Reagan Urges Panel to Give Him Iran Report

Even as Congress concluded the first phase of its investigation into the Iran- contras scandal with many questions still unanswered, President Reagan Tuesday pressed the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee to provide him with a report on its findings that he could make public.

“I’m trying to find out, too, what happened,” Reagan declared.

He made his request as retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, who is alleged to have been a key figure in a U.S.-based supply effort for the Nicaraguan rebels, refused to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, citing the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It was the panel’s final investigative hearing.

Both the House and Senate Intelligence committee investigations will be preempted on Jan. 6, when the 100th Congress convenes and each chamber creates it own special Watergate-style panel to continue looking into U.S. arms sales to Iran and diversion of profits to the contras. Democrats will control both chambers and both investigating committees in the new session.

According to congressional sources, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.) has been under pressure from the White House to issue a finding that the President knew nothing of the diversion of funds to the contras. Durenberger has announced that he sees no evidence to implicate Reagan, but other members have argued that the committee so far has insufficient information to completely exonerate the President.

“They (White House officials) believe that, if they could get a report now, it would go a long way toward taking the steam out of the select committee,” a Senate source said.

Reagan, speaking to a group of business leaders at the White House, scoffed at what he described as “these indications that maybe I know more than I’m talking about,” and he pledged to do everything in his power “to get to the bottom of the matter.” His promise to uncover the truth has been at the heart of the White House effort to limit the damage that the scandal has done to the President’s popularity.

But Reagan did not request a report from the Democratic-controlled House Intelligence Committee, nor did he ask the GOP-led Senate committee to make its report directly to the public. Instead, he proposed that the committee submit the report to him and allow him to decide which parts of it to make public.

“I ask them to make that report available to me for declassification as promptly as possible,” he said. Declassification is the process by which parts of top-secret materials are excised so they can be made public without disclosing classified information.

Staff Writing Summary

In response to the President’s request, Senate Intelligence Committee spokesman David Holliday said the panel’s staff is already working on a summary of its findings that could be made public eventually, with the members’ approval. He said the committee staff began preparing the material shortly after receiving a request for a report in a letter from Reagan on Dec. 16.

If the committee decides to release a report, according to Holliday, it will probably be made public by members of the panel without seeking Reagan’s approval. Although the intelligence committee is required by law to seek the President’s advice in declassifying top-secret information, he said, the report will contain no secret information requiring declassification.

Holliday cautioned that the committee membership will not have an opportunity to review the findings and vote on whether to issue the report before Jan. 6. Durenberger said last week that any report issued after that would have to be approved by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), who will head the Senate probe. Inouye opposes issuing a report now because Congress’ investigation has yet to answer many major questions.

‘Would Have Gaps’

“The committee is not in a position to make any findings known,” Senate Democratic leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said in response to the request. “Any report that they would make would have gaps. The President 11 months ago signed a ‘finding’ (approving arms shipments to Iran) and dictated that it not be made public. Now he can’t get information out fast enough.”

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have indicated they would support making a public report only if it states clearly that the committee has been unable to answer such key questions as what the President knew about the diversion of funds and whether he approved arms shipments before signing the “finding” last Jan. 17.

At the White House, spokesman Larry Speakes said officials are certain that nearly all of the transcripts of testimony before the committee could be made public without disclosing national security secrets. In his statement, however, the President asked only for a summary of the committee’s findings--not for transcripts of the testimony.

‘It’s Up to the Hill’

When asked by reporters why the President cannot issue a report himself, as most of the committee witnesses are current officials of the Administration, Speakes replied: “I don’t think it’s up to us. It’s testimony given to the Hill and it’s up to the Hill to do what they want.” He added that the White House does not have access to the transcripts.

Reagan acknowledged that he did not expect the full story to be known until his two ex-aides, former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and former NSC staff member Oliver L. North, agree to testify. The President has called on both men to tell their stories to Congress.

“To be sure,” Reagan said in his statement, “that report will not have all the answers.”

Meanwhile, U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday that North, accused of diverting profits from Iranian arms sales to Nicaraguan rebels, was briefly hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation more than a decade ago.

‘Emotional Problems’

Pentagon and other officials gave varying accounts of the episode, which apparently occurred when North was a Marine officer commanding a company in Okinawa. None of the sources said they knew precisely what North’s condition had been, but several described it as “emotional problems.”

Marine officials refused to comment on the report, which was first published in the Miami Herald. They cited the Privacy Act and other regulations prohibiting the release of medical records.

Friends of North reacted angrily to the disclosure. “There’s a deliberate campaign going on to smear Ollie, and I think it’s despicable,” said Robert B. Oakley, the State Department’s former director of counterterrorism.

In another development, the New York Times reported in today’s editions that CIA Director William J. Casey wrote a memorandum about a year ago explicitly describing the Iran arms sales as a trade for hostages.

‘A Political Initiative’

The newspaper, quoting an unidentified “high-ranking government official who has seen the document,” said President Reagan, according to the memo, was prepared to portray the arms sales as a political initiative toward Tehran if the sales became public. U.S. policy is not to negotiate for hostages.

When the sales were disclosed last month, Reagan denied they were an effort to swap arms for hostages and portrayed them as an effort to reach out to moderates in Iran.

The newspaper said it could not be learned to whom the memo was addressed or exactly when it was written.

White House spokesman Mark Weinberg said “a document review by White House officials has not turned up this document.” CIA spokeswoman Kathy Pherson refused to comment.