The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, Soviet Pres. Gorbachev ordered the citizens of Lithuania to turn in their weapons, Pres. Bush told the Polish Prime Minister Poland would have a voice in German reunification, and former Pres. Reagan's videotaped testimony in the Poindexter trial was released. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we go first to the debate underway in Washington [FOCUS - FUNDING THE ARTS] about whether to cut back government funding of the arts. Joining us are theater producer/director Joseph Papp and California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Then Pres. Reagan's videotaped testimony in the Iran-Contra trial [FOCUS - ON THE STAND] of John Poindexter. We'll have excerpts. And finally Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with Jewish Historian Elie Wiesel about the meaning of a reunited Germany [FINALLY].NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Soviet Pres. Gorbachev today turned up the heat on Lithuania. He ordered all citizens of the Soviet republic to surrender their weapons. His statement was read on the Soviet evening news. He authorized Soviet police to confiscate weapons that are not turned in within seven days and he ordered increased security on Lithuania's borders. Lithuania's parliament declared its independence last week. Since then, hundreds of Lithuanians have joined voluntary defense forces. Gorbachev said his order today was designed to protect Soviet sovereignty in Lithuania. Lithuania's leaders called the orders interference and aggression. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said in Washington the United States views the report with concern. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Pres. Bush today assured Poland's prime minister that his country's concerns about German reunification would be heard. Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki visited the White House to discuss the evolving political situation in Europe. The Polish premier came to Washington seeking U.S. support for a treaty guaranteeing Poland's Western border with Germany. Mazowiecki has demanded such a treat be signed prior to reunification. In his welcoming remarks Mr. Bush said, in any decisions affecting Poland, Poland must have a voice.

PRES. BUSH: We see a new Europe in which the security of all European states and their fundamental right to exist secure within their present borders is totally assured. And in this new Europe, NATO, linking the United States to Europe in a defensive alliance of democratic states, will remain strong and united. And we want Poland and its neighbors to join with us in building a Europe whole and free.

MS. WOODRUFF: Later, the two men signed a treaty in the White House Rose Garden. It is designed to promote business and economic relations between the two countries. Mazowiecki said his country's political change was linked with economic change.

TADEUSZ MAZOWIECKI, Prime Minister, Poland: [Speaking through Interpreter] We believe there is a relationship between democracy and the development of an economy based on free market and free enterprise. We believe that to combine these two kinds of changes in Poland allows us to make changes that reach most deep. The treaty we have just signed is very important in this sense because it offers a prospect for American business and for American companies to become committed and engage in the Polish conditions and the Polish environment.

MS. WOODRUFF: In West Germany today, Chancellor Helmut Kohl predicted full German reunification by the end of 1992. He said it would coincide with the European community's plans for a barrier free economic market.

MR. LEHRER: There was more ethnic violence today in Romania. It was between Romanians and ethnic Hungarians in the city of Tirgu Mures. The government sent troops there today. At least three people have been killed and more than two hundred hurt. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

MS. BATES: Tensions between Romanians and ethnic Hungarians have been rising for weeks. On Tuesday, they burst. Mobs from both groups rampaged through the streets of Tirgu Mures. Reports estimates at least 4,000 people were involved. They chased each other through parts of the city. When they clashed, it was terribly ugly. The frustration here stems from Hungarian demands for greater autonomy and Romanian resentment. Ethnic Hungarians comprise 2 million of Romania's 23 million people and in Tirgu Mures, they make up 50 percent of the population. The violence was brutal. The assault on this man shows how deeply the hatred runs and how far the two sides have to go to make peace. The fighting has led to a government inquiry and extra troops have been called in. In Bucharest, the ruling Council of National Unity held a special meeting. The group, primarily ex-Communists, discussed what to do to diffuse the violence. While they met, hundreds rallied in a call for peace. The demonstrators appealed for an end to the clashes saying, we're all Romanians. But the tensions are long entrenched and the fighting is likely to continue.

MS. WOODRUFF: In the new African nation of Namibia, thousands of people celebrated throughout the night to mark their first day of independence. The territory had been ruled by neighboring South Africa for the past 75 years. South Africa officially turned over control at a ceremony in the capital city's sports stadium. Many world leaders attending the festivities used the occasion for talks with each other. Secretary of State Baker met with South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela. Afterwards Mandela criticized plans for Baker to meet tomorrow with South African Pres. DeKlerk, saying the meeting will send an inaccurate message that his country has made meaningful changes.

MR. LEHRER: Former Pres. Reagan testified today for the defense in the Iran-Contra trial of John Poindexter. He did it via videotape. His testimony was played in a Washington courtroom for the jury. It had been taped in Los Angeles last month. Mr. Reagan said what he had said before, that he never approved the diversion of Iran arm sales funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: [2-16-90] My instructions were that whatever we did in trying to maintain the existence of the Contras should be done within the law. I emphasized that at every time and I knew that there were groups of citizens who were on the side of the Contras and who were soliciting funds to be of help to the Contras. But, again, I emphasized no solicitation. We were not going to go out and try to solicit groups to do this.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have a longer excerpt after the News Summary. The trial judge today ruled Mr. Reagan will not have to submit his diaries as evidence. Judge Harold Green said after reading the diary entries, he concluded they were not essential to a fair trial.

MS. WOODRUFF: U.S. census takers took to the streets last night hoping to get an accurate count of the nation's homeless. It was the first time such a project was ever attempted. Fifteen thousand counters fanned out in all cities with a population of 50,000 or more. They went to shelters, missions, park benches, and abandoned buildings in search of the homeless. Some homeless advocates contended today that many people were overlooked, but the head of the Census Bureau called the operation a success.

MR. LEHRER: A federal judge today barred the U.S. government from taking over a failing savings & loan in Illinois. The judge in Washington said the chief regulator had been unconstitutionally appointed. The decision could affect the government's entire S&L bail out program. A spokesman for the Justice Department said the ruling will be appealed.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our summary of the news. Just ahead on the Newshour, government funding of the arts, Pres. Reagan on the witness stand, and Elie Wiesel on a unified Germany. FOCUS - FUNDING THE ARTS

MR. LEHRER: Things have turned hot again over the dispute of federal funding of the arts and that is where we go first tonight. There were two collision like developments today. Senator Jesse Helms told Congressional investigators to find out if the National Endowment for the Arts was funding pornographic art works and the head of the NEA told a House Hearing the Bush Administration did not support content restrictions to its grants on artists and art institutions. A leading Congressional critic of the NEA's mission and performance Dan Rohrabacher and New York Stage Producer will debate the issue rightafter this backgrounder of Joanna Simon.

MS. SIMON: At today's hearing NEA Chairman John Frohnmayer asked Congress to stay out of his organizations decision making process and let him decide what art should be or should not be supported by Government grants.

JOHN FROHNMAYER, Chairman, National Endowment For the Arts: Certainly Congress has the power that I am fully aware but I do not believe for Congress to sort of surgically go in and say okay you screwed up here we are going to take so many dollars out of your budget. I don't believe that is the answer and I don't believe that is really what Congress wants to do either to micro manage the Endowment.

MS. SIMON: Yesterday activists on both sides of the issue lobbied Congress.

SPOKESPERSON: We are going around to the different Congressional Offices giving then this package and asking you to ask your boss to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. The material in here is so obscene and so indecent that we can not actually include in the package the actual pictures themselves. We feel that it is an outrage that the tax payers are having to pay for pictures that we can't even show you.

MS. SIMON: And outside the Capitol a coalition of artists groups pressed its point.

STEPHEN COLLINS, Actor: When a Congressman can stand up in front of his constituency and assure that he is protecting them from obscenity it sounds good but I think that the American people can do the same simple arithmetic that we have done today. Twenty Five controversial NEA grants, 84,975 non controversial grants which has brought us richer art, better plays, dynamic public television, dynamic growth in the nationwide orchestras. The NEA is by any account an astonishing success.

MS. SIMON: the furor over the National Endowment for the Arts began last year with the refusal of the Corchoran Gallery in Washington D.C. to exhibit the work of Robert Maplethrope. Maplethorpe seen here in a self portrait was a homosexual photographer whose work included lush photos of flower, nudes of men, women and children and pictures of male homosexual sex acts. Senator Jesse Helms attacked the exhibition as vulgar and obscene.

SENATOR JESSE HELMS, [R] North Carolina: I am not going into detail of the crudeness of the art in question. I don't even acknowledge that it is art. I don't even acknowledge that the fellow who did it was an artist. He was a jerk and I said that earlier. But in any case there is a fundamental difference between government censorship, pre emption of publication or production and the government's refusal to pay for such publication and production. Artists have a right to express their feeling as they wish. But no artists has a preemptive claim on the tax dollars of the American people to put forth such trash.

MS. SIMON: After a heated debate Congress passed a law that forbids funding of certain kinds of art work and requires grant recipients to sign a pledge saying they will not produce art that includes depictions of sado masochism, homo eroticism, the sexual exploitation of children or any individuals engaged in sex acts in which when taken as a whole do not have serious, literary, artistic, political or scientific merit. For many in the artistic community the oath and funding restrictions amount to censorship.

LARRY McMURTRY, Author: Why should it not be recognized that art to requires expertise the decisions about its funding might most likely be entrusted to those who make it and study it. A mature nation requires and profits from a mature art. To exhibit art is to reduce it and finallyto suffocate it.

MS. SIMON: Some Congressmen like Dana Rohrabacher of California even go so far as to favor eliminating all federal funding for the arts. Hearings on the NEA reauthorization will continue over the next few months. Funding expires September 30th.

MR. LEHRER: Now to our debate between Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California and Joseph Papp Producer of the New York Shakespeare Festival and the Public Theater in New York City. Congressman why do you want all federal funding stopped.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Well I happen to believe that when it comes to art those decisions of what should be subsidized and what shouldn't be subsidized should be left in the hands of the people. There is no reason for us to tax away that money and give it to the Federal Government to make those decisions for the people especially at a time of high deficit spending when the federal government can't come up for funds for pre natal care for poor women or even with health care for the elderly. I think that it is a time that we should reexamine just what the Government should be involved in and what it shouldn't be involved in. What we can afford to do what we can't and I think that it is best to leave art in the hands of the people themselves.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts has done an outstanding job or a bad job or whatever to this point through federal funding of the arts.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I don't believe that it has done a good job. I believe that NEA has had a lot of problems and I think the process that they have used has excluded certain types of artists who are complaining to me everyday about the process that seems to be a click insider type of process, more eccentric art is financed at the expense of more traditional art. That question is irrelevant to me in terms of what the funding. As far as I am concerned that decision should be in the hands of the people and I think people can decide what art the are going to choose. If they chose eccentric art that is fine. If they want more tractional art they should be able to make that choice.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp do you believe that the Federal Government has a role in funding the arts?

MR. PAPP: Well they have had that role I think through three Presidents and a recent Harris Poll indicated that most Americans want to the government support the arts because they are interested in having the arts available to them and an answer to Rohrabacher's, Congressman Rohrabacher. In order for them to judge the arts the art must be made available and the National Endowment for the Arts has done an extraordinary job over the years. This issue that is being raised now I think is a false issue. I think there are people who want to impose on other people their particular moral judgments, their views, in fact the judgement about the arts and I don't think that is proper.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what you are really up to Congressman?

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think the only one really being imposed are the American people who are having their tax dollars taxed away from them and having those decisions made for them and many times those decisions are made to finance things that American people think are totally immoral. Some things that are sexually graphic that go beyond the bounds of acceptance by most Americans and things that attack the Christian religion. We have a picture of Jesus Christ put in a bottle of urine and we see $15,000 in tax dollars going to finance that at a time when we are having trouble paying for the health care of our elderly. It is an absolute outrage. And as this message gets out and as the art community continues to insist that we must have federal tax dollars that it is our right with out any strings attached the American people are going to look at this issue and are going to say it is better to get the government out of the arts totally.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp what about the example that the Congressman just raised and he used the term outraged to express his feelings about it. How do you respond to that?

MR. PAPP: Well art at some time or another is going to outrage people because art is always exploring various avenues that have not been explored before. And I think these two works that he mentions the artist himself despite what we heard the Senator from North Carolina say that artist is a jerk. You are talking about a man who has an extraordinary artistic background and is considered by most people in the field as being an outstanding Photographer and artists.

MR. LEHRER: That is Mr. Maplethorpe.

MR. PAPP: Yes Mr. Maplethorpe is the man. So consequently there is a controversy surrounding this and this suddenly becomes the basis which the Congressman wants to eliminate and institution, which has become an institution that has served this country well and I think that if you do a survey and check it out you will find that NEA has been an extraordinary institution.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp you then believe that it is a legitimate function of the federal government to use money to fund art that might in fact outrage Congressman Rohrabacher or any one else?

MR. PAPP: If art is not controversial from time to time it becomes rather let's say meaningless and then just will serve nobody. I don't necessarily personally agree with some of the art that is presented but talking about art I am in the theater and it is a very very small step to go from art to language because certain plays have been banned in the United States as of today. I believe that Congressman Rohrabacher would like to see certain things banned from certain books. Is that true?

REP. ROHRABACHER: Absolutely not correct. I am a journalist by profession and I am a writer by profession. I plan only to be in Congress for 10 years and I am going to go back and be a novelist and a screen writer.

MR. PAPP: Your main objection is then to painting and photography?

REP. ROHRABACHER: As far as I am concerned people can produce and they can display anything they want to display and produce as long as it is on their own time with their own dime. But when you start taxing the hard working people of America and producing things that would be equivalent to what you find in a porno book store at a time when we can not find the money for essentially services it is absolutely outrageous.

MR. LEHRER: What about Mr. Papp's point that the public that you say is outraged will never have an opportunity to see this art if it is not funded?

REP. ROHRABACHER: That is ridiculous. Take Mr. Maplethorpe which is the person that we are talking about. He was a renowned Photographer, His photographs were shown everywhere. He has probably had more display of his work in the private sector than anyone you can imagine. There was no reason to put $30,000 of tax payers money into financing a display of his photos. If they did at the very least they can spend that $30,000 of tax money you shouldn't display photos of nude children that Time Magazine suggested that Maplethorpe could have been prosecuted for child pornography. If you are going to take the money from tax payers in a free society, in a democracy you have to take in consideration the moral values the religious values of those people who you are forcing to pay the bill.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp what about that. Is the moral values of the public are a part of that and should be enforced in these grants?

MR. PAPP: You see I think that if you ask people to judge particular works of art the average person because judgement of art, painting in particular has always been controversial. What is one man's meat is another man's poison. So Congressman Rohrabacher just wants to see more conventional art. he would like to see more landscapes and smiling faces. I happened to mention this to some who just came in from Prague yesterday a good friend of Hovals. He said it sounds just like the communist propaganda we used to get all the time.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think that I need to answer that.

MR. PAPP: But you sound like a socialist realist. Social realism is what you want in art and you are not going to get that.

REP. ROHRABACHER: No far as I am concerned the people who have lived under communist systems know what it is like to have Soviets making their decisions for them as to what art will or will not be financed. As far as I am concerned people in a free society should be free to paint and display any type of art that they want. But to have a committee in the government making art decisions for the people and then to say that the people's moral values, the moral values of the population they are taxing will not be taken into account that is what communism is all about.

MR. LEHRER: Are you suggesting Congressman that there is a set of moral values that would apply to all Americans and all religions?

REP. ROHRABACHER: No I am not. What I am suggesting is that because there are questions like this that it would be best to leave those decisions in the hands of the people. Why tax their money away. I believe in giving them tax incentives so they will be encouraged themselves to make decisions as to what art they should subsidize with their hard earned tax dollars and give them an incentive to do it through the tax system. But to set up a national bureau to set up our own department of culture or ministry of culture it is very similar to what Mr. Haval and other artists in the Eastern block faced for many years.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp.

MR. PAPP: We don't have a Ministry of Culture in this country. These things are judged by peer panels. This not by the U.S. Government. These are people outside the U.S. Government having no obligation to the U.S. Government make their judgement purely on the basis of their understanding of their particular area of expertise. They are not making decisions for the American people. They are saying this is artistic and this is not artistic. I mean you can't make those decisions you have your own judgement. If you were a member of that panel you would have to be a painter of some esteem and have some kind of reputation. Certainly everybody is not going to make the best decision every time but the judgement that was made on these particular two people that we are talking about that these were artistic expressions regardless of how you want to vulgarize that and carry it to an extreme. And I was personally taken back by some of this. You keep talking about democracy constantly and the people and a democracy tries to make available, make accessible to people the arts because most people in the United States can not get to the arts. There are no museums in most of the cities. In small cities and towns their are not theaters in these places so the whole idea of encouraging the arts to be produced and disseminated is what the NEA does. The NEA is a stimulant for the arts and they do exactly what you are asking to be done.

MR. LEHRER: But you don't believe the Federal Government should have that role?

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think there is a role for the Federal Government and that is to provide the tax incentives for the people themselves to get involved in the arts.

MR. LEHRER: But not to fund specific projects?

REP. ROHRABACHER: Not to set up a commission or an agency that would be very similar to the arts Soviets that are found in communist countries.

MR. LEHRER: Are you suggesting the NEA is that?

REP. ROHRABACHER: I am suggesting that what the NEA is our ministry of culture and has not had a positive impact on art. In fact many people suggest that it is a closed system where there is a chic of people who sponsor more friends and this is what happens when you have a centralized decision making process instead of leaving art decisions to the people themselves.

MR. LEHRER: What about Mr. Frohnmayer the Head of the NEA told the House Committee today that he and the Administration did not believe in content restrictions on their grants. What is you reaction to that Congressman?

REP. ROHRABACHER: If you take money from the tax payers. You know my constituents work very hard for their money and if you have a fellow who is working for a $25,000 income and then you tell him that you have taken $15,000 and just gave it to somebody to put a picture of Jesus Christ in urine talk about vulgarizing our society.

MR. LEHRER: You disagree with Mr. Frohnmayer and the Administration?

REP. ROHRABACHER: I think that if you are going to tax away that mans dollar, you are going to tax away the dollars from our hard working people then you have to take in consideration their values and their morals and that means that you have to consider content.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Papp are you one of, there were several people in the artistic community who were in Washington yesterday and again today stated what the Congressman and others want to do is censorship. Do you use that word yourself?

JOSEPH PAPP, Theatrical Producer: Oh, yes. I use it without much hesitation. It is, in effect, creating a situation where the NEA is intimidated, and I was glad to hear the head of the NEA speak out today on the subject, because they're scaring the hell out of them. There's an investigation now going to go on. It reminds me of the McCarthy era, when they found a Communist under every rug or in every office. That kind of an investigation is not, and being announced today, was not accidental I don't think. I think there's kind of a grander strategy here, and I mean, the Congressman could mention the poor working people that he represents as though we don't represent working people constantly. The kind of theater I do reaches a lot of working people and black people and Hispanic people. We have the Latino festivals. In fact, we have on our desk today an application that's been approved by the NEA for a Latino festival which would attract and bring in plays from all over Latin America to Latin American people in the United States. And some of those plays would be prohibited under your restrictions that you're imposing. Once you begin to impose restrictions on art, which needs a kind of expression, government art, government money supported art in particular because we are a democracy and democracy leaves room for different opinions. You're trying to get only one opinion working and impose that.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, [R] California: That is just absolutely false. I believe in a variety of opinions and I think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are so important that this is not a question of censorship, this is a question of sponsorship, and the federal government should make sure that every dollar that it spends is well used and within the morality and the values of the American people.

MR. LEHRER: We have well used our time, gentlemen. Thank you both very much for being with us.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour, President Reagan at the Poindexter trial, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with Elie Wiesel about a new Germany. FOCUS - ON THE STAND

MS. WOODRUFF: The Reagan videotapes are next. The tapes were made last month when former Pres. Ronald Reagan was called as a witness in the Iran-Contra trial of his former National Security Adviser, John Poindexter. Transcripts of the Reagan testimony were released a couple of weeks ago, but it was not until today that the tapes were played before the jury in the Poindexter trial. The former President was questioned by Poindexter's defense lawyer, Richard Beckler. We have extended excerpts that being with Mr. Reagan's explanation of the so-called "Iranian initiative", why he agreed in 1985 to sell missiles to so-called "moderates" in Iran.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I made the decision that there was one thing upon which we could base selling in this single order of Toll Missile that could be transported in a single, in one airplane, and that was that we had some nine hostages being held by the Hezbollah, which had a kind of philosophical relationship with Iran, and that if they would use their efforts to get our hostages freed, yes, we'd make this sale. They agreed that they would do that, and so the shipment was sent. And I can't place the timing, but very shortly thereafter, we had received two of the hostages, not together, one at a time, and were told that two more would be available within probably 48 hours. And it was at about this time that the little weekly newspaper in Beirut printed an erroneous story that we were doing business directly with Khomeini and trading arms for hostages. If you want the disagreement that occurred between our people, some of our people said that this would, they didn't say it was trading for hostages, because it wasn't, my answer, they said, it would be made to appear that way if it ever came to light. And my answer to that was that if I had a child kidnapped and held for ransom and if I knew of someone who had perhaps the ability to get that child back, it wouldn't be dealing with the kidnappers to ask that individual to do that for me, and it would be perfectly fitting for me to reward that individual for doing this. So that was my position with regard to what they were asking and what we were doing, and as I say, we were beginning to get the hostages back, and they had gotten the one shipment of missiles and we had received the twelve millions two, the Defense Department had, with the sale of those missiles.

RICHARD BECKLER, Poindexter's Lawyer: And Mr. President, I guess, do you recall at that time analogizing this situation a little bit to the Lindburgh kidnapping and the fact that there was a go- between in that kidnapping, does that ring a bell with you at all?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I don't recall ever mentioning anyone else. I just mentioned what it would be like if I, myself, had a family member kidnapped, and if I knew of someone that I believed had the possibility of getting him back.

MR. BECKLER: Mr. President, do you recall atall, the fact that Attorney General Meese at one point had indicated that it would be better for the United States to be shipping these weapons directly, rather than having Israel ship weapons and then being replenished by the United States, does that ring any bells at all with you, Mr. President?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: No, I don't recall that coming up at all. And as a matter of fact, to this day, I don't know who finished the delivery of the missiles. I know that we could not have flown a plane into Iran, and that would have destroyed the whole covertness of the operation and exposed these individuals.

MR. BECKLER: Did you at any time recall being informed by Adm. Poindexter as to who some of the people were that were working on this, this Iranian missile project, if you will?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: The only name that I recall being involved in out at that end of it was Col. North.

MS. WOODRUFF: Later in the former President's testimony, he was asked when he learned about the missile shipment to Iran. At one point, the prosecuting attorney, Dan Webb, interrupted. But most of the exchange took place between the former President and Poindexter's lawyer, Richard Beckler.

MR. BECKLER: Let's just talk about this Hawk missile shipment for a while, this 1985 Hawk missile shipment. The information that I have is that you were first informed that there was kind of a shipment when you were over in Geneva in November of 1985, meeting for the first time with Mr. Gorbachev. Do you recall being informed generally about that shipment at that time?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: [2-16-90] I actually don't. I don't have any recollection of when I was told about that or who told me.

MR. BECKLER: I have spoken to several people. Let me see if I can help you out here a little bit, Mr. President. Apparently, when you were over in Geneva, you were staying at a guest house on an estate that was occupied by a fairly high ranking official over there in Geneva, and at one point, you were all in this little guest house at a break from the summit meeting and Mr. McFarlane came in and said that he had some information that he really wanted to deliver to you and he gave that message to Mr. Regan and Mr. Regan asked you if he could spend a few minutes with him. Now as it's been described to me, and I'll ask you if this refreshes your recollection at all, you and Mr. Regan and George Shultz and Mr. McFarlane all went into the bedroom of this little guest cottage, if you will, and Mr. McFarlane proceeded to just basically tell you that there was a Hawk Missile shipment and there was some expectation that maybe some hostages might come out. Now does that refresh your recollection at all?

DAN WEBB, Independent Counsel: Your Honor, I'm going to have to object. I have no problem with Mr. Beckler refreshing the President's recollection with documents or records or anything that, in fact, is true and happened, but as I understand his questions, we're now getting Mr. Beckler telling the President what he has learned apparently from hearsay from other people, but there's no evidence of it, and so --

JUDGE HAROLD GREEN: I sustain the objection. You need not answer the question, Mr. President, unless you want to. If you want to, go ahead.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: No, because I just, I don't have a clear recollection of what might have been discussed or that, in a meeting of that kind over there in Geneva, there were so many different places and our great concern was, of course, this was our first meeting with the General Secretary or Secretary General of the Soviet Union.

MR. BECKLER: So in other words, Mr. President --

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: I can't say that I specifically recall this meeting or --

MR. BECKLER: The Hawk Missile shipment, as you were told about it at this time, is not a big event in your life right on that day by any means.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: No.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Reagan was also questioned about a meeting at the White House where administration officials discussed third country funding of the Contra forces fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. This meeting took place after Congress passed the Boland amendment which eliminated official military aid to the Contras.

MR. BECKLER: Is it clear to say, Mr. President, that the discussion at this meeting with regard toward getting third country funding or funding from individuals was one that you wanted to keep secret, is that correct?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, I don't know that we particularly wanted to keep it secret. I just said that I didn't think that we should be importuning these others to do this. It wouldn't hurt for us to say to them that we felt that it was important to democracy and how did they feel.

MR. BECKLER: Let me refer you, if I may, to the last page of the minutes of that meeting, Page 14.

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Yeah.

MR. BECKLER: And you'll notice that the very last phrase there is quoting something that you said or paraphrasing what you said about the word getting out. Perhaps you could explain. Does that refresh your recollection as to what your thinking was about going public on this?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Well, no, it was, what I was talking about there are the leaks. Washington is a sieve, and I found in eight years, it was virtually impossible to find out who was doing the leaking and shut them up, and so I said that last line, and I was talking about if we ever get our hands on the people who are doing the leaking of this various secret information that we'd be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House until we found out who did it. Yes, I said this. I felt very strongly about this. I can't tell you how many times as President that I had to get on the phone and call the head of a foreign state who had read in Armenia in our press one of those stories that said via, from a person who asked not to be named, and you never could get their name, and then there would be some declaration that would make me have to call up and explain to a head of another state that this was absolutely false and that no one in our government had even suggested doing what this false report was calling for. And yes, if it looks like I was a little intemperate about people who leak, I was.

MR. BECKLER: Mr. President, a number of your advisors at this meeting, just describing it generally, supported the idea that we ought to get the funding one way or another if we had the Contras and the Freedom Fighters be funded, if Congress isn't going to give the money, we can get it somewhere else. Wasn't that the general theme of your meeting?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: Except that I emphasized as always we don't break the law.

MR. BECKLER: That's correct. You never authorized anyone to break the law at this meeting, did you?

FORMER PRES. REAGAN: No.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Reagan testified for a total of seven hours and forty minutes. The jury will continue screening the videotapes of his testimony tomorrow. FINALLY

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight a conversation about the coming of a reunified Germany. It is with writer Elie Wiesel. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked to him.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Elie Wiesel is a writer and educator who was once described as the spiritual archivist of the holocaust, Nazi Germany's program to eradicate Europe's Jews. Born in Romania, Wiesel was a prisoner at Auschwitz, where his mother and younger sister died in the gas chambers. He was also interned at Buchenwald, where his father died. Wiesel was in the Buchenwald camp when it was liberated by the allies in April 1945. Educated in France, Wiesel moved to the United States in the 1950's. His first book about the holocaust, "Night", was published in the United States in 1960. In 1986, Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Wiesel, welcome. Just after the Berlin Wall came down, you wrote, "I cannot hide the fact that the Jew in me is troubled, even worried." About what?

ELIE WIESEL, Nobel Laureate: About forgetting, about the past being embellished, obliterated. On one hand, of course, how can one not be happy when freedom is gaining space, where freedom is showing itself that it can overcome fear and dictatorship, but on the other hand, because it is happening in Germany, where so much history is invested in every moment, in every person, I felt troubled and still do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what specifically bothers you?

MR. WIESEL: On that specific day, what I wrote the New York Times was all of a sudden I realized was that November 9th that once upon a time that was remembered as the day of Crystal Nacht, the night of the broken glass, when thousands of synagogues and homes, Jewish homes, were ransacked, pillaged and burned --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The beginning of the holocaust.

MR. WIESEL: It was the beginning of the tragedy. The holocaust began a little bit later, but now, all of a sudden, it's forgotten and we remember November 9th as the day when the Berlin Wall fell apart. And that worries me because I realize that the area of memory is shaking.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is it about it that bothers you, that without the memory history could repeat itself, because many of the young Germans are saying that people with attitudes like yours are visiting the sins of the fathers on the children. Do you expect a Germany like the one we knew to rise again?

MR. WIESEL: No. I never believed that, by the way. I never believed that the children are responsible for their fathers' or mothers' sin. I believe that children of killers are not killers but children, and therefore, I had, and still have empathy with young Germans who know where they come from and who feel the complex guilt that somehow has been the part of their parents or grandparents. And it was good to see them happy, but what I'm afraid of is that history will suffer. I'm convinced that if we were to forget the events with capital E that occurred one biblical generation ago, humanity will pay the price for it, not only the Jewish people. To forget such a tragedy would mean a kind of Alzheimer's Disease on a universal scale.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it not remembering you think that will cause history to repeat itself, or just that memory has to be preserved? What do you think the effect of forgetting that history would be?

MR. WIESEL: It will first of all de-sensitize the next generation. What is the purpose of memory? First of all, it is the basis of all culture, of all civilization. What would art be, what would music be, what would literature be without the memory of art and music and literature? What would humanity be without its capacity and desire of remembering? But in addition, I'm convinced that if we forget what people did to another people, to my people, and through it to other people, then tragedies would be possible, more tragedies.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Gunter Grass, the West German writer, said recently, was quoted recently as saying that Auschwitz could never be forgiven until the end of history. Do you agree with that?

MR. WIESEL: Absolutely.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And by that, do you mean that there should never be a reunited Germany or a united Germany?

MR. WIESEL: No. I think for this generation, the generation of the victims and the killers is still alive. Some of us are still here, and many of the killers are still around, and therefore, it would require from the government of Germany, or both Germanies to be a little bit more moderate, more, I don't know, more serious, and less arrogant. It is the style that I found offensive. After all, you and I spoke a few years ago during the Bitberg affair. What was Bitberg? It was Chancellor Kohl's engineering. He is the one who engineered Bitberg. He is the one who almost forced the President of the United States to go to that cemetery. It is the same Chancellor who is still now trying to normalize German history, German philosophy, German politics. Well, how can one not be disturbed?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But that very same chancellor has said that the fears such as the ones that you are now expressing are not really justified, that people who express fears as you have are not taking into account the fact that for decades Germans, especially the young, have been informed of the causes of and consequences of nationalist, socialist tyranny, that there have been safeguards in Germany against the kinds of things that you're referring to and, indeed, that Germany has over the years paid reparations to victims of the holocaust. You don't buy that.

MR. WIESEL: I agree with some parts of the argument, but not with the argument. First of all, the fact is that for many years, if not for some decades, the holocaust was almost ignored in Germany. You couldn't study because it was almost omitted from the textbooks. Somehow the generation in Germany that remembers refused to remember and transmit. As for the young people, I agree, again, I repeat the young people are not guilty and I think the young people are disturbed themselves. They want to learn and they don't know what to do. On the other hand, there is a democracy, it's true, and I think we should all applaud the experiment in democracy that was successful in West Germany. But a few years ago, there was an anti-semitic play in Frankfurt by Fastbinder. Had it not been for the protests of the Jewish community in Frankfurt, the play would have continued to successfully play evening after evening. There are associations of former assessment in Germany meeting regularly. There is anti-semitic paper. We hear elected officials making anti- semitic statements, so it's not that rosy as Chancellor Kohl would like us to believe.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And so your fears are as much in West Germany as in East Germany?

MR. WIESEL: Of course, but Chancellor Kohl, what does he say, what do his spokesmen, what do they say? He is afraid of his right wing. Now if he is afraid of the right wing, shouldn't we be afraid?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you are really afraid of the re-emergence of anti-semitism in both West and East Germany?

MR. WIESEL: I'm afraid of nationalism. Since last fall, there has been a rise of nationalism in both Germanies, that I'm afraid of German nationalism. And I believe that I as a Jew am entitled to my fears.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that Germany can ever exorcise the demons of its past, and what would it take to assuage your fears?

MR. WIESEL: I would like some more daring imagination on the part of the German leaders. I would like them together with their political rules to come out with plans, for instance, to establish 100 chairs in 100 universities dealing with the second world war and its sequels and its genesis. I would like them to establish a thousand scholarships for students dealing with contemporary history. Imagine, imagine the chancellor or the president coming out in November, November 9th, and saying, we remember, of course we are happy, we are joyous, but we also remember Crystal Nacht, and therefore, when Berlin is reunited, we are going to call an international conference of a hundred, of five hundred great scholars, novelists, spiritual leaders, media personalities, to deal with the subject of memory and responsibility.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: One of the things that Kohl has said though is that much of this is already in the syllabuses at universities and around the country. You don't think there's enough?

MR. WIESEL: Surely not enough. I have students from Germany in my class at Boston University and occasionally I speak to them about what's happening in Germany too, and my information is that it is not satisfactory.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This, the generation of Germans you spoke about who were still alive, not the fathers, I mean, is it going to take the demise of that generation, the death of that generation before you and Jews like you can be comfortable with the thought of these two Germanies coming together?

MR. WIESEL: We will never be comfortable with anything. I belong to a generation that has so many scars on our memories that we cannot be comfortable especially when it comes to Germany, and again, I do not believe in collective guilt and therefore, it's hard for me to come out and say these words, these harsh words, about what's happening today in Germany.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there a timetable, if some of the things that concern you were to be put into effect, because people are talking about different timetables for the reunification, some saying as early as the end of this year, how long do you think it would take to do the things that you want to have done before you can be, before you can endorse this idea, or is it ever that you can endorse this idea?

MR. WIESEL: Even if I were to do so, I would do so with great hesitation. And it's natural, how can you expect me to speak otherwise or to believe otherwise? There are Jews today, and I know them, in the minority, that hate Germany. They would not buy a German car and they would not go to Germany. And once I went to give an address in Reistag. I was criticized by them, why do you go to Germany, and I don't believe in hate. On the other hand, what I would like is to see a kind of symbolic kind of act of atonement. No. 1, the German parliament has never apologized to the Jewish people. They have never said to the Jewish people, please, forgive us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Would that be a step?

MR. WIESEL: It would be an important step. And the second step would be in the future. We just heard when there will be the two and four nations meeting on the reunification of Germany, Poland will be admitted, and rightly so, because Poland has suffered enough. But I believe that the Jewish people too should be admitted there. After all, the Jewish people have been tragically involved in the history of Germany, whether they want it or not. When the four nations will be there, plus two or two plus four, there will be 6 million more human beings invisible but present.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Hasn't the world through modern communications changed so much that a holocaust could never happen again?

MR. WIESEL: I tend to believe that because we remember our memory will shield us from further catastrophe, although here and there I'm more skeptical and more pessimistic. If there are anti-semites today all over the world, even in Russia, the Pamyat people who are vicious anti-semites, and anti-semitism is rising even in our own country, that proves to me that I was naive in 1945 when I believed that anti-semitism died in Auschwitz. It didn't. Its victims perished. Anti-semitism is still alive. Now I believe, therefore, if we remember, there will be no other extermination plan for the people by any other people. If we forget, the forgetting itself will be a tragedy in a way equal to the tragedy itself.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, let me just ask you, how do you feel about how the United States and other Western governments have responded to this whole idea of the two Germanies coming together? Have you been satisfied?

MR. WIESEL: No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's wrong with how they've responded?

MR. WIESEL: There was no debate. After all, this is according to many TV commentators the most important event in the post war era, for it will mark the end of the post war era, and this event is taking place without a debate. I haven't read, except for a few columns by Abe Rosenthal in the New York Times, and Cole in the Washington Post, I have not seen a real debate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there something you would like to see Pres. Bush do that he hasn't done and some of the other world leaders?

MR. WIESEL: I would like a debate. I would like a debate in Congress, first of all, the foreign relations committee in the Senate without prejudging the outcome of it, what is happening. The House Affairs Committee, and the government itself, I think, even Pres. Bush, he should call to the White House a group of social scientists, historians, and simply spend an evening with them and say what does it mean, what does it mean, after all, we are now entering a new phase in history, we are approaching the end of the second, of the last decade of the twentieth century, of the last decade of a millennium, what does it mean?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Go slower, in other words, be more deliberate.

MR. WIESEL: And think about it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Elie Wiesel, thank you for being with us. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, Soviet Pres. Gorbachev gave the citizens of Lithuania seven days to turn in their weapons or have them confiscated, and Pres. Bush assured the Polish prime minister Poland would have a say in the reunification of Germany. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.