this is what the future should be about. young people like this working together am understanding each other better. visiting and finding common ground. that is a we should look for. later that afternoon, we were able to make the deal. mr. chen and his family were able to leave. i think it was part of a broader a one-off.just >> the story is fascinating. an absolute example of that thickening of relationships, what diplomacy is about. to get to them, you have to go through such a process of confidence building. >> and we are such an impatient people these days. this sounds like the comment about politics. the doll, slow, boring. it goes on and on.

the 10th meeting. the 18th dinner. in a way, i think it is more important to show up today than it used to be. everybody knows you can communicate via technology without showing up. people would say to me, what are you traveling all over the place for? we have repair work to do to be blunt. part of it, we have relationships to build. they are worth investing in. you never know what might, from them. stop coming from them. feelingbecause of the that this is like frosting on the cake, fine if you can do it, but not necessary. i think it is baked into the cake. if you do not do it, you will not understand what is possible in such a complex, fast-changing world like the one we have.

>> even in the u.k., there has been a rediscovering of the human component of diplomacy, alongside the social media and conductivity. graft, itthe hard becomes difficult to deal with crises. , have a bunch of questions which i'm not to tackle into. we have members that want to ask questions. takesat down, i will hands. i will try to do my best. i will get to everyone and do my best. let's take one at a time. please. introduce yourself and a quick point. >> [inaudible] thanks to your huge

efforts with president obama, we managed to overcome the obstacle, and we are taking the next step to democracy. [indiscernible] government is under huge and increasing pressure from the west not to arrest the previous .fficials the question is, on the same for the sake of democracy and rule of law, those responsible need to be brought to justice. views and respected opinion.

thise should tackle obstacle to build a healthier democracy. >> why not you take that one straight up. >> i think you've got a very challenging dilemma facing georgia. we have summarized it well. the progress that georgia has made in the last 20 years is quite remarkable. many of the people who contributed to that progress are currently out of office. you have a new government that understandably wants to continue the progress, and figure out the best way to do that. i cannot give you the kind of ask answer that would say or why -- x or y.

there is so much riding on how you navigate through these next months in terms of your stability, in terms of whether or not you can, as you say, protect the rule of law without undermining a lot of progress that has been made. that takes a lot of very careful thought that has to be depersonalized. you have to think not of the havee who you believe may broken laws, but think about the positions that are currently being held by the new government, and whether pursuing prior officeholders is going to consolidate democracy, or ritzy country into a lot of pieces.

what i would ask you to do is to personalizing it, whatnstead try to analyze will be in the best interest of georgia in five years, 10 years. for every person you say wants you to do something, there is a person who exhibit be very unfortunate if you did. you have to sort that out. there is truth and reconciliation commission models. there are other kinds of inquiries that could make things public so that it would serve the purpose of transparency. but not create the kind of instability and maybe conflict that could undermine the democratic project in georgia. >> thank you. going to [indiscernible]

the microphone will come to you. >> hello madam secretary. the jazz nicely about quality of american foreign- policy. on syria, one would think it was a dissident 12 tone scale. i wondered if you thought that the deal, however was reached on the chemical weapons, was in relevance to the real problem, the civil war, or think it is actually a step to resolving it. >> i think at this point, it can be and should be a step toward resolving it. on its own it has merit. fullyg or at least acknowledging and trying to contain syria's chemical

capacity is very important for the ongoing civil war, but also the potential dangers to put into that can be the category of a positive outcome of the ongoing negotiations. a times in part such limit because there has not yet been a willingness on the part of the russians to push the -- andegime, irani and's -- iranians to rule them to present a united front that would provide negotiators on the syrian side. the fact that russia and the united states, and the rest of the world have cooperated on this chemical weapons endeavor

perhapss toward leading into the geneva 2 negotiations. i negotiated geneva one. it was a roadmap to a transition. i believe he was authorized to agree to it. it was our understanding that we would take that and have it blessed by the security council. so that it would have the [indiscernible] which included the members of the security council, and the broader community. that did not happen. it didn't happen in part because russians werehe not yet ready, and assad was not ready to make that kind of commitment to a process, and the

process would be a transition process away from him. time has passed. more terrible things have happened. the refugee numbers are skyrocketing. jordan is under tremendous pressure. turkey is doing an excellent but strained job trying to deal with refugees. , andave iraq laying a role assad that is troubling. lebanon has all kinds of challenges. around the region, ec -- you see their is a continuing deteriorating situation. i think that this level of , it just won a nobel prize. people see it as something worthwhile. outcomeead to a better at the geneva to, which might

lead to political resolution. you have an increasingly well answers toancy that than the syrian people. we are a long way from saying some kind of positive outcome. i think the chemical weapons good step. >> can you have a credible crediblen without that part continuing to be armed or better armed? a year ago -- people are saying we have lost the moment. do we think we've lost the moment?

backing them loudly as well. >> it is public information that mission onrd to have the part of the united states and others to try and work with credible opposition, to help them gain credibility with the other rebels. that did not happen. i still think there is an opportunity to do that. there is some work again publicly known that is proceeding. what is missing is a leadership and work in ad, concerted way to support both their political track, and their military track. if i were inside syria, and leading some small group from

ivillage and three others, i would want to follow someone who is having a vision for syria that would be appealing to me post assad, but i wouldn't trust that leadership if there weren't hard guys with weapons that would back it up. there are other guys with those assets. you have to have an opposition but is not just talking, has strength behind their position. >> ok. >> jeremy greene stock. secretary, thank you for the frankness of your talk this afternoon. i want to ask about the international institutions, and whether you feel they are strong enough for our strategic purposes, and global corporations, or do you worry the world of international

diplomacy is becoming too ad hoc? that part of the reason that the international diplomacy is ad hoc to a certain degree is because the international institutions have on aculty moving quickly number of strategic fronts. that if weo thinks didn't have the united nations, we would have to invent it. we need that role that the united nations plays, which is absolutely critically important for all of the obvious reasons. getit is difficult to controversial actions done quickly within the security council. that is why people go off on ad hoc. i try to circle back.

that is what happened with chemical weapons. he couldn't get a security council resolution on tougher sanctions on the assad regime on possible article seven actions in the absence of pulling back from the offense they were on. peace,chemical weapons that is -- piece, that isn't everybody's best interest. want a big chemical weapons stockpile. they agree and we go for. everyone i have spoken to about the international organizations knows there has to be reforms, knows that has to be a new social contract for the 21st century. to actually put that into operations.

the united nations, and the regional organizations. it looks like an out that sue. , there arenaged benefits to each of those. nothing will replace a more global framework. it would be to everyone's benefit if we could put our heads together and go back to -- and figure out what it looks like for the 21st century. i do not think that is likely to happen anytime soon. it is something we should consider. >> ok. trying to move around the room. >> thank you madame secretary for joining us. ask about where robin

started, on leadership. the conversations i have, people indicate a week america -- a weak america. there is an argument that says this could be a new form of leadership from the united states. perhaps to use that terminology --leading from behind. i would be interested in your views. is this a strategic vision? a new type of leadership that obama is trying to achieve? hazard, ade of a hoc? >> i definitely think that president obama and myself believe that there should be more shared responsibility, more multilateral leading on a range of issues. that has certainly been an

approach that we have deployed in several instances. i do not think that means that we do not recognize and accept our primary responsibility in any of those settings. libya is an example. europeans came to the united states and said we have to do something about this. the arab league came to the united states and said we have to do something about this. how response was, what do you want to do about it? we wanted to know what you were going to do. that sounds funny. it was the first time there had been any kind of partnership between nato and arab countries. it was the first time where the united states said we have a certain assets that are uniquely ours. we will deploy those. you have assets.

you should deploy yours. i thought that was an appropriate way to respond to a problem that was certainly important to us, a critically important to our allies. the kind of at leadership in a way that is , which i as networked like for a lot of reasons. the director of my public planning wrote, a memo one of the reasons i asked her to join me at the state department. it is not only run up the usual suspects. ande are organizations entities that have responsibilities for leading.

is true not only in foreign policy, but it is true in developing policy. what we're doing is trying to put together networks and partnerships to solve problems that government alone, and international organizations alone would not be as effective in doing so. i just came out of the clinton global initiative, which was born out of my husband's insight when he left the white house that there were players in the world who had a role that could contribute to solving merrily development problems, that we needed a vehicle to get them together and make commitments to do so. he same is true on the security side as well. we are never going to deal with of cybersecurity unless there is a partnership between business and government. we are never going to be able to deal with a lot of the trendline problems, whether it is

terrorism or poaching, or human trafficking, without having a broader network of invested layers and leaders. i do not know that it is a new philosophy. it is a recognition that that is the way the world is evolving. s hoe want to stop elephant ching, we have to use social media to convince asians that the task doesn't fall off like a th, but the elephant has to be killed to get it. you begin to engage citizens in making these decisions. >> i have a number of people waiting. lady in thethe checkered shirt. those folks have handled -- had their hand up first.

i am from "the guardian." --you think that it is right [indiscernible] and the lady next to you. >> amy kellogg from fox news. i'm curious to know what you think -- [laughter] >> a well-known new station. >> i'm just having a moment here. [laughter] >> i'm curious to know what you think about this momentum in terms of the u.s. and iran, and the moves we have seen happening day by day, that look like there

could be a [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] issue, weintelligence are democracies thank goodness. a sensible,ave adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizen understanding as can be. the sorthat has to be of framework. within that framework, there are some things that i know from my own experience as a senator or secretary of state, that are redients in homeland

security and protecting people in other countries as well. i also know that, speaking to the united states,, personal information about americans is held by businesses in the united states than by our government. how do we sort all this out? this is a new problem. it is a problem that is over a decade old. these capacities have corresponded with increasing our reach to consumers on the business side, an increasing concern about security on the government side. people need to be better informed. going down a wrong path if we were to somehow reject the importance of both the debate and the kinds of intelligence activities that june and willing -- genuinely keep us safer.

i am for opening up a vigorous discussion about it. with respect to iran, it is too soon to tell. there has been no change in policy yet. there has been no response to the outstanding offer by the p5 plus one. when cathy ashton brings together the p5 plus one negotiating group in geneva next week, i will be most interested in hearing if the iranians are living any -- are putting any meat on the bones on the hope that there could be a negotiation that leads to a resolution that is satisfying to them and acceptable to us. i think we do not have any way of knowing that. >> coming down the front row. taking two questions. >> thank you. madam secretary.

you to reflect on the changing nature of leadership, politics, and diplomacy? the new vulnerabilities. you mentioned at the human about council in geneva the new nervous system of the planet. the factors of connectivity. no one can hide now. mentioned there are enormous changes happening incredibly quickly, including disruption of the way leaders believe leadership should be enacted. what are your reflections now? >> a fabulous question. he deserves the chatham house process. one of the things i have learned over the years, watch the headlines but keep your eye on

the trendline sprayed the trend lines are much more important. the interconnectivity along with interdependence is very much on my mind because the benefits are quite remarkable, but so are the dangers. how we balance that is one of the challenges of leadership. more transparency can help to fight corruption, can make information more readily available to people. inc ross was my ally promoting internet freedom. something that has to be embedded in the global consciousness. but we have also seen more sophisticated use of government power to interrupt internet dissidents andt

opposition figures. .e are in a formative period that imperative governments, democracies, governments who value free really open debate, unite in trying to protect this underlying value. that is going to be one of the thatdifficult questions will face leaders in the next the years because of the concerted efforts by more closed societies, controlling societies, to clamp down. when you talk about leadership, it is a great device for learning more about what is going on. it can be a device that interferes with making tough decisions.

if you were only watching how many followers you have on twitter, or whether people who are responding to your speeches like you are not, that can very much create static in the decision-making process. we have to get back to looking clearly at the underlying values our societiesgird and governments, and not get diverted by the constant back- and-forth of the debate. use it for informing people and yourself. do not use it as an excuse not to make hard decisions as a leader. decisions, i have three people. taken as you can. apologize to the

people i'm not going to get. this gentleman here. >> russia just arrested --tivists who were trying to what would you advise them to try to get them released? >> i will let you reflect on that. , the take you act to syria question is, at the time the in thecrisis began middle east, turkey was supporting the united states. motion, is now in slow

do you think the prime minister has been kicked into the offside? >> and young lady that has been waiting here. come pleased to the front. standup, please. i apologize for all the people asking to get a question up and does not get a chance. there are many people in saudia arabia, and what would you like to say to them? what can they do that will lead to a change? on the paris he issued, there should be a much greater international outcry over the russian arrest and charging the

greenpeace activists with privacy. -- with piracy. this is on the merits an issue that needs to be resolved. a lot of governments are intervening and speaking out, but there should be -- this goes back to the last question -- as is a great device or great issue to use the internet over. a huge outcry of people demonstrating in favor of these folks and trying to create something of a movement on their behalf. ultimately, president putin will decide what he thinks is in his country's interests them but that needs to be balanced by a real outcry. it raises a larger issue, which does not get enough conversation about and that is the future of the arctic and how it will be governed and what the rules are and who gets to devise them and

enforce them. i persist painted in the arctic council, which consists of the five -- i participated in the arctic council, which consists of the five arctic nations, and we begin to work on agreements, like search and rescue, oil spill recovery. this is one of the issues that people are going to wake up in a couple of years and there are currently all caps of things going on and people will say why don't we do things about this? the fact is, yes, countries have jurisdiction in their coastal waters and they can enforce their laws, but there needs to be more work done on the rules of the word, so this become any arctic, because of the changes in the environment it will become increasingly trafficked, and we had a great agreement in the 1950's on the antarctic which has preserved it. erie different issues in the arctic. there needs to be a much more

intense effort to try to support the arctic council and international oddities and helping to make those roles. ok. oneink prime minister erato erduon was a very strong supporter, and his supporters were the kurds insight turkey -- inside turkey, and some of the activity of the kurds in syria began to complicate that, and there's also a large population of alouites. everybody has politics. is not matter what government you have, that his politics became much more challenging for him. foremains a strong voice the humane treatment of

refugees, and i think what turkey has done in receiving so many syrian refugees and putting that werenditions above what might have been has beenfor refugees to his credit, but he has assured out -- sort out different challenges, and he manes -- he remains committed, but without a broader base on which to operate you will not see him able to do more than what he is doing right now. i think that is unfortunate. i think if there had been more movement at the same time, a greater international effort, he might have been able to participate and lead to that more effectively. on the saudi women driving, i am all for it. -- it is an issue that is symbolic, but it is also

for my friends who have lived in non--saudi, saudi, ally, it is a major hassle not to go anywhere, to go shopping for my to go see your mother, to drive your kids somewhere. imagine, you cannot do anything without having a driver, a story -- a stormy -- assuming you can afford a driver. in today's world it is hard to even rationalize. i am hoping there will be a decision made to begin to let women drive. if there has to be some kind of phasing in of women drivers, some sort of face-saving way, maybe that can be worked out, but it needs to happen and it step foran important

andpeople, not just women, saudi arabia becoming more competitive and more integrated into the modern world. pre-k's my apologies for those people whose questions i did not take. i look you in the eye. got a masterwe class and secretary clinton, he you are the master, and that is , thestic to watch conceptual and practical. and we are -- and with feeling and humor as well. in my opinion this makes you extremely worthy. thank you all very much for coming and for asking great questions. please stay in your seats as we have a -- we have to move quickly. i was told i would be in big trouble if i went over and i did.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it has been 40 years since nixon fired archibald cox. this caused only it richardson to resign. government officials remember that chapter in the watergate scandal. it starts at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. bring outlook affairs events to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and consequent -- and conferences, and offering gavel

to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all at the public service of private said -- private industry. funded by the local cable and satellite rider, and now you can watch us in hd. >> chuck hagel held a briefing on the government shutdown that ended last night and the ongoing fiscal uncertainty. he also talked about finding a budget agreement and why he feels the automatic sequester budget cuts should be eliminated. this is a half hour. >> good afternoon. i wanted to make some brief comments. regarding the reopening of government. after i make a

statement a cable of questions, and then i will ask our comptroller to take some questions regarding the specifics of the reopening. the morning i announced department of defense is resuming operations now that congress has restored funding for dod and the rest of the federal government. while all of us welcome the fact that the shutdown is now behind us, i know its impact will continue to be felt by all of our people. all of them in different ways had their lives affected and is trusted during this time of tremendous uncertainty. in particular, i am deeply aware of the harm the shutdown infected on so many of our civilian personnel. all of our leaders, civilian and military alike, regret what the shutdown has done to our people. and we will work to repair the

damage today. echoing what president obama said earlier today, i want all of our civilian personnel to know the work they do is critically important to this department and this country. it matters to this department, and it matters to the country. the military simply cannot succeed without our civilian employees, and the president and i appreciate the professionalism and patience of them throughout this trying time. not that this crisis has become history and we have come to an end, we have an opportunity to return to refocusing on our critical work. it is important to note how chris did not remove the shadow of uncertainty that has been cast over this department and our government much of this

year. like most of the rest of the government, dod is now operating on a short-term continuing resolution which limits our ability to start new programs. and a damaging cuts of sequestration remains the law of the land. in the months ahead congress will have an opportunity to remove this shadow of uncertainty as they work to craft a balanced, long-term spending bill. if this fiscal uncertainty continues them it will have an impact on our economy, our national security, and america's standing in the world. and if the sequestered levels continued, it there will also be consequences. early this year in our strategic shtick truces -- choices and management review, it was seen how this puts us at risk in the force that is unprepared that is

due to lack of training. dod is supposed to give the american people a clear eyed assessment of what the military can and cannot do after sequester level cuts. in the months ahead we will continue to provide our test and most honest assessment as congress works to establish the nation's long-term spending priorities. that is my statement, and i will be happy to respond to questions. consequences.ed as you look down the road, there are ready our some reviews of how many civilians and how many force reductions overall there will have to be reductions in force. can you talk about as you look ahead what are you warning congress and the country in terms of the number of forces you will have to cut in order to

meet these lower budget levels, the number of civilians you may have to lay off, and what does that do to u.s. readiness and morale of your workforce? >> i will leave the specific numbers to bob hale, but let me respond in a general way to your questions. with the impact on morale. i do not think anyone questions that the uncertainty that shutting them the government -- shutting down the government and closing down people's jobs has brought a great amount of not only disruption to our government, to our country, but to their lives, to the civilian personnel whose lives have been disrupted by this particular shutdown.

then you add further to that the noertainty of authorizations, no appropriations, and living in a world of continued resolutions, continuing sequestration, the uncertainty of planning, not just in an agency or department or certainly all the elements of the department of defense, but in personal lives. people have to have some confidence that they have a job that they can rely on. i know there are no guarantees in life. what we cannot continue to do this to our people. having them live under this cloud of uncertainty. morale is a huge part of this. we want to recruit good people. people will leave the government . they will not put up with this. good people have many options. that is one part of it. i have said many times, the

chiefs have said, general debts he said that as we have had to close down training facilities in our training, we have had to allowdown wings and not many of our wings to fly, the standing of our ships. longer-ad to pull back term investments required to keep the technological and that this country has always had. these are all dimensions of sequestration, of uncertainty, of not knowing or not being able to plan what is coming. sure, that adds to impact on our sure, thatand thomas s, will present capability issues for us. he's are not new issues. i talked about them, general dempsey, all of our chiefs have

talked about them. that is part of the point the president has made. i have made continually through this process the last few months, the statement that we have got to have some certainty here, being able to go forward. we have a qdr that you are familiar with, and we are going to that review. have a budget resolution that we are preparing within this institution and within the white house budget, that we will present a budget to congress as we do each year. to try to plan for it budget with this kind of uncertainty alone, how are we going to fulfill our strategic commitments? what impact is this having overseas and with our allies? i have been to -- and some of you have been with me on presidents --and that

pulled this trip down last week. our allies are asking questions -- can we rely on our partnership with america? will america fulfill its commitments and its promises? these are huge issues for all of us, and they do impact our national security and our relationships and our standing in the world. these are the broad general areas of consequences of not being able to plan and prepare because of uncertain the we are living under. the specific numbers i will leave for bob hale. >> on the sequester moving ahead, you have spent time in the senate and you know how congress works. your current position, is it your sense that the sequester level cuts, those are the new reality and rather than

uncertainty, isn't that what you should be planning against, given congress' will and the will of the people? >> the so-called sequester, which is a product of the budget control act, is the law of the land. to plan and prepare with the facts as they are and the realities as they are. if you recall, when i implemented and directed the strategic management review and choices, which i noted in my comments here. it was to repair this institution for different scenarios of different numbers, and certainly the numbers that we know are there, that we have been living with this year, reflected under sequestration are numbers that we have got to prepare for. we plan also for the continuing

resolution numbers. budgetplan also for our numbers. i do not know, and you started your question to me, tom, about my service in the senate. i do not know if a compromise can be reached, if some kind of an agreement can be reached. that is part of the uncertainty. we have to plan for every eventuality here, and you cannot take an institution like this come as you all know, because you have been around a long time and turned these things around in a month, in a week. this is the national security of america we are talking about. and so it does take thought, and it does take planning. we are talking about people's laws, as we drawing down by our force structure. we know that a man we are

planning for that, and you heard me say many times, that the abruptness and this eagerness of those cuts give us no flexibility to light it down in a responsible way to make sure that our resources match our mission, our mission matches our resources, and we are able to fulfill the strategic interests of this country. morale of thebout civilian workers at the department. are you at the point yet where you and general dempsey have concerns about troop morale, given all of this? what indicators might concern you and tell you, watching that, you given what you are said you're not allowed to train and fly. are you not worried about the troops? >> we are always worried about strips, civilian personnel were

the ones affected by the furloughs and the shut down. our uniformed military was protected in that. but the same uncertainty, certainly, resides in the uniformed military community, different dimension of it, of course, but questions i get all the time from our junior enlisted, from our officer corps, from our senior officer corps, future, i get -- what is the future for me as an e-5, starting a family, for example? and i got these questions two weeks ago when i had my monthly luncheon with junior enlisted members of our services. i get these questions all the time. mr. secretary, can you give me an honest answer -- in one case last week, two weeks ago, i had one service member say, my wife asked me to ask you, do i have a future? do we have a future?

and these are young men and women who are very proud to be in the military, want to stay in the military. they have a purpose to their lives serving in the military. but they also have to ask the question, when you're 25 or 30 years old, if you have a family, you want to start a family, can i support that family? i mean, what kind of a future am i giving my family if i'm not sure where all this is going? so, yes, it affects our uniformed military. yes, we are vitally concerned about the morale of our military. but the civilian workforce are the ones that have been obviously touched directly by the shutdown and, of course, the furloughs that we've seen this year. thank you. and bob hale will respond to more specific questions you've got. bob?

>> well, good afternoon. let me just start by joining the secretary in thanking our civilian workforce, all of our workers, but especially our civilians for their patience through this. and i'd add the senior commanders and managers have helped me a great deal as i work to help the department get through this. so when i read the omb message about 2:30 this morning saying government was reopened, i felt like i could stop beating my head against a wall, but i got to say it would have felt a lot better never to have started beating my head against a wall. so with that, i'll stop and -- if you have questions. >> i wonder if there is any estimate of what costs the department of defense incurred as a result of the shutdown, including the -- you know, the workers at the beginning who were not working and that money was wasted. is there any cost estimate? >> well, we know at a minimum there are about $600 million of lost productivity, if you will,

from at that point almost 400,000 civilians that we had on furlough for four days. there were a number of other costs where i can't put a number on them. we built up interest payments because we were forced to pay vendors late. we had to cancel training classes, so we had to bring the people home on orders and then send them right back again. so there were a lot of costs of those sort. i can't quantify those, but it's at least the $600 million to start with in essentially lost productivity. >> can you just take a stab at the layoff and attrition -- >> the layoffs? >> the layoffs that are coming down the road and reductions in force? >> well, you know, he said he'd defer to bob hale. bob hale is going to defer to the future, because we haven't decided. but, look, if we face budgets at the bca cap level, roughly $50 billion less in 2014, we're going to have to get smaller. i can't tell you exactly how

much. yes, that will mean fewer civilians. we will try to avoid reductions in force. we'll keep them at an absolute minimum. we would look to do this, if we have to, through attrition, but, yeah, we're going to get smaller. i just can't tell you exactly how much. >> mr. hale, you've had an entire couple of hours to pull your numbers together. do you have any idea yet of the impact of this on programs and the -- whether, you know, some testing's been delayed, that sort of thing, and also just the friction cost to both you and to the companies? >> well, we were relatively fortunate in the government. we had a partial appropriation. the pay our military act was in appropriation, so we kept -- except for that first four days, most of our civilians working, all of our military. i think that limited the disruption, but it was there. i'm sure we delayed testing, though i can't quantify it for you. my guess is that we will be able to catch up reasonably quickly for those kinds of delays, backlogs of vouchers we haven't paid. i'm a lot more worried about the

morale effects of all of our people, but especially our civilians. and you've heard that story, but i think we all are concerned. i mean, it's not just this event. i mean, we've had three years of pay freezes, although i noted the cr did not prohibit the -- or either the military or civilian pay raise, so -- so far, it's still in place. we've had three years of pay freezes. we had the sequester furloughs, now the shutdown furloughs. i mean, my own people are kind of looking at me and asking the question -- most of them are seniors, so they'll probably stick around, but you wonder what the folks out in the field are saying. "i'm not so sure i want to work for this government." so we need some stability, and we need to keep telling them they're important, and then we need to show it, through things like pay raises and no more furloughs, etc. that's the bigger concern to me. >> do you know of any new starts that are being delayed because of the cr? >> oh, yes. i mean, the cr will delay -- well, now you're going to test my memory.

i can see the sheet. i can't remember. so i'm going to have to get back to you. i don't want to name something that's wrong. there are no huge ones, but there are a number of smaller programs that under the continuing resolution we are not allowed to do new starts, rate increases, no military -- new military construction projects. perhaps one of the biggest problems is the fact that we essentially required under the cr to buy the same ships this year as last year, because congress appropriates by ship, and we have to repeat last year. it's a groundhog day approach to budgeting. so there are lots of disruptions. i can't remember -- i can't remember the specifics. they're not in my head. i'm sorry. >> mr. hale, is the likelihood of sequestration informing your recruitment numbers now, either for civilian or for uniformed members? and wouldn't the responsible thing be to be slowing down in that recruitment so that you don't have to let people go who will only just -- >> right. we're going to start executing at the continuing resolution level or a little lower, because

of the enormous uncertainty and the possibility that sequestration in january, if it occurs, could take us down to the bca cap level. and, yes, i think that will cause us to begin to reduce or think in terms of reduced size and reduced recruiting. you're exactly right. i mean, we don't want to -- on one hand, we don't want to commit ourselves in this period too much in a period of enormous uncertainty in case we are able to do things we think that are important, but we do need to slow down. and we will slow down our execution, at least to the cr level, and probably a little bit south of that, just because there's so much uncertainty. we're only three weeks into the fiscal year, and we're still kind of plus or minus $50 billion in what we're going to spend this fiscal year. that's not a comfortable position, particularly for our comptroller. so it's a challenge. >> excuse me. so have there been orders issued to the components and the services to spend at the bca level? and, secondly, with the cr, is there the kind of flexibility in

moving money around in accounts that you need to cope with cope with sequestration? >> i mean, we haven't issued any formal orders. we've discussed with the services to execute at the continuing resolution level and maybe somewhat south of it. and we'll have to work with them on specifics as time develops. what was your second question again? >> about flexibility. >> yeah, flexibility. no, i mean, we have very little flexibility under continuing resolution. it gives us money in budget accounts, like air force procurement and army active o&m. it just gives us a dollar figure and says that you can't do new starts, no rate increases, no new military construction projects, and you get then a little more than 25% of it to cover october 1st through january 15. beyond that, though, we've got to kind of be looking at the fact eventually we'll get some kind of appropriations, so we need to be careful on where we spend that money, and we can't

move between those accounts at all. and generally we aren't allowed to reprogram when we're under continuing resolution. so for a while, we kind of have to hold our breath and try to look to the future and be as conservative as you can. if that's a vague answer, it's because things are kind of vague. it's not a good way to run a railroad. >> going back to the secretary's comments regarding his doubts on congress reaching some sort of compromise, is there anything that can be said that hasn't been said already by the department to convince lawmakers that, you know, this cliff is coming? or is it just a matter of continuing to sort of beat the drum on the dangers of sequestration? >> you mean that can be said to sort of help the process along? i mean, we'll be helpful in any way we can. we'll work through the administration. the president has a plan. he enunciated -- announced it with a budget, in terms of a plan to reduce the deficit and to provide for discretionary spending, which is the level we submitted the budget at. we certainly support that plan. we understand there's going to

be negotiations, and we'll help them in any way we can. i don't think there's any one thing we can do, but we stand ready to assist through omb and the administration to help the negotiators any way we can. we want them to succeed. >> tuition assistance, g.i. bill, what happens with that going forward? what's the situation now? >> i mean, i assume -- we will i think, pay tuition assistance. g.i. bill is funded in another agency, but the tuition assistance we will pay, i think more or less at the levels that were programmed. i mean, we're not planning to cut it back substantially. now, we continue to look at it in the context of overall budget reductions. and there may be some trims, but we know it's an important program, and we won't stop it, and we will continue to fund it. there may have been some temporary interruptions during the shutdown, but we'll continue to support the program. we know it's important to our people.

>> mr. hale, you've had a chance to look, i think, at all the services' initial 15 proposals and their alternate proposals with sequestration. how much of -- i guess, of an "oh, wow" factor is there in the alternate proposals, in your opinion, sir? >> well, i mean, there are far- reaching changes. it shouldn't be surprising when you take about $50 billion in fiscal 2015. and there were some funds that were taken out right at the end game by the president. the president proposed some cuts in discretionary spending, as well, in that budget package that we didn't fully accommodate, so pretty good- sized reductions. there are force cuts. i mean, i'm not going to give you specifics, because i don't feel i should, but i'm not surprised. and you saw the scmr, and it's often usually in those ranges, within the ranges of the scmr. i'm not surprised. but i think all of us are aware that it will be a somewhat different, smaller military if we have to go through with those cuts. but we are looking at them

actively. and we will be as prepared as we can, within the limits of time that we have, to be ready for a wide range of contingencies, because we know that's what we face. >> last question from thom shanker. >> thanks. in past years, it's been the business practice of this department, as you approach the end of the fiscal year, to hold some money back. you obviously don't want to overspend your budget accidentally. i'm just curious how many tens of millions or hundreds did you end the year with? and can you now apply that money in some way to mitigate the strain? >> well, there are several kinds of money we get. a number of the operating dollars, military personnel and operations and maintenance, expire, those you can't spend them after september 30. it will tell you something about the real-time nature of our accounting systems that i don't know yet for sure what we obligated. but i think that we will have obligated the great majority of those funds. we usually try to. other funds that -- investment ones, we get two years for rtd&e, three years for procurement.

and there i think you would see our obligation rates fairly low right now for a couple reasons, uncertainty, but also, frankly, i mean, our contracting officers were concentrating heavily on the one-year money in those last days. and we had had to cut back on them because of sequestration. so my guess is, we've pretty well obligated, though i don't know for sure on the operating accounts. i think that's not true on the investment accounts. and there are some -- we'll try to pick up the pace as best we can. and let's hope there's no further disruption that occurs in january. staff: thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. it has been 40 years since

dixon fired archibald cox. this calls -- this caused elliott richardson to resign. tonight, government officials remember that chapter in the watergate scandal. live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. pelosi heldnancy her first briefing with reporters since congress passed the bill reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling. this is a half hour. >> good afternoon. we had to reschedule because of the president loss statement this morning, which i think was quite an excellent one. i take such pride in our president and i take pride in my house congrats who last night voted 100% to open government and to end the default of our

full faith and credit. last night, and america had endured 16 days of a shutdown. the bill came to the floor, line: 20 -- nine: 20, the role was dispensed with, and it was over by 9:56. the bill was sent to the president. in less than 45 minutes, less than 40 minutes, government was open. this could have happened three weeks ago. three weeks ago, i said to the speaker, we will give you the votes. please do not shut down the government. take up the senate bill. we will give you the votes to pass it. over and over again, on october 2, on the steps of the capitol, 200 members signed.

we have the members of 200 members, 100% of the house democratic caucus chair that we would support the republican number, a number that we did not like them a number which the republican chairman of the appropriations committee said does not need the needs of the american people. to avoid a shutdown of government, we were willing to accept. later in that day, the white commitment,he publicly on the sets of the capital, in writing, to the speaker come in front of the president of the united states, but they said no. they cannot take yes for an answer. over and over again, we kept bringing up the motion to accept the senate number. over and over again, republicans said no. the house number is republicans number. they offered it to senator reid.

senator reid accepted it, knowing it was a bad number, but a path to negotiations. the president accepted the number. the house ever cuts accepted the house republicans number. the only people not accepting where the house republicans, that republican house members. why do i go back to that? because 16 days, 16 days the government was closed down. whatever that means, families , workers furloughed, disrespect for the federal workforce, many of whom are veterans, many of the large number of the workforce are veterans. i do not know whether republican members of the caucus do not about the not care consequences of their actions. i have to assume they do care. , doow i hope they will know not take it for me, standard &

poor's says today the shutdown has shaved at least .6% off of annualized 2013 gdp growth. in other words, $24 billion out of the economy. was there temper tantrum worth $24 billion -- was their temper tent german worth $24 billion -- antrumeir temper ten worth $24 billion? i'm just meeting with someone who was telling they had a direction in their state not process any food stamp cards for children in that particular state. this was the other day. the shutdown is over, that will go forward. the people were not going to be able to eat.

it was that fundamental. weagain, on september 30, agreed to accept their number. on october 2, we offered it. on october 5, it was , we would forgo that right to remove their fear of their members having to vote on something on the floor. but it took 16 ways for the speaker to finally take yes for an answer. this is irresponsible. no -- this is reckless. this is reckless. and then to see last night, 62% of the house republicans voted , voted their own number against opening up government, and voted against ending the default of our forfeiting credit. best of our full faith and credit. what was squandered during that time, only quantitatively

measured in terms of its load our gdp growth, jeopardizing credit rating, it eroded consumer and investor confidence -- it also diminished confidence in government, in governance, in governance. how irresponsible it was? i do not know. i am pleased that we showed the unanimity to and the conversation, to avoid the default, to open government, and all of the american people said it was time to start this and start government. they may not like government, the republicans, but they are here to govern and to legislate, which means you have to make compromises and choose instead of going for manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. all democrats, i am so proud of

them, all of them, 100% of democrats, voted on that resolution, not that they accepted the number, and as i said to them, not on the merits of the legislation, because the number is too low to meet the needs of the people, and the time for lifting the debt ceiling for ending default is too short. nonetheless, it is a path, and while it has little in terms of merit, it gives a great deal i believe in terms of hope that we can go to the table and have this negotiation about what a budget should be for our country, and i am very pleased our we have our team, leader, jim clyburn, the ranking member on the budget committee, chris van hollen, and the ranking member on the appropriation committee representing the values of our with the charge from our caucus to grow the economy,

create jobs, reduce the deficit, in a responsible way as we go forward. now, what i would hope would happen is do they know, do they care? let's assume they can't. as an appropriator, in the congress of the united states, working in a bipartisan way and of the timeve most agreement, but in disagreement, we said let's stipulate to a number, to a set of facts. and what seems to me missing now in their caucus is that a respect for facts. it is like a data-free zone. they do not know about this. who said that? they are in a data-free zone? also the preparations we make should be evidenced-based. what is it that we get for this, what is it that is not working, based on evidence, documented

evidence, as to what works? we have an expression in appropriations -- the plural of anecdote is not data. i heard about -- i heard something else. let's get the facts. when we go to this table, we have a golden opportunity to have evidence-eight data- supported information and intelligence for us to be able to make decisions. for example, i said most economists would agree that the single most important way to reduce the deficit -- no, let me say it another way -- nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. early childhood, kate -- 12, -- k-12, lifetime learning for our nothing brings more money in than education. when they are going to cut

education, for example, pell grants, they said we can cut pell grants, they are not only doing a disservice to those people, their aspirations, but they are increasing the deficit. it it is a false economy. we should subject every dollar spent to the harshest scrutiny. is it working for the purpose as excepted, and for many of those who have been on the initiatives on some of agendas that helps lifting people up, we want that to work. we want that to work. put asas critical and sharp an eye oas anyone on that. it has to be about data, about science, science. he had four words to describe which dominated the table for our domestic agenda, for our national agenda, it would be

science, science, science, and science. science -- that means knowledge, data, evidence, about how the air we breathe, water we drink him about how we grow the economy, and that is about investments in science and technology. it is about the health of our thetry's investments in life sciences, national institutes of health. science is an answer to our prayers, but for some reason some in their caucus that it is one or the other, science or faith -- no, no, and science to defend our country with the best technology possible. so when we say we are not going to invest in education and we are going to cost -- reduced our investments in the national science of foundation and national institutes of health, we are doing a great disservice to our country.

in every way, evidence, science, a, let's know what we are talking about. we would all say we can proceed down this path if we all stipulate to a number. did they know about this number? probably not. because if they knew about it, they would certainly care about it. are they in denial? are they just ignoring the facts? we will find out, but we owe it to the american people to put all that aside and to do what is best. and so again, our founders had such a vision for our country. of our troops, the aspirations of our children. to go into that room with knowledge about what the decisions are and that could be

driven by an anti-government ideology that says whatever it is i do not like it because i'm here to limit government. we do not want any more government than we need, but some of those imitations of government are limitations on the aspirations of the american people. they do not reduce the deficit. we look forward to going to that table, but it is important for people to know what the terms are as we go forward, and the a minorg that might be benefit, not worth the trouble, but nonetheless, i benefit from what is happened is that the sharpened awareness of the fact that this will take place at the table, that hopefully there will -- shown onight of it so people can see what the difference is. we believe the budget, the house democrats have put forth, and

the senate democrats, and the president, is values based, about the future of our country of investments and education, sensibly reducing the deficit, as we create jobs for all americans who want to work hard, pay by the rules, and achieve the second dream. at that, i will be pleased to take any questions. ofthe enrollment in the form -- it the enrollment of the affordable care act. i wonder if you think about the rollout so far and what you think is a reasonable amount of time to fix problems? >> i'm so excited about the aca, and it is no coincidence that they wanted to shut down government. after a while they forgot why they shut down government because the reasons change as we

went along. i am proud of my state of california, where it is going great, and most of the states that have their state-run exchanges, going positively well. hasquestion that what happened with the system for the national plan is something that has to be improved. they were overwhelmed by the seefic, ok, but now let's how long it will take to have that be fixed. that is about the technology, about the benefits, about the liberation of people to live a healthier life, liberty and freedom to choose their happiness -- that all remains. i hope we would have some answers soon and that the answer will be ok, we have found a glitch or whatever it is, it has been corrected, and here's a

demonstration as to how people, when they approach it now, will be received. again, i hope that will be soon. yes, ma'am. >> once people started to read the bill and there has been criticism about things that were included that had not been talked about much different appropriations , from small things-- >> the informal care act? -- the affordable care act? bill.t night 's thisthis crisis -- was crisis the right time to add things that the not have time to do with reopening government? >> my members have some of the same questions. when you have a cr, it is an appropriation, and yes, this would be the normal place for them to do something like that. now, we in the house are suspicious of the senate when

they want to go first and what are they doing over there. i think the questions i asked about because my members were asking those questions, as an appropriate or how my energy understand when you have a continuing resolution it is all the preparations for the preceding year, and this was consistent with what would be in a continuing resolution. >> the people look at it and say is this the thing to add things when -- >> it was just a continuation of what went before him up but whatever it was, it was not enough to say we aren't not going to -- we are not going to open up government because it was something that senator mcconnell put in about a road or something? i do not know what that was. >> a lock and dam. >> that has been an ongoing project for many years, and this was a continuation of that. i'm not here to defend what that is. i'm here to say that i did not

like the number. forget about whether it was appropriate. 900 86 billion. i did not like the timetable. i have bigger problems than what that appropriation might've been, but in nonetheless, none of it were the reason not to open government and remove all doubt that we were going to honor the full faith and credit of the united states. >> you cite your history on the appropriations committee, and an anomaly is not an appropriation. this is an alternate -- and to have that put in a bill that is an appropriation -- >> what difference does it make? we are talking about a bill that -- i am not asking anybody to vote for this bill on the merits. let's focus on the fact that 986 is not a figure that allows government to work for the american people.

it should be at least one year. if you want to have an objection to the bill, there are bigger things to object to. the fact is that we had to open government. the ways of the senate on these i haveis something that my own concerns about. when we were going to have the bill first, i thought it will be just a bill. when the senate takes it up, the senate is the senate. you have to talk to them about what is in the bill and what its purpose was. what i said on the floor, i'm not pinning a rose on this will, but i'm giving it a vote because we have to open government, and we did not have to close government, because we made this we knew a number that was in adequate, but at least takes us to the table. frustrationa public and cynicism about how congress has been operating, so when they

see inks added in, does it add to that? would you have a message to people? >> you have to take that up with the senate. that is not how the house works. you will have to take it up with them. the senate system is not about that. the senate -- the cynicism is about the government was close days, because the ideologues in the republican caucus were the tail wagging the was and it was 100s -- it 62% of their caucus voted to keep government shut down, 62% to defaultucus voted on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. that is what i think many more people are where of that and they are aware of the particular of that. i do not think any of that should be in the bill. i do not know how it got in there. in fact, i displayed my own

dismay at it, only learned of it because i said what is holding up the bill? they said they were dealing with some of these things. i said what are these things? that is how i found about it myself. theneed 60 votes, and senate is another place. i think your question should be directed to them, because this is nothing that we were consulted about or anything. it just became part of the bill. yes, ma'am. >> looking forward, how does confidence how much you have in the budget conference committee to be able to produce an actual workable solution? >> if it is a transparent negotiation, i have more hope than if they say we are meeting ourselves and then one day we will have one open meeting or hearing and then we will come back and meet ourselves. senator sessions and paul ryan

did not go for the bill last night. they did not vote for this bill that takes us to the table. they did not vote for that. so i think it will be interesting to see what that means, what is to be inferred from that. but i think you are the answer to that question. the more transparency, the better the outcome. the more the public is aware -- abraham lincoln, public sentiment is everything, or public is aware, instead of finding out that the bill is hour, --er at the 11th and i do not know if these things are a big deal, but they are not the issue. the issue is how do you work together, knowing that you're not going to have it all your own way, but how do you go there to influence a decision based on values, respect for what comes out of it, because what comes

ldt of it has to be again, so to the caucuses to vote for it. it has to have merit. the bill last night in my view to not have eric substantively. it had merit as a path to go to that table. if the table is closed down, if there is not live coverage, then it is hard to see how a product can come out of this that we can put to our members to say it was an honest debate, this is how it came down them and this is how we have to go forward. and you know what is contingent upon it is reopening government in january and lifting the debt ceiling in february. this is not just an isolated conversation. >> there are a number of members in the house and senate that have pledged to return the money that they earned throughout the shutdown. [indiscernible]

i'm wondering if you have any intention of writing a check for charity or putting it back to the treasury toward the dead or anything for the money that you are paid? >> i am a regular contributor to charities i can pretend to >> is the health care -- if thet health care website is not working in november or december, will you need to reconsider it? about a not programmatic thing, it is about technology. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think so. will leave the last couple of minutes of this to take you live to the national press club to hear the washington post and former government official to remember the 40th anniversary of

the watergate special prosecutor archibald cox. this is just getting underway. a bit press club played part in the saturday night massacre. we are very excited to host this program tonight. festivitiesver the to the chairman of the national press club history and heritage committee and the 1994 president. [applause] >> thank you very much, angela. welcome, once again, to the national press club. i am a journalism professor at the american university washington professor program.

our program tonight marks the saturdayversary of the night massacre that ultimately led to president nixon's resignation in the watergate candle. that was a significant event in the nation's political history as we will learn tonight. the national press club later role. archibald cox held his news conference here in the afternoon the ballroom in where he insisted that the president had to turn over all of the secret tapes. we will see a brief clip of that later. award ceremonyts that honors a journalist lifetime achievement. that night, the award was going greatter cronkite. as the news man was delivering his remarks, word began spreading

through the ballroom of what nixon had done. in and out ofun the room to figure out what was going on. they announced what was happening. it is my great honor to introduce the panelists in tonight's historic program. first, the deputy attorney general in the nixon administration that served as of the environmental protection agency and acting director of the fbi. [applause] associate special prosecutor to archibald cox that served as deputy attorney general in the clinton administration and taught for 32 years at harvard law school.

coleman. philip [applause] iconic figure in american journalism that covered the watergate drama for the washington post has co-authored numerous books including all the presidents men, the final days, and other riveting accounts of the nixon presidency. mr. bob woodward. [applause] the only female assistant watergate special prosecutor on the trial team that served as general counsel or f for the u.. army under president carter. [indiscernible] assistant andcial press secretary for archibald cox that wrote "not above the

jim doyle. would like to introduce my co-moderator who the award-winning biography of the watergate special prosecutor, archibald and is one of the leaders on presidential power struggles. pittsburgh and the man that did the work to kennize tonight e's event, [indiscernible] come on up. >> thank you. contacted the national press club about collaborating on this event, they immediately recognized it its historical--

importance and said yes. as he said, i was privileged to write the biography of archibald cox, the principled watergate special prosecutor. one of the wonderful things was having the ability to interview the incredible lineup of people that worked with him throughout his career. and one of those people was someone who had been a thirtysomething warrior that worked on the watergate situation. along the way, this young member of the special prosecution force built his own illustrious career. to the united states

supreme court where he served as an associate justice since 1994. i can tell you his office is slightly more spacious and less susceptible to bugging that his office on k street during the watergate days. it is my great honor to introduce to you justice stephen breyer. [applause] >> thank you. i am your last introducer. don't overstate my role into watergate. i drove into work and my job was to write a memo to organize the itt. people don't remember what that was. richie is here, joe is not. i organize things when they came into prosecutor.

it was not a question of what i gave, but what i got out of it. , and he remember lines said -- [indiscernible] after waves beating him around, i know what it means. after the waves had been beating him everywhere. he said those words. ity meant, perhaps someday will please us to remember these things. of course. the other thing is about these two people. elliot richardson i had met a couple of times. but of course, what do i think of when i think of him? my wife is a clinical psychologist.

she spent a year having seminars on heroes. they never thought twice. they just did it. they didn't reminisce or intellectualize it. whatever it was they did, they did it. was the thing to do, wasn't it? how you will act. i say that of elliot richardson because he was a career politician. at that moment, he gave up his career. why did he give it up? distracts people over the age of 40. promised the united states

senate that he would not fire anyie cox under circumstances. that is making a promise to the american people. the chips are down, what do you do? he quit. say, in advance, tough for him. tougher than we think. from it. much i think he was a man of integrity. i learned by watching, talking, and associating. means, let's not talk, let's go do our job.

he is not here to chase the president out of office. he is there to lead an investigation. and where the investigation goes, that is where he goes. do the job. it will cause a lot of camera angles. by the way, this i like. americans will listen if you explain to them what is happening. he said i sometimes worry that i have grown too big for my britches. that is very new england and very much archie. it was also his expressing his view. he is not there to change the president. he is there to do his job.

the third thing was, when he told the people there, they were really excited. you saw what that was like. i think his message was calm. and say youn out are going to resign. you stay right where you are. we are all here because we have a job to do. do it. it has made a huge emotional impression on me. now you will hear from the others in which it has made a big impression. [applause] >> thank you, justice breyer. before the panelists, we will see a brief film clip from cbs. thank cbs and the

senior executive vice president two is here with us tonight. we have a couple of wonderful clips for you to set the scene. >> cbs white house correspondent dan rather. >> in breathtaking succession tonight, the following events occurred. the president of the united states demanded that the attorney general fire archibald cox supervising the bringing to justice of all persons involved in the watergate case. richardson refused and resigned. the president ordered the assistant attorney general to fire the special prosecutor. he refused. the president immediately fired him. robert bork was named acting attorney general. he was ordered to fire cox. he did. the fbi, acting on orders,

sealed off the prosecutor's office. rather.re is dan >> good evening. you very much for being here. we have ground to cover and we have asked panelists to be succinct. we know how difficult that might be. we will stop with bob woodward. recognizing that some members of the audience were not even alive during the dramatic events of watergate, start with a quick snapshot of the scandal that led to the unraveling of the presidency. give us a brief snapshot of what was watergate. >> it is great to start with an easy one. if you look at it broadly, it

was an effort to destroy the process by which presidents are nominated to run in the political parties and are elected. it was not just the watergate espionage,t was sabotage operations. if you look into enough of the transcripts, it is clear that regularly he ordered -- illegal abusive activity if you get into it, what you the dog that never barks on the nixon tapes. no one says, what is in the best interest of the country? it was all about nexen. .t was about settling scores

crimes andust the abuse that drove nixon out. it was the smallness of the vision that he was always looking out for his political interest. it was barry goldwater, the conservative republican from "toona that summarized many lies, too many crimes." are one of the first people hired by archibald cox after he was appointed special prosecutor. how did cox come to be appointed and how did you end up going off to washington to investigate the president? >> it sounds coincidental, but by no means, wa was it coincidental. cox was the seventh choice and chosen because he had elliot

richardson as a student. elliott trusted him. they were both new englanders. it was almost at the same time he was appointed. completely deaf in one ear. you can't possibly handle this without me. i have four months of experience as a public defender. [laughter] that is what i told him. that was it. and startednt down there. >> you became one of his closest advisers. house becamete suspicious of cox.

grind a political ax to and wanted to condemn the president. >> archibald cox was surefooted when it came to the law. when it came to the judgment of .ow to proceed he was less so in the optics of the situation. how would it look if he invited the kennedys to the swearing-in. out that it be pointed it was in conflict with its own investigation? that heard him with the press and the public at first. but it was something he knew from day one.

only to conduct the investigation scrupulously. to take things to convince the press and the public that he was doing just that. he was available to explain what he was doing and why. but neither he nor the staff dribbled out juicy pieces of evidence in order to look good or shape opinion. end, that gave people confidence. he was never going to convince the white house he was not out to get nixon. but he was not. he had been a mediator, an arbitrator, and started out thinking that he was probably going to work this case and it will turn out that way. side was happy with the outcome. he had no clue how damning the evidence would be against the

president. he knew it was his job to find out. >> you are summoned to the white house in early august of 73. serving as deputy attorney general. about thee concerns president's involvement? staff aske chief of you about that? did not ask me about what i felt. if he asked me, i would tell him what i thought. much more deeply than what he said to me when he became acting

director of the fbi. the press was going to ask me that question and he made a very convincing statements that he had been in no way involved. the acting director of the fbi to which i was responding every day until elliott got there, it was about three weeks later. i saw the evidence as it was coming in. well before the tapes were released, he was more deeply involved then we admitted. it was more substantial about what the president had not done. you are very convincing, i might add.

the only female member of the trial team of the watergate special prosecution force. was it an uncomfortable position to be in? >> yes and no. i was used to it by then. only two percent of lawyers were women at the time. i learned to lean and before there was a lien in. lean in before there was a lean in. sexistknown for making arguments about women arguing when i was cross-examining. there were significant problems.

the press always reported my age and what i was wearing as well as what i was saying. and photographs of me that were usually full-length. others on the trial team with me were all head shots. there was some good and some bad. woodward, the counsel to the president testifies that nixon was involved directly in the watergate cover-up. even before the presidential aide spilled the beans about the system,use taping archibald cox told me there were suspicions. in the final days, you tell a about nixontory trying to deceive his own lawyers about the case?

>> the summary is when you look at all of this, the chief of staff, the key white house lawyers, they knew they were being deceived and not getting the whole story. and what specifically happened that was kind of the earthquake was thisf them statement of nixon to henry peterson that is running the investigation. lawyers said there was not a tape. know about the secret taping system at that point. that he had his daily memoir that he would summarize that day. said i can't find it.

why don't i make a new one. and in the great tradition of we don't have the evidence being requested. it set off all kinds of alarm bells. record, look at the they are all deceased. particularly, it was 17 times. they knew and were conducting , butust a legal defense they would argue that he was trying to ease nixon over time. and that once the tapes became public, nixon would voluntarily

design. -- voluntarily resign. there were tapes during the watergate hearing. inside the special prosecutor's office, what were the problems you saw getting those tapes? >> cox was always very respectful of the president, reverential towards the office of the president. dedicated to the supreme court. there was also a series of bad consequences. he respected the presidency. or the president was going to decline to comply with supreme

court orders. >> your team was specifically involved. once we find out about the taping system, nine specific tapes having to do with watergate. a federal judge supports the team. the white house refuses to comply. you must obey this subpoena. how was the approach of your office different from what the senate did? were you going to walk asked the armed guards? >> i was going to charm my way in. [laughter]

our subpoena to those tapes that we thought would be hundred stations about crime. we felt we had a right to those different it is doesn't really matter because we got the tape. ours were related to looking at a crime. they left to testify. they will figure out which tapes , not a probleme with executive privilege. they testified before the senate without knowing that he had been tape-recorded.

the tenant -- president would have had the benefit of the doubt if it was a thirtysomething attorney. i think america would have believed the president. once we had the tapes, there was no question what the outcome was going to be. early october. your office is working with the prosecutors in maryland and spiro agnew had been accepting bribes in little white envelopes. tell us about that

crisis. in june when prosecutors told elliott that they had a sworn testimony that the vice president had received bribes and was handed several envelopes in the basement of the white house. could toerything we break the witnesses down. the most solid bribery cases i had ever seen. the witnesses not only broke down, they produced other witnesses that would say the same thing. had as the we president became increasingly under the gun is that we would be sitting in a courtroom trying the vice president of the united states and through the