The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news today, President Reagan said he would not allow Iran to close down Persian Gulf shipping. A Liberian freighter was damaged by a mine in the Persian Gulf, and a secret contra supplier said he believed he was working for the President of the United States. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Hunter Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, here's the NewsHour lineup. We begin with extended excerpts from today's Iran contra hearing. Followed by insights from two members of the investigating committee. And a report on how best to teach young people about drugs. News Summary LEHRER: President Reagan served notice on Iran today. He said the United States would not allow Iran to close the important oil shipping lanes to the Persian Gulf. He said it in an interview with six foreign television reporters at the White House. The question was about U. S. intentions in the Gulf and provoking Iran into a fight one of them.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I have to say we're not just in there daring someone to do something. I think all of the nation that you represent have made it plain how important the Persian Gulf is -- that's an international waterway. Can you imagine the precedent that would be set if we all stepped back and said, ''Well, this barbaric country has a right to close down these international waters and bring down the economic havoc that it would on somany countries. ''? No, we're seeking nothing, except the right of commercial trade between the nations of the Gulf and those that are not embroiled in the Iran Iraq wars. And we're going to do that. LEHRER: Defense Secretary Weinberger told a news conference in Brussels today the United States stood ready to protect all shipping in the Gulf.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: You don't really discriminate or try to just protect certain types of ships when you have waters where freedom of navigation has been -- international waters -- international bodies of water -- that -- where there should be freedom of shipping back and forth in accordance with the wishes of the shippers and the receivers. American policy is going, American policy has been absolutely uniform on this. We've been in the Gulf since 1949. We've said many times that we could not tolerate anything that blocks shipping or blocks access to the oil, or blocked access to the other free flow of commerce in that whole area. LEHRER: Weinberger was in Brussels for a meeting of NATO. He asked for help in the Persian Gulf mission. Today, the NATO Secretary General turned that request away. He said NATO was not concerned as an organization with matters outside its Western European area. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: Meanwhile, words of caution about U. S. --Gulf policy were sounded on Capitol Hill today by Democratic Senator Jim Sasser. Following a recent fact finding trip to the Persian Gulf states, Sasser had this to say at news conference.

Sen. JIM SASSER, (D) Tennessee: After taking this swift journey, I'm more convinced than ever that the time for posturing in the Persian Gulf has come and gone. What we're seeing down the road is the United States being sucked into this violent and savage war that has wracked the Persian Gulf now for seven or eight years. And we want to be clear that we know what's at the end of that road, and we want to be clear as to who will walk down that road with us. HUNTER-GAULT: In the Gulf today, a Liberian registered tanker was slightly damaged after hitting a mine. The 276,000 ton tanker Primrose, which had just taken a load of oil to Kuwait, immediately turned back to Kuwait to survey the damage. Both Iran and Iraq have mined parts of the Gulf. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union today rejected as complete fabrication a New York Times report of an $18 million arms sale by the Soviets to Iran. The Soviet news agency Tass charged the report was aimed at diverting attention from the Iran contra affair. LEHRER: Back in this country, President Reagan was the object of much attention today before the Iran contra hearings. The main witness was retired Air Force Colonel Robert Dutton, who worked in the secret contra supply network, run by retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord and then White House aide Oliver North. Dutton said he was told he was working for the President of the United States. He was asked if he ever questioned the legality of his mission.

Col. ROBERT DUTTON, U. S. Air Force, Retired:To me, Col. North was working out of the NSC, and as far as I understood, he was working for the President, and I had no need to question the legality of what we were doing. KENNETH BALLEN, House Staff Counsel: And did Col. North ever mention to you whether or not you would receive any recognition for your work on the special operation, resupplying the contras? Col. DUTTON: In September, after what I consider we became successful, and I came back from my trip to Central America, I met Col. North out in our office, and he said at that time, he said, ''This has been a success. You'll never get a medal for this, but someday the President will shake your hand and thank you. '' LEHRER: President Reagan was asked in the foreign reporters session this morning about the Iran contra hearings, and the damage they may have done to his credibility. He denied again that he had done anything illegal or improper that should have hurt his credibility. HUNTER-GAULT: The Reverend Jerry Falwell said today that he doesn't see an ounce of repentance in Jim Bakker, the deposed head of television's PTL Ministry. Falwell's judgment followed a television appearance by Bakker last night, in which he accused Falwell of stealing his ministry.

JIM BAKKER, former head of PTL: I did not choose Jerry Falwell to take my ministry. He said he would be a caretaker and would never even be on the air, never have anything to do except to be a part of holding it, to keep it from hostile takeover. I'm convinced that they came here with the motive to steal Heritage U. S. A. and my ministry. I'm convinced of that, yes. JERRY FALWELL: No one, Jerry Falwell, or anyone associated with Jerry Falwell has ever attempted to take over his ministry, whether friendly or hostile takeover. He needs to come clean about Jessica Hahn and repent. That little girl -- 19, 20 years of age -- in my opinion was injured for life by that terrible travesty in Florida. He needs to come forward and say, ''Yes, I did it, and I've asked God's forgiveness. '' He needs to say to Jessica, ''Please forgive me. '' That's the Christian approach. Secondly, he needs to acknowledge his homosexual problems dating back to 1956 to the present time, as they've been alleged to us. And say, ''Yes, I've been wrong, I've made a mistake, I have sinned, but I ask God's forgiveness. '' I know I for one, and most, would forgive immediately. And he needs to return the millions of dollars that have been taken from the coffers of this ministry at the cost of widows and supporters and people who sacrificially built this Christian ministry. HUNTER-GAULT: Bakker turned his ministry over to Falwell in March after acknowledging he had sex with former church secretary Jessica Hahn. He was also then accused of homosexual activities. LEHRER: There was a successful test of a redesigned space shuttle booster today. The Morton Thiokol Company staged the test at a site 25 miles southwest of Brigham City, Utah. It involved the horizontal firing of the 126 foot booster that sent smoke and dust high into the air. It was the first such test since the Challenger tragedy in February 1986. HUNTER-GAULT: That's our news summary. Still to come, today's Iran contra hearings, and drug education for the young. Iran-contra Hearing Supplying the contras LEHRER: The Iran contra hearings resumed today after a 5 day break, and so does our special coverage. The first witness today was a key man in the secret U. S. operation to bring arms and other supplies to the contras of Nicaragua. Retired Air Force Colonel Robert Dutton is his name. Judy Woodruff will now tell and show us what he said and the other witness of the day had to say. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dutton led off today with a picture of virtual daily control of the contra supply effort by Col. Oliver North, at a time when Congress had prohibited the government from aiding the contras. The retired Air Force colonel also portrayed an operation he believed had been endorsed at the highest level with the Reagan administration. Dutton retired from the Air Force a year ago this month and joined General Richard Secord's firm, Stanford Technology, a private company heavily involved in the Iran contra operation. Dutton immediately assumed responsibility for straightening out the disorganized resupply operation to the contra's southern forces. Dutton has known Secord for many years. In the mid '70s Dutton worked for Secord in Iran as an advisor to the Shah's air force. In 1980 they worked together on rescue operations for the Iranian hostages. When Secord's private resupply operation went awry in 1986, he turned to Dutton again, because of his long background in unconventional warfare and covert special operations. KEN BALLEN, House Staff Counsel: Col. Dutton, would you say there are many officers in the United States Air Force that have your experience in special operations? Col. DUTTON: I'd say there's less than a dozen. WOODRUFF: Dutton was questioned this morning by House Staff Counsel Ken Ballen, who asked Dutton about how the contra resupply effort was structured. Mr. BALLEN: What were your duties in connection with this air resupply operation to support the contras? Col. DUTTON: I was asked to manage the operation, to basically take an operation that was not working and get it to work. Mr. BALLEN: Who commanded the operation, sir? Col. DUTTON: General Secord and Col. North. Mr. BALLEN: Who did you report to? Col. DUTTON: General Secord and Col. North. Mr. BALLEN: What was General Secord's role, sir? Mr. BALLEN: General Secord had a great deal of experience in air special operations, and I would say he was more of the operations director. Col. North dealt mostly on the policy side. But they -- I dealt with them as co equals. I could take just about any issue to either one of them -- whoever was available. Mr. BALLEN: So they were both in command in your understanding? Col. DUTTON: That's correct. Mr. BALLEN: Sir, did Col. North ever indicate to you who you were working for? Col. DUTTON: He indicated to me that we were working for the President of the United States. Mr. BALLEN: Sir, what access, if any, did Oliver North have to various officials in the Executive Branch, from your own observation? Col. DUTTON: Col. North had very broad contact, and I would consider it at the very highest levels of the various branches of the government. Mr. BALLEN: For example, who did he have contact with that you were personally aware of? Col. DUTTON: I had heard him refer to ''Bill'' aa couple of times. I didn't know who he was talking about until it was identified he was talking about Mr. Casey. He mentioned that he had -- Mr. BALLEN: In what context would he mention -- Col. DUTTON: Discussions with the CIA about our project, about what we were doing, and towards the end when we were looking at the transfer of the operation over to the CIA. Mr. BALLEN: Did Col. North ever mention to you whether or not you would receive any recognition for your work on this special operation, resupplying the contras? Col. DUTTON: In September, after what I consider we became successful, and I came back from my trip to Central America, I met Col. North out in our office, and he said at that time, he said, ''This has been a success. You'll never get medal for this, but someday the President will shake your hand and thank you. '' Mr. BALLEN: Now, sir, how did you understand Col. North's remarks at that point and time? Col. DUTTON: It didn't surprise me. It had happened before. And to me, that would have been sufficient. There wasn't any pay to be given or gotten before. It was something we were doing for the boss.

WOODRUFF: At one point in this morning's session, Dutton was asked to look through a photo album he had prepared to help illustrate the airlift operation in Central America. Mr. BALLEN: What did you do with the photograph album after you had prepared it? Col. DUTTON: As I recall, I finished it either on a Friday or Saturday morning. Col. North and Gen. Secord were out at our offices in Virginia. Gen. Secord looked through it. He liked it. Col. North came out of a meeting they were having, and this was the first time I had seen him since I'd gotten back from the operation. He was very pleased with what had happened with the op, and I showed him the album. He liked it very much and said he would like to take it and show it to his ''top boss. '' Mr. BALLEN: Who did you understand Col. North to be referring to when he said he'd like to take the photograph out to his ''top boss?'' Col. DUTTON: I understood he was talking about the President. Mr. BALLEN: And why did you understand that? How did you come to that understanding? Col. DUTTON: I'd never heard him use the term talking about anybody else that he'd been working with as a ''top boss. '' He didn't refer to Admiral Poindexter that way. So it was just the way he said it -- it was my impression.

WOODRUFF: Dutton also described what happened after one of his aircraft and three of his crew had been shot down during a resupply mission over Nicaragua. Mr. BALLEN: Did you have occasion to speak to the President of Southern Air Transport, Mr. Lanktin, about -- Col. DUTTON: Yes, after the shoot down, at that particular time our other C 123 -- we had an engine problem developing and we had brought it back up to Southern Air to get an engine change done on it. So it was sitting out in front of Southern Air when the news story broke that this in fact was a C 123, and there was a picture published of what a C 123 looks like. So our effort was -- it would be a good idea to get the C 123 out from in front of Southern Air Transport. In the meantime, the FAA and customs had arrived at Southern Air Transport and had said that they would like to look at the records -- the maintenance records -- and the financial records for Southern Air transport -- which seemed a little strange for those two groups, but that was what they were asking for. Mr. Lanktin called me, and he said he didn't have any trouble passing that information to them. However, if they got into the accounting records, as they got into the account, they would come across other operations that Southern Air Transport had been supporting. Mr. BALLEN: This is what Mr. Lanktin told you? Col. DUTTON: Yes. And that maybe it would not be the desire of the people up here to have those operations exposed. And so possibly they should be made aware of that. Mr. BALLEN: What did you do? Col. DUTTON: I called Col. North and I passed to him what Mr. Lanktin had said. And he said, ''Call him back and tell him I will take care of it. '' So I called Bill back, and -- Mr. BALLEN: Bill Lanktin? Col. DUTTON: Lanktin. The next day he called me back again and said -- Mr. BALLEN: Who called you, sir? Col. DUTTON: Mr. Lanktin. And said that FAA and customs were back, and that they were pressing for the information and again he had no trouble providing that to them, but what did we want done? I told him I would getback to him. I called Col. North, and he said that he had spoken to Mr. Meese and it would be taken care of. And I called Mr. Lanktin back and informed him of that, and in fact the FAA and customs people did go away Mr. BALLEN: How do you know they went away? Col. DUTTON: Mr. Lanktin told me they did. Well, let's put it this way -- they didn't come back. They said they were coming back, I believe, either with a subpoena, or coming back to look at it, and they didn't show up again. Additionally, the FBI had launched an investigation down there, and Mr. Lanktin called me. Again, I advised Col. North and he said he would take care of that. Mr. BALLEN: And what occurred -- if you know -- as a result of that second conversation? Col. DUTTON: As I recall, that investigation was delayed, but I don't think it was called off. I think it was delayed for a period of time. Mr. BALLEN: Col. Dutton, during your management of the air resupply operation, how frequent was your contact with Col. Oliver North? Col. DUTTON: I guess when we were hard at it, and when he was in the Washington area, it would be if not every day, every other day. Mr. BALLEN: And your contact with Gen. Secord? Col. DUTTON: If he was in Washington, it would be every day. Mr. BALLEN: Did you ever arrange for cash to be delivered to Oliver North at the White House? Col. DUTTON: On one occasion. Mr. BALLEN: Can you recall when that was? Col. DUTTON: I do not recall the date of it. Mr. BALLEN: How much cash was involved? Col. DUTTON: I found out after the fact that it was, I believe, $16,000. Mr. BALLEN: And what were the circumstances? How did this come about? Col. DUTTON: Gen. Secord called the office and said that -- Mr. BALLEN: He spoke to you? Col. DUTTON: He spoke to me. And said that he wanted to get Bill Olmstead an airline ticket to fly down to Miami, pick up a package, bring it up to Col. North. And asked that I have Shirley Napier, our administrative assistant, get that taken care of. He called later in the day and said he was unable to locate Mr. Olmstead, and therefore Shirley should cancel the ticket. Shirley was standing there and made the comment that she could fly on an airplane down to Miami and back as easy as anybody else, and she'd be willing to do that. And I mentioned that to Gen. Secord, and he said, ''All right. Fine, let her go ahead and fly down and pick up the package at Southern Air. '' She went down and returned. I don't recall if it was that evening or it was the next morning, she came in and told me that she had signed a handwritten receipt for $16,000 cash, and she had delivered it, I believe, to Fawn Hall, Col. North's secretary. Mr. BALLEN: And did you ever have any discussions with North or Gen. Secord afterwards as to the purpose of this cash being delivered to Col. North? Col. DUTTON: I can't recall a specific conversation, but I think I remember that Col. North wasn't pleased that we had used Shirley. But that was Gen. Secord's call, and that's what he said to do, and so we did it. Mr. BALLEN: But you never had discussed the purpose of the cash with anyone? Col. DUTTON: No. Mr. BALLEN: So you don't know why Col. North was receiving it? Col. DUTTON: No, I do not.

WOODRUFF: When it came time for Senate Chief Counsel Arthur Liman to question the witness, he pressed Dutton on his knowledge of the cash delivery to North. ARTHUR LIMAN, Senate Chief Counsel: What kind of accountability was there for that cashthat was being given to Col. North? Col. DUTTON: Sir, that wasn't my operation and I didn't think that it would be my position to demand an accounting from Col. North on that subject. Mr. LIMAN: Did you raise with Gen. Secord the fact that there was cash being delivered to the White House? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. Mr. LIMAN: Did you ask him what kind of accountability there was for that cash? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. Mr. LIMAN: Did you ask Col. North about accountability for that cash? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. As I stated, it wasn't my position. It was their operation. All I had done was facilitate, having Shirley go down and pick up what I understood was a package.

WOODRUFF: When members of the committee got their chance to question Dutton during the afternoon session, Senate Chairman Inouye read testimony that contradicted Dutton's account of the $16,000 cash delivery. Sen. DANIEL INOUYE, (D) Hawaii: Earlier this morning, in response to a question relating to Shirley Napier's carrying an envelope to the Old Executive Office Building, you responded that you were not aware of the content of the envelope, is that correct? Col. DUTTON: Not until afterwards when she returned and told me she had signed a receipt for it. Sen. INOUYE: So you had no idea whether it was a document or cash? Col. DUTTON: No, sir, it was given to me as a package. And that's what I was told. Sen. INOUYE: I'd like to read to you just about a half a page from the transcript of the deposition of Shirley Napier, just for clarification. Question: ''Could you describe for us the occasion in 1986 when you delivered money to the Old Executive Office Building?'' Answer: And this is Ms. Napier. ''Bob Dutton was trying to get in touch with Bill Cooper, who was coming to Washington, and he wanted him to stop in Miami and pick up documents of papers. And he could not get ahold of Bill Cooper. And Mr. Secord was out of town. And I didn't have much to do, so I volunteered to go down and pick up the papers. Well, I made my reservations, and he came back. And at that time he told me that I would be picking up $16,000 in cash from a man who worked for Southern Air Transport. And when I picked it up to bring it back to D. C. , I had to take it to Col. North at the Old Executive Office Building. '' Did you know the envelope contained $16,000? Col. DUTTON: My testimony has been that I didn't know until afterwards. That's Shirley's recollection of it. I do not recall finding out that it was cash until after she returned.

WOODRUFF: Republican Congressman Bill McCollum asked Dutton about any conversations Col. North might have had with members of the President's Cabinet concerning the contra supply operation. Rep. BILL McCOLLUM, (R) Florida: Were you present, or did you ever overhear any conversation at any time between Col. North and, let's say, Director Casey, the CIA Director? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. Rep. McCOLLUM: Were you present, or did you overhear at any time any conversation between Col. North and Mr. Meese? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. Rep. McCOLLUM: Were you present for a conversation, or did you overhear such a conversation at any time between Col. North and any cabinet officer in this administration -- in President Reagan's administration? Col. DUTTON: No, sir. Rep. McCOLLUM: At any time, did you ever discuss with Vice President George Bush the resupply operation or anything related to it. Col. DUTTON: No, sir, I have not.

WOODRUFF: Republican Congressman Henry Hyde asked the last question of Dutton. A question that caused the witness to blush. Rep. HENRY HYDE, (R) Illinois: Some of the language is obscure to me, and I wonder if you could tell me -- I'll read you the code, and you tell me what you really meant. Here, for instance, your Exhibit 9, RCD 9, ''Send Fawn. Can't continue on milk and cookies. Regards, Bob. '' What was the reality behind that code message? Col. DUTTON: Sir, that's highly classified. Rep. HYDE: Well, I wouldn't want that disclosed in public -- Col. DUTTON: Sir, at that point and time, we had finally been successful and it was time to put just a slight bit of levity into what was going on. We had been dead serious for a long time, and the idea of sending Fawn just struck me at a weak moment.

WOODRUFF: After Dutton, the Committee herd from Felix Rodriguez, a man who has used the alias, ''Max Gomez. '' Rodriguez spent much of his testimony complaining about the private contra supply operation, because it involved Secord and Thomas Clines, who was associated with former CIA official Edwin Wilson, now in prison for selling weapons to Libya. Rodriguez is a 44 year old Cuban American. He is a veteran of the 1961 failed Bay of Pigs Invasion against Castro's Cuba. The quarter of century since then, Rodriguez has been zealously fighting communism by working as a secret agent in the shadowy world of U. S. clandestine operations. Rodriguez was advising the Salvadoran Air Force at the Illopango Air Base in El Salvador when he was recruited by Col. North in September 1985. Rodriguez told how he acted as a liaison between Col. North, resupply operation in El Salvador, the country where it was based. Rodriguez also talked of wanting to quit the operation just as it was taking form. PAUL BARBADORO, Senate Deputy Counsel: You didn't trust the people who were running this operation, is that right? FELIX RODRIGUEZ, former CIA operative: (unintelligible). Mr. BARBADORO: You didn't trust Gen. Secord, and you didn't trust Tom Clines, is that right? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: For this type of operation, (unintelligible), no, sir. Mr. BARBADORO: Why didn't you trust them? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: I think it's my -- it's hard for me to answer that, sir. It was just a feeling. I just didn't want any part of the operation any more at that point. Mr. BARBADORO: Well, let me suggest something to you -- could it have been that you were concerned that in prior activities that Gen. Secord and Tom Clines had been involved in profiteering, and you were concerned that they might be involved in profiteering in this case as well? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: You said it.

WOODRUFF: Rodriguez revealed two memorable comments -- one by North about his relationship with President Reagan, the other by Rodriguez about his skepticism about the private contra supply effort. Mr. RODRIGUEZ: I looked straight at him and said, ''Col. , I'd like to speak -- '' It's pretty hard for me to go over -- Mr. BARBADORO: I'd like for you to repeat what you told him, please. Mr. RODRIGUEZ: I said, ''Colonel, I have learned that there are people stealing here. You have to understand that there are hand grenades bought at nine dollars a piece, or bought at three dollars a piece, and sold at nine dollars a piece. And if this is known and the people which are involved connected to the Wilson case before, it's going to be worse than (unintelligible) And this could destroy the President of the United States. He told me that that was not the case. That Mr. Clines was a patriot, that Mr. Clines was not buying any equipment from anybody. That he was just helping him in the transportation of the equipment. At that point I told him I was going to leave -- had to go down and pick up some pictures, and I left the room. Mr. BARBADORO: And was that your last meeting with Col. North? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. Mr. BARBADORO: At some point before the end of the meeting, Col. North also made a reference to Congress, did he not? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: That was the day, as I recall, when you all had the voting on the aid to the contras. And what I've learned through this listening to all of the testimony here -- is time to go into a dramatic side, so he went looking for the TV where the hearings were taking place, or the voting taking place -- Mr. BARBADORO: A Congressional debate was going on and was being shown on TV, right? Mr. RODRIGUEZ: And he looked at the TV and said, ''Those people won me. But they cannot toss me because the Old Man loves my ass. ''

WOODRUFF: Throughout a series of questions about his contacts with Vice President Bush, Rodriguez insisted he did not tell Bush about the contra supply effort being run by Col. North. However, Rodriguez said he did tell Bush's aide Donald Gregg about the operation last August. The operation was not publicly disclosed until three months later. Jim? LEHRER: We go now to two members of the Special Iran contra Select Committee, Senator George Mitchell, Democrat of Maine, and Congressman Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois. They are with us from Capitol Hill. The first question, gentlemen, is about President Reagan and is in response to this statement he made today about the hearings on the press accounts of his support for the contras.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I made it plain, went to the public, tried to arouse public opinion in this country in support of our position so that they would influence their representatives in Congress to continue providing the aid. I did that openly. I knew that there were individuals and groups in America which on their own privately were contributing. I didn't know who they were, and I never asked, and I never asked how they did it. And at the same time, I had expressed a belief that other democratic nations in the world -- it might be to their best interests also to lend support to the freedom fighters, and other countries did. But again, I never solicited any country and asked them to do that. And I never knew who was or who wasn't until the head of state of one of those countries told me that they were contributing and were going to increase their contribution. Now, that is the truth. But that's not the way the images were portrayed. I am being portrayed as having behind the scenes violated the law and have done all sorts of shady things to try and violate the congress restriction on aid to the freedom fighters, and it just isn't true. Now, I hope this will be carried word for word in each of your countries, so maybe my reputation will be restored. LEHRER: All right, we go now to Capitol Hill to Congressman Hyde. I understand Senator Mitchell has not arrived yet, is that right, Congressman, you're there by yourself? Rep. HENRY HYDE, (R) Illinois: I don't see him here yet, but I'm told he's enroute. LEHRER: Okay. Well, look, what do you think about what the President said today? You heard what he just said. Rep. HYDE: I think the President said the truth. Everyone in the country knows that he supported the contras, and during those elucid intervals when congress couldn't make up its mind, you had people in the field and had to be clothed and fed and armed. And so he did the next best thing and encouraged other people to fill in the gaps until Congress returned to its sanity and supplied the money. So I don't think there's anything new or surprising in that. LEHRER: Nothing new or surprising in that there was a secret operation that was being run out of the White House? He never said anything about that, did he? Rep. HYDE: No, the secret operation out of the White House was secret and none of us knew that it was going on. We suspected, and we were told it wasn't going on. So that is an issue, and we'll hear more about that later. But I don't think the President -- and I'm not convinced that the President was directing or even had knowledge of what the National Security Council was doing. Certainly, there was no intention to break the law on his part. And I think he said as much. LEHRER: But legalities aside, Congressman, if the President in fact did know about this secret operation to get supplies, etc. , to the contras, was that the right thing to do? Rep. HYDE: I think it's clear that you have to decide whether the Boland Amendment covered the National Security Council or not. Given the choices, I think the President did the right thing. You betray human beings who are in the field because you encouraged them to go there, and Congress can't make up its mind, you don't want to repeat the Bay of Pigs, you don't want to repeat our pullout of Vietnam. You've got a very, very tough issue. I think the real scandal, if I may just say this, the real scandal is the failure of Congress to deal appropriately with communism in our hemisphere, rather than what Ollie North may or may not have wisely or unwisely done. LEHRER: Senator Mitchell, you are there, I understand, right? All right. Mr. Dutton said today that he believed, based on what Oliver North told him, that he believed he was working for the President of the United States. Do you think there's any justification in his believing that? Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL, (D) Maine: I'm sorry, is the question directed to me? LEHRER: Yes, sir, senator, right. Sen. MITCHELL: I apologize. I just got in. We're just voting downstairs in the Senate. Would you repeat the question? LEHRER: Robert Dutton, the key witness today, said that he believed that he was working for the President of the United States in the resupply operation that he ran for Secord and North. Do you think he's justified in believing that? Sen. MITCHELL: Well, of course, all of the witnesses have said similar things, because the impression was created that they were acting in accordance with the President's wishes. Whether or not the President gave a specific order remains to be seen, and we won't know that until we hear from Col. North and Admiral Poindexter, in my judgment. LEHRER: What about this photo album that Dutton brought there today? And North apparently said he was going to show it to the President. Is there any evidence that the President saw that photo album? Sen. MITCHELL: Not to my knowledge. I do not know whether the President himself has been asked directly that question, however. LEHRER: Do you know anything about that, Congressman Hyde? Rep. HYDE: No, I don't. I suspect the President did not see the album, or he would have reacted to it. And that would have been passed on to Col. Dutton, who I'm sure is rather proud of this album. LEHRER: I see. Senator Mitchell, Senator Hatch, one of your Republican colleagues,has criticized the joint committees' decision to go with witnesses like Mr. Dutton. He says it's slowing down the process. What is the plan, and do you support it? Sen. MITCHELL: Well, I don't think it's slowing down the process. It's getting the facts. One may agree or disagree on the pace at which each witness is questioned, but I think Col. Dutton provided a good deal of valuable information regarding the extent to which government officials participated in the support of this secret resupply effort to the contras at a time when direct or indirect military assistance by government officials was prohibited by the Boland Amendment. LEHRER: What's your view on that, Congressman Hyde? Rep. HYDE: Well, I agree with Senator Mitchell. I think the story that Col. Dutton and Mr. Rodriguez have told and are telling is an important part of this whole mosaic. But of course I disagree with my friend about the application of the Boland Amendment, admitting that is a very murky area. But I think the hearings are progressing painfully slow, but it's all important. LEHRER: And is there a plan to it? Is the idea here, as I read over the weekend, to wrap it completely around Oliver North and Poindexter? Is that what's going on here? Sen. MITCHELL: No, I don't think there's any such plan. There is a plan to complete the hearings by a certain date, as required by our mandates and to get the full story out. But there is no plan to wrap it around any one person. Our objective is to get the truth. LEHRER: Well, I used the wrong -- I didn't mean wrap around in the term of a noose necessarily. But to have the story laid out before North comes, so the questions are there. Is that -- Sen. MITCHELL: Well, I think that is true, yes. North will likely be the last or near the end of the witness list if and when he does testify. LEHRER: And Congressman Hyde, do you support the way the committee's gone about this, too, I assume? Rep. HYDE: I do. There is a little irritation at some of we Republicans for attempting to bring in policy matters. But I think it's important to explain why, as well as who and what. Why some of these things were done -- which admittedly are strange and different. But I think to fill the whole picture in, the background is necessary and some of us are attempting to do that. LEHRER: You, in fact, have been criticized, Congressman Hyde, for -- you and Senator Hatch and others -- for ''turning it into a platform for supporting the contras. '' Rep. HYDE: Well, that's simply an effort to offset the prosecutorial direction of joining with the Independent Counsel, moving toward indictments, and that sort of thing. I think there's a story to be told here, and I think the explanation, the rationale, for why people did admittedly some strange things is a part of the picture. If Americans are to understand what happened, they ought to understand why it happened. LEHRER: Senator Mitchell, are you one of those who is annoyed at Congressman Hyde and others? Sen. MITCHELL: I beg your pardon, Jim? LEHRER: Are you one of those Democrats who's annoyed at Congressman Hyde and others? Sen. MITCHELL: No, I'm not. I think each member ought to have the opportunity to use his time as he sees fit. I don't happen to agree that that's the best approach to get all the facts. But I have no disagreement with Representative Hyde using his time as he sees fit. My own opinion is that I think all of that will end up being disregarded as we get to the central facts of the case. When all of thefacts are laid out, the speeches, the setting of the stage, and so forth, will be seen as not a major part of the proceedings. Rep. HYDE: If I might just leap in to say it isn't a matter of speeches, it's a matter of explaining the factual background for what motivated people. And frankly, it's giving an opportunity for national focus on this controversial policy that has been lacking heretofore. LEHRER: Speaking of national focus, you all have just returned -- you and the rest of the members of Congress -- have just returned from a Memorial Day holiday. Senator Mitchell, do the people -- are they interested in what you all are doing? Sen. MITCHELL: There is a great deal of interest in my state. I made about a dozen appearances over the weekend -- different parts of the state, different audiences. And almost invariably this was the first and principal topic of question, discussion and debate. I might say that in my state, opposition to the president's policy in Central America is very high. And so the questions tend to reflect the view of the questioner. LEHRER: Congressman Hyde, what's your experience? Rep. HYDE: I found considerable interest -- strangers coming up to me, and I might say the reaction is different in my area than in Senator Mitchell's state. Most people that I encounter support the President and say, ''Hang in there. '' And so I'm going to follow their admonition with the Senator's approval. LEHRER: I hear you, I hear you both. Senator, Congressman, thank you both for being with us. Sen. MITCHELL: I'm very flattered that Representative Hyde is now seeking my approval. LEHRER: Thank you, gentlemen. Drug Ed HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight, a story about drug use by teenagers. The fight against it is being made in the schools and in the communities that surround and support those schools. Our education correspondent John Merrow has a report on one such effort in Tallahassee, Florida.

JOHN MERROW: They're called the Safety Kids, and they're part of a nationwide parent led effort to fight drug use. This group is in Tallahassee, Florida. [Safety Kids sing. ]

MERROW: The students in the audience, 100 of them from local high schools, are also part of the fight. They've each paid $25 to come here for trainings so that they can go back into their schools and into local elementary schools to help other students resist drugs, including alcohol. The 2 day program is run by the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, a nonprofit group in Silver Springs, Maryland. The trainer is Jim Hewett. JOHN HEWETT, National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth: If I were to say the weekends were made for what -- what would you say? Micheloeb! Weekends were made for Micheloeb! Think about that for a minute. If you don't have Micheloeb for mneil your weekend, what does that say about your weekend? It sucks dirt!

MERROW: Part preacher, part standup comic, Hewett excites his young audience. He gives them information and teaches them what he calls resistance skills. How to recognize and resist peer pressure. But most of all, he makes them feel good about not using drugs. Mr. HEWETT: You need to tell them -- you need to give them accurate information about marijuana. Don't tell them that a joint's gonna kill them. This is one of the most dramatic -- have fun being straight. Have fun being who you are and what you're doing.

MERROW: The anti drug weekend was organized by the Tallahassee Informed Parents, a community group made up of volunteers. They got a lot of help from local businesses. JEANNE MYDDELTON, Florida Informed Parents: We had to get food donated. We got all the coke donated for the weekend, we got potato chips, pizza, doughnuts at cost, and just different people in the community were willing to do that. Our local hospital donated tee shirts -- you know, covered the cost of those for us. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: This is kind of our float. We're going to have a bunch of the elementary children riding on their float with their ''Just Say No'' tee shirts on, and I think you all would make a real good statement if you're out there. We're going to get more business people, more community leaders saying, ''Hey, this is a good thing. Let's all join together. '' Because that's what this is all about.

MERROW: The community, joining together, working together. This broadbased approach is the most promising means of fighting drugs, according to the research. Here in Tallahassee, the parents group employs a variety of strategies, parades, drug free graduation parties, cracking down on taverns that serve minors, and Just Say No Clubs in elementary schools -- anything that seems likely to work. [on camera] In the war against drugs, parents groups are the equivalent of guerilla armies, volunteers living off the land. The organized campaigns against drug use is fought for the most part in the school. Florida required drug education beginning in elementary school, right up into high school. DEPUTY SHERIFF: Is crack okay? It's a psychologically dependent drug -- in other words, you become addicted to it, you think that you have to have it.

MERROW: Here in Tallahassee High School, drug education includes lectures by deputy sheriffs, part of a required course called Life Management Skills, that also covers how to balance a checkbook, raise children and plan meals. DEPUTY SHERIFF: Heroin is a physically addicting drug. You will die if you become addicted and don't continue to get it.

MERROW: Before they're through school, these students will be exposed to a lot of information about drugs. They may remember what they've learned for a long time. But there's no proof, according to the research, that such information reduces drug use. Sophomore Darrell Chatmon recalls the drug education he got as a freshman.

DARRELL CHATMON, Student: The course itself does nothing for you, because it's justlike a TV commercial. It's there. You know it's there. And you just like wait for it to be over. I'm serious. That's how foreigh it is, because it's the same thing over and over again.. You just have to read about it and take a test on it.

MERROW: Let me ask Larry. I know you took Life Management, but did you have any other drug education when you were in middle school, or--

LARRY GONZALEZ: I think just about every yeasr, starting with probably sixth grade on up, I've had something, and he'll tell you the same thing over and over again -- like this drug does this, and it just gets kind of old, you know, after a while. Sometimes you'll get an interesting statistic or something, but otherwise it's old, and you get it every year.

MERROW: Most communities rely on their schools as the first line of defence against drugs. The quality of instruction may vary from school to school, but the truth remains -- classroom teaching alone cannot do the job. Lee Dogoloff is the Executive Director of the American Council for Drug Education in Rockville, Maryland.

LEE DOGOLOFF, American Council for Drug Education: In some ways, the curriculum is icing on the cake. And how good does it taste just to eat the icing? You know, the cake itself is the policy. And also the community support that's involved in the drug free schools. And with those two things in some ways it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what you do in the classroom. Because what you've done is you've shaped the bahavior. And that's what this is about. Now, after that, if you just talk to them in the classroom, then you are relying on the good judgment and maturity of an adolescent -- which by its very nature doesn't exist.

MICHAEL HUGHES, Student: I've experimented. I think everyone in this class probably has at least once.

MERROW: Why did you?

Mr. HUGHES: Everybody was saying don't do it. I just wanted to see why not.

JAMES COLLIER: You want to be accepted by the people around you. So you're most likely going to do what the people around you do. And if they say "Hay, do this," or something, then somebody's most likely to say, "Well, they're doing it, so we're going to do it, too." It's going to be all right.

MERROW: Perhaps the schools are not winning the war on drugs, but it's not for lack of effort, and it's not for lack of money, either. Floridas, for example, is spending between $40 and $50 million this year on school-based drug education programs. And next year, the state is getting an additional $6 million in federal money. Educators from Florida's 67 school districts have come here to Orlando to figure out how to spend the new money and to learn how much their school district is going to get.

MAN: I believe it'll be slightly over $100,000.

WOMAN: Approximately $40,000

WOMAN: We received just under $200,000.

MERROW: What will you do with the money?

WOMAN: We're going to try to implement a comprehensive program which we've been working on already.

MAN: We'll be looking at what I consider a comprehensive program.

WOMAN: We must have a community wide effort.

MERROW: Community wide. Comprehensive. Everybody said those words. But the focus of most of the workshops here was on the traditional way of doing things. The classroom based approach. Prepackaged drug educatjion programs like these are expensive -- as much as $3,500 per school. In Tallahassee, with 26 schools, that would mean spending $91,000. The U.S. Department of Education is worried that schools will spend all their federal money on curricula. Bill Lenox is a special assistant to the Secretary of Education.

BILL LENOX, U.S. Department of Education: We're concerned about that. We have a lot of money that's going down through the states to the local school districts, and many of them feel that they're going to buy a curriculum and therefore take care of the drug problem. We find that that is not the case. We need more than that.

Mr. DOGOLOFF: The important thing to understand is that you can spend a lot of money and not achieve a drug-free school. Or spend a little bit of money and have one. So tht the deciding factor here is not how much money you spent.

MERROW: Dogoloff says the key is shaping student behavior.

Mr. DOGOLOFF: And the way you shape behavior is very simple. It's a 3-step process. First, you've got to tell the person what the expectation is. Then you've got to tell them what's going to happen if they don't meet the expectation. Then thirdly, you've got to do it every time. that doesn't cost any money.

MERROW: Maybe so, but Florida's educators have money -- $6 million federal to spend just abut any way they choose. The law tries to steer educators in the direction of a broad base anti-drug approach. For example, each school district has to have an advisory council of community members. That's the rule. But the law has no teeth. As one school official quickly figured out.

COUNCIL MEMBER: Are there any requirements for how often this advisory council has to meet? COUNCIL MEMBER: No.

MERROW: The lack of teeth in the federal law allows schools to take the easy way out and spend their new drug education money in the same old way -- classroom instruction. Lee Dogoloff, if you were in Florida's shoes, how would you spend the $6 million? Mr. DOGOLOFF: I would concentrate on training principals. Go back to the three points of how you modify behavior. It takes the courage of the principal who says, ''We're not going to tolerate drug use in this school. We're not going to tolerate alcohol abuse. And we're going to come to grips with it. And if you're caught, the punishment is going to be swift and clear, and we're going to involve your parents, and we're going to clean up this school. MERROW: You make it sound simple. Is it simple? Mr. DOGOLOFF: It is simple. That's the point. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. It's not easy. But it's simple. MERROW: Lee Dogoloff's solution may work for schools. But that effort is wasted, the research tells us, unless communities attack the drug problem at the same time. These students attend Lincoln High School in Tallahassee. TEACHER: Okay. Honesty time. How many of you over the weekend either used alcohol or some other drug, or were with kids who did? Is this true honesty now? I see more hands sort of sneaking up. When was the last time you went to a party that didn't have alcohol and other drugs? STUDENT: Like somebody's party at the Skate In or something like that. In the 6th grade.

MERROW: This party -- the highlight of the Tallahassee anti drug weekend was different. No alcohol. No marijuana. No cocaine. It's a good example of the kind of positive message that a community can send to its young people. JENNIFER CAMPBELL: I had a lot of fun. It was really good. You can go in there, and it proves that you can go and have a good time and have fun at a dance without getting high or anything. DARRELL CHATMON: Easily at every dance someone always has something that -- no fights or nothing. Just a fun dance with natural fun. DAVID OVERSTREET: You spend a weekend like this with a bunch of people -- you meet new people, and you realize that there are other people who believe the same things you do, and it's really reassuring if you can say, ''Alright, I'm not alone. I'm not one of the nerds. I'm cool. ''

Waxing Poetic

LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts about the joys of poetry.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Richard Wilbur has been appointed Poet Laureate of the United States. Who cares? Not a rhetorical question. And not one that applies to Richard Wilbur. Wilbur, after all, is a brilliant poet and translator, deserving of all the laurels that can fit on his head. The question, ''Who cares?'' is aimed at poetry as a whole. American poetry in particular. One thinks of poetry as history. The more distant the poet, the greater the stature. Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Tennyson, a poet laureate. Poets to care about because they're long dead and English. Some Americans make the list, too. Poe, Dickenson, Whitman, Emerson, Frost, T. S. Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Marion Moore. But who cares about poetry now that they're all gone? As are Robert Lowell, Randall Jarrell, John Berryman, Sylvia Plath. Robert Penn Warren, America's first Poet Laureate, is in very frail health. All of which leaves a new list of names to care about, if one has a mind to. Maxine Kumin, Frank Bidart, Charles Simic, Federick Morgan, Jane Shore, Richard Tillinghast, Lloyd Schwartz, Philip Levine. Shadowy figures, they go about their antique trade, hidden from celebrity. Who cares about poetry, and how can you tell? In a way, caring about poetry is like believing in God. More people do it than they'll ever admit to. For one thing, the subject of poetry is unavailable anywhere but in poetry.

On television there is news of Nicaragua, NASA, the Soviets, Beirut, a fire, a raid, a president. In poetry, there is news of lovers parting, of mourning, of marriage, of seasons, of starlight. Here are some titles of Maxine Kumin's work: 'Regret,' 'Anger,' 'My Father's Neckties.' 'Sunbathing on a Rooftop in Berkeley,' 'Notes on a Blizzard;' You won't find that news on TV. Then too, people care about poetry because of its audacious impracticality. In our world these days, almost everything has a use. Microchips and microwaves. Useful, Education, friendship. Very useful. Not poetry. Poetry has no use whatever. Unless one counts the connection to eternity that arises from the lines once in a while. Or that mysterious instruction the music gives. Even then, a poem instructs very slyly. Robert Fancis has a poem about a baseball pitcher who functions much like a poet himself. His art is eccentricity, his aim, how not to hit the mark he seems to aim at. His passion, how to avoid the obvious. His teachnigue, how to bury the avoidance. The others throw to be comprehended. He throws to be a moment misunderstood. Yet not too much. Not errant, (unintelligible), wild. But every seeming aberration will. Not to, yet still, still to communicate. Making the batter understand too late. Our new Poet Laureate Richard Wilber is something of a pitcher, an ace. Wilber pitched a poem about nothing more newsworthy than noticing spring arrive in the countryside. "I stopped and blinked, and then I saw a fact as errie as a dream. There was a subtle flood of stream moving upon the face of things. It came from standing pools and springs and wad of snow was still around. It came of winter's giving ground so that the freeze was coming out, as when a set mind blessed by doubt relaxes into Mother Wit. Flowers, I said, would come of it."

Who cares abouat that poem? Only those who find flowers attractive and who struggle against winter to change their minds.

HUNTER-GAULT" Now for a final look at today's top stories. President Reagan declared he would not allow Iran toshut down Persian Gulf shipping. A Liberian freighter was slightly dmaged after hitting a mine in the Gulf. And a secret contra supplier said that he believed that he was working for the President of the United States. Good night Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.