The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, the Soviet Union in a show of force sent an armed column through the capital of Lithuania, Pres. Bush said he still took Soviet leaders at their word that force would not be used there, and the captain of the ship involved in the Alaska oil spill was found innocent of all but one misdemeanor charge. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, the developments in Lithuania are our lead focus. We get analysis from four perspectives [FOCUS - LITHUANIA - PRESSURE TACTICS], Victor Nakas of the Washington Office of the Lithuanian Independence Center, Melor Sturua, a columnist for the Soviet newspaper Izvestia currently on leave at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and two Soviet experts, Gail Lapidus with the University of California at Berkeley, and Robert Legvold of Columbia University. Then Day Two of Ronald Reagan on the [FOCUS - ON THE STAND] witness stand. We'll hear more excerpts of the former President's testimony at the trial of John Poindexter. Next [CONVERSATION] Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a conversation with the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, John Lawn. And finally, Essayist Roger Rosenblatt [ESSAY - BACK TO THE FUTURE] on baseball.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: More pressure was applied to Lithuania today to give up its independence claim. A Soviet military convoy drove the capital, Vilnius, this afternoon. There were 15 armored personnel carriers and 5 trucks towing military equipment. It's estimated the Soviets now have 30,000 troops in the republic. Soviet Pres. Gorbachev also issued another demand. He ordered Lithuania to stop signing up volunteer forces to protect its border. That began after Lithuania declared independence earlier this month. Gorbachev's statement was read on the Soviet evening news. He gave Lithuania's president two days to respond. Yesterday he ordered all citizens of Lithuania to turn in their weapons, a demand the Lithuania government rejected. In Washington, Pres. Bush declined to criticize Gorbachev's actions. He said he hoped the Soviet Union could settle its differences with Lithuania without the use of force. Mr. Bush spoke at an impromptu news conference on the White House lawn.

PRES. BUSH: I am convinced that the answer is a peaceful emergence and discussion between the parties. I am pleased that Mr. Shevardnadze reasserted his conviction that the Soviet Union would not use force. It is very important that force not be used. We're not here to sit here and say who in Lithuania who ought to talk to who in Moscow. How presumptuous and arrogant that would be for any president. So I'd say let them sort it out. They're on the right track. The Lithuanians have got elected leaders and clearly, the Soviets have a strong leader. They can figure that out without fine tuning from the United States.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the Lithuania story right after this News Summary. The United States and Soviet Union have reached a tentative agreement on grain sales. The new five year deal has Soviets buying at least 10 million metric tons each year. That equals more than $1 billion in annual grain sales. The agreement will be signed at the June summit between Presidents Bush and Gorbachev. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: A jury in Anchorage, Alaska, today returned three "not guilty" verdicts in the trial of Joseph Hazelwood, the former captain of the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez, and only one "guilty" verdict. Hazelwood was acquitted of the major charges of criminal mischief and operating the ship while intoxicated. He was convicted on a misdemeanor of negligent discharge of oil. That count carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a thousand dollar fine. Hazelwood was the only individual to be criminally charged in connection with last year's oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound. Nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil were spilled when the ship hit an underwater reef.

MR. LEHRER: The Idaho State Legislature today passed the most restrictive abortion law of any state. It prohibits abortion in all cases, except rapes which are reported in seven days, incest if the victim is under 18, severe fetal deformity, and threat to the mother's life or physical health. It is not known whether Gov. Cecil Andres will sign the bill. The health of the American people improved significantly last year. That was the report today from Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Louis Sullivan. He said lifestyle changes such as not smoking, wearing seatbelts, eating and exercising right would lead to further improvement. He said all of the news was not good, however. Life expectancy continued to decline for black men. He spoke at a Washington news conference.

DR. LOUIS SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health & Human Services: I think the fact that we have such a gap in health status in a significant part of our population, a very controversial and very unfortunate situation. Clearly, the nation that spends more money per capita on health care by far than any other nation should not have these kinds of statistics, so we know that we have to come forward with effective, comprehensive remedies, and indeed we intend to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Sullivan also issued a specific health warning today. He urged everyone to stop using the food supplement L- Tryptophane immediately. It is used to control appetite and treat insomnia among other things and has been linked to 19 deaths and over 1400 cases of a rare blood disorder known as E

MS.

MS. WOODRUFF: In business news, 7,000 7-Eleven convenience stores may soon be sold. Today their parent company, Southland Corporation, announced that it was being bought by two Japanese firms. They will pay $400 million in cash. Additional money will be raised through a restructuring of Southland's $1.8 billion debt. Southland is the world's largest owner of convenience stores.

MR. LEHRER: Secretary of State Baker met with South Africa Pres. F.W. DeKlerk today. It took place at the president's official residence in Cape Town. Baker is the highest U.S. official to visit South Africa in 12 years. He held a news conference after the meeting.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: May I repeat what you told me at the conclusion of our meeting when you said that we are engaged here in South Africa in an irreversible process and we will follow it to its logical conclusion. The minister said during the course of our lunch that it is the desire of the South African government to lift the state of emergency and to release political prisoners.

MR. LEHRER: Baker said lifting the state of emergency was necessary for the United States to remove economic sanctions against South Africa.

MS. WOODRUFF: It was disclosed today that Libya has received tons of plastic explosives from Czechoslovakia in recent years. The word came from Czechoslovakia's new president, Vaclav Havel, who was visiting London. We have a report from London by Geoffrey Archer of Independent Television News.

MR. ARCHER: The Czech president had told the British government about the scale of the Semtex problem before he made details public. The two countries are cooperating closely now to control the use of the explosive. The Pan American jet blown up over Lockerbie was destroyed by Semtex. It's the impossibility of detecting this explosive in airport security checks that has made it much used by terrorists. Libya supplied both Middle Eastern and Irish terrorists with Semtex. Two tons were discovered on a ship on its way to Ireland in 1987. The IRA, which used it to kill 10 marines at Diehl last year, is thought to have another 5 tons available. Semtex is made in a factory 60 miles from Prague. Exports have ceased now and new production is to be marked to make it detectable. Pres. Havel revealed the grim record of his predecessors.

PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL, Czechoslovakia: [Speaking through Interpreter] The past regime has exported a thousand tons to Libya. And yet, 200 grams of Semtex is enough to blow up an aircraft. This means that world terrorism has supplies of Semtex to last 150 years.

MS. WOODRUFF: Libya was also in the news today because of its chemical plant. The U.S. and West Germany claim the plant made chemical weapons before it was damaged in afire earlier this month. Today a West German court charged the former head of one of West Germany's biggest chemical companies with helping to build the plant. Libya denies the plant made chemical weapons.

MR. LEHRER: A presidential candidate was assassinated today in Colombia. Thirty-nine year old Bernardo Heramillio was shot at the Bogota Airport. He was rushed to a nearby clinic and died during surgery. Heramillio was the candidate for a leftist party. It was the second attack on a presidential candidate in seven months. The election is May 27th. No group has claimed responsibility. But one gunman was captured by police.

MS. WOODRUFF: That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Just ahead on the Newshour, Gorbachev's Lithuania crisis, Ronald Reagan on the witness stand, a conversation with the retiring head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Essayist Roger Rosenblatt on the game of baseball. FOCUS - LITHUANIA - PRESSURE TACTICS

MS. WOODRUFF: We begin tonight with the story of Moscow's stepped up campaign of threats and pressures against Lithuania. That Soviet Republic declared itself independent two weeks ago. President Bush made his strongest personal intervention yet on the Lithuanian issue today with a statement that repeatedly urged both sides to exercise restraint but in the tiny Baltic Nation there were fewer signs of restraint then there were of pressure and counter pressure. We have a back ground report from Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

MR. GOWING: President Gorbachev says that military force will not be used to put an end to Lithuania's determination to become a separate nation and independent of Moscow. But the images in and around the Lithuania Capital Vilnius today suggests something different. During the revolutions of Eastern Europe last Autumn Soviet Troops were ordered to stay in their barracks to avoid heightening tension. Today in Vilnius there was no such order. And after last nights decree from President Gorbachev ordering all private weapons to be handed over to the military there are is a new sense of unease. It is estimated there are 30,000 weapons in private hands. All are hunting guns the only weapon which can be legally bought in the Soviet Union. But no one knows how many have been acquired illegally from military units. Hunters and other Lithuanian's are amazed by Gorbachev's new moves.

SPOKESMAN: We see the Empire Strikes back but we are astonished how real those strikes are. You know it is absolutely unfounded. This revolution is legal. It is a peaceful revolution no shots were fired here and now Mr. Gorbachev wants to take out the hunting guns from our people. Nobody is going to fight the tanks and armed soldiers.

MR. GOWING: President Landsbergis arrived at Parliament this morning with the pressure from Moscow mounting the withdraw last weeks unilateral declaration of independence. The President said Gorbachev's move on weapons showed that the ghost of Stalinism still walked the Kremlin. He said it showed policies may only be reinforced by brute military force. Later the Commander of Lithuania's Civil Defense Agency told Lithuanian's new Assembly he was organizing the handing over of all weapons and 16,000 military vehicles. As the military convoys rolled deputies continued to map out Lithuania's path to independence. Faced with a threat of formidable obstacles from Moscow the face immense economic and political problems. What has stunned them most about the Kremlin's latest move is the tone and the implication that the issue of Lithuanian independence can not be solved peacefully by negotiations. Lithuania is a sensitive Soviet Military zone vital to current military planning. It is part of the front line air defense system against possible attack from Western Europe. West of Lithuania in the Baltic is the head quarters of the Baltic fleet. Transport lines to the heartland would be threatened by an independent Lithuania. Western analysts estimate there are 30,000 Soviet troops and personal in Lithuania. The majority are based in the Capitol Vilnius. Probably consisting of one tank division, two motor rifle divisions. An Airborne Division is based at Clanus. There are two air bases at Sieli and Kadninine. But Lithuania is part of the strategic Western military district. Reinforcements could be flown in at high speed. Even before the latest rise in tension Lithuanian's were campaigning for Soviet Troops to leave the Republic. Last summer two million Balts made their point in a human chain across the three Baltic States. This is one of the main reasons why Mr. Gorbachev must be under intense pressure from the military to stall Lithuania's move toward secession.

MS. WOODRUFF: We get four views on the Lithuanian situation and President Bush's response to it. Victor Nakas is the Washington Director of the Lithuanian Information Center a pro independence organization. Melor Sturua is a Political Columnist for the Newspaper Izvestia. He is currently on leave and is a Senior Associate the Carnegie Endowment for international peace in Washington. Gail Lapidus is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the University of California Berkeley and Stanford University Program on Soviet Studies. She joins us from California. And Robert Legvold, Director of the Harriman Institute for the Advanced Study of the Soviet Union and Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. He joins us from Public Station WGBH in Boston. Mr. Nakas let me begin with you. What fresh information do you have about precisely what troop movements what other aggressive actions have been taken in the last day or two by the Soviets in Lithuania?

MR. NAKAS: Well our information is troop movements have continued as they were last weekend. We have no information of unusual troop movements other than the armored personal carriers going through Vilnius today.

MS. WOODRUFF: Which is the report today.

MR. NAKAS: That is right. We had a representative from our New York Headquarters contact Lithuania today to talk to people there and they said they weren't overly concerned. They see this as a provocation obviously by the Soviet Union but they are determined to follow the same peaceful democratic path that they have been taking the last two years to re-establish their independence.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about this statement that Gorbachev made today that he is giving the Lithuanians two days to disband these voluntary civil defense units?

MR. NAKAS: Well obviously this is another step in Mr. Gorbachev's unfortunate path toward possibly imposing marshall law in Lithuania. The Lithuanians are obviously objecting to it but they are determined to continue on their efforts to exercise sovereignty on Lithuania. They have been calling repeatedly for negotiations with Moscow. Unfortunately Mr. Gorbachev has rejected these calls for negotiations.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well just today the reports were that the head of the Lithuanian volunteer forces that he had ordered his troops to voluntarily turn over the weapons that they had. Is that a sign that the government is backing down?

MR. NAKAS: No I don't think so. The information that we received was that President Landsbergis had also told people to hand in their hand guns their sporting rifles. This is part of the Lithuanian's States efforts to follow the peaceful path. When I heard the report that President Gorbachev had ordered people to hand in their weapons I thought this was similar to telling the followers of Martin Luther King to hand in their weapons. This is a totally peaceful movement for change.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Sturua what is Mr. Gorbachev up to? How far is he prepared to go? We have heard about the carrot and stick approach. In the last day or so it looks like we are getting closer to the stick.

MR. STURUA: Before I answer your question I would like to say something. As a private person, as man who was born in another small Republic of the Soviet Union Georgia which also thinks about independence I sympathize with Lithuanians and understand their drive toward independence. As a lawyer and an international lawyer I must say the case of the Lithuanians is very strong but not impeccable.

MS. WOODRUFF: There are legal arguments is that what you are saying?

MR. STURUA: Yes. In recent weeks we are witnessing very peculiar race between the Congress of People's Deputies and Lithuanian Supreme Council or Parliament. Both of them tried to beat each other.

MS. WOODRUFF: To the punch.

MR. STURUA: Yes. Because the Soviet Constitution declares the right of a Republic to secede but there is no explanation of a mechanism or how this should go and that is why the Lithuanians wanted to vote for independence before the Soviet Parliament restructures the Constitutions and implements a new mechanism for this particular new development. You have to have a referendum and get 2/3 of people voting for cessation. When five years of this transition of power and afterwards you can receive your independence. I think if I were a member of Parliament I would vote against this because 5 years is too much. I think that in one year the Republic can solve all the problems and can find mutually acceptable solutions. Unfortunately now we are in a position when the Soviet Union and the Congress of People's Deputies tries to apply the new law to this situation in Lithuania.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if I may interrupt. I guess to go back to my question. What business is Gorbachev up too? I mean your argument that the Lithuanians have moved perhaps illegally or in your terms against the Soviet constitution. Other than that is the Soviet President moving toward a show of force, moving toward martial law as we just heard Mr. Nakas say?

MR. STURUA: I don't think so. He has proclaimed several times that the freedom of choice is a fundamental principal which applies not only to foreign countries but applies also to the Republics and the Soviet Union. Just yesterday, I think, Mr. Shevardnadze in presence of Mr. Baker said again and stressed again that use of force is entirely ruled out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Legvold you have heard what Mr. Sturua has said. Can we believe those claims that we are hearing from Mr. Gorbachev and from Mr. Shevardnadze?

MR. LEGVOLD: Well I think that we certainly can believe that there is strong intention not to use force but the stakes are very high and in trying to understand what is driving Gorbachev at the moment we need to be clear about the central issue. I don't think the central issue is the outcome that is the idea of independence for Lithuania. I think that Gorbachev has reconciled to giving Lithuania independence.

MS. WOODRUFF: You do think that he is accepting that idea?

MR. LEGVOLD: I think that he is. He is very concerned about the process and at the moment he is trying to turn around, that is he doesn't want to negotiate with a Republic that has already declared itself independent and began behaving as though it is in setting up these border arrangements and in carrying out different kinds of internal policies that are independent of the central government. He wants Lithuania to negotiate with Moscow as an integral part of the Soviet Union that is moving toward secession. And the reason that is so important for Gorbachev is not the out come in Lithuania but the impact that it will have on the attitudes of many other Republics that will also be moving toward various forms of autonomy maybe even independence and in perusing this objective he is prepared to play hardball. That is what we are seeing now a very hard horse trading that is underway.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you are saying what he is trying to do is just slow down the process. He is accepting the result but what you are saying he doesn't want it to happen as soon as Lithuania wants.

MR. LEGVOLD: That is right. He is not only drawing out the process he is also making it plain that negotiating independence or secession is not an easy matter. It is not something to be lightly taken by other Republics, others who are thinking about this kind of thing and to make plain what Mr. Sturua is arguing. In effect he is making plain that the process within the center of changing the constitution in creating formal procedures for everyone, every other Republic is in place. He is attempting to cope with what was essentially a pre-emptive action by the Lithuanians in getting ahead of that other process.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ms. Lapidus are the Lithuanians going to go along with Mr. Gorbachev's attempts to slow this down or not?

MS. LAPIDUS: Well I think that Gorbachev is clearing trying to halt or slow the enormous momentum that has built up accelerated by the rapid collapse of European communist regimes and accelerated further by the outcome of the recent elections. I think that it is very unlikely that a population which endured many decades of repression will give up its aspirations to independence but I think that Gorbachev's actions are likely to be a different calculus of costs and benefits and certainly are going to have an impact on other Republics as well.

MS. WOODRUFF: When you say they are unlikely to give it up do you mean they are also unlikely to slow down from the process which is what I think I heard Mr. Legvold say Mr. Gorbachev is really after?

MS. LAPIDUS: Well I think that it will certainly slow down the process because Gorbachev is trying to bring pressure to bear prior to the negotiations. I think that it will slow it down in a second sense and this is an issue that is really in contention. The Baltic Republics are trying to insist that from a legal point of view they are not engaged in secession they were never legally a part of the Soviet Union to begin with and therefore the new procedures that are being developed by the Supreme Soviet should not in their view apply to them since they are simply declaring illegitimate there forcible annexation in to the Soviet Union. They argue that theirs is a special legal status.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that an argument that will be listened to in the Soviet parliament, Mr. Sturua?

MELOR STURUA, Soviet Journalist: It seems to me that this legalistic fight isn't so important. The point is that both sides must take some time out, slow down this process of negotiations, of talks, of discussions, it doesn't matter really what you call them, and cool a little bit, because I don't think that we will have martial law or we will have something like invasion. But I am afraid of another thing. There is a Russian minority inside Lithuania, inside other Baltic republics. Can you imagine something like Nagorno-Karabakh if it happens in Lithuania? And the Russians say that their lives are threatened and the Lithuanians say, no, and they will start to shoot each other. That's why it seems to me it was the right decision to ask everybody to turn in their firearms, their guns.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Nakas, is that a real possibility?

VICTOR NAKAS, Lithuanian Information Center: Absolutely not. I think the only way in which you will see violence in Lithuania is if the Soviets provoke it. The Lithuanians, as I mentioned before, have followed a completely peaceful democratic path. There has not been a single drop of blood shed in Lithuania since they started their drive to reassert their independence. Moreover, the new Lithuanian government as well as the Soviet Lithuanian government which preceded it gave assurances that the rights of the national minorities would be fully protected. Lithuanians are not saying that they're going to ask the immigrants from outside Lithuania who immigrated in recent years to leave. They are telling them that they will have full rights of citizenship just as everyone else in Lithuania. And that is, I might add, is something that the Bush administration drew attention to earlier this week when it chastised Mr. Gorbachev for not engaging in negotiations. It said the Lithuanians had given assurances that they would protect the rights of national minorities.

MR. STURUA: By the way, can you imagine such a situation that Lithuanians don't want, of course, fight to suppress the Russian minority, can you imagine, and I think it's quite imaginable, somebody, nationalists, member of the ponyet, member of neo Nazi organization in Russia --

MR. NAKAS: There is no ponyet in Lithuania. As a matter of fact - -

MR. STURUA: Not in Lithuania, but there are some nationalists inside in the minority.

MS. WOODRUFF: These are minority groups. Let me turn now to Prof. Legvold. What do you make of the Bush administration's response so far? We heard another comment from the President today exercising considerable restraint, saying that both parties should continue to exercise restraint. Is that an appropriate response at this point? Should we be saying less? Should we be saying more? Prof. Legvold.

ROBERT LEGVOLD, Political Scientist: No, I think it is, indeed, the right response. This is a case where it is in no one's interest, not even the Lithuanians, for the administration, to rally to their cause and heat up the situation from the outside. What the President said makes absolute sense. We want the two sides to work it out through a dialogue, through negotiations. We have confidence that the Soviets won't use force, and it is for Gorbachev now to handle this matter in a restrained, responsible way, but not for us to get involved directly.

MS. WOODRUFF: But, Mr. Nakas, Pres. Landsbergis tonight went on television in Lithuania and asked the world to urge the Soviet Union not to use force. Is the current response by the Bush administration sufficient?

MR. NAKAS: Absolutely not. I think that the Bush administration has been very weak in its statements on the situation in Lithuania. The President is implying that there is some sort of equivalence here, that both sides are refusing to talk, that both sides are making threats. In fact, all the threats are coming from Moscow. You saw earlier this evening on your program armored personnel carriers rolling through Vilnius. The Lithuanians have called for peaceful negotiations. They're not threatening the Soviets with any kind of military or political reprisals. One thing that Moscow has done, it's mocked the Lithuanians, saying that no country will provide you with diplomatic recognition, so why should we, no Western country, so why should we engage in diplomatic negotiations. That's why it's important for the West to provide support and to recognize the legitimacy of this new government.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ms. Lapidus, we have just a few seconds left. What should we expect next in this sequence of events? Should we look for things to cool down? What do you think?

GAIL LAPIDUS, Political Scientist: I think that the current situation is likely to cool down. I would hope that negotiations would begin shortly. I think it is very likely that if the crisis were to intensify and the Soviet leadership must be very well aware of this that there will be mounting pressures and mounting concerns expressed in the United States Congress in American public opinion, and at a precarious moment in American politics when issues of the defense budget, of arms control agreements with the Soviet Union of expanding trade relations are all in the forefront of discussion, it seems to me that the Soviet leadership must be very well aware that a further escalation of tensions would jeopardize many of the gains of Soviet policies up until this point.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well --

MS. LAPIDUS: So I think there are strong incentives to negotiate on both sides.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, we will have to leave it there, and we do want to thank all of you, Prof. Lapidus in California, Robert Legvold, Mr. Sturua, Mr. Nakas, thank you all for joining us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, former Pres. Reagan's second videotaped day in court, retiring Drug Enforcement Chief John Lawn, and our Thursday night essay. FOCUS - ON THE STAND

MR. LEHRER: Now former Pres. Reagan's second day as a witness. The jury in the Iran-Contra trial of John Poindexter watched and listened to Mr. Reagan for three more hours today. His testimony was taped in Los Angeles last month and shown yesterday and today in the trial of his former National Security Advisor. We have two excerpts. The first one begins with Independent Counsel Dan Webb questioning the President about Oliver North's involvement with the Nicaraguan Contras. Much of the focus was on Mr. Reagan's written answers to questions called interrogatories given to the President by the Independent Counsel in 1987.

DAN WEBB, Independent Counsel: Who told you that the allegations in the press about North being involved in assisting the Contras was false or incorrect?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: [2-17-90] Well, here again, to try to remember such a thing in the position that I was in and with all that was going on, no, there are any number of people who could have provided that answer. It could have been Bill Casey, the late Bill Casey from CIA, it could have been Adm. Poindexter. It could have been some people from the Defense Department, or all of the people that were involved in some way under some extent with what was going on and are trying to get the Congress to support us in that activity. But right now for me to put my finger on who told me something, no.

MR. WEBB: Okay. Well in light of that answer, I take it, is it a fair statement, Mr. President, that you were not aware at any time after Boland passed that Oliver North created and supervised an overseas Contra supply operation called Project Democracy with assets of several million dollars, you were not aware of that?

RICHARD BECKLER, Poindexter's Lawyer: Objection, Your Honor. My objection is as follows. You are talking about, as I understand it, using question No. 10 in the interrogatory and the answer to No. 10 in the interrogatory as a vehicle for impeaching the President of the United States somewhat. The answer basically says, and I read, "I knew that Lt. Col. North's responsibilities included work related to Central America and specifically Nicaragua," and then goes on to answer. And to use this answer and question or part of it for purposes of first, it was being used supposedly to refresh the witness's recollection. Now it seems to be used to impeach his prior testimony, and there's no inconsistency here.

MR. WEBB: I'm not even asking him to repeat. I moved on to another question.

MR. BECKLER: It's also assuming facts that are not in evidence, Your Honor.

JUDGE HAROLD GREEN: Just a minute. Let's not get upset and let's not make a federal case out of this.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I'm for that.

JUDGE GREEN: What you're asking him now vastly expands on answer No. 10 and I won't allow it.

MR. WEBB: Mr. President, while you, as I understand it, after Boland passed, never learned of North's directing and participating in Contra activities, you since that time, now as you sit here now in this courtroom today in this videotaped proceeding, you do know today that, in fact, North did heavily engage and participate in Contra supply efforts, is that correct?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, I'm going to stand by the answers that I gave in this, which were made much closer to the time and period, and to try and recall something of that kind, I know that he was very active, and that was certainly with my approval, because I yesterday made plain how seriously I felt about the Contra situation and what it meant to all of us here in the Americas, and so obviously there were many things that were being done. But, again, as I say, I was convinced that they were all being done within the law.

MR. WEBB: Let me make sure I understand your last answer, Mr. President, because I thought you told us a moment ago that at least at the time, back in 1985 and 1986, that you did not know of and had not learned of North's activities in assisting and directing the Contras' supply efforts.

MR. BECKLER: Objection. Asked and answered.

JUDGE GREEN: Overruled.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, I think it is all here, and I was under the impression that if I found anything wrong with one of these answers, I would state that it was incorrect and I've returned this document with my answers and with my statement that I stood by these answers.

MR. WEBB: I understand. All I'm asking you is based on what you said there and based on your own knowledge, you, as I understand your testimony, am I correct, at the time, back in 1985 and 1986, after Boland passed, you were not aware and did not learn of North's activities in supplying the Contras with military aid, is that correct?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, I'm not sure I'm understanding this. My major was in economics, not law. The --

MR. WEBB: Mr. President, I'm asking you what I believe you just told me a moment ago, which is that you did not learn of that back in 1985 and 1986, when it was going on. Did you not just tell me that a few moments ago?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, what I'm saying is that I could answer and even then in a general way as to what his task was and to what he was doing, but I wasn't following it day by day so I could pin down and say this is what he is doing today and I can't, I just don't have that kind of a memory.

MR. LEHRER: Prosecutor Webb also asked Mr. Reagan about what he learned from the Tower Commission, a special panel appointed by him to investigate the role of the National Security Council in the Iran-Contra affair.

MR. WEBB: When your Tower Commission reported back to you in March of 1987, did the Tower Commission not tell you, Mr. President, Oliver North and your National Security Council were involved in 1985 and 1986 in assisting the Contras militarily and paramilitarily, and do you recall that being told to you by your Tower Commission?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I don't recall that and I can only tell you that my interest in that Commission was to find out the thing that I still do not know, and that was, how did there turn out to be more money than the twelve million two for the Toll Tank Missiles, who were delivered and who obviously, it seemed to me, that someone must have raised the price for those, but that was never found out, I still not know, and then to talk, as they do, about a diversion of that money that was found in that Swiss bank account, I have no information at all that there was ever any more money than was in the account when it was found or that any diversion to anyone had been attempted of that money. And I can recall that a number of the press --

MR. WEBB: Can I interrupt the President for a moment? Could I ask the answer be struck after the words "I don't recall"? I asked nothing about the diversion. I asked whether he was told by the Tower Commission of whether North and the NSC were involved in Contra-related paramilitary activities. And everything after the words "I don't recall" I respectfully suggest should be struck, and I'm going to try to move this along as quickly as I can, but that answer, I respectfully suggest, is completely unresponsive, completely.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, I don't think it's unresponsive to state what I appointed the Commission to do and what I tried to get from them and they could not supply that information and to this day.

JUDGE GREEN: The request is denied. I'll let President Reagan answer the question in his own way.

MR. WEBB: Thank you.

JUDGE GREEN: You may proceed unless you're finished.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, in this point as I say, this was what, and as a matter of fact, one thing sticks in my memory of a member of the press asking me that if I had known about this extra money that was supposedly given for the Tole Missiles what would I have done with it, and I told him, and I would still say that today, if I had known about it, I would have given it back. All we were entitled to was the twelve million two, and we had gotten that.

MR. WEBB: Let me -- do I understand your answer to be that you don't recall whether the Tower Commission told you in March of 1987 that Lt. Col. North and the National Security Council were involved in militarily assisting the Contras? Do you recall that they told you that?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I don't recall that because, probably because I was listening for an answer that I never got.

MR. LEHRER: Today's videotaped testimony ends Pres. Reagan's direct involvement in the Poindexter trial. The defense will proceed with its case tomorrow. CONVERSATION

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight a conversation with John Lawn, who retires tomorrow after eight years as head of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. A former FBI agent, Lawn today received the President's award for distinguished federal civilian service from Pres. Bush. Earlier this afternoon, he talked in his office with Charlayne Hunter-Gault about the fight against drugs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Lawn, thank you for joining us. Let me just begin by asking you how satisfied are you with the progress of the federal drug effort and DEA's role in it?

JOHN LAWN, Director, Drug Enforcement Agency: Satisfied may be a strong word, encouraged I think. It's difficult to be satisfied as one leaves when we see the problem as severe as it is. But on the other hand, I am encouraged, because there are very positive trends, and those positive trends in terms of citizen awareness of the scope of the problem and the recognition that law enforcement alone is not the answer to this problem.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But as you know, there's been a lot of high profile criticism both of the federal effort and specifically of DEA in the past few weeks from people who have been on the inside who say that there is an over emphasis, that the priority emphasis is on law enforcement at the expense of other strategies. Do you share that view?

MR. LAWN: No. I believe that the emphasis at this point should be predominantly law enforcement, but law enforcement without education, without demand reduction, is only a one-sided attack. We have that balanced approached, as I see it. Law enforcement is there trying to dismantle major organizations involved in illicit trafficking at a time when we hope the educators, the treatment specialists, the prevention specialists, are doing their job, but education, prevention and treatment are the long-term answers. We on the front lines must do what we can to disrupt those trafficking organizations, because we right now are the last line of resistance.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the criticism of those on the front lines, first of all that the budgetary priorities are such that the share is 70 percent law enforcement and 30 percent for everything else, and the criticism is that on the front lines, that money is being ill spent, because you really can't curtail drug activity at the border.

MR. LAWN: The border context is only one small part of the battle. And if we were to think in law enforcement that the answer lies in border interdiction, then that would be a near-sided approach. What we are looking at are answers in the source countries, the Andean strategy, the strategies in Southeast Asia, and in Southwest Asia, to prohibit these illicit drugs from coming anywhere close to our national borders. You're absolutely right that with 88,000 miles of border, there is no way that we can stop the flow of illicit drugs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But can you point to any successes in that arena?

MR. LAWN: Yes, I can point to a major success, and that major success is international recognition of the problem. Five years ago, the general international view was that this is a North American problem, that if the North Americans would use less illicit drugs, that this problem would go away. Now 101 nations participated in the preparation of the new United Nations charter. Of those 101 nations, all are either experiencing drug problems or finally recognize that no country is immune to these problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But there was fairly strong criticism from some of your former top flight agents saying that the failure to back up agents in the field, that the directives coming from people here in business suits in Washington to back up agents in the field is really costing lives.

MR. LAWN: In terms of criticism by low level individuals, certainly, there are individuals out there who believe that more effort should have gone on a given case, but when one looks at the international perspective, the agent in Miami or the agent in New York may think that his or her case is the most important case in the universe, when in fact, it's up to us, who must make those decisions and who must be accountable for how 3,000 people worldwide or utilized.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What are your concerns about drug traffickers penetrating your own agency? The money is so enormous, as you know.

MR. LAWN: You touched upon the Achilles Heel, and that is the money. The trafficking organizations are substantially funded better, have better resources, have unlimited resources, so the appeal of money certainly is a problem. The Attorney General of the United States is looking at addressing that problem in his support for increased salary for law enforcement.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's been one of the criticisms of the federal drug effort, that not, that the President has not committed enough money, enough resources. Do you share that, and how has that been felt within the Drug Enforcement Administration?

MR. LAWN: I hear much talk about the failure of this administration or the prior administration to provide law enforcement resources. Since 1981, we at a time of fiscal constraint have enjoyed increasing resources year after year. In the next three years, we will receive hopefully 1500 additional special agents, and when individuals say that too much emphasis is going into law enforcement, with those 1500 additional agents, there will still be fewer agents in the Drug Enforcement Administration than there are members of the United States Army Military Band.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you about the foreign policy aspect of all this, because one of the other criticisms I've heard is that the drug efforts undermine U.S. foreign policy. Now you specifically were cited for writing Manuel Noriega two letters commending him for helping out the United States. Do you have any regrets about sending those letters to him in retrospect, and is it inevitable that there will be clashes between the foreign policy objectives of this country and the law enforcement objectives?

MR. LAWN: I don't believe that in today's environment there will necessarily be clashes, because the issue of illicit drugs has become a national priority. Certainly in times past, the Department of State has had priorities different from law enforcement, drug law enforcement priorities. Concerning the letters to Gen. Noriega, when those letters were sent, they were case specific, that is, we had asked the Panamanian defense forces to take action on a particular case. Not knowing particular PDF officers who were involved in that case.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Panamanian.

MR. LAWN: Panamanian defense force officers who were involved, we sent a letter to the director of those forces in a case specific direction. Those were not letters of endorsement. Those were not character references. Those were acknowledgements that individual officers sometimes performed heroically in order to minimize the risk of illicit drugs in the international community.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about crack, has that caused you to do anything differently, make you feel more frustrated, less likely to feel that this is a winnable situation?

MR. LAWN: Not less likely to feel that it's a winnable situation. We recognized the potential for crack in 1985, and we were having a crack conference in New York the day that Lynn Bias died. Our biggest frustration was convincing the local police, convincing local communities that crack would become an epidemic in our country. As far as addressing the crack issue, we have initiated additional task forces throughout the country to deal with crack, because crack, while part of the cocaine problem, is particularly pernicious and is responsible for so much violence, for so much killing, and unfortunately, for so many infants being born into the world with severe medical problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, Mr. Lawn, you're about to join the Yankees organization in New York City. Do you think that any of your experiences here with DEA over the past five years will be transferrable, and what are your --

MR. LAWN: Certainly, I do believe they will be transferrable. I've spent over 20 years in management, and regardless of the type of product with which you are dealing, you're dealing with people, you're dealing with people who you want to perform, you're dealing with people who you want to see perform well. You're dealing with the reality that there must be a system of rewards and punishment in any enterprise.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I guess I was specifically thinking about drugs and sports and whether or not you thought that you could have an impact in that area.

MR. LAWN: Certainly I'm not going to forget my role in demand reduction. I feel very strongly about it. I continue to plan to speak out on that issue. We will continue to recruit the players in the major leagues to support our programs. We have worked with Dave Winfield for many many years in the New York City area. Hopefully now I can solicit the cooperation of other Yankees to do that type of effort.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Lawn, we thank you for being with us. We congratulate you on your award from the President, and wish you success in your future endeavors.

MR. LAWN: Thank you very much. ESSAY - BACK TO THE FUTURE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight our Thursday night essay, some Roger Rosenblatt thoughts about baseball.

MR. ROSENBLATT: By threatening to keep baseball away from us this season, the owners and players may have thought that they were depriving us of the future, but in fact, they were depriving us of the past. The past is where baseball lives. The past is where baseball is played over and over. A future game only exists to become encased in history, an occurrence to be recorded detail by detail and stored away on tape or on paper, or better yet, in the mind, where it is edited down to the astonishing play, the unforgettable player. Every baseball fan's mind is a museum of ineradicable scenes, such as Don Larsen's last pitch in his perfect World Series game, Yogi Berra clinging to Larsen like a Koala, or Ted Williams' final career hit, a home run, of course, characteristic down to the last, with Williams refusing to bow to the fans, Willie Mays' over the shoulder basket catch against Cleveland, far from Willie's best, but still the sport's most photogenic catch, Jackie Robinson steals home, brilliance and audacity from the first black player in the modern majors. Mickie Mantel pulls a shot to right that nearly clears the stadium roof. The rooms of the mental museum roar with such scenes. They go on forever, are ready to be made into forever every time a season starts. The sport's great memories are part of the past we store away. The other part is entirely private and our own, the equally unsensational and unforgettable memories of an ordinary game, especially on an ordinary weekday afternoon when we should have been in school. But there were the Cubs or the Dodgers or the Twins playing at home, and the sunshine full on the stands like a tarpaulin of life, and dad holding up two tickets like the Holy Grail, wearing a boyish, mischievous smile on his face. Baseball was his past too, after all, and his dad's past, and yours and his together. Whatever would transpire on the mound that day, however lackluster and trivial, would immediately be locked up in the family album like the stamp of the upsidedown bi-plane or several crown jewels. The game would exist to have existed. That is exactly what the game is meant to do, what baseball was invented to do. They say that America has no sense of history. But look at baseball. All of baseball's vital statistics, RBIs, ERAs, strikeouts, runs scored, are statements of the past, homages to the past even as they occur. In any game, in any corner of any game, each action becomes part of the record. It lives to become part of the record. Look at Dwight Goodin or Don Maddingly exploding with power in their prime today. Yet, they are spoken of as future Hall of Famers, already honored in the past. The past is way ahead of them. The players and the owners threaten to take away all that. To have taken away what has not yet happened would have been bad enough, but to have taken away the past would have been unforgivable. If the games of summer do not come, they cannot go. And if they cannot go, we cannot remember. And if we cannot remember, then the sport never existed, and we can never cherish the wonderful, orderly game known correctly as our pastime. The loss of the past is what it means to miss a season. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, the main stories of this Thursday, Soviet tanks rolled through Lithuania's capital city in a show of force, and in Alaska, a jury found Exxon Valdez Captain Joseph Hazelwood innocent of all but one misdemeanor charge stemming from the nation's largest oil spill. Good night, Jim.

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