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 doors

would burst somebody else saying leave your hand up, you're the next president of the united states. [laughter] it was symbolic, but it concerned us a lot. >> one of the issues that swirled around at this time was national security. if he was forced a turnover the tapes, it could jeopardize the country's national security. you talk about this in your book. how serious was that concern for national security?

, yom kippur came in the middle of the watergate crisis. it was being handled pretty much by henry kissinger. he used it as a reason for cox to back off. he was on the phone to richardson almost every day. richardson was dealing with cox privately about a compromise. out by talking about what happened in the middle east. the deputy secretary of state -- he was secretary of defense. he was ready to put on his uniform.

was a serious situation. the soviet union was reinforcing the arab armies in force. they started out helping the by wanting not to escalate the situation. arabs at this point were doing extremely well. you really have to do this for me at the very end. , the said to richardson chairman would never understand it if i let talks find my instructions. the firings, he called the white

house to get instructions from the president. he had a kissinger tamped term and told the operator to get him on the phone. henry, why are you bothering us, we have trouble here. >> spiro agnew shocked the world by resigning his vice president. directed of appeals that nixon had to turn over the tapes to cox. they made judgments about national security claims. why didn't the white house just istroy the tapes? >> it

easier to try to describe the creation of the universe. something that has plagued historians and journalists and people involved. think nixon made this assertion to richardson and lots that he would prove he was innocent. evidence that nixon wanted the tapes to write the vast and most comprehensive credible memoir. this would be a big asset. what is stunning in this afterce is the three days cox was fired, nixon decided to turn over this batch of tapes. ther there were nine, but a couple couldn't find. y

so there were seven. a recommended turning over the unsureand nixon was very . what is truly amazing is that among that, they have the famous march 21 tape in which nixon asked, how much would it cost to pay the watergate burglars for ?heir silence in says $1 million and nixon is unfazed. nixon says he knows where he can get that in cash. >> we are moving towards a showdown. as this is happening, the

lawyers proposed this bold plan. senator fromld mississippi that suffered gunshot wounds and had a hearing problem would listen to the summaries of the tapes and authenticate that those were correct. me that he agonized over this. he cared so deeply about the institutions of government. >> i was with him when he was deliberating about what to do. there were two big problems from his point of view. they be a third that he would not tell me. the biggest was that he was afraid that if he stood his the supreme court ruled in favor and the president might say what andrew jackson said.

enforced the rule yourself if you are so important to the supreme court. only compliance with the supreme thet would have maintained , and he was afraid that it would crumble if he won. the transcription as evidence, he was worried about the rules of evidence. he might have wondered about whether senator stennis with his hearing and frailty could possibly produce a reliable transcript. he went ahead, i think because

it was a lot like what justice breyer said. he had a role and responsibility. and in the final analysis, he was going to carry that out and not decide on the basis of which way the country would be better off. he was given a responsibility to carry it out. >> trying to broker a deal. did you think that compromise was possible? to do think that you might be set up by the president in retrospect? i have said that before about hindsight. it seems to be the only explanation for a lot of things. he was very worried about how gettingchibald cox was to be able to prove his

involvement. things are not explainable if you think that was his frame of mind. i believe that it was and he was determined to get rid of cox. he did not think that if they could get the tapes a way that all he needed to do was put him back in the justice department and get it under control. i think that is what he had in mind. in my research for this, the compromise was more breathtaking than we even knew. i was able to interview his thatr and he told me stennis, because he suffered gunshot wounds, he was on heavy doses of codein. his doctor that he did not think that he was up to this.

they thought to take stennis up to camp david where he would only hear parts of the tapes. to useas a real plan this to just go for broke on the part of the white house. john dean wasn't able to join us today. he agreed to appear by video to tell us how he felt. here is a person being pitted against the president of the united states. as this is coming together, john dean decides to plead guilty. >> the reason i thought it would be a challenge to testify against nixon is because the president of the united states had supporters and ways to get

the truth out. sure how that was going to unfold. the one thing i had on my side was the truth. [indiscernible] conversations, he might have taped me. it was the only short-term testimony i had to resolve the problem. he called me on july 14, a saturday. was in the witness protection .rogram at the time not a likely place i would have gone. said, i have got to get back

up there. i asked what for and he couldn't tell me. i said, i'm sure the marshals can get you back up. early in the afternoon, sam shows up with jim hamilton at my home and confronts me with the fact that he has learned that has revealed the taping system and wants my reaction to it. he is worried that his key witness will be discredited by the actual testimony. thought i was recordied. turns out i had a very favorable reaction. i won't repeat the words in the next company -- mixed company, but they were a good sign for me

that they could sort the whole thing out. i was not surprised when the special prosecutor got the subpoena out as quickly. the senate committee never did get them. the prosecutor did get them. was a working relationship with other members of the staff. , he and if my lawyer in the daysonship of the watergate prosecutor's office. a month before he passed away, he called to talk about -- excuse me. when i got word that he passed away, he really called to say goodbye. it was very sad. i thought he was a very good guy, one of my influences.

we will come to that in just a second. richard davis, all of them i had the pleasure of working with. after months of discussion, my lawyer and i talked about it. a tailspin, he believes i had the oliver north case long before oliver north knew that there was a case. it was not going to solve the problem. i went into court knowing that

there would be troubles. it would be impossible for nixon -- if it went back to the department of justice given those terms. i did, i went into court with cox. this is something to determine beforehand. they had the famous press conference where he refuses the request for the tapes. did not think nixon was going to prevail in the long run. as it turned out, the saturday night massacre proved to be part of the reason that he fell when he did. it,isplayed it, misjudged

and really decided to pull the rip cord on how they deal with him. >> not only were you dealing with john dean, you are also taking extraordinary steps to pursue evidence in case president nixon tried to abort the investigation. tell us about the intense weeks. tell us about the garbage. >> two unrelated stories. in the office what was going to happen and if the president refused. the watergate trial team had taken home copies of all the key evidence and each of us had taken briefcases home each night for at least a week. they have the evidence that in case the president took extraordinary measures, they

would be able to do something. the grand jury testimony is secret. we had taken things home and i was burglarized shortly after the press conference. once again, the addict that i had played my documents. that had been untouched. a presser asked secretary for the white house whether the plumbers had broken into my house. they said it wasn't the washington post. actually, the washington post had taken our garbage. [laughter] you.

it out in clear plastic bags. we weren't even concealing our garbage and their officers were not far from ours. nowadays,g i woke up. you say you don't put anything you don't want to see on the news. you didn't expect drafts. i saw a memo i had written. it was real, they had the draft. they were picking up our garbage. so we started shredding. was not under the byline, right? >> no. how the white house , only eve of the deadline days left, and did they try to

ram through the compromise? >> john dean was in the office with numerous task forces and giving them information. journalist, i was thinking if the press knew that this guy was walking around, it was unbelievable. machine, this machine owes me $.25, john d. [laughter] gets that.e he >> cox and richardson were talking, he mentioned john stennis. the office knew that he might be the monitor or whatever. he has described all considerations.

know is thatt stennis had already been on board. he had agreed to do this because he was going to have the help of an old loyal friend. had been on his deathbed at one point, counsel to the president of the united states. cox -- iing to help mean stennis translate this stuff. even though we were taking precautions like making copies for stuff and that sort of thing , i was really kind of blindsided. it was a three-day holiday

weekend in the fall, perfect for leaf-peeping, etc. calledin town claled -- the white house press corps and said they had a compromise. they said that cox would not seek any more tapes. the prosecution force and the white house, the only people that knew anything about it were the people at the white house holding this press briefing. out was way we found that we called the los angeles times washington bureau and said, what is going on? we had no clue. they said that we have word on the compromise.

.e had to do two things tight deadlines. we had to make clear to the press that archibald cox had major reservations about this that went to what the court would require. then we had to get through that to all of the roadblocks it would raise. successful getting a short cox statement into the first round of the news cycle. and then, also successful in announcing, thanks to john barker who was in the room and several others.

and tot the press club announced archie cox was going to hold a news conference. they finished for the anything those weeks. we were shorthanded like everyone. it was late and they had managed the news cycle. i felt good when the next day's paper had the story about the compromise and it said in the defiant."cox >> we will see that in a minute. cookerthis pressure environment that archibald cox takes a long and lonely walk from the offices on k street to this building at the national press club. of the where the title

book comes from. i wanted to read this excerpt because i went with them to retrace thie steps. for me, it is one of the most special parts of the book. a government car was supposed to drive archie and others to the national press club. it got lost in the confusion and never arrived. they never allow the staff to see him upset. this saturday, his face looked lifeless. , theyh mcpherson square glanced momentarily at the white house glinting under the october sky. the president of the u.s. sat inside thinking strategy and

waiting for the press conference. this is where the country is more of a confused state. the department of treasury, it was a crisp, sunny day. they had turned orange and rainbows, chili and yellow in anticipation of another bleak winter. archie used the time to compose himself. for me, it was not an easy trick to make. -- trip to make. they insisted on compliance with the court order and had to adhere to the court of which he had been appointed. going eyeball to eyeball with the president of the united states scared him. who was he to defy challenging the president of the united states? one of the reasons that he loved

his job was he had heard it called the conscience of government. the staff and washington newspapers and democratic senators and others expected him to stand up and represent the conscience of the american people. they couldn't. it the only hope he thought to himself placing one shoe in front of another was arousing the conscience in each citizen, lost in grand marble edifices. government would eventually respond. but how did one do this? he had no idea. seemed too the club last an eternity. i don't know how i ever got

there, cox said. it was only with my wife's help. can, let's watch a clip of what took place right here at the national press club. a special report from cbs news in washington. here is cbs correspondent nelson benton. >> archibald cox is holding a news conference to discuss the president's action last night on the watergate tapes. the white house announcing that rather than appealing to the supreme court to turn the tapes over, it would provide a summary of the tapes to cox and the watergate committee. toing unlimited access verify the completeness and the accuracy of the summer. -- summary.

as a refusald that to obey the decree of the court that violated the solemn ledge he made to the senate as a special prosecutor. he said last night that he would have more to say a little bit later on. today,this setting archibald cox would have more to say. we see him coming to the press club ballroom with mrs. cox. listen. and >> i read in one of the newspapers this morning, the headline "cox defiant." i have to say that i don't feel defy it. defiant.feel i told my wife i hate a fight. defendi can explain and them steadfastly.

i am not looking for a confrontation. a great deal in my life without the problems of him posing too much strain on constitutional institutions. what i see is principle could be vanity. i hope not. i the end, i decided that need to stick to what i thought was right. >> you would seem to be in what we call a nonviable position. are you going to wait for the president to dismiss you? >> i'm going to go about my duties on the terms on which i assume them.

>> when and why did elliott richardson and you decide to resign, rather than fire cox? watching that press conference, and the attorney general's office at the justice department. ofhad discussed this sort pleadingly before. the day before this press hiserence, elliott and assistants were discussing what the likely outcome of the white house response to the special prosecutor's request would be. it seems that the likelihood then was that the president would ask elliott and me to is jack -- discharge cox. we said what are you going to do if you ask that?

they looked at me and said what are you want to do? isaid i don't think there any set of conditions under which it is possible to discharge cox. it didn't seem a hard decision to me. elliott and i had testified in being confirmed before the senate that we would only discharge cox for extraordinary impropriety. the phrase was used in our testimony. not only had he not in all of the dealings with both of them had any extraordinary impropriety, he had pursued his duties in the most appropriate way possible. there was no ground for discharging him. we both said no. we wouldn't do it. >> incidentally, someone asked me, can you clear the historical record. were you fired or did you resign? >> i will tell you. the night of the massacre, i was

fired. the next monday, the president announced my resignation have been accepted. whichever one you like better. [laughter] question, robert bork was vilified for many for doing the deed of firing cox. he in you both believed bork was in a different moral position, and encourage them to carry out nixon's order. here.rk is can you tell us, is that accurate? did you encourage bob? >> it is accurate. he had not been confirmed when this was going on. it was much earlier in the trouble. it didn't,. he was the third one in the written chain of command in the

white house to carry out orders of the kind we were going to receive. after him there was nobody. thee was the arriving -- president could have appointed role.y to take that we told bob that if he could see it within his conscience do so, we would state that he was in a different condition than we were, and we would support his decision. which we did. >> the machinery of government has to continue. >> the institution of the department was in trouble. to the foundation by what had happened. there were fbi agents surrounding both of our offices. he sub rounded the special prosecutor's office. the institutions of government were in trouble. it would have a certain stabilizing effect is what we

thought. >> can you describe the scene but the special prosecution had that night? of course, it was a scene of tremendous emotions. a lot of anger. also, a deeper emotion than that. i remember, first of all, it is a saturday night of the long weekend. everyone came back to the office. some people came from short distances, and some from long distances. there are stories about that. we got back and we got into the office without any trouble. young, it many very could have been a kind of a rock concert type thing, except for the mood. we had these young folks.

the move was incredibly tough. one of the things the white did, we had an agent who had worked with us from day one. , the staff of the world of him. he was terrific. he was home that night putting up sheet rock in his basement. he had vacation. tocould not -- he got called go down to the prosecutor's office. do not let anyone remove anything. he couldn't believe it. he came down in a daze. people were coming in. named philosecutor bates. . kind of a big guy he was a tough guy. he said, what are you doing

here? oh -- don't make it hard on us. were just told only anybody take anything out. i remember one of the young attorneys had a newspaper under his arm. said ithe other fbi guy have to inspect that. he threw it. there was that kind of story. finally, hank ruth got there. at a newse comment conference of this reminded him of seven days in may. there were many comments like that. no one was going to take anything out. jim had put stuff in the attic

two days earlier. all the watergate people had done the same thing in a timely way. in mailing -- i wish i could remember more of the comments. i do remember one which took place. george lawdar asked what are you going to do? we thought this was an incredible trumped up press conference. this whole thing had been planned. home. i'm going to go , thereeon came aboard were probably two or three letters from the white house saying this person is not appropriate anymore understaffed. leon took them and gave them to the person without comment. was from ziegler.

this guy is a bad guy, and he went to a good detail. i think jill will have her own memories of that. >> can you tell us where you saturday night? and what you recall about meeting with cox the next day? on saturday after the press conference, i was in discussion with the rest of the trial team. i was taking a rare day off to go to a family wedding in new york. i said i can't leave. something might happen. what can happen? he would have to fire the attorney general, and he is not going to do that. go ahead. i got on the shuttle and went to new york. this is the days before cell phones. i went to the wedding. i got back to the hotel at

midnight. the desk clerk jumped over the front desk to hand me a message from george frampton. the fbi has seized our offices. return immediately. i got on the first plane in the morning and came back to read what i remember -- came back. we were discussing shoe resign in protest. this is a horrible thing. we should make a stand. archie was very adamant in saying no. unless he makes you not able to do your job, you have to stay. you owe it to the american people. you have the knowledge. it would take time for anyone else to get up to speed with where you are. you must stay. pures speaking out of integrity, and his philosophy. we decide we would stay. we had been abolished. we weren't really abolished. we were reestablished a few days

later. i assumed we really were abolished. we stayed in decided we would continue the case. >> let me ask you. the outside of the special prosecutor's office, the public reaction has been described as a firestorm of protest. why was the public reaction so intense to the firing of archibald cox? and the resignation of richard simmons? is an easy question to answer, but because nixon, a pro, got it wrong, it can't be that easy. the public thought that the law was being obstructed by the president, and they took the loss seriously. one honorable

person. he talks about duty, carrying out his responsibilities. he doesn't show vanity. in a world of phonies, a world of people playing games. they saw one honorable person. i do not know how much of it was the law, and how much of it was the sense of integrity that he reflected. there was a feeling out of the -- "mr.ewart movie, smith goes to washington." that they were watching decency confront washington. they wanted to be on the side of decency. decency is close to the right word. angelo story, when the next attorney general came

fellow then became a judge on the panel. his name is in my confused lobes. he became attorney general. he was sent in to question him. he walked in, and he introduced himself. he read the new attorney general his rights from one of those maranda things. >> the office was shut down. he was supposed to continue the investigation. did you worry that president next was going to escape unscathed? >> i think there was initial fear that might happen. things were happening so fast that we didn't really have time to even think about that. three days later, he said he would give us the tapes and he appointed a new special prosecutor.

we really believed that once we had the tapes, that is what actually happen. that we would have an invincible case against the president. you cannot listen to those tapes and not know that the president is guilty. we felt pretty sure quickly that he would not escape unscathed, and that we would prevail. >> bob woodward. the aftermath of the saturday night massacre. one immediate result is impeachment resolutions being drawn up against president nixon. another result is the appointment of this new special prosecutor, who subpoenas dozens of tapes, leading to the decision of the supreme court that says the president must turn over the tapes. no person is above the law. book, youassic interviewed many of the justices

and others about that decision. specifically, was it difficult? there were nixon appointees. was it difficult to write that decision, that they must have known would lead to next and being ousted from office. >> it is a complex case. the chief justice is listed in the opinion as the author. it turns out that the other justices essentially took the opinion away from him. i'm sure this never happens in the supreme court now. look at the poker face over there. no reaction. [laughter] rehnquist recused himself. he worked for john mitchell. tookther seven justices sections of the opinion away from war and burger -- warrenb

erger. the key to the opinion is the section that just as weight took weight to putting --\ which literally says that if someone has evidence that might be relevant, might be admissible in court, it should be turned over. of that the foundation opinion. because bobing, bork is not around. i mentioned to you, he published a short memoir. it is about 1/10 the size of your book on archie cox. more that his wife and family published is modestly titled saving justice.

in it, he says some things that i think are not in the record, that should be known. the white house, particularly hey, try to get before the bob borkth cox, to get to be nixon's loiter. glawyer. there.90% of the way , thatou take all of this would have changed history, and he may have defended history -- nixon better. who is nixon? who was this guy who did all of these things on the tapes? the idiocy of firing your prosecutor.

that is why it reverberated with the public. nixon is being investigated. he fired the person who is looking into his behavior. cox, heter bork fired went to the white house. went to see nixon. the first words out of next his mouth, and this tells you so much about nexen, "when the next vacancy to the supreme court comes open, it is yours." telling comment indeed. , what isk phil hyman the significance of usb nixon -- u.s versus nixon? what is the significance?

>> it gives an answer to the question of was perplexing cox in the days before the saturday night massacre. stand,ould the people and where were the court stand on the question of the illegality of actions by a major political figure? there is nobody more major than the president of the united states. know wherex didn't the people would stand. he was cautious going ahead with thecase might lead to president to ignore the supreme court. upon blinded up -- bind it beautifully. -- nixon lined it up beautifully. he could see earlier what was there.

nisshe president got stan to agree, it will be difficult to fail to agree. they were democratic and republican leaders on the senate committee. if they went along, and elliot richardson went along, cox would be isolated. the president got 4-5 steps down that route. he got into trouble when he got to elliot richardson. how did he make that mistake? elliot firmed up his conclusions the day before. >> that is what we ask one another. that, it to come to seems clear that that was the only choice you had.

it wasn't a hard decision. it was the only choice you had. >> y'all have been extraordinarily patient. to you. like to open it i would like to ask each of you, brief impressions. what is the impact of the saturday night massacre, looking back on it 40 years? the lasting imprint on our system of laws and government? oh, boy. attorney,only non- which is how i survived. archie cox never tore up one of my briefs. there were no briefs. it was a bright moment in the and theof our country, history of the 20th century,

because there were a number of people like richardson and ruckelshaus in every branch. in every branch there were ,eople who showed integrity industry. they worked hard, imagination, and together the three branches worked this thing out and away that i think worked extremely well for the country. because one of the watergate isause the nixon administration, the , was awash inted money. awash in it. when gordon liddy goes to needuder, and they say we $1 million for project gemstone,

they had to settle for half $1 million. -- awash inash everything now. that is discouraging. the first thing that annoyed me and then later discourage me was when jimmy carter became president, during the second nixon administration, bill safire had gone to the new york times is a columnist. he was the preeminent wordsmith of his time. if the early carter -- it wastion billygate. it was nannygate. it was lancegate. becameok off, and part of the literature.

safire said i had a guilty conscience. onyou look at what is going in washington, and has been for the last two weeks, poisonous is the atmosphere. a progress.much of i have a mixed bag of it. >> how about you? >> like jim. i have a feeling a lot hasn't changed. some things were made pretty clear. cox, the court will be listened to, and a powerful support itsmand to decisions, even against elected presidents. it was certainly a triumph of political support for the court.

the other is the thing i mentioned. there was a sense in which we solve the political power of integrity. aroundse if we went washington talk about the political power of integrity, i would get two blocks from her before i was committed. [laughter] it was powerful. was powerful because people could see that he was standing up for something they understood, and he believed was right. they couldn't tell who was right. nixon. they could tell that he believed it was right, and he was trying to do what he believed was right. people live their lives trying to do what they think is right. when somebody tries to stamp on

end, the world came to an not the stampee. answer, i am from illinois. we have a special wing of prison for our governors. i am not sure if i am the one to talk about how it has changed. i do think that watergate was a perfect storm. we had a unique set of circumstances that led to the outcome. i am hopeful that that would never happen again. it is important to note that everyone on the staff really was not out to get the president. we were out to do a job. we were professional prosecutors. we were leading the evidence take us where would. unfortunately, although i was raised to respect the office of the president, and was horrified when i heard the tapes, and saw the other evidence, i think we all came to the conclusion that

the only outcome was what happened. the grand jury, how brave they had been, not just in terms of what they did in terms of the subpoena, but the amount of time they gave to america in serving on the grand jury, and their decision to indict the president, something we had to come before the grand jury and explain why they shouldn't do it . it was a debate within the office. many of us have grown up to be more mature and think leon was right. at the time we were convinced that he should be indicted along with his colleagues for the same acts that they had done. in terms of the most important impact, the campaign finance reform was the most important. that has been undone. this would never have happened if they hadn't been washington money.

they wouldn't have wasted the money on a break-in. they had so much, they didn't have to make an analysis of whether it was worth doing. we still do not know what they thought they would get. they had too much money. we need to get the money out of politics again. you must have a great perspective on the impact. >> i think he wasn't just that they had too much money. that was a factor. it was a mindset. it was get the dirt on the opposition. things, itof these is next new set of best. the day he -- it is next in -- it was nixon who said it best. he had gone on television the night before and said he was going to resign, and the day of the resignation he called

friends, cabinet members, staff to the east room of the white house. this was covered live on television. nixon had no script. rall. nixon he was sweating and had his wife. mother, andout his his father, and people who knew him well were worried he was going to go around the bend because of the stress. this is the paradox of nixon. he waved his hand, like this is why called you all here. he said the following. remember others may hate you. those who hate you do not win unless you hate them, then you destroy yourself." think of how that summarizes it. id is hate.

he realized that was the piston driving his administration. have thet to as i presidents after nixon, ford through obama. you look at what is driving them. what is the id. it is different in each case. they all can be criticized. as best i can tell, nixon is unique. the driver, and what people perceived who were working on , the house judiciary committee, people in the media, this intense heat. -- hate. believe it or not, i do not think we have awful things going

on our politics, but they are not as bad as what when on in the nixon years. >> lemay make it quick. -- let me make it quick. the rule of law prevailed. it was clear that as our country believes, and as we have told , no man is above the law. what happened during watergate proved that, at least for that case. the second thing, in my view, much more profound, the anergate itself gave rise to ever accelerating erosion of trust in basic institutions. it started with the vietnam war.

it was given a big push by the watergate, and it has gone on ever since. sometimes very small scandals predict something's not even scandals at all, blown up. but we have seen the last several weeks asking people do you trust the congress, it is double or twin digits. .ll institutions are affected free societies don't work well unless people have faith in their basic institutions. how do you restore that faith is difficult. we are dealing with extremely complex problems that are subject to conspiracy theories. here we had a big conspiracy involving the president of the united states. we're still suffering from that. i think all of us have got to see that anytime that you offhandedly knock one of our

institutions thomas e careful. those institutions are very important to the future of freedom. [applause] >> before we depart, i would like to invite justice prior to come up to the podium. >> i work with this document. i work with the constitution. you put this -- it is amazing. i see it quite often. it about what you heard in light of this document. in parts of it, freedom of the press. an essential part. hearingpendent you just -- judiciary. withe appointed went along decisions that would ruin president nixon. --independent judy searing

there it is. that is what you are working with. i wrote a couple down here. the right to petition. what happened after archie gave his call? use all those telegrams. the senate oversight. the congress overseeing the executive branch. that is called the separation of powers. used, but theot presence solve the problem. how do we know the president was going to go along with this? they be he will like -- write a letter to the judge. i'm sorry, i have reasons. who is going to appeal? archie won.

i asked that to charlie right -- wright. i put the conversation to him years later. why did you? he said we thought of it. but we couldn't. we couldn't do it. we couldn't do it. maybe he's talking for himself, maybe he is exaggerating. maybe he was hopeful that what president nixon was thinking. they didn't do it. they followed the legal route. that is what is the most important thing of all, to me. the rule of law held. it was flexible enough to deal with this. the rule of law held. i see it in other circumstances, too. [applause]

>> thank you justice breyer. archibald cox passed away in 2004. he was 92 years old. his family has been supportive of this. archie'ss granddaughter. i want to say, he was so proud of her. she went to harvard law school and decided not to practice law, and be a law professor instead. thank you very much for coming. [applause] also, elliot richardson became a good friend and mentor for me in working on the book, he passed away over a decade ago. much of his family is here today. we are pleased. henryd like him to stand, richardson. [applause]

carlson.nancy [applause] son michael richardson. [applause] and i was pleased to learn that elliott's granddaughter is here, who was named eliot elle ri chardson. [applause] one of the toughest things about putting together this program, so many famous members of the prosecution force we could've had. we could do that for obvious reasons. many of the special prosecution force has come tonight. they are having a reunion of d.c. own on saturday in would like all of the members to please stand and be recognized for your are marketable efforts. [applause]

finally, let me say that part of the reason and the impetus for retrospective was really to honor. , archibald cox, elliot richardson, and bill did ass house -- who justice breyer said, what was right, and gave a lasting gift of this nation in preserving the unless in the leaders in washington today and in the future should learn from. can we show our appreciation for these three public servants of unmatched integrity? [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> thank you for coming to this event. if you are on the list for the private reception, please proceed to the fourth restaurant. thank you for being part of this history. thank you to our panelists for an outstanding event. thank you to ken, who did all the hard work. [applause] we are adjourned.

♪

>> coming up tonight, a look at the deal passed in the house and senate three over the government to raise the debt ceiling. we hear from president obama at the white house, followed by chuck hagel on the impact on the military. and, nancy pelosi on upcoming negotiations. >> is the federal boys return to work, president obama spoke

about the bipartisan agreement that reopened the government and raise the debt ceiling. the bill passed the house and senate funds the government three junior 15, and raise the debt limit the of every seven. >> good morning, everybody. please have a seat. last night i signed legislation to reopen our government and pay america's bills. because democrats and responsible republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over. the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. these twin threats to our economy have now been lifted, and i want to thank those democrats and republicans for getting together and ultimately getting this job done. now, there's been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown, but

let's be clear. there are no winners here. these last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy. we don't know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it's slowed our growth. we know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on. we know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages and small business loans have been put on hold. we know that consumers have cut back on spending and that half of all c.e.o.'s say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. we know that just the threat of default of america not paying all the bills that we owe on time increased our borrowing costs which adds to our deficit, and of course we know that the american people's frustration

with what goes on in this town has never been higher. that's not a surprise, that the american people are completely fed up with washington. at a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. and for what? there was no economic rationale for all of this. over the past four years, our economy's been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs and our deficits have been cut in half. we hear some members say they were doing it to save the

american economy, but nothing has done more to undermine this economy in the past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises. and you don't have to take my word for it. the agency that put america's credit rating on watch the other day explicitly cited all of this, saying that our economy remains more dynamic and resilient than other advanced economies and that the only thing putting us at risk is -- and i'm quoting here -- repeated brinksmanship. that's what the credit rating agency said. that wasn't a political statement. that was an analysis of what's hurting our economy, by people whose job it is to analyze these things. that has -- that also has to be the view of the diplomats who have been hearing this internationally. some those who pushed for shutdown claimed their actions

were needed to get america back on the right track, to make sure we're strong. but probably nothing has done more damage to america's credibility in the world, our standing with other countries than the spectacle that we've seen these past several weeks. it's encouraged our enemies. it's emboldened our competitors and it's depressed our friends who look to us for steady leadership. now, the good news is we'll bounce back from this. we always do. america is the bedrock of the global economy for a good reason. we are the indispensible nation that the rest of the world looks to as the most safest and reliable place to invest. something that's made it easier for generations of americans to invest in their own futures.

we have earned that responsibility over more than two centuries because of the dynamism of our economy and our entrepreneurs, the productivity of our workers, but also because we keep our word and we meet our obligations. that's what full faith and credit means. you can count on us. and today i want our people and our businesses and the rest of the world to know that the full faith and credit of the united states remains unquestioned. but all my friends in congress understand that how business is done in this town has to change. because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the american people and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust. our system of self-government doesn't function without it.

and now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict and focus on what the majority of americans sent us here to do and that's grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. that's why we're here. that should be our focus. now, that won't be easy. we all know that we have divided government right now. there's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of congress see the day- to-day work that's supposed to

be done here. and let's face it, the american people don't see every issue the same way. that doesn't mean we can't make progress. and when we disagree we don't have to suggest that the other side doesn't love this country or believe in free enterprise or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. if we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on and get some stuff done. let me be specific about three places where i believe we can make progress right now. first, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget. the budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further. at the beginning of this year,

that's what both democrats and republicans committed to doing. the senate passed a budget. the house passed a budget. they're supposed to come together and negotiate. and had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out, how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provide certainty to the investors and our economy and we'd be growing faster right now. now, the good news is the legislation i signed yesterday now requires congress to do exactly that. what it could have been doing all along. and we shouldn't approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise, just

cutting for the sake of cutting. the issue is not growth versus fiscal responsibility. we need both. we need a budget that deals with the issues that most americans are focused on, creating more good jobs that pay better wages. and remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. it's going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. the challenge we have right now are not short-term deficits. it's the long-term obligations that we have around things like medicare and social security. we want to make sure those are there for future generations. so the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don't need, close the corporate tax loopholes that don't create jobs and freeze up resources for the things that do help us grow, like education and

infrastructure and research and these things historically have not been partisan. and this shouldn't be as difficult as it's been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. our deficits are half what they were a few years ago. the debt problems we have now are long term, and we can address them without shortchanging our kids or shortchanging our grandkids or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work. so that's number one. number two, we should finish fixing the job of our -- let me say that again. number two, we should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system. there's already a broad coalition across america that's

behind this effort of comprehensive immigration reform. from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement. in fact, the senate has already passed a bill with strong bipartisan support that would make the biggest commitment to border security in our history, would modernize our legal immigration system, make sure everyone plays by the same rules, make sure that folks who came here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, meet their responsibilities. that bill's already passed the senate. and economists estimate if that bill becomes law, our economy would be 5% larger two decades from now. that's $1.4 trillion in new economic growth. the majority of americans think this is the right thing to do. and it's sitting there waiting for the house to pass it.

now, if the house has ideas on how to improve the senate bill, let's hear them. let's start the negotiations. but let's not leave this problem to keep festering for another year or two years or three years. this can and should get done by the end of this year. number three, we should pass a farm bill, one that american farmers and ranchers can depend on, one that protects vulnerable children and adults in time of need, one that gives rural communities the opportunities to grow. again, the senate has passed a solid bipartisan bill. it's got support from democrats and republicans. it's sitting in the house waiting for passage. if house republicans have ideas that they think would improve the farm bill, let's see them.

let's negotiate. what are we waiting for? let's get this done. so passing a budget, immigration reform, farm bill, those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now and we could get them done by the end of the year. if our focus is on what's good for the american people. and that's just the big stuff. there are all kinds of other things we could be doing that don't get as much attention. i understand, we will not suddenly agree on everything now that the cloud of crisis has passed. democrats and republicans are far apart on a lot of issues, and i recognize there are folks on the other side who think that

my policies are misguided. that's putting it mildly. that's ok. that's democracy. that's how it works. we can debate those differences vigorously, passionately, in good faith through the normal democratic process. and sometimes we'll be just too far apart to forge an agreement, but that should not hold back our efforts in areas where we do agree. we shouldn't fail to act on areas that we do agree or could agree just because we don't think it's good politics. just because the extremes in our party don't like the word compromise. i will look for willing partners wherever i can to get important work done.

and there's no good reason why we can't govern responsibly. despite our differences. without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. in fact, one of the things that i hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important, it matters. i think the american people during this shutdown had a chance to get some idea of all the things, large and small, that government does that make a difference in people's lives. we hear all the time about how government is the problem. well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital

role in carrying for our seniors and our veterans. educating our kids. making sure our workers are trained for the jobs in a are being created. arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. it plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. it helps folks rebuild after a storm. it conserves our natural resources, it finances startups. it helps sell our products overseas. it provides security to our diplomats abroad. so let's work together to make government work better. instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. that's not what the founders of

this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self- government. you don't like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position. go out there and win an election. push to change it but don't push to change it. don't break it. don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. that is not being faithful to what this country is about. lastbrings me to one point. i have a simple message for all of the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who have worked without pay or who have been forced to work without pay these past few weeks, including most

of my own staff. thank you. thank you for your service. welcome back. important. is it matters. you defend our country overseas and you deliver benefits to our troops who have earned them. when they come home, you guard the borders and protect civil rights. you help businesses grow. breatheect the air we and the water our children drink . he pushed the boundaries of science and space. .elp people thank you. what you do is important. don't let anyone tell you different. especially the young people who come to the city to serve. they believe it matters.

you are right. it does. knows of us who have the privilege to serve this country have an obligation to do our job as best as we can. we come from different parties, but we are americans first. that is why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction. it cannot degenerate into hatred. the american people's hopes and dreams are what matters, not ours. our obligation is to them. us regard for them compels all, democrats and republicans, to cooperate and compromise and act in the best interest of our nation. nation under god indivisible

with liberty and justice for all. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on the next "washington journal" adam green, founder of a committee talks about the progressive movement. ibbe of freedomworks. "washington journal" is live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. syriaeace conference on is scheduled for mid-november in geneva. live on friday, a discussion on opposition and the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies here on c- span. clocks stopped

taking. time stood still. and easy metaphor for the government shutdown. the clock behind me is the oldest clock in the united states capital. it was commissioned for the u.s. senate 1815 and ordered from a clockmaker named thomas lloyd. the c-span video archives are so amazing. library is amazing. you can view c-span programming any time. it is easy. go to c-span.org and watch. click on what you want to watch and press play. you can also search the video library for a specific topic or keyword. you can find a person by typing in their name and hit search. go to their bio page and scroll

down to their appearances. you can share what you're watching and make a clip. and at aandle tools title and description and click share and send it via e-mail, they spoke, twitter, or google plus. easy, and free. created by the tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. robert hale estimates there is money lost in productivity. he and secretary of defense chuck hagel talk about the end of the shutdown and the fiscal uncertainty facing that defense department. this is 25 minutes. >> good afternoon.

i wanted to make some brief comments this afternoon regarding the reopening of government. i'm going to take -- after i make a statement, a couple of questions, and then i'm going to ask bob hale, our comptroller, to take some questions regarding the specifics of the reopening. this morning, i announced that the 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 across the department welcome the fact that the shutdown is now behind us, i know that its impact will continue to be felt by all of our people. all of them, in different ways, had their lives affected and disrupted during this period of tremendous uncertainty. in particular, i am deeply aware of the harm that this shutdown

inflicted on so many of our civilian personnel. all of our leaders, civilian and military alike, deeply regret what this shutdown has done to our people, and we'll work to repair the damage beginning today. echoing what president obama said earlier today, i want all of our civilian personnel to know that the work they do is critically important to this department and this country. it matters to this department, and it matters for the country. the military simply cannot succeed without our civilian employees, and the president and i appreciate their professionalism and their patience throughout this very trying period. now that this latest budget crisis has become history, and we have come to an end, we have an opportunity to return to refocusing on our critical work. but it's important to note that congress did not remove the

shadow of uncertainty that has been cast over this department and our government much of this year. like much 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 the damaging cuts of sequestration remain 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, it will have an impact on our economy, our national security, and america's standing in the world. and if the sequester level continues, there will also be consequences. earlier this year, in our

strategy choices and management review, dod explained how the continuation of these abrupt cuts put us at risk of fielding a force that is unprepared due to a lack of training, maintenance, and the latest equipment. dod has a responsibility to give america's elected leaders and the american people a clear-eyed assessment of what our military can and cannot do after years of sequester-level cuts. in the months ahead, we will continue to provide our best and most honest assessment as congress works to establish the nation's long-term spending priorities. that is my statement, and i'd be happy to respond to a couple questions. thank you. lita? >> mr. secretary, you mentioned consequences. as you look down the road -- i think mr. hale addressed this at one of his briefings -- there already are some reviews of how many civilians and how much force reduction overall there will have to be, reductions in force.

can you talk a little bit about, as you look ahead, what are you warning congress and the country about in terms of the number of forces that you're going to 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? >> well, i'll leave the specific numbers to bob hale, but let me respond in a general way to your questions. let's start with the impact on morale. i don't think anyone questions that the uncertainty that 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 uncertainty of no authorizations, no appropriations, and living in a world of continuing resolutions, of continuing sequestration, the uncertainty of planning, not just in an agency or a department, or certainly all the elements of the department of defense, but in personal lives. i mean, people have to have some confidence that they have a job that they can rely on. i know there are no guarantees in life, but we can't continue to do this to our people, having them live under this cloud of uncertainty.

so morale is a huge part of this. we won't be able to recruit good people. good people will leave the government. they're not going to put up with this. good people have many options. so that's one part of it. i have said many times, the chiefs have said, general dempsey has said over the last few months that as we have had to close down training facilities, and our training, we've had to stand down wings, and not allow many of our wings to fly, the steaming of our ships. we've had to pull back the longer-term investments that are required to keep the technological edge that this country has always had. i mean, these are all dimensions of sequestrations, of uncertainty, of not knowing or not being able to plan what's coming. sure, that adds to impact on our readiness, and, sure, that eventually will present capability issues for us.

so these are not new issues. i've talked about them, general dempsey, all of our leaders, all of our chiefs have talked about them. that's part of the point the president has made, i have made continually through this process over the last few months. i noted again in a statement that we've got to have some certainty here of being able to go forward. we've got a qdr that you all are familiar with, that we're going through that review. we've got 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 a budget with this kind of uncertainty alone, how are we going to fulfill our strategic commitments? what impact is this having overseas with our allies? i've been to, as many of you

know -- some of you have been with me on these trips -- to the asia pacific area three times since i've been secretary of defense. secretary kerry was there recently. the president pulled his trip down last week because of the shutdown. 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. so these are the broad general areas of consequences of not being able to plan and prepare because of that uncertainty that we're living under. the specific numbers, lita, i'll leave for bob hale. thom? >> thank you, sir. on the sequester moving ahead, you know, you spent a lot of

time in the senate, you know how the hill works. you have a good sense of the american people. so in your current position, mr. secretary, 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's will, the will of the people? >> as you know, thom, everyone in this room knows that the so- called sequester, which is a product of the budget control act of 2011, is the law of the land. and we have to plan and prepare, to your point, 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 prepare 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've got to prepare for. we plan also for the continuing resolution numbers. and we plan also for our budget numbers. now, i don't know -- you started your question to me, thom, about my service in the senate -- i don't know if a compromise can be reached, if some kind of an agreement can be reached to deal with these issues. that's part of the uncertainty. so we have to plan for every eventuality here. and you can't take an institution like this, as you all know, because you've been around here a long time, and turn these things around in a month, in a week. this is the national security of america we're talking about. and so it does take thought and it does take planning -- we're talking about people's lives --

as we bring down and draw down by law our force structure. we know that, and we're planning for that. and you've heard me say many times, you've heard general dempsey say many times that the abruptness and the steepness of those cuts give us no flexibility to glide it down in a responsible way to make sure that our resources match our mission, our -- our mission matches our resources, and that we are able to fulfill the strategic interest of this country. >> one final question. >> mr. secretary, you spoke a minute ago about morale of the civilian workers at the department. are you at the point yet where you or general dempsey have concern about troop morale, given all of this? what indicators might concern you? and how are you watching that,

given what you said about they're not being allowed to train and to fly and all of that? are you now worried about the troops? >> we are always worried about the troops. the reason i noted the civilian personnel specifically is because the civilian personnel were the ones affected by the furloughs and the shutdown. as you know, 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 testings been delayed, that sort of thing, and also just the friction costs 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 on 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, et cetera. 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 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 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? i got -- >> 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 1 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 >> there are several kinds of money we get. the military personnel and operations, they expired. you cannot after september 30.