provide information about end of life alternatives? it does not conflict, as i understand it -- >> this is all i am asking. it is just to find out what in the devil it does or does not do. what i am told is basically to be quiet, don't ask questions, we have to go. it has been agreed to by others who apparently negotiated. i just would like to know from my state's perspective, who wins, who loses, and then i can make an informed decision. >> does the july offering the amendment have an answer? -- does the gentle lady have an answer? >> the entire intent of the minister had better communication on end of life issues. we are all going to die, but we hate talking about it. . . in fact the medical profession has not been great about communicating options especially

when these issues are not imminent. we want to, through a clearinghouse of information, let people start thinking about type of medical interventions one would want and express those where possible in things like advanced directives and other legal tools available and that's legal tools available and that's what this amendment achieves. >> the gentleman joins the objection to the unanimous request? >> i will withdraw my objection. >> we have less than three minutes on the floor, so let us take the vote if the gentleman would permit -- >> mr. chairman, give me 30 seconds. i wholeheartedly support the gentleman's amendment. i have a bill pending that addresses the same issue and when we talk about ending the growth curve in regard to end of life care, which a lot of people don't want, but you have to give

it because you don't know i think is a very important amendment and i supported and yelled back. >> the unanimous consent request to make the change is now agreed to. the vote now occurs on the two amendments in block. all of those in favor of the green and gold when the amendments say aye. opposed, say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we will recess and i don't think we will be able to return given there are 18 votes on the house floor and given the time we

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on c-span, white house economic adviser lawrence summers talks about the state of the u.s. economy. then, a 1997 interview with journalist walter cronkite, who died today at 92. that is followed by president obama's remarks on health care from earlier today. "book tv" takes you to the harlem book fair on c-span2.

check out the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> technology expert walt mossberg sunday night at 8:00 p.m., on c-span's "q&a." >> now, white house economic adviser lawrence summers. in a speech today, he talked about the economic stimulus plan and warned about possible higher unemployment before a recovery sets in. he spoke at a forum brought by the peterson institute of economics. this is about one hour. >> it is a great honor and privilege to well, lawrence summers back to our podium. he has been the eighth director of the national economic council for the president on economic policy.

president obama putting in that post last fall. one of his first decisions was after the elections. he was a university professor at harvard, one of the select university professorships in there at the university, where, as most of you know, larry became a tenured professor at the tender age of 28, received the clark medal given every two years to an american economist under the age of 40, and subsequently, from 2001 to 2006, was president of the university. prior to that time, larry was the 71st secretary of treasury from 1999 until the end of the clinton administration in 2001, after having been deputy secretary and undersecretary for international affairs in his earlier 10 years india

administration. during that time, it is fair to say that larry gave an enormous amount of extremely valuable experience in economic crises, ranging from mexico in 1995 to the asian crisis in 1997 to 1998, to the subsequent russian and brazil problems. "time" magazine characterized him along with bob rubin and alan greenspan as the committee to save the world. larry is now back in that position while attempting with good success so far to save the world. it is a great privilege and pleasure for this audience here at the institute to welcome him back. before he came back to government, he was a member of our board of directors and a chairman of our committee, a frequent participant and seminars and conferences here, and is a distinct honor, larry, to welcome you back -- and is a

distinct honor, larry, to welcome you back -- and it is a distinct honor. larry summers. [applause] >> fred, thank you for that. you saved my working with the peterson institute for last. i came to washington and learned about the economics of national crises, and then i returned to harvard and learned about politics. [laughter] xdit is good to be back at the peterson institute. i have updated what i used to

say. during the clinton administration, i would remark on the fact that it was said that everything policymakers did was really just a distilled frenzy of an academic scribbler, and i commented that nowadays, it was a reflection coming from a powerful and influential think tank. that reference seems very dated, even eight years later. for me, it is still in response to an email. perhaps, if i was younger, it would be a response to a tweakeet. in any case, we have over time acted more wisely as a country because of the work that has been done at the peterson

institute, and i might say we have made better decisions in the international economic policy because of the contributions made to the debate. noted that that was carefully phrased to make clear that i did not always agree with his contributions. to the debate on international economic policy. today, i want to provide a report on the obama administration's efforts to rescue and rebuild the u.s. economy. i would begin by talking about where we were as the president was taking office. what we have done. and where we are today. i will conclude with some observations of where i think we are going. beginning last january. though only one half years ago, it is easy to forget how far we

have traveled. when president obama assumed office, he faced a serious economic and financial crisis, more than any president since franklin roosevelt. typical of the prevailing sentiment was paul krugman's sentiment in 2009, let's not mince words. this looks an awful lot like the beginning of the second great depression. the economy was in free fall as we started the year with no apparent limit on how much worse things could get. over the three months, the economy lost 3.1 million jobs, the largest three-month decline by a factor ofçó two since the second world war. gdp was declining over a six- month period at an annual rate close to 6%. even before any policy changes, the budget deficit was rejected in 2009 to be well in excess of $1 trillion.

financial markets suggested it significant risks of implosion. if5p0ñ at probabilities, as calculated from options, it suggested a better than one in six chance that the dow would fall below 5000 at some point during 2009. the market's were expecting a 30% of innocent -- of investment-grade value to default within 10 years -- the markets were. muni bond rates, which are supposed to be below other rates, soared to nearly double treasury yields when they were supposed to be below. fear was widespread, and confidence was scarce. traditional measures of consumer and business confidence fell to levels not seen in decades.

the anxiety could be measured in one of many ways. to take one moderate indicator, google search as for the term "economic depression" were up fourfold from their baseline level, and something similar was true of mainstream media references to economic depression -- google search as -- searches. that is what the nation faced just six months ago. in addressing this crisis, president obama started with two main premises. first, the most immediate priority was to rescue the economy by restoring confidence, which depended critically on breaking the vicious cycle of economic contraction and financial failure and financial failure and economic contraction. second, to ensure confidence,

the recovery from the crisis would be built not on the flimsy foundation of asset bubbles but on a firm foundation of productive investment for long-term growth. the president was clear from the beginning. these two tasks needed to be dovetailed. our ability to rescue the economy depended on a sense of our commitment for reform and a vision for a rebuild the economy. the economic problems that confronted the united states were of a distinct character. this was not a standard post world war two recession, in which rising inflation lead to monetary contraction which led to economic contraction, nor was

it the kind of crisis presently experienced in emerging markets. and that friend referred to in his examples of the 1990's -- and that fred referred to as a sudden loss of external confidence forcing adjustments and demand contraction. indeed, the dollar's strength in the second half of 2008. the crisis was qualitatively similar to the crisis in japan after the asset bubble collapse, and the early stages of the great depression and other major domestic financial crises in which things first, credit flows contracted, and deleveraging reduced spending.

we on president obama's economic team were pretty much aware that there were few examples of success in rapidly restoring the economic growth and financial stability after such broad- based -- which included the past failures were a reflection of insufficiently aggressive action taken to slowly -- too slowly, and about that our response would be neither too little north too late. the administrationxd decided tht the first priority and focusing on the rescue of the economy to reverse the vicious cycle connecting incoming declines and

financial instability by directly supporting incomes and a return to financial stability. our policy started with a major commitment to fiscal stimulus. economists in recent years have rightly become skeptical in normal times about discretionary fiscal policy and have regarded monetary policy as a better tool for short-term stabilization. our judgment, however, was that this type scenario of zero interest rates, a dysfunctional financial system, and expectations of protracted contractions, the results of monetary policy or highly uncertain, whereas this policy was likely to be potent. we also concluded that with the

monetary policy being used energetically, it was desirable in the face of great uncertainty to use all available tools to move the economy forward. in the context of a problem that appears significantly smaller, beginning in 2008, i had advocated stimulus that was timely, targeted, and temporary. our analysis of the situation at the beginning of 2009 suggested that the stimulus needed had to be speedy, substantial, and sustained. ultimately, the president proposed, and the congress adopted, the largest program of fiscal stimulus in the nation's peacetime history with a total cost of 5% gdp. the size of the stimulus

reflected a balance of several conditions. what the economy was facing, the difficulties of wrapping it up and then ramping it back out after a recovery in a high budget deficit environment, the question of how much could be spent both quickly and productively, and the recognition that the recovery act was just one of several initiatives by the administration that would have an important impact on the state of the economy. we quickly concluded that in a world of substantial uncertainty and one in which it was important to the stimulus started quickly, a diversified approach was appropriate. that is what we settled at a program that emphasized household consumption and tax cuts and expenses -- expenses -- expansions in unemployment insurance. there was expanded access to capital, support for state and

local governments, and investments in priority areas, like health care, infrastructure, clean energy, and education. we pledged at the time the recovery act became law that some of the spending and tax effects would begin almost immediately. we also noted that the impact of the recovery act would build up over time, peaking during 2010. with about 70% of the total stimulus provided in the first 18 months. now, five months after passage, we are on track to meet that timeline. more than $43 billion has reached businesses and households. another bunch has been channeled into the economy through state and local governments, expansion of social programs, and spending on education, housing,

transportation projects. in addition to the amount that has been already paid out, another $120 billion of spending has been obligated by the federal government, and it is calling for contract for projects and beginning to work its way into the economy. as it may, -- as of may, they have boosted income. in addition to providing fiscal stimulus, and they are addressing the origins of this crises. there were many from across the political spectrum who proposed precipitous action to universal guarantees that would nationalize major financial

institutions. there was an even larger group that would lead the policy from the premise that the financial system as a whole was substantially insolvent. even alan greenspan asserted that it may be necessary to temporary nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring. after considering all of the options, secretary geithner led the demonstration in a somewhat different approach. we recognize to be irreversibility of the nationalization. we recognized that the government could be a source of fear rather than a source of confidence but this could have major implications for other institutions. we also recognized that a substantial part of the flow of

credit in the american economy did not depend on banks but depended on the shadow banking system, including the securitization of assets. they sought to move away with earlier approaches that treated the financial system as a monolith and instead provided a basis of differentiation among financial instruments and financial institutions. the administration committed itself to a financial plan intended to restore the flow of credit to businesses, tackle before closure crisis, and comprehensively reform the financial regulatory system. center elements of the plan included the stress test process and the capital assistance program and sought to add confidence to the financial

system by providing clarity and to increase capital of the system by calling for the private capital and providing for -- if necessary. since the release of the stress test results, banks' ability generate over $80 billion in equity. another element was a range of measures designed to improve price discovery of the security markets and jump-start the securitization market, which, in turn, should have increase affects in the economy. we sought to support the housing market by providing first time monomers in the stimulus bill, offering assistance to millions of homeowners by reducing --

preventing affordable foreclosures. although we still levin long way to go, the treasury plan is now moving swiftly. there are approximately 160,000 applications that have been begun so far, and the pace is accelerating. we also recognized the importance of financial regulatory reform as an adjunct. there recognized at the same time that the risk of collapse is not limited to financial institutions. bankruptcy in the automobile industry would mean thousands of potential job losses and ripple effects throughout the economy. we stayed out of day-to-day operations but did demand fundamental restructuring, overhaul of management and business, practices, and sacrifices from all stakeholders.

the president also recognized the important global connections of the global crisis. as of last winter, essentially all of the world's major economies were contracting at once for the first time since the second world war. the reality that net export growth is usually a key part of the recovery from financial crises underscored the importance of global growth for the united states. the president insisted that restoring global growth be added to the london g-20 agenda and sought with considerable success to encourage other countries to stimulate their economies as we were doing. we worked with british prime minister gordon brown to lead the effort to more than triple the resources available to the imf with the objective of maintaining a flow of capital in emerging markets.

it was a period a substantial action over the last six months. where are we today? if we were at the brink of catastrophe at the beginning of the year, we have walked some substantial distance back from the abyss. a majority of businesses now expect improved market conditions, opposite of months ago, and consumer sentiment has begun to improve. those options that were saying one in six for a dow under 5000 this year are now saying it is closer to one in 1000. the 10-year default rate on investment-grade bonds has fallen by one-third.

the issue bonds in much more normal ways. the pace of gdp contraction is slowing, and many private forecasters expect to see positive growth in the second half of the year, and, yes, if you look at the rate of searches for economic depression on google, or if you look in the mainstream media, it is back to normal based on levels. to be sure, unemployment is substantially higher. job loss has been greater, than most predicted last winter, and unemployment is likely to rise. this is obviously a major area of concern. but the country -- this does not provide a basis for a recovery

act falling short of its goals. both the administration an independent forecasts predicted that only a very small part of the total job creation expected from the recovery act would take place within six months. indeed, the council of economic advisers predicted that only 10% of the total job impact of the recovery act would take place during calendar year 2009. given lags and spending, the peak impact of a stimulus on jobs was expected not to be achieved until the end of 2010. another aspect of the job losses statistics that is worth commenting on. it is noteworthy that the higher than forecasted job losses are

not associated with a substantially weaker than expected gdp rather, it appears that given the level of output, is being produced with fewer people working than historical relationships would suggest. i did not know if i was a lot to say this since i worked in the white house, but the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1% to 1.5% more than would normally be attributable to a contraction of gdp of this magnitude. to put the point differently, normally, in economic downturns, productivity decreases, as firms keep workers employed even as the amount of work to do declines.

this pattern of deteriorated productivity has not been a feature of the current recession. it has increased, as it did in the last i do not think anyone fully understands this phenomenon. one potential explanation is the greater financial pressure on firms to do anything to shed cashflow commitments by laying off workers at a more rapid pace or leading jobs vacant when people leave. perhaps the expectation that the recession would be lengthy has also contributed to this behavior. i emphasize these points because they suggest the importance of the structural dimension of economic policy.

the case for measures increase the flow of credit and get banks lending again, as the a administration -- is reinforced. it will restore long-term confidence, including job- creating investments and education, infrastructure, renewable energy, and more. substantial progress has been made from the economic collapse that looked all too real months ago. the available indicators suggest that gdp is on a close path with prospects for positive growth to commence during this year. factor supporting growth included the growing impact of

both fiscal stimulus and measures to support the financial system. the wealth effects of stronger asset markets, inventory replenishment, and a replacement set of four automobiles and other consumer durables -- a critical question, for the next year will be whether or not gdp growth accelerates to the point where the growth kicks in, leading to a mutually reinforcing positive cycle of the income and spending increases. towards this end, there will be recovery program issues and measures to support housing and financial markets. the experience during the u.s. depression ended with japan during the 1990's and features the danger of premature declarations and withdrawals of stimulus. for quite some time, the united states will be living with the

consequences of an over leveraged economy. the common desire of businesses and financial institutions will act as a drag on spending and growth. while painful, these adjustments are essential to laying a foundation for future growth. it is however inappropriate that government and fiscal policies and central bank lending must caution the adjustment process by providing public support or spending. if it is essential that these be sustained for as long as necessary, it is equally essential that they be sustained no longer than necessary.

this is why the president has talked about reining in the ratio once the economy has recovered. the president's budget contains numerous proposals about the revenue and spending science of fiscal discipline. containing growth and that is a central objective of the ministrations health care reform proposals, and the administration has supported the federal reserve's desire to assure in as the monitoring tools necessary to manage an eventual decrease in the size of its balance sheet. a sound macroeconomic policy framework is necessary for the confidence on which economic recovery depends, but it is not sufficient. our american economy when we rebuild it must be more export oriented, more environmentally oriented, less fossil energy

oriented, more bioengineering oriented and less financial engineering oriented. more middle class oriented, less oriented to income growth that disproportionately favors a very small share of population. the president has articulated his philosophy at georgetown two months ago. just as a cash strapped family may cut back on luxuries, but will insist on spending money to get their children through college, so we as a country have to make choices with our eye on the future. we have to invest now in a skilled work force or affordable health care system. the economy simply will not grow at the pace it needs to in two or five or 10 years down the road. we do not lay this new foundation, it will not be long before we are right back where we are today. yes, the president has an ambitious agenda, but it is an

agenda that is comprised of measures that a foundation for future prosperity, and i would suggest to provide for the confidence on which the current recovery can pass. without a comprehensive health reform, there is little prospect convincing markets that the long-term growth and federal debt is under control or convincing businesses that the united states is the most competitive place for them. without financial and regulatory reform, we run the risk that the recovery will be distorted and perverted by asset market bubbles just as were the last several. without an expanded and improved infrastructure, we risk having growth constrained by a lack of capacity with problems that exacerbate pressure is, and

without a comprehensive energy policies, we increase our vulnerability with the energy price gyrations that have caused so much economic pain. in the past. our economic challenges were not made in one month or in a year or in a presidential term. recovery will take time, and history suggests that there will be setbacks along the way. yet, the pervasive sense of six months ago has receded as strong measures have taken hold. confidence and hope are returning as building the economy moves forward. the american economy is again

progressing. thank you very much. [applause] fred, i know i am back home when a diet coke is provided at the podium. i would be happy to respond to questions. yes, sir? >> my name is steve with george washington university. thank you for that great presentation and for your excellent work over the last several months. my question is about trade policy. you did not say much in your talk about trade policy, but i am wondering whether the administration thinks that the trade policy is part of rescuing and rebuilding the u.s. economy. you did say at the end of the

speech that you want the economy to be more export oriented. does the administration therefore favor the pre-pending free-trade agreements? >> somehow, i had a feeling that i would not get in or out of the peterson institute without that question being asked. the president has made it very clear to an open trading system. there is the insistence of the stimulus bill, the wto. he has made it clear talking about climate legislation. there are the dangers of

protectionism. he joined the g-20, and the g-8 more recently in making clear the commitment to maintaining and moving forward on openness during this period. there are particular issues with respect to their regional -- each of the agreements that you have referred to that need to be worked through, but at the appropriate point on the political calendar. if the appropriate steps can be taken, we would very much like to see these completed as we would like to see the doha round results and a successful conclusion.

at the same time, we think it is very important to recognize what has to be top priority right now, which is resisting and reasons for concern in many parts of the world, which step back toward economic nationalism. that is why the president has been very committed to increasing our efforts to enforce existing trade remedies and to pursue issues. this is why we have been very focused in this administration on exports, assuring trade finance was a major subject in

the context of the g-20 and the g-8 discussions. but i think one does have to look at the numbers. i think what you see when you look at the numbers is that there has been a very substantial unprecedented contraction in trade in the last six to nine months, and it is very substantially explained, some people it's a totally explained, some people would say residually, but everybody would agree dominant explained by the global economic contraction, so for any trend of trade, the most important issue right now has to be achieving economic expansion, and as we

achieve economic expansion, do so in a cooperative way, and i think the president made an important contribution in that regard by putting the growth strategy at the center of the g- 20 agenda in london and, of course, in pittsburgh in september. yes? >> thank you very much. i would like to bring up a couple of points that are related. you did not talk a lot about the foreclosures and the apparent unwillingness of the bank's to keep people in their homes. in addition to that, do you have confidence that the banks that helped create the problems and the cfo's are assuming a a

little bit responsibility or at least some discipline to do what is right for the country, not only for their bottom line, because there is a lot of suspicion that those banks that gave back the money is hopefully did so they do not have the fed looking over their shoulder. they continue to the same hanky- panky waiting for new regulations, which is going to take a long time. those are big issues for the american people. >> they certainly are. my philosophy on this is trust but verify and legislate. i think it is crucial to recognize that there is a positive indicator for the economy.

the ability of financial firms to pay back the resources they receive from the government's is a positive and favorable sign. but let me be absolutely clear. there is no financial institution that would be purporting the positive results that we have seen in the last quarter. but for extraordinary public support provided by the government. the tarp support was only one element of that support. there was an explicit guarantee available of by all major financial institutions.

another element of that support, support provided more generally to the system by taxpayers was an important source of that confidence, so no one should be confused about the extent to which the public sector has provided a foundation for financial recovery. in that context, it is the obligation of the public sector to insist that reforms be put in place that ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. that is why an ambitious financial regulatory reform has been a priority of secretary geithner, a priority of the president. i will highlight just three aspects.

eliminating regulatory gaps at the capital level to be raised to appropriate levels. archimedes said that if you gave them long enough leverage, you could move the earth. we have seen how powerful it is. bob that for you and that of your clients, -- that for you and that of your clients. the resolution authority is at one level a technical subject. at another level, the system will not be safe unless it is safe from the failure of these institutions, and we need ways in which these institutions can bail without having to have substantial collateral consequences, so they will not face a choice between collapse and a situation they have faced

too often. finally, the consumer piece of this is very, very important. that is why the administration has proposed a separate regulator. i think it is inappropriate that and in a moment like this that in a moment like this, there are broader national interests, and i think they should consider carefully their fellow citizens. yes? >> just this week, the u.s. budget deficit is more than $1 trillion. in china, many people are deeply

concerned about their investment in the united states. ñihow will they assure the chine government and also the people and also the world's investors that their investment in united states is safe. ñi>> let me say first that i thk the greatest risk of future u.s. deficits would be uncontrolled economic contraction in the united states. containing this downturn and preventing the kind of debt dynamics that you see in japan, what you saw4ño the depression in the united states, has to be first priority of anyone concerned with national creditworthiness or any one

internationally -- rescuing the economy has to the first priority. beyond that, it is going to be essential to take steps on both the spending and revenue outside. i believe the president has made the right judgment in concluding that our health care system cannot continue with the current trends. reform the health care system requires a comprehensive approach that requires comprehensive coverage and there is a comprehensive approach that includes coverage and also includes substantial steps to change the health-care system and reduce the growth of costs. i]those are the debates that are going on on capitol hill right now. many of the administration

proposals have been included in the draft legislation. others, including in particular most critically, reimbursement. it needs to be on the agenda, but we have to rescue the economy first. there is his commitment to bringing down their rates of debt and the ratio of debt to income in the united states. >> >> i am from george mason university. we expect almost for sure inflation.

what is the plan in preparation for that? >> when i was at the treasury, i went eight years. and i do not think it would be a very good time to start. i think this goes to the issue i addressed in the speech, and i commented on in the last question. getting the economy going again has to be the first priority, but it is necessary to not be stimulative any longer than is necessary. that goes to budget policy, and it goes to the exit strategy for the central bank. i would not try to argue with

you about inflation forecasts. i would say that if you look at the experience of industrialized countries, inflation acceleration typically, almost universally, have one or two of your predecessors. either substantial supply shocks, and that is quite comprehensive energy policies are important, or periods of below-normal unemployment and an overheated economy. the prospects have been overheated from this point that do not appear to be most urgent. i would also note that market indicators, such as the spread between index-buying deals and nominal deals are not

suggesting this, even prospectively, but we are very much aware of the lesson of the 1970's. it is a lesson that as been taught that if you wait until inflation threats have been established, you have waited too long, and that is why we in the demonstration are constantly monitoring the economy with an awareness of these risks, and a recognition of the importance of long-term fiscal sustainability. yes? >> good afternoon. i am with "the national examiner."

there are the financial experts, george soros, other people, who said that banks, many, were going to close, around 1500. that was an estimate that they had. recently, there were seven banks that were closed, one in texas, and that was six more in illinois. i am curious if you have any response to that. >> i am not involved directly in the regulation, so i would refer you to the statements of sheila bair and the ftc on the prospects. i am sure we have not seen the last bank failure during this cycle, but i do believe that the kind of systemic risks in the banking system that more a

matter of widespread concern just six months ago have receded significantly. yes? >> the bipartisan legislation. there is some bipartisan legislation moving through the house that would require the general accounting office to audit the balance sheet. you mention -- you mentioned effectively managing the balance sheet as recovery picks up, and i am wondering if the white house supports that, and if so, why, or why not? >> i do not know the details that you're referring to, so i cannot comment. we have long been a supporter of both the independence of the fed reserve system and the need for appropriate transparency regarding the activities, and

some measures which are directed at a preppy transparency are measures that we would support, measures that would compromise the independence or compromise normal financial operations would not be measures that we would support. i am not familiar with the details. >> first, the federal reserve is audited at the present time or a financial statement audit, so it is not clear what that legislation would be trying to do, but as a former head of the gao, i know that. secondly, thank you for your service, and you're exactly right. we need to focus on the short

term before we focus on the structural. however, what would you say about the fact that we are in danger of creating a huge expectation gap with the american people? it is you can reduce costs by extending coverage. in fact, the cbo said yesterday that it expressed serious concern about this, and, in fact, we are going to be looking at the cost of these packages beyond 10 years, and the preliminary packages are not pretty, adderall. >> david, you have just demonstrated another lesson i have learned over the years here in washington, which is that whenever in a public place, somebody thinks me for my service. [laughter] it is time to take the things and leave, because the rest of the question is likely to be, shall we say, provocative?

look. let's take what probably is common ground, and let's talk about what is more difficult. i do not see how anybody could look at the excess of the growth rate of health care over the rate of gdp that has prevailed for many years now in the united states, and believe that that could be sustained indefinitely with a healthy economy and a healthy federal budget, so the need to contain the growth of health care costs is something i think we can all agree on. now, there are two views on how coverage relates to that. one view, and you did not quite say this, but it is implicit in some of the things that people say, one view is that, look, the idea is to reduce costs. how can you increase costs by

getting $45 million -- 45 million more people in the system? so coverage expansion is the enemy of cost control. we have rejected that view. the reason we have rejected that view is that we think in a system that does not provide for comprehensive coverage, if you put pressure for economies, people will achieve the economies simply by doing the equivalent of closing their emergency rooms and making sure that they do not get the 45 million people into their institutions. and pressured downwards on costs, without doing something about access, will simply lead to a more energetic day of hot potato with no substantial positive results. .

we know they will have lower health-care down the road. we do not know those lower

health-care costs will stick to the person who encourage them to get on a treadmill. we do not know when those lower health-care costs will result, so we know enough to know that it is important to do, but we do not know enough for an auditor to account for, and that complicates the process, so the director was acting reasonably when he did not give credit for the health information technology programs that were making health technology pervasive. i might mention that i think it was not not a happy day when people literally -- i did not it

surprise that often, but people literally fought -- thought they fought in -- thought doing research on what was cost- effective was a bad idea. those things were all very important, even if they do not showoff. administration -- what we have said, i think this is the way to push the debate. we're going to insist on doing the difficult things that do not score. we're going to take no credit for those. we can make a bunch of arguments about dynamics course and so

forth. we're going to do none of that. then we're going to insist that our health care proposals be paid for with hard storable measures, and that is the debate that is now going through. we have endorsed exactly the principle you would want us to, that we cannot afford or increase -- more increases in health care than we can pay for with hard storable savings. as the debate that is under way. the president has put forward a lot of proposals. and many have been adopted. the most important one judges under discussion is the reform rigid one that is under discussion is medicare reimbursement, but you look if the data, to cities not a very far apart, and they use three

times as much health care in one city as the other, and you say how can it not be a good idea to get a comprehensive data on that? how could it not be a good idea to allow in a relatively a political where reimbursement policies to be set to respond to anomalies of that kind, so i would agree with you very much on the importance of fiscal discipline and health care in fiscal discipline, but our would want to confuse the of the approaches we are taking, because of this gold and suspenders and a start, taking no credit for avaya more different -- for the more difficult to audit standards is setting a responsibility, relative to what has prevailed.

>> i would like to go back to the macro economic dimensions of the trade issue you talked about earlier. you say quite rightly in your remarks third u.s. recovery ought to be export-oriented and not consumer oriented, and earlier on in order to avoid the big imbalances that have been a feature of the pre-crisis landscape, that has profound implications because of the u.s. was unwilling to be the consumer of last resort, other countries have to get a global recovery going by expanding domestic demand. that is big countries like germany, japan, china, and small countries. i have two associated questions. does the rest of the world

understand and believe the structure of the u.s. recovery is going to be different with profoundly different implications for them, and are you confident they can make the shift to recover themselves through domestic demand expansion, and what does that imply a for your sense of timing on recovery of the global economy, which went into the tank together on this one? >> if you look at the statistics, the u.s. trade deficit has been coming down for quite some time. that is a little less positive than it seems at first, because given that we import substantially more than we export, if all trade, by 10%, the trade deficit gives smaller -- if all trade comes down by 10%, the trade deficit is smaller and -- smaller.

there is a sign of fundamental improvement that goes beyond that affect, and that can give us some cause for encouragement. it is important to remember some of the adjustment has already taken place. current-account deficit is down to less than half the level it was at when i last set down at this podium and gave a lecture about the importance of external adjustment, personal savings rate has been running in the 5% range, so people are aware of needs because they are already experiencing the adjustment. will there be challenges? i am sure there will be. i am sure there will be challenges. on the other hand, every country's politics is

different, but in general, increasing consumption is usually easier than decreasing consumption, and the fundamental adjustments but our imported to the rest of the world to involve -- that are important to the rest of the world to involve increases on the level of consumption, but i think this is going to be a crucial issue going forward, and one of the things that economics teaches for the economists sometimes misses the fallacy of composition, and various and i did that exporters could, but there is the fallacy that not everyone can have export-led growth, and that is going to be an important theme of global economic discussion going

forward. thank you her much. [applause] >> saturday morning, a roundtable on this week's capitol hill news with bob cuseack and emily heil. we will talk with jamie meri sotis about the obama policy for

further education, and roger olsen will discuss the u.s. demand that banks disclose the name of a wealthy american clients. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, the nation's governors take on critical issues facing their states. live coverage of the summer meeting saturday, sunday, and monday on c-span. >> earlier this evening, walter cronkite who died at age of 92. he anchored the cbs evening news from 1952 to 1981. we talk with him in 1987 about his career in broadcasting and his recently published memoir. this is an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> walter cronkite, had you had your heart operation before this

was published, would you have talked about it? was this that they give the deal? >> probably not. particularly if i had the knowledge that people have had that before me. every time this matter comes of it -- when i had mine i, it seem to be as common as the penguins toenails. >> when did you find out you had -- not as common as clipping toenails. >> when did you find out you had a heart problem? >> i felt a very little pressure one morning and call my doctor and report to this. he said there is nothing wrong with your heart.

your blood pressure is perfect. your heart is great common -- is great, but let's have a stress test. four days later i was on the operating table with a quadruple bypass. i did not believe it. i did not have any symptoms. >> when did this happen? >> the operation was on april fool's day. i have always wondered about that, but it was a first. >> what is it like? >> it was terrible. any hospital stay is terrible to me. i had a magnificent surgeon, who was a good texas boy. i am an adopted texan myself. we have a lot to share their, but he was a marvelous surgeon, the head of heart surgery at new

york hospital, and i cannot say enough about him. he was so attentive. his whole staff was a marvelous. a follow up so thoroughly. they came by the house immediately after the operation. he wasn't the hospital room every day, checking up. it is more than you expect these days. >> is it hard to recover from? >> i have a very rapid recovery seems to me kerrigan -- it seems to me. i really had no complications, no problems. i do have a dear friend i have known since she was an infant. she became a psychiatric nurse in new york.

she called to ask how i was, and i said the doctors say i am the head of the curve, and she, being a practical woman, said that is what they tell everybody, which did not exactly encourage me. >> you tell a story in the book about an early operation you have for appendicitis, and you give a graphic details of things getting rough. would you tell the story again? clark's when they ask me what type of anesthetic are not -- >> when they asked me what type of anas that the guy wanted, i did not know i had a choice. -- what type of anesthesia i wanted, i did not know i have a choice it must have in 1950.

they explain the spinal block, and they said he would be conscious but fifth we'd left the lower part of your body, and i said could have watched the operation. the doctor said we have never had that question before but i suppose you could watch the mirror. i.m. conscious, watching the operation, finding it fascinating novel process. at one point, your conscious, but your head is a big block, so you cannot move it dolton -- move it. your head is covered except for your iras -- eyes. your arms are strapped to your side. you have no motion at all, and the anesthesiologist was

standing behind me with his nurse, and they put a clamp on one of my blood vessels. i watched it happen. and wanted a shot korean -- i wanted a shot. -- shock. now i understood it was paralysis of your entire body. you cannot reabreath. your heart is in danger of stopping. the anesthesiologist was talking to the nurse about buying a car, and he said, they have a cute chevy out there i looked at a couple days ago and will go back and get it if it is still there. i remember those words

specifically today, and when his shot hit me, there is no way to let anyone know, he is the one who is supposed to be keeping tabs on this, and he is talking about a new car. here i am frozen. i am rolling my eyes. the only way i think it to get attention, and that is not getting it done. i am about to pass out. obviously, my vital signs began to fail. the surgeon was looking into the cavity there, and he goes oxygen, oxygen, and the anesthesiologist goes whoops and turns of the oxygen. the minute he does, i am fine, but another couple of seconds, i could have had irreparable brain damage. it makes you wonder what happens on the operating table in too

many operations where we hate to have to tell you this but his heart could not take it. his heart failed. it makes you suspicious of medical process. >> you tell another story about the time you went to the himalayas with the helicopter. what were the circumstances there? >> i was visiting pakistan, and in the interview i did with the general, he was being very gracious of people are when they are trying to sell something. he said, is there anything i can do for you? anything you like to see in my country?

there was a great pass built by -- the chinese primarily and pakistan is had built this road through the himalayas, and as such, i would like to see who would pass. he said, we could arrange that. as far as i knew, no westerner have been to the past. no one but the workers. it is the top of the world, 18,000 feet above sea level, one of the highest points in the himalayas. to get there was a torturous. one trip to a base camp, and one helicopter to another base camp, and a french helicopter to

take us to the top. it was a two-man helicopter, into which they crowded me and my cameraman in the fat with the latest -- in the back with the light is camera he could take, and it was the most incredible flight i have ever taken. this was in the valleys of the himalayas and the to the peaks themselves. just incredible sightseeing. we landed of the very top where the pass was. the road was blocked because they expected the landslides. it was going to be years before the >>. that was traded before they have. we got to the top, and the

pilot, a pakistani air force captain, he said, but when you get out, move further slowly. at 18,000 feet, you're going to have trouble breathing. we should have oxygen masks. just move very slowly, or you may pass out. we were following these instructions to move slowly. we did not have far to move anywheray. you concede the soviet union and india, pakistan, afghanistan -- incredible. as we started to move away, the engine was still running, and my cameraman said to the pilot,

will you turn off the engine. we cannot hear over the engine. he said i cannot turn it off. if i turn it off i will never get it started at this altitude. we only have one of their helicopter that would give the site, and this is down for repairs. i cannot now turn it off. we moved as far as we could, and i shouted over the helicopter noise -- the film was not worth anything because the noise was too great, but as we were standing there shooting, the engine made cut noise it does when it is shutting down. my god, here we see the pilot reaching down, pushing buttons and pulling levers.

we turned by in a hurry to get down before it failed, and we did. we had a successful flight back. it was a great experience. >> what year was that? >> that must have been in 1981, 1982. >> this book came out right before christmas. you hit the road. what was it like on the tour? >> i love the people but publicized this book and did a beautiful job of it, and i must say honestly but arranging these jurors, these book tour and -- arranging these tours, these book tours, the lessons come from the manual.

they both user you end of with four and a half hours -- put you so you end up with four and half hour sleep between the morning show and the late night show the night before. an incessant group of interviews and book signings rather interesting. i found it fascinating the book signings. one must except type of isolation one gets from the line of people coming to buy your book and say nice things about you. cracks were you happy it was on the best-seller list -- >> we'll have the it was on the best- seller listen? >> i was very surprised. >> do you know how many it sold? >> until they get the returns from the retailers, they never know except what was sold, but

over 800,000 were printed, and they had a feeling the returns were not going to be very high, so apparently it sold quite well. i was dumbfounded. my real hope was that it might be good enough to make the best- seller list and stay there for a week for two, instead of the first week when it jumped to #one and say for several weeks, said on live for life in 3 1/3 was there much that was left out? -- stayed on the list for 19 weeks. >> was there much that was left out? >> my editor told me from the beginning to write as much as you want. let's just get it on paper, and once you get it on paper, if it

is too much, we will turn it down. i did the. titus road avaya -- i just wrote, and it was a third more than he thought would sell. unfortunately, they have another editor of the same kind. the lead her get away with 400 pages and me with 300 pages, but she is still on the best-seller lists, so it must be something. >> where was this picture taken? >> the clothes of port -- that was a portrait done in my office in new york, a beautiful picture. it is so eager are wasted a lot of people trying to look like an before i went out. i cannot quite manage it.

>> let me ask you about the business terms that come up with the vote -- in the vote. who first used the term anchorman? >> there is a slight dispute about that. it was either nicholson, who was the first head of a combined television and radio news department at cbs and was really the architect of the kind of news and it took to handle radio and television. a great man, and really one of my nature sponsor s, and then i have herto thank, and/or a wonderful producer, the first

producer of the programming convention and things of that kind. i was under the impression the call for a few the word, of the others convinced me i was wrong , but any rate it was the the same time. it was from the first political convention in 1952 that we covered in modern television to reagan in 1950 -- television. in 1952 is when we think of the beginning of politics.

if you ride near the end of the vote a career can be called a success -- you have write near the end of book a career can be called a success if one can say they made it different from what you said i do not think i can do that. explain why. >> but was a statement of the vote. i think i failed because others have asked the question. many have said, and you made a vague difference. i am willing to except the compliment, but for her i did make a difference in some ways that may refer to that chapter in the fact that some of the standards i felt we have established in all three

networks in the early years of network television news have been abandoned pretty well, but what i thought we had established s and an ongoing standard of values and news judgment, i do not feel have lasted, and that was what 5 referred to, avoiding to rest of the czech firm made clear. the statement does not for its stand up. >> why haven't your standards survive? >> the lot of pressures. if i were in television today i would suffer the same purchase of the top three-finned fashion. i would like to think of would not have, but a very well might have. the pressures are severe.

the three networks when i was doing it were the dominant networks on the air. there is very little competition from the independent stations or cable, which did not exist three years -- did not exist. it had not become a factor of all yet. sevilla drug testing, all of that other than the three networks. cuba and one of three networks to go to. as a consequence, we shared 100% of the audience. the actual numbers were the high 90s, dod and flows to to one of the three networks broadcast.

-- the network was focused on one of the three networks from the the total audience today for network programs is down in the 50% mark that is a very drastic reduction in audience since friday -- since my day. all news to firth of were under considerable pressure from top management to try to hold of their 1/3 of the 50% and try to build on that. as a consequence hamas the news of management have gone toward trying to their broadcasts, and instead of concentrating 100%

fun on news hamas have gone to feature stories, and even those feature stories that explain the important news today, these are feature stories of hollywood personalities -- across the side of the news, not the front page, and i think this is a terrible waste of time, but on the evening news broadcast we really only have 23 or 24 minutes of news kofi. -- news copy. that is not enough to cover the day's news, let alone time for feature stories. it is really a desecration of

the risk of civility handed to the news departments to do that. >> let me ask you some terms you bring up in your vote. you have a term late in the vote called a lento. --a lens hog. you were accused of being a lens hog. explain. >> it refers to a man who wanted to be on camera at all depends. i did insist on being on camera during political convictions and the election night, but i insist this was a high-minded attempt to do a better job of reporting the conventions then sometimes reduces would have wanted us to do by accident.

excuse me. i have a dry throat today. in convention coverage, the only person -- i/o is want to work alone instead of with the co- anchore. this feature of our anchor desk with two assistants were not on the air. they were just assistancts and i could not have done it without them. any rate, the idea of a co- anchor, or the other idea of bringing in the reporters with four important reports to have.

they added a great deal to what was going on at the time that the conventions have been on the floor. they modeled the convention phnom for television, and we're not getting any real discussion of issues at all, but in the early days common they were determined on the floor the faith between delegations. the required a lot of explanation, for the only person in the entire operation through knew what was going on at all- time -- for the matter and mind the remote's we did at headquarters, all these secret meetings and all those from our of our reporters. the only person in the whole shop who had a sense of the

continuity of the floor was mecham of the anchor person filling your people that control the more so this is something of the next shot thurman shouting out about where they wanted to go next, what reporters have the floor, that they did not know what was going on. they were not hearing me very clearly. in the middle of the explanation when the producer would come in and say, go to mike wallace. he has got the carolina delegation. no carolina delegation did not have anything to do with the story of the moment. it did not fit with the flow of what we were doing. i would say later.

as a consequence, the gaza and the store with some senator -- report guys on the floor with some senator who think they have not a hot story, but i am trying to keep the flow going to regan as a consequence, i became known azariah lens ho as a lens -- i've lens hog. >> what is a tale? >> when a go2net tape. >> was there a magic number? >> it was the no. i had for my part of the fraud death, and it basically decided which film reports went into the broadcast and what time was left, and the

time left was what i would end to the broadcast. if the time left was not we would have the film stories coming in. >> did that make correspondent's man? but it would make anybody man. -- mad. when i was sitting in enters thought, i would get furious if they were telling my story is familiar of course, everybody thinks their story is the most important and they need an extra 15 seconds for 20 seconds. >> when did the first ideas come to you that you needed an agent? >> i did not think i needed an agent at all. after that convention, the two convention, work in chicago, and

we were of their almost a month monopolizing the schedule, and i have gotten a lot of publicity in news magazines, end nicholson and i -- my boss for walking the michigan boulevard, just kind of walking down beautiful michigan boulevard at 2:00 in the morning, and he said, you're going to need an agent. i said, what do you mean i am going to need an agent? i am a newsman. i do not need an agent. you mean a theatrical agent hama?

he said the threat of a person. he said, you're going to want ras now. i said i have not thought of fat. i was making $150 -- i had not thought of that. i was making $150 a week. he said i know you are going to what are raised here i do not negotiate. a businessman entered and you ought to have your business manager do that, so you're going to need an agent i never thought of fat in my life. -- thought of that in my life. that was 1952, and he has been my agent ever since.

>> were you the first in television to have an agent? >> i do not think so vivid and i think the news department probably had. i was very naive. i had not even thought about it. >> you talk about an 800-pound gorilla. why democrats have got to be a phrase used in television to describe need and other anchor people -- me and other anchor people. the top corresponded to move in on a story when it breaks a overseas. now this fellow from sen. the other phrase is, coming in as a different and taking over the story. the story comes from the fire of

where does an 800 -- from the store where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep? the azeris anywhere he wants to the anchor man is the star and of new television news, the 800- pound gorilla. whatever they want, they get. where do they sleep? this before they want to sleep. rex's that's the case today? >> absolutely. it is unfortunate that the star system has come to television news. there are exceedingly high wages they earned, but i think it is inevitable. it is nobody's fault. it is just the fact that if you are operating in the environment of television, no matter how

much we would like to deny the, if you are competing in that environment and your face is hanging out there, you are bound to become a star in the sense of the public personality, and the star value raises your value to the network, and i remember when barbara walters became the first television news person to get $1 million, with abc lord her away to become the first woman co- anchor -- lured her away to become the first woman co- anchor on abc. none of us were making a million dollars of five. , and some news person ask me his barbara walters worth a million dollars. my answer was compared to what?

compared to a rock-and-roll singer on television famines she is competing for turner and on air. absolutely, she is worth a lot more than $1 million for regan compared to a high school teacher thelma certainly not. there is a code of values we're dealing when you cannot compare our fulfillment oranges. i think it is perfectly proper in the area in which they were. with the salaries of most of the people on staff, they are still disproportionate, but that is the way it is going to be with the star system that operates in

a medium where the star system prevails. >> you say in the early days the to the victory of the oliver stone and television news, the rules for van as we found our way. what happened first, that even if the rules or the favorite event after? -- or that they were banned after? >> this is a certain prejudice from my background. they were built on basic rules of print journalism. all of us perfectly were out of print. we came out of the print medium. we brought with us the ethics of print journalists.

we were simply concern with the ethics of the crash ft, honesty, fairness, that sort of thing. things today i am afraid even the print journalists slip in doing. the business has deteriorated for us because television leadership. i just felt that we were a little bit more cognizant of the old principles of journalism and younger staff today, most of whom have not have printed experience at all. it is not entirely their fault. they do not have much opportunity to get rid experience. it is part of the vicious cycle of -- to get print experience.

it is part of the vicious cycle. there are not enough jobs for people to be trained before going into broadcasting. it is a vicious cycle. >> you say when you were in print journalism and you were with the houston paper, you are quoted as saying, we've resorted to all the dirty tricks ever devised in the game. the you remember making the statement? >> oh, yes. >> what were the dirty tricks? >> there were many in the game. i do not want to say journalism was purer and the print days. the purest newspapers have ever been where world war ii for a kind -- for a time, from 1925 to

about 1965. before that, there were a lot of sleazier practices before world war ii in newspapers, particularly among the graphic newspapers, the tabloids. picture-stealing was one of them. the theory was they always wanted to get a picture of the victim or the perpetrator, and frequently, to get a picture of that individual, you would try to get it from the survivors, from their homes, and daniel subterfuge would do if you could get the picture -- any old subterfuge would do if you forget the future. i found the use of brass -- pressed to get a picture of a young lady who died in a

scandalous accident of a car being driven by a prominent businessman late at night back from a motel outside of town, and it was quite a scandal. i went out to the young lady's home and got there and found the door was open as they were in those days. people left their doors open. you could look right into the screen door into the house, and i looked in, and there on the piano was the picture of what clearly was the young lady. it seem to me from the description we had, and since nobody answered, i open the screen door and went in and took the picture off the piano, obviously going to return it.

possibly we would get it back before they got home. i did that, and we had only picture of her that afternoon in the afternoon papers. the only problem is it was not of her. i have gone into a neighboring house instead of the house we were supposed to be knocking on the door of. it turns out the only thing the save my job was that the city does have given me the wrong address triggered it was not really my fault -- the wrong address. it was not really my fault. the pictures that she was clearly the case of burglary, going in and picking up a picture of that nature, but at the moment i was proud of myself korean -- of myself. i got all sorts of accolades. >> you write in your book, i cannot believe any news broadcaster today can possibly

enjoy the work as much as we do. why do you think segments? >> simply there is something more to getting a newspaper of tamoxifen to getting on vitter -- a newspaper out as opposed to getting on the air. you are pretty much on the hands of technicians. they have become news-oriented and understand what is needed in getting the picture on and the tape on their air and the still pictures on air, and degrading all of it. they do an exceedingly marvelous job of it. to me, that is putting out a newspaper. which the newspaper, it seemed to me that the news department was controlled throughout the

process. the people who did everything were so keenly part of the process, rather than sitting in an isolated area as an assignment editor -- you might not be able to write his or her name, but in deciding who should go on what story and make the decisions, communications was in charge of making sure lines were in from wherever the reporter was going. in the old newspaper days, it seem to be everybody was a writer or a reporter. they happened to be on the right cafe -- on rewrite that day. you're close to the old

production. you could hear the clatter of the machines. you could smell the printers eaink, smelled of paper. the building shook one of presses started rolling. it was part of the bloodstream. to me, television, radio, you're in a business where your i jumped to a much bigger business. reword you're in a much bigger business. -- you are in a much bigger business. you are the tail of that dog, and in newspaper publishing, you are the dog. >> you interviewed by eisenhower for 13 hours. you interviewed lyndon johnson for how many hours chairman >> it was almost the same -- for how many hours?

>> it was almost the same about 12 hours. >> did you do it with richard nixon? >> i did not do it with nixon's nemours during the theft did you have to pay quite eisenhower? -- i did not do it was nixon. >> did you have to pay >> yes. i do not know how much. we had a very rigid rules about paying anybody for an eye witness story, any participant in the story, but memorex, io was felt -- but memoirs, ellis felt was a vastly different story. if we were doing the equivalent of an individual writing their memoirs, they own that history. they own cut autobiographical information.

they're entitled to get a fee for it. i never had any argument myself with that or with anybody else, and i do not think we ever happened any concern about paying for fun and more -- for memoirs. >> you did one with john kennedy, and one thing you talked about was the non. now what was the setting for that interview? -- was vietnam. what was the setting for that interview? >> we were the first ever to go for the half-hour broadcast career get from 15 minutes -- news was broadcast for 15 minutes for quite a number of years until 1973 -- 1963, and we went to the half-hour, and in doing so, we ask the president for an interview, if he would

sit for an interview for the first half hour broadcast, which he agreed to do. it was over labor day weekend common -- labor day weekend, so we went to a summer home and did interview there. >> you say on your boat, and i had always believed if he had lived, he would have withdrawn those advisers from vietnam, although the secretary of state later wrote he never heard the president mention this possibility. that particular interview seems to come up on a lot of folks we do about interview. why do you think he would have told american troops out of viet nam had he lived? >> i sensed he was fed up with the nom at that point. he was fed up with civilian leadership -- he was fed up with vietnam at that point. he was fed up with the civilian leadership, and it seem to me that he was to ride to have

wanted to remain in a rigid too bright to want to remain in a circumstance where we would have to take over that war and around the war, in an environment that clearly was going to require a great deal more effort and dedication of men and material than ever planned. i just feel he would have gotten out. >> let me show you the same quote from your interview that chris matthews had in his boat. you will see it on the screen in a second. .

it is official over the comment on their barack's . they reacted to that with considerable concern. he had tipped the fact that shortly thereafter there was an assassination the leader of

vietnam. the united states cia was very much involved in the process to depose him. there were various representations of what precisely happened in the actual z murder theim. . murder of zim. the attempt was to disclaim it. there is a coup d'etat. it was supposed to get rid of him. it was supposed to cause his death. others maintain that the cia involvement was met a deeper than that. actually, we went along with the assassination. it had never been proved one way or the other. in his statement there to me, it

was interpreted by some people right away that he had tipped the fact that we knew what was going to happen out there. there was great concern that he would be held liable if people examined that statement later to have him plan the assassination. the cause of that pressure, i think he was backing off of the statements the following week when nbc jumped on the bandwagon and also went to a half-hour. he duplicated his effort with us. i think that is what happened. years later, beekeepers -- the keeper's after kennedy's death were still trying to cover-up

the tracks to doll up history a bit. salinger was a good friend of mine and lead in his press secretary. he wrote a piece in the "new york times" magazine that accused as the cbs as having edited the statement of his to make it appear that he was against the administration. actually, he had praised the administration in part that we cut out the door that was a vast overstatement. there was a statement in their which is on the broadcast which said something nice about him and the administration. there were a couple of other statements that said something nice. we could go out only because of time. in no way did we alter the impact of either his z his zim

or it getting out. i think that this was just another attempt to preserve camelot. >> around the subject, you said i was a proud of the degree to which we kept our newscast free of bias. as you know, not everyone agrees with that. why in the middle of keeping the newscast free of bias did you have one person be the spokesmen from cbs -- for cbs news? >> actually, eric was on a spokesman for cbs news. whenever represented him as such. we represented that he had his own opinions. they were.

eric was far more liberal than the management at cbs was. there was a constant strain between the two. he was not selected as the spokesmen. he was selected as an editorialist that we felt we needed someone putting the focus where it belonged on these very complicated national and international stories. eric was a superb essayist in that regard. >> why did not have another voice or point of view in there? people were criticizing you. >> another point of view than erica? >> yes. >> and nothing we were setting of a debate. we were setting up an opinion an editorialist. we tried to avoid eric having an

opinion. when i say opinion column, i am stretching the idea. we used to make the point that he was an analyst not an editorialist and not a commentator. those three all were different. a commentator commented on the news. an editorialist suggested actions on the basis of their opinions. an analyst simply took the pieces out of the complex picture and try to show you how they fit together. that is what eric try to do most of the time. he would go over into editorializing, i must admit. but in the last couple minutes, i want to ask about this person right here.

you mention are often in the book. you talk about her sense of humor. how long did you been married? >> we've been married 56 years. they have been 56 wonderful years. this was her maiden name. this woman was one of the great senses of humor of all time. there she is with her mother. her mother had a sense of humor as well. the whole family did. my wife had a new knee replacement not too long ago. i must say with all the pain of the hospital all the doctors and all the nurses, i thought what a sense of humor that woman has. it was passed from the hospital

immediately that she was saying wit. >> what is your older daughter is doing? >> nancy is in real estate. my other daughter -- they got to meet the bill -- the bill to the first trip to the united states. -- theo. /fvkyí0j/egoj x it trip to the united states. my other daughter lives in the austin area with their two children. she is lecturing on mental health. >> what about your son? >> chip was the third child. he is not in that picture. it is -- he is a television producer. he worked with me in new york. what are you going to come out with a second book? >> i do not know about that. i must admit that a lot of

people remind me a lot of stores that i had forgotten about and did not get into this book. i have about 1/3 of a book already done. the temptation is there. i do not promise a sequel. there might be one. >> walter cronkite is our guest. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> for more information about the life a walter cronkite, visit c-span.org where you will find a link the video archive of his appearances on c-span. >> from c-span tonight, developments on health-care legislation. first, president obama talks

about his health care plan. we will hear from house democratic leaders and congressman timothy murphy. then the house commerce committee begins marking of a comprehensive health-care bill. >> roger olsen will discuss about the government's demand that they disclose the names of the wealthy american clients. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> live coverage of the governors' meeting on cent -- on c-span. >> following today's passage of health care legislation by two key house committees, president obama spoke in favor of passing a comprehensive bill. from the white house, this is 10 minutes. >> i wanted everybody to step back for a moment and look at the unprecedented progress that we have already made on reform

that will finally lower-cost, guarantee coverage, and provide more choice. a relapse several weeks, we have forged a level of consensus around health-insurance reform that we have never seen before. in may, we are able to bring together health care providers around an agreement to do their part to decrease the annual rate of healthcare growth by 1.5%. that will save us $2 trillion or more over the next day and lower cost for all this. a few weeks later, we got the pharmaceutical industry to agree to $80 billion in spending reductions over the next decade. these reductions of to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. that is why the aarp has endorsed our efforts.

last week we reach an agreement with hospitals. last week, the ama and the nurses association who represent people across the nation announced their support for what we are trying to do. let me list some of these. i want to applaud the efforts of the committee in the house and the senate to of work long and hal credit card to make this. we are now at a time where most everyone agrees that we need to invest in preventive and one is programs that can save us money and a healthier lives.

if you lose your job or change your choppers market small- business, you can still get affordable health insurance. we have an agreement on the need to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to americans with pre-existing medical conditions. we have agreement on the need for health insurance exchange, a marketplace where people can prepare prices -- compare prices this is what it will mean for the average american. it'll mean blower costs and cover duping count on. it will save you and your family money. if you now have to worry about getting pushed out of the market or one illness leading to your family going into financial ruin. americans will have coverage that finely -- americans that

enough health insurance will filing have affordable quality options. these are the areas where we agree right now. this consensus has brought us closer to the goal of health insurance reform than ever before. health insurance reform cannot add to the deficit over the next decade. i mean it. congress has embraced our proposal to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending and unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies. we actually believe that about two-thirds of the cost of reforming health care could be achieved through the savings and

loan without any new revenue. that still leaves 1/3 of the costs in order for us to cover all americans. we are still going to have to find a way to pay for it. we will work with the white house to see if we can come up with an agreement -- and the remaining 1/3. this also include the commitment to slow the growth of health care costs over the long run. there is the issue of how do we pay for health care reform immediately in a way that is deficit neutral. how do we also then did the cost curve so that we are not seeing huge health care inflation over the long term that will not only make healthcare reform package more expensive 15 years out but would also make sure that people who want nothing to do with the government programs, had

we made sure that their costs are under control as well. i realize there will be a lot of debate and disagreement on how best to achieve these long-term savings. providers will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care, which will mean big savings over time. this is what we mean when we say we need delivery system reforms. i propose to congress and i am confident they may adopt these proposals. an independent group of doctors and experts will oversee long- term cost saving measures.

this report often end up sitting on a show. what we want to do is force congress to make sure that they are acting on these recommendations to abandon the cost curve each and every year so that we are constantly adjusting and making changes that will reduce costs for families and for taxpayers. we need an independent group that is empowered to make these changes and that is something that we propose. i am confident that if we work with the foremost experts in the field we can find a way to eliminate waste, slow the growth of health care costs, and provide families more security in the long term. i realize that the last few miles of any race are the hardest to run. i have to say now is not the time to slow down.

now is certainly not the time to lose heart. make no mistake, if we step back from this challenge at this moment, we are consigning our children to a future of skyrocketing premiums and crushing deficit. there is no argument about that. if we do not achieve health care reform, we cannot control the costs of medicare and medicaid and cannot control our long-term debt and deficits. that is not in dispute. we are going to have to get this done. if we do not get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance will be secure. you are going to continue to see premiums going up at astronomical rates out of pocket costs going up at astronomical rates, and people who lose their jobs or have pre-existing medical conditions funding themselves in a situation where they cannot get health care. that is not a teacher that i except for the net the state of

america. that is why those under betting against this happening this year are badly mistaken. we are going to get this done. we will be for health care. it will happen. i am absolutely convinced of that. i believe that members of congress are prepared to work as hard as it is going to take to make this happen. i am grateful for the work that they have already done. i am confident that we are going to be putting in a lot more hours. there will be a lot more sleepless nights. eventually, this is going to happen. thank you very much. >> this 25 minute event includes remarks by house speaker nancy pelosi.

the congress has made starke progress on health insurance reform that will put patients and doctors of back in charge and enter accessible health care for americans. this level of progress has never been made before. three major committees of the house and senate have reported legislation already. the health committee in the senate passed this bill wednesday. last night, mr. rangel's committee was in until the wee hours of the morning. he will report on their success.

mr. miller was there until 6:00 a.m. and back and 9:00 a.m. to finish off the vote. they have worked very hard and very wisely on behalf of the american people. progress and move forward. the goals that we have our universality, affordability, and accessibility. we want to do this in a way as we continue to lower costs and strengthen the package. we continue to build momentum as we go along. expressing support for the act, the ama wrote that the legislation include a broad range of traditions that are

key to a comprehensive health care system. if you do not have that letter, you should see it. it is an eloquent testimony to the merit of our house bill. congress will continue working with president obama to provide stable prices, secure coverage, and quality care for all americans. we have the support not only of the doctors and the nurses. we certainly have the support of the american people. means committee. mr. rangel? >> thank you. of a great orchestra called the house of representatives with the great auk russia -- great orchestra leader.

we were able to come together to get this great ship that the president wanted to get out, which is national health insurance. we feel so proud that we will now be able to join the family of nations where we can show that we care about the health of people. we care about the quality of people. we will be able to say that whether young or old or black or white, that in this great nation, you will have health insurance. it is not just keeping down the price of health insurance. it is also making certain that america can continue to be competitive. on this ship, what we have been working on is to make certain we have a health system we can be proud of, that we can have primary care, that we can have

hostilities that provide quality care, that we can have people going into the business to make life better for so many people. it is so important that we have done this. the matter what the president's hopes and dreams are, unless we get the ship out there, we can not perfect it. the battle has just begun. thank you, madam speaker for having the confidence in us and allowing us to work to reach the goal that we have them. we look forward to getting this bill passed. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to yield to another distinguished chairmen, congressman. chairman miller of the education and labor committee. -- keith starke has joined us.

i have been looking forward here. members will coming go. we will be sure to acknowledge the leadership of mr. cliburn. i am pleased to yield to the chairman of the education and labor committee. >> thank you. thank you for all of your leadership and drive on this issue that is so important to our families and our nation. i want to congratulate the chairman rangel and keith starke for the success they had. into this little longer. i want to think rob andrews for all of his health. we have a long and exciting

evening. about and working for universal health care, we had an opportunity to vote for universal health care that will lower and reduce the costs in the future of health care to families and businesses, the dramatic increases in the cost we heard over and over from our members last night are crushing family last night they got to vote for health care that would reduce those costs. they got to vote for health care that will be available for families forever. no matter what happens to them, whether they get a new job or get a divorce or a terrible illness, they will not lose their health care. never again will they be without health care. that is what it was about. that is what our members understood.

never again will people have caps on how much their insurance company is going to pay for them they are just one illness away from bankruptcy. family in this country. our members spoke out about the fear that families led them. about the fear about whether not their children will be covered. passage of the bill, -- with the votes last night and the passage of the bill, we will make it affordable for small businesses and ensure that our economy will not dedicate more of our resources to health care that is not giving us the kind of courage and support the families need. that is one we got together at 6:00 this morning. we got together to talk. we just cheered at the fact we are able to participate in this very historical evening.

it takes is on a major step forward thank you very much. >> thank you very much. chairman waxman is on duty. we may have to go in and out. chairman anders. -- andrews. as we have seen today, there continues to be a great momentum to pass health care reform even at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. it is also gaining momentum outside the congress. hundreds of physicians know firsthand that health care reform is not an option.

failure is not an option. the american public is urging us to pass this bill. we are going to respond. they elected a barack obama to pass this bill. they elected this congress to pass this bill. there is no doubt that the bill will have changes as it moves through the process. i would be shocked as ait is a work in progress. -- significant process as of 6:00 a.m. this morning. we will not waver in our commitment to bringing down health-care costs. -- such a burden. middle-class americans are paying other's bills. they need to be in the system.

we are moving toward that. we want to make all americans have access to affordable and quality healthcare. we need to build on the cost containment measures we already have. there are substantial reforms that have been put in by these two committees. the american people are demanding health care reform. they know that we cannot go on much longer with such a truly broken system. do we have good health care in america? we do. it is not accessible to many. it cost twice as much as most countries. it bankrupt's middle-class families, it drives down -- drives us to debt every year. we need to restore it piece of mind that americans deserve. no family to go to sleep at night and worry about their

child getting sick and not having access to health care. for all those reasons, we are going to pass health reform. as the president recently said, we have been talking and talking and talking about fixing health care for decades. six decades. the other day, i said six decades of a single -- of dingle. he is the leader in this. these are leaders in this effort. and no one has led more forcefully than our speaker. these next pivotal month will finally be our chance to do this. we will. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> and we will. i like that.

you ossian -- you also mentioned mr. dingell. i think it is important to note that some of you know that he said yesterday that the endorsement of the american medical association is not only great for this legislation, it is historic. not since the '30's when the country began the debate, the ama has never endorsed. the ama has never endorsed a health care reform bill. the they have endorsed the house legislation. as we go forward, as i mentioned before the endorsement of the nurses, so many organizations on the list continues.

we are very powered -- proud of the reform. we are very proud of the cost savings. of course, we want more. we will not take any questions. time. somebody new. >> [inaudible] >> it was not elliptical. it is unfortunate that they could not come together with one bill the we could negotiate. this is just the beginning. we do not know what else is going on. if you listen to the three democrats that did not vote with us, you get the impression they were waiting for the opportunity

to be able to do that. i felt very comfortable as republicans and democrats that they recognize the need to get health reform. we are not there yet. >> [inaudible] >> yes, we will. >> i concur. throughout our very long 20- hour mark up, we accepted a number of amendments from the republicans. we worked on amendments that we did not accept. the staffs are getting together to do that. i am not sure that they ever end of voting for the kind of health care that president obama has presented to the nation.

our members are in full force to come to the floor and to support this legislation. they will all report for duty at the time the vote is taken. will -- waxman will put his bill out next week. we will prepare for our role to take it to the floor. when the american people see what this means for them in each individual congressional districts, over 100,000 people in many rural areas will have health insurance that did not have it before. over $100 million meeting the needs of public health hospitals will be there. just a very few people called upon to help with the revenue. it is pretty exciting.

if this transformation. it will make a difference. we have members from across the political and geographic spectrum. but their concerns are regional. we believe that they will be addressed as we go forward. >> [inaudible] [speaking without microphone] >> the letter that you are referring to was one that was sent to the three chairmen. he said of an " i wish to express the strong support to the health care savings proposal and the tri-committee

health care forum discussion draft." virtually all of these policies are consistent with those put forward by the administration and are essential to our shared goal of reforming health care in a fiscally responsible manner. adopting deficit neutral health reform is not enough because it would perpetuate a system which a best practices are universal. i commend you for proposing delivery system reforms that will begin the process of transforming our health system so that quality is improved, cost growth is contained, and waste is reduced. things. we agree -- i urge you to maintain these policies.

that is a very positive letter. you are talking about medpac? >> [inaudible] >> you are talking about medpac. that is something we have been discussing with the administration. i wish mr. hoyer were back. he has some concerns about the. -- about it. we need to figure out how we could have it come together so that we get the savings that medpac would put forth, but would be reflected -- but the responsibility of congress would be reflected in it. i am not here to announce that is final. it is something that under certain circumstances we will be receptive to.

>> we will see -- our plan is to have something on the floor. we have to see what the senate is going to do. the idea that we may change medpac is something we may need to take up. it may be taken up in energy and commerce. we are on our schedule to bring up the legislation before the break. we continue to be on that schedule. >> [inaudible]

>> i've not seen the letter read it yet. i've so many letters in my desk. this is a giant kaleidoscope. i need to regularly -- i do meet regularly with the freshmen. i know of their concerns about small-business this. some of those changes have the rest. we will see what people are putting forth and to stipulate really is the case. we will go forward. i have full confidence, i have no doubt, that we will come to agreement on these issues. this legislation -- for example, the congressional district where over $100 million went to public hospitals and

123,000 more people would be insured, 23,000 small businesses would be given tax credit to provide health insurance. the public has to know what the up side of all of this is and quantify it. it is really historic. it is transformational. it is important and relevant to the lives of the american people. while we get everybody's letters and take into consideration their concerns, if you take into lower costs and better quality and enhance tauruses, -- enhanced choices, where very respected -- receptive. >> [inaudible] >> i know that.

i am very happy about that. >> [inaudible] >> are you suggesting that i should be suggesting something for the president to say? i would not even presume to go to the place. we are in very excellent shape. this is the legislative process. at the bill takes shape, people say ok as it is coming more clearly into focus. the committees have acted upon it. here are some suggestions we have. this is the whole dynamism of what we do here. this is what we came to do. many of us in our careers came here to pass health care reform for all americans. we will do that. we will do it with the full participation of our caucus and suggestions.

unfortunately, we have a votes. >> "book tv" takes to the harlem book fair saturday afternoon on c-span2. check out the entire weekend special at booktv.org. >> helices been funded? >> sponsorships? >> the leopard philanthropy. >> the government?

>> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> on fridays "washington journal" we talk to timothy murphy about health care policy. he is a member of the commerce committee that is working on a version of health care legislation. this is a half hour. host: joining us this timothy murphy of pennsylvania. the house voted late yesterday to approve the tax provisions of the house a bill which would oppose $544 billion in new taxes or the new -- next decade on families making more than three petit thousand a year. -- 350,000 a year. guest: we will be going through

another -- a m we will be going through a number of amendments. it could be from sending i put in and that hospitals have to repeal. -- repeal. . commissions to volunteer at community health centers. should we have a government run plan or other ways of doing this? the key is the basic difference is reforming or paige the system. host: you were kind enough to bring by the bill itself. energy and commerce and hr 3200. i want to move it to get a look at the spien and the thickness of the reading that you and your staff have to do to understand

this. guest: think of most phone books. there was a previous version and this. if you go to see your doctor. the doctor saysour medical history is too big, i'm not going to have time to read it and do tests, here is your precipitation and what i advise you. you think that's strange. you say, dock, rpt you really going to take time to review this, you would be pretty horrified. something this important, i want to make sure we are not seeing this as a precedents. i want to make sure we are ñ reform. host: do you think this is

taking more time? guest: i think we should be taking more time. it's extremely important. that was on an earlier version. we are not going to have a score on this bill. it's like buying things without looking at the price tag and analyzing it. i want to make sure we are doing the best for people's health in america. your hearing will be on c-span.org beginning at 10. you gave el in with headline this is morning it carries significant weight used in determining the cost of the impact. what sort of impact will his words have? >> a very big impact.

the president said he was not interested in signing a bill that would not interested in reducing the spending. that's a big concern for members across the aisles. we'll take some calls. tim murphy here until at least 8:30 this morning. ulys, texas. caller: thank you. i would preface this by the fact that republicans are operating from a memo giving them talking points about government mandate yrs healthcare. in pennsylvania, you had a rise

in healthcare premiums. it went from $6, 647 to $513. the con krae congressional incr. in terms of raising the question about healthcare, i think that you have to start talking about having all the congressmen go into the new healthcare plan. guest: let me respond to some of these. yes, healthcare plans are going up. this is about fixing the problems, not financing the problem.

the new england healthcare institute said about 700 billion of that waist is the wrong medications at the wrong times, inappropriate use. we need to go as medicare and medicaid and clean it up. >> what happens is that by saying the government is going to pick up the tab, it doesn't get. i'll give you an example in pittsburgh. introducing rehospitalization. you can reduce it by 70% by

managing diabetes differently. we have to approach healthcare in terms of real reform. one of the reasons health insurance costs so much is brauz there is so much unmandated. that's another reform we need to look at and shop around. host: palm springs, texas on the independent line. caller: good morning. i don't have a lot of questions to ask about the healthcare but i do have a question. i want to know when you holdup a big stack of paper like you've got there right now, does the house printing office actually print that much paper and put it

on every senator or congressman's desk. guest: we received this on our desk yesterday. . you can get pieces on the internet. my website has information on that. i understand there's a lot of reference in here. host: we'll have this linked as well later on. daniel, a republican caller. caller: i think when it comes down to it. if we would just stay healthier in the long term, that would help out in the united states. the healthcare reform is something that needs to be done.

why do we feel like we have to it. if it's something you do on line, your healthcare goes up 20%. host: is any of that addressed in the bill? guest: no. there are some elements of prevention. that's not clear. it will be developed overtime. he's bringing up a point of vol untarry healthcare. the question is if you smoke,

should you pay a higher premium? should we have more transparent si host: tell us more about health insurance exchanges guest: i wish i knew more about that. it's something where you can go to a yet to be determined site. that's good if you are comparing apples to apples. but the government plan will have 10 different thing it's will civer. private plans would be stuck in

their state. my daughter in college, it's an unfair advantage. we ought to open up this marketplace and get information like a consumer report. you ought to get that oven healthcare and return it in that situation. >> welcome karen. caller: i listened to a lot of debate last night. guest: god bless you for doing that. caller: it's pretty trying. i don't know why we are consulting with republicans on any of this. you all sound like you just fell off the turn ip truck. i'm 58. my entire lifetime, we ought to

know by now if we are going to sa save any money. my mother is on medicare, we go to any doctor she wants and she has a supplemental. my sister has lived in many countries. she said the best system was in france. i don't know why we are trying to reinvent the whole here. my question for you would be. you are talking about how we are going to pay for this. isn't that decided by the finance committee? guest: we all have a responsibility to pay for it. one of the great benefits in a

country like ours is the diverse opinions. france has some good things but also a lot of problems. medicare and med i credit came up, there's been no fundamental reform to get those things to work better. out of those 450 bills, only 12 passed. we recognize that we need to have a system that continues to improve. i worked in healthcare all my professional life. i bring that expert he's to congress. i don't think it is a matter of i don't agree with you, shut up to the republicans. we all have an opinion. one side of the aisle doesn't have eamon oply on truth and

examples. host: two different headlines this more host: what are you hearing in terms of those two different poles of issues? what are they concerned about? guest: they still want their sdr r doctors to make the decisions, what is the cost going to be? that is what has driven much of the discussion to make it affordable. to say that some tax rates are going to push close to 50% for some people, are to yearly some businesses -- part cheerily some busine