. WOODRUFF: Which do you think is more important, the need of the Congress to get the facts out before the public, and your need to proceed with a criminal prosecution? Mr. WALSH: That's a very difficult question. And I suppose we both look at it from our own point of view. And I think it's not necessary that one damage the other more severely than necessary. It is necessary that Congress get this information out to the public because the fact that they are supplying both public information as to something that everyone's quite worried about, and they're also supplying a factual predicate for possible legislation -- or even a possible amendment of some sort -- that they may conclude is justified on the basis of these facts. So that is extremely important. And they are entrusted with the judgment as to which is more important. The law gives them the call on it. But we say, ''Sure your work is important, and if it's necessary, why of course, grant immunity. If (it's) someone you can't get that evidence (from) any other way, but don't grant it unnecessarily. '' WOODRUFF: Senator Rudman also said that if you were trying to put together a case involving a conspiracy to defraud -- or a couple of conspiracies to defraud -- the government instead of the more simple crime of obstruction of justice, and I'm quoting, you're ''going to have a hell of a time proving it. '' Is he right? Is it that difficult to prove conspiracy here? Mr. WALSH: Nobody ever said this was going to be easy, but I think he's coming to too early a judgment. He'd better wait and see. WOODRUFF: Is that what you're trying to prove? A conspiracy? Mr. WALSH: I'm not going to get into a discussion of what facts we are developing. I'll go back to the Tower Report, and to the Boren Intelligence Committee Report. If you take the facts put out there, the hypothesis they suggest is that of a possible conspiracy to defraud the government. So that is a natural line of investigation. WOODRUFF: Do you think people will go to prison over what has happened here? Mr. WALSH: I don't think it would be right for me to say that now. But we are not doing this just for the exercise. WOODRUFF: Do you think that you will in the end of your investigation be charging people with criminal offenses? Mr. WALSH: We're working for a serious purpose, and how it will turn out will be on the basis of a judgment that is justice to the individual and also very firm on behalf of the country. WOODRUFF: Any possibility that President Reagan may be involved in some way in some criminally culpable way? Mr. WALSH: It wouldn't be appropriate to comment on that at all. WOODRUFF: Well, Judge Walsh, we thank you for being with us. Mr. WALSH: Thank you, and thank you for having me. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Austrian President Kurt Waldheim was barred from entering the United States. The Justice Department said there was prima facie evidence that Waldheim participated in war crimes while a German army officer during World War II. Austria immediately recalled its Ambassador to the U. S. Waldheim had no comment. And the value of the U. S. dollar fell to another post war record low against the Japanese yen. Good night, Charlayne. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our News Hour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Charlayne Hunter Gault. Good night.