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. i will tell you something about

the nature that i do not know yet. for sure -- i think we will have obligated a great majority of those funds. other funds, investment ones, we get two years. there were you can see our obligations low. for a couple of reasons. we had the cutback because of sequestration. i think that is not true on investment accounts. we will try to pick up the pace. >> thank you.

>> a peace conference on syria is scheduled for mid-november in geneva. it is not clear which rebel groups will attend. remarks by actor and gay rights activist george decay. you will see this event from the national press club live starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] look at the government shutdown. nancy pelosi spoke with reporters for 25 mets.

-- 256 -- 25 minutes.

>> good afternoon. it's a weird schedule because of the president's 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 democrats who last night voted 100% to open government and to end the default of our full faith and credit. last night, after america had endured 16 days of a shutdown, a bill came to the floor, 9:20, the rule was dispensed with, the debate began and was over by 9:56. the vote was taken, the bill was sent to the president. in less than 45 minutes, less than 40 minutes. government was opened. this could have happened three weeks ago. three weeks ago, said to the

speaker, we'll give you the votes, don't shut down, please don't shut down the government. take up the senate bill, we'll give you the votes to pass it. over and over again, on october 2 on the steps of the capitol, 200 members signed, not only was it my commitment for 200, we had the signatures of 200 members, 100% of the house democratic caucus, that we would support the republican number, a number we didn't like, a number which the republican chairman of the appropriations committee said does not help us meet the needs of the american people. but in order to avoid a shutdown of government, we were willing to accept. later in that day, the white house made the commitment, publicly on the step -- we said it publicly on the steps of the capitol to the speaker in front of the president of the united states. but they said no. we kept saying take yes for an answer. over and over on the floor of the house we kept bringing up the motion to accept the senate number. over and over again republicans said no. the senate number, i remind you is the house republican number. they offered it to senator reid. senator reid accepted it. knowing it was a bad number.

but again, a path to negotiations. the president accepted the number. the house democrats accepted the republican house number. the only people not accepting the republican house number were the republican house members. why do i go back to that? because 16 days, 16 days the government was closed down. whatever that means to families who are going over that over and over again. workers furloughed, disrespect for our federal work force. many of whom are veterans. many of them, a large number of the federal work force are veterans. so perhaps -- i don't know whether the republican members of the caucus don't know or don't care about the consequences of their action, i have to assume they do care.

so now i hope they will know, don't take it from me. standard and poor's says to date the shutdown shaved at least .6% off annualized fourth quarter 2013 g.d.p. growth. in other words, $24 billion out of the economy. was their temper tantrum worth $24 billion? i don't think so. perhaps they didn't know how costly it would be. who knew the exact figure.

it took standard and poor's to tell us the exact figure. but we knew it was a cost, in addition to the cost to the families, the working families and all of those who depend, i was just meeting with someone who was telling me they've got a direction in their state not to process any food stamp cards for children in that particular state. this was the other day. now the shutdown is over and hopefully they'll go back. but people were not going to be able to eat. they were not going to be able to eat. it was that fundamental. so again, on september 30, we agreed to accepter that number. on october 2 we offered it. on october 5 we had unprecedented, we would forego our right to any motions. the prerogative of the minority in the house. we would forgo that right to remove their fear of their members having to vote on something on the floor. but it didn't.

it took 16 days 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 with 52% of the house republicans voted against their own number, voted to -- voted against opening up government and voted against ending the default of our full faith and credit. what was squandered in that period of time is not only quantitatively measured in terms of g.d.p. growth, jeopardized our credit rating, eroded consumer and investor confidence. it also diminished confidence in government. in governance. did they know what this irresponsible act would cost? i don't know. but i'm pleases we showed such unity in the vote to reopen the government to end the conversation about -- to avoid

the default. and all of the american people said it's time to stop this and start governing. they may not like government, the republicans, but they're here to govern. and to legislate. which means you have to make compromises and choose instead of going from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. all democrats, i'm so proud of all of them, 100% of the democrats voted on that resolution, not that they accepted the number, as i said last night, not on the merits of this legislation, because the number was too low to meet the needs of the american people and the time for the thing that debt ceiling is too short but nonetheless it is a path. and while it has little in termses 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 budget should be for our country.

i'm pleased that we have our team, our assistant leader, jim clyburn, our ranking member on the budget committee, chris van hollen, and the ranking member on appropriations committee nita lowey, representing the values of our country 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, because we said do they know? do they care? let's assume they care. as an appropriator, i've been forged as an appropriator in the congress of the united states and you have to, working in a bipartisan way and where you have most -- much of the time you're in agreement but where you have disagreements, we always said let's stipulate to a number. let's stipulate to a set of

facts. and what seems to be missing now in their caucus is that -- is a respect for facts. it's like a data free zone. they don't know about this, who said that. they're in a data free zone. all the decisions we make in appropriations should be evidence-based. what is it that we get for all the decisions we make in

appropriations should be evidence-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 had an expression in appropriations, the plural of anecdote is not data. have you heard about that? i heard about something else. but let's get the facts. so when we go to this table we have a golden opportunity to have evidence-based data supported information, intelligence, for us to be able to make decisions. for example, i think 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, k through 12, higher education, lifetime learning for our workers. nothing brings more money to the treasury than education. when our colleagues say they want to cut education, for example, pell grants for one, they'd say, we can cut pell grants, they are not only doing a disservice to those people, their aspirations for the competitiveness of our country. but they're increasing the deficit. it's a false economy. so again, let us see what we get our money's worth for the taxpayer. we should subject every dollar

spent, taxpayer dollar spent, to the harshest scrutiny. is it working for the purpose it was there for. as many of us working on these initiatives that help lift people up eric want that to work. we want that to work. so we're as critical, put as sharp an eye as anyone on that. so it has to be about data, it has to be about science. science. we had four words that dominate our domestic agenda, national agenda, it would be science, science, science, and science. science, that means knowledge, data, evidence about how the air we breathe and water we drink, evidence about how we grow our economy through through innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and that's about investments in science and technology. it's about the health of our country, it's about investments in life sciences. science is an answer to our prayers but some in their caucus seem to think it's one or the other, science or faith.

no, no. science to defend our country, with the best technology possible. when we say we're not going to invest in education, redeuce our deficits, slow the rate of growth of the national science foundation or the national institutes of health, we are doing a grave disservice to our country. so in every way, evidence, science, data, let's know what we're talking about. then again, i, hen back to not that long ago when we would be negotiating with republican president bush in the white house and 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. if they knew about it, they would care about it. are they in denial? are they blind? just ignoring the facts? we'll find out. but we owe it to the american

people to put all of that aside and to do what is best. so again, you know, our founders had such a vision for our country. we owe it to the vision of our founders, the sacrifice of our troop the aspirations of our children, to just go into that room in a knowledge-based way about what the decisions are. and not to be driven by an anti-government ideology that says, whatever it is i don't like it because i am here to limit government. well we don't want any more government than we need, but some of those limitations on government are limitations on the aspirations of the american people. and they don't reduce the deficit. so again, we look forward to going to that table but i think it's important for people to know what the terms are as we go forward and that the one thing that might be a minor benefit, not worth the trouble, but nonetheless a benefit from what has happened is that the sharpened awareness of the fact that this will take place at a table that hopefully there will be a bright light of -- a bright light schoen on it so people can -- shone on it so people can see what the

difference. difference. is we believe the budget the house democrats put forth and the senate democrats and president, that are values based about the future of our country in terms of investment in innovation and education, sensibly reducing the deficit as we create jobs for all americans who want to work hard, play by the rules and achieve the american dream. with that, i'd be pleased to take any questions. >> it started the same day as the shutdown, people haven't had as the -- had an easy time enroll, what do you think about the rollout so far? >> i thank you for your question. we are so excited about the

affordable care act. it's no coincidence that they want to shutdown government so they can slow down the affordable care act. perhaps we should have chosen a different day for the rollout so that they didn't exploit it for that but after a while, enge they forgot why they shut down government because the reasons changed as we went along. i'm very proud of my state of california where it's going great. most of the states that have their state-run exchanges it's going positively well. there's no question that what's happened, excuse me, thank you, with the system for the national plan is something that has to be improved. they were overwhelmed by the traffic. ok.

but now let's see how long it's going to take to have that be fixed. there's no question that what's but that's about the technology. about the benefits, about the liberation of people to life, a healthier life, liberty and freedom to choose their happiness, that all remains. i hope that we would have some answers soon and that the answer will be ok, we found the glitch or whatever it is. it's been corrected and here is a demonstration as to how people, when they approach it now, will be received. so again, i hope that that will be soon. yes, ma'am. >> once people started to read the bill and look through it, there's been criticism about things that were included that had not been talked about, different appropriations for small things. >> which bill? the affordable care act? >> last night's bill. >> oh, last night's bill. ok. >> so there's some criticism

about things that were added in, propings, from the death benefit to the lautenberg family to the kentucky laws. was this crisis the right time to add thing this is that didn't have anything to do with reopening the government. >> my members have some of the same questions, not certainly in terms of the death benefit to the lautenberg family but when you have a c.r., it is an appropriation and this, yes, would be the normal place for them to do something like that. now, we in the house are always suspicious of the senate when they want to go first and what are they doing over there but i think the questions i asked because my members were asking those questions, as an appropriator, i understand, when you have a continuing resolution, it is all of the appropriationers in preceding year and this was consistent with what would be in a continuing resolution. >> but people look at it and

say, is this the right thing do do, to add these? >> i think it was just a continuation of what went before. whatever it was, it was not enough to say, we're not going to open up government because there's something that, what did they say, senator mcconnell put in about a road or something, i don't know what that was. >> the dam. >> apearntly that is something that has been an ongoing project for many years an this was a continueation of that. but i'm not here to defend what that is. i'm here to say, that i didn't like the number, so forget about incidental appropriations, i didn't like the 9 6. i don't like the timetable until february. i have bigger problems than what that one appropriation might have been in the bill. but nonetheless, none of it was a reason not to open government and remove all doubt that we were going to honor the full faith and credit of the united states. >> madam speaker, in the end, you cite your history on this e-- on the appropriations committee. an -- this is not an

appropriation, to have that put in to a bill that is an appropriations bill. >> you know what, what difference does it make? why are we talking about this? we are talking about a a bill, i'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill on the merits. let's focus on the fact that 986 is not a figure that enables government to work for the american people. let us focus on the fact that february is not an appropriate extension of the full faith and credit of the united states. it should be at least one year. so if you want to have an objection to the bill, there are bigger things to object to but the fact is that we had to open government. the ways of the senate on these issues is something that i have my own, shall we say, ongoing concerns about. so when we were going to have the bill first, i thought good, 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's in the bill and what its purpose was but what i said on the floor, i'm not pinning a rose on this bill.

but i am giving it a vote because we have to open government and we didn't have to close government, because we made this offer of a bill, a number that we knew was inadequate but at least takes us to the table. >> a follow-up to my question, there's a certain public frustration and cynicism about how congress has been

operating. when they see things added in, it can add to that. would you have a message to people? >> the fact is, i think you have to take that up with the senate. that's not how the house works, that's how the senate works. you have to take it up with them. but the cynicism is not about that. the cynicism is about the fact that government was closed for 16 days, the full faith and credit of the united states of america was in doubt. why? because anti-government ideologues in the republican caucus was the tail wagging the dog and everybody describes it, it's just a few. it was 62% of their caucus voted to keep government shutdown. 62% of their caucus voted to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. that is what i think many more people are aware of that than they're aware of the particular of that. i don't think any of that should be in the bill. i don't know how it got in there. in fact, i displayed my own dismay at it, only learned of it because i was say, what's holding up the bill? why aren't we voting on the

bill? they said, we're dealing with some of these things. i said what are some of these things. that's how i -- you need 50 votes in the senate. i think your question should be directed to the senate. this is nothing we were consulted about or anything it just became part of the bill. >> moving forward, how does congress -- how much confidence do you have in the budget conference committee to be able to produce an actual, workable solution? >> i think the more -- if it is a transparent negotiation, i have more hope that if they say, well we're meeting ourselves and then one day we'll have one open meeting or hearing and then we'll come back and meet ourselves. senator sessions and paul ryan did not vote 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. more transparency. the better the outcome. the more the public is aware. president abraham lincoln, the public sentiment is everything. the more the public is awear of what's happening there instead of finding out when the bill is

coming over at the 119, 12th hour, practically, then -- i don't 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 the decision based on values, respect for what comes out of it? because what comes out of it has to be, again, sold, for lack of a better word, to the caucus us to vote for it. so it has to have merit. the bill last night in my view didn't have merit substantively. it had merit as a path to go to that table. but that table is closed down. if you're excluded from that, if there isn't live coverage, it's hard to see how product can come out of it that we can put to -- present to our members to say it was an honest debate. this is how it came down. and this is how we have to go forward.

and you know what is contingent upon it is reopening government in january and the debt ceiling in february. this isn't just an isolated conversation. >> there are a number of members in the house and senate that pledged to return the money that they earned throughout the shutdown. i'm wondering if new i have intention of writing a check for a charity or putting it become to the treasury or anything, the money you earned. >> i'm a regular contributor to charity, i could pretend i'm giving this money to cheerity when i was going to do it anyway but i don't intend to do that, no. i don't intend to cut a check to the federal government. >> in november or december will

there be a need to consider delaying parts it? >> it has nothing to do with the program, it's technology. no, i don't think. so i don't think. so >> how soon should federal workers expect back pay? >> well, i don't know that -- i don't know what the process is. i would hope as soon as possible. >> the bill says as as soon as possible but there's been ambiguity on what that means. >> as soon as possible. sooner than that. as with many of you, they have mortgages to pay, they have their contribution to tuition, some of them do it on a monthly basis, they have a life, thank god, and again, $2.-- 2.1 million federal employees, 800,000 of them furloughed. without pay. but unless, i mean, i don't know if any of you live paycheck to paycheck and a large number of that, of the 2.1 million, 600,000 are

veterans. many of them disabled veterans. of the 800,000, a large number are veterans and some disabled veterans. so when they're talking about veterans and all the rest, they put this meager bill on the floor which is so much less than we voted for in a borne way and saying they're helping veterans, but we're furloughing you, taking away your peak, you'll get it back as soon as possible, whenever that is that's how we're helping veterans. i would hope that it would be as soon as possible because it is -- people -- we all know. everybody knows they need their paychecks. they work. and as soon as possible for another way. one of the things i hope that comes out of this as people see

what the impact of the shutdown has been, it may not affect everybody in the same way, in the same timetable but it's affected a lot of people. many of whom don't have strong voices in -- to be heard in washington, d.c. but these workers, they make sure that social security checks are out. as i mentioned earlier in terms of food stamps for our children, the courts, the irs, all of the that has government function, now curtailed. again, we thank our federal workers for what they have done. i'm sad about the fact that they had to be furloughed and had this uncertainty in their lives, on top of all the other uncertainty in our economy. again, i thank them for their service and i hope as soon as possible means as soon as possible.

>> coming up, adam green, cofounder of the regressive children's campaign committee talks about the future of the progressive movement. then a look at the future of the tea party, following the deal that reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. our guest is the ceo of freedom works. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. remarks by gay rights kei.vist and actor george ta span student cam video competition ask, what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014?

make a five to seven minute video showing your point of view . the competition is open to all middle and high school students with the grand prize of $5,000. this year we have doubled the number of winners in total prizes. >> the leaders of the house and senate budget committee spoke with reporters thursday morning a discuss negotiations over long-term federal budget deal. both the house and senate passed their own budgets earlier this house republican leaders had not agreed to begin negotiations until it was .ncluded in agreement >> hello, everybody. we want to say that the four of

us, the ranking member of the senate budget committee, the ranking member of the house budget committee, the chairman of the senate budget committee, and myself, we had a very good conversation. we assessed how we are going to proceed over breakfast. we want to look for ways to find common ground to get a budget agreement. our goal is that good for the american people, to get the budget under control, and do what needs to get done to get people back to work. we will try to find how we can reach common ground and create a budget process that achieves that, and that is what we are beginning to talk about. >> chairman ryan is right. we had a good conversation over breakfast as we begin the challenge that has been handed to us over the coming three short weeks. we believe there is common ground and showing you, the american people, that as congress we can work and make sure that our economy is growing and that people are back to work and that we can do the job that we were sent here to do, to find common ground between our two budget resolutions and setting goals to work on.

>> some people ask why this time will be different, and what i would say is not talking guarantees failure. talking to is not to guarantee success, but if you do not get together, obviously you cannot move forward. nobody can guarantee success, but what we can say is if we do not make the effort and get the other to talk, that would guarantee failure. >> chairman murray is very knowledgeable about these issues and a strong leader. i have talked to a number of the democratic senators last night. they were excited about being on the conference committee and look forward to part to participate. there's a lot we can do. a number of things we can agree on, and i hope we could agree on. we do not want to raise expectations above reality, but

i think there are some things we could do. paul ryan, as most of you know, has dedicated himself for many years to mastering the details of this budget, so i think his leadership puts us in a position where we may be able to uncover something good. i hope so, that the process will be helpful. >> how can you be sure you will be more successful than the supercommittee was? is there a specific dollar amount in deficit reduction you are aiming for? >> let me answer that. the supercommittee's goals were much broader. we have a challenge that has been handed us whatever reconciliation between at senate and house budget, and those issues are on the table, and we will talk about all of them, and our job is to make sure we have put forward a budget passed for this congress in the next year or two, or further, if we can.

>> it is too premature to get into the numbers. let's understand what we are doing. we are going back to regular order. this is the budget process. the house passed a budget, the senate passed a budget, you try to reconcile differences. that is the way we are supposed to do things. that is the way the budget law is supposed to work. this is how congress is envisioned as working in the constitution. it is premature to get into how we will do that, because we're just beginning these conversations. >> [indiscernible] >> no yes or no questions. >> [indiscernible] >> our job over the next eight weeks is defined out what we can agree on, and we will look at everything in front of us and know that it will be a challenge, but we believe we can find common ground. >> what assurances can you give senator murray that you will keep negotiating?

>> we want to grow the economy. we think of processes the way to do that. i explained what my concerns are. that explains -- that speaks for itself. i would have agreement that gets this test it under control, that does right by future generations, and we are going to try if we can find an agreement to do that. >> let me answer that as well. chairman ryan knows i will not vote for his budget. i know that he is not going to vote for mine. we will find the common ground between our two budgets and we both can vote on, and that is our goal. >> [indiscernible] >> that is what we will be discussing. we will let you know. >> [indiscernible]

>> tonight on c-span, wall street journal reporter stephen moore on the deal that reopened the government and raise the debt ceiling. that is followed by discussion on the night known as the saturday night massacre, when fired thenixon watergate peschel prosecutor. later, president obama on the government shutdown in debt ceiling. remarks by actor and gay rights activist george takei. that is live starting at 1 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> friday, the national press from the former president and ceo of the campaign center to prevent gun violence. at 2an see the remarks p.m. eastern, here on c-span.

>> when you are in a debate with who does not believe in god or even believe that jesus is the son of god, can you respect somebody who believes that? >> i think you can respect people whether or not you respect their beliefs. questions have sensible views of science, i can accept that. i have to regard them as either ignorant or stupid. politeness. with a british journalist said a rather nice thing. he said i respect you as a person too much to respect a ridiculous belief. richard dawkins, sunday night

at nine eastern and pacific on afterwords, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> now, a look at the congressional deal that reopened the federal government and lifted the debt ceiling. stephen moore of the wall street journal was the guest on thursdays washington journal. it is 25 minutes. host: thanks for joining us. before we start, lessons learned over the last two weeks from your perspective. what i learn from republicans, you cannot win this sort of fight when you are not unified. the truth is the republicans never had a unified strategy. our editorial page has said from the beginning there is no one

who wants obamacare more than we do, it just probably was not the right strategy. the president was very unlikely do finding hiso signature achievement. unding his signature achievement. i was listening to the show are earlier. in general, i agree with a lot of your callers that there is no real winner here. political game, but the truth is we just passed expensive gap and we didn't do anything about it. the band plays on. host: now that we have this conference am a do you find any comfort or see any viable way forward?

i think it is kind of laughable they have created that community -- that committee. they always said the debt ceiling only extends the budget for six weeks. possible that we will hear six weeks from now the exactly the same thing. i'm not sure the republicans have the stomach for another shutdown, but we could very possibly see another big fight over the debt ceiling in january or early february. who knows? that has been forgotten about this whole debate is republicans have been playing with a pretty weak hand, but they do have one thing the democrats are desperate to get , it is the sequester and

the budget caps. the democrats are very eager to get rid of that or suspended. you could possibly see some kind of negotiation where, for example, president obama might this is not ready to go. is not ready for prime time. .3% -- possibly a one-year delay in the mandate for individuals and the penalties in a suspension of the budget cap. just throwing that out is a possible idea. the other question is whether they will get serious about some of these other things, social security and medicaid. >> republicans are not going to agree to that, because they will make the case that president obama just had his tax increase

in january of this year. >> the numbers will be on your screen. here is joseph from albany new york, republican line. good morning, go ahead. i am just thinking, sometimes i go to work and cash , people have it -- it is a lot of money. it is a heck of a good start.

from everybody. i would just take it all at once. out oftake two dollars some of these welfare checks host: you would say you could find sources anyway to get money from? caller: in 1992 90 million cars went to between the exits on the new york state free-throw, and it cost $.20. if you charge another five cents, added up, 90 million cars. host: can you add anything more to that? guest: i am not in favor of niggling and dining -- nickel and dime every american, but if you take one penny out of spending you would go a long way to dramatically reducing this

budget deficit. we could get the number down, and it is progress. if we can get the american people to work, that would do a lot. when you are asking about raising taxes, we do not really need to raise taxes, to get people working so that they are paying taxes. host: let's go to clint. he is from texas on our democrats line. caller: i wanted to make a few comments. i noticed during this fiasco i used to be a republican. i changed it. i am going to democrats after seeing what they did in the house. one, they change the rules in the house, and i believe, put it to where the speaker of the house was the only one that could ring a hill -- bring a

bill to the floor. that is close to being a dictatorship to meet. what really bothered me was the president told people up front i will not negotiate on the health care bill. now, grant you, there are some problems with it as far as people trying to enroll in it, however, the hits they had show people do want to get into the program. grant you, they should have a better set up, more servers and stuff in there system, but i do not know -- some of them, it was ill-planned in the first place. host: thank you, caller. guest: a couple of things -- it was interesting. i remember when democrats ran the house and republicans complained about the same thing,

if they could not get anything to the house floor when o'neill and nancy pelosi were the speakers. the senate is different -- any senator can bring up a bill at any time, although harry reid prevented that from happening. i think republicans should not have gotten this into this crisis in the first place, and president was irresponsible in not negotiating in bringing us to the brink of this financial fiasco. fortunately, we have gotten out of this, but like i said, i am not sure we resolved any the issues. we still have obamacare, which is not just all of the problems with the exchanges and how it will increase our deficit, but as an economist, i worry about what this will do for employment. i talk to employers all over the country, traveling a lot, and they tell me they are not going

to hire more than 50 workers. some have 65 workers and they say they will cut back. i also talked to a lot of employers in the fast food restaurants, and the fast food industry is the biggest employer in america, and they say they are cutting back their hours to 28 hours a week. for people that are lower income, need a full-time job, that is a real hardship. host: you are a member of the editorial board. your editorial deals with ted cruz. what is it about question -- about? guest: i know ted cruz. i like him. he has made a big difference in his first six months here, but i have also told him that i thought his strategy was flawed. when you did not have the senate republicans behind you, it would lead to a division in the republican party. i thought his goal was admirable. i am not sure the tactical way

was very smart. host: "the washington post" picks up on ted cruz in its editorial. here is what they write -- guest: well, you know, that is the way the political system works. when i started the club for growth, the idea was to create more competitive binaries, and try to get a change in the bloodstream in congress, and, by the way, i think 90% of americans would agree that we need to totally change the composition of congress -- democrat and republican. his guys did not serve the american people. they are serving special interests. one thing i have been passionate for in the last 20 years, and what has happened in the last couple weeks is a monument to this -- term limits. they should serve six years in

the senate and begun. let a more diverse -- be gone. let a more diverse group in. host: is the tea party a help or a hindrance to speaker boehner? guest: right now, i would say a huge hindrance. i think the leadership of the tea party has made some tactical mistakes and they have given the tea party a black eye. you meet the people, and they come from all walks of life. they just care about the future of our country. it troubles me when people say they are jihadist, terrible people with bombs strapped to their backs. you might as agree with what they want to do, but they want to balance the budget, given of the health-care law, and a prosperous economy. host: do you think they will be

as much of an influence going forward? guest: it is a good question. you know, i am not sure about that. a lot of republicans saying wait a minute, you are the ones that led us down this path that did not work so well, so their influence in the short term has been diminished. host: pat from philadelphia, pennsylvania, independent line, and also identifies as a federal worker. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i think it is interesting that mr. moore says our representatives are working for special interest. i think that is obvious. i would like to also get some more thoughts on trying to get more revenue from companies like ge that make $5 billion and pay nothing in 2010, and i understand 40% of corporations

pay nothing. what are his thoughts on that? guest: thank you. i have been working for tax reform in this country. everyone, even president obama believes our corporate tax system is a complete mess. i am called a head start program for every other country that competes against the united states because we have the highest tax rates of all other industrialized countries. that is not good for american business and american jobs. some companies pay nothing. that is completely unjust. i would favor a much lower rate system that gets rid of all of the loopholes -- all of the loopholes, credit and deductions, and i would do the same thing on the individual side. we can get the tax rate down to 17%, 18%, if we got rid of special interest loopholes to housing, charities, and the wind industry, and on and on.

host: maverick on twitter -- guest: i like him already. host: please historically contrast the shutdown with prior shutdowns. guest: it was interesting. in 1996, i was working for the republicans in the house, and what was different than was bill clinton was negotiating. the republicans negotiated with bill clinton. bill clinton got most of what you want, but republicans got some concessions and we moved on. what was different about this one is the president said i am not negotiating in the sandbox and acted like a spoiled child, and he always thought he had the political upper hand, which he did in the end given the republicans caved in, but i am not so sure that the president is a big winner here. i think a lot of people see discussed with republicans, and also with the way the president behaved, and not coming up with

some sort of negotiated settlement that would have made sure that as we write another $1 trillion of higher debt allowances that we will do something to get the budget under control. his is one of the first times we raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached. host: how much is that factored with the rollout of the health- care system? guest: i am not sure of the question. host: how much of his success will be judged on the health- care law? guest: he has certainly staked his presidency on it, but i was always of the paint -- of the opinion if obamacare is going to fail, let it proceed. let the making people see how they like it. in a year or two, if they like it, it will be the law of the land.

in the late-1980's we had this medicare expansion, and seniors hated it. it was one of the first times in american history a new entitlement program was repealed. i think there is a good probability that as this moves on, people see how many jobs are being destroyed, how the cost increase. 90% of americans already have health insurance. their big worry is i will get something worse. host: roy in new castle, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: yes, everybody you listen to, they tell you that 40% on every dollar spent by the government is our road -- borrowed.

what that tells me is that every government check coming through is 40% is being borrowed. the president makes over $400,000. $160,000 of his pay could come from china. every state representative that gets over $174,000, over $60,000 of their pay comes from china. i've been working since i was 15. i have been paying into social security. i am finally going to get there. i'm going to apply for it at the end of this year, and over $600 of my money will be borrowed from china, and they cannot even take 3% on the sequester? they have to cut that back at least 40%. host: thank you, caller. guest: sounds more like a republican and a democrat. one of the interesting things that has happened is we had this sequester cut, a 5% cut, and it

actually worked well. there were some hardships. the american people know that $.20, $.30, $.40 of every dollar spent in this town is wasted. when we do a 5% cut, and maybe a 2% or 3% cut next year, it is not a bad way to cut spending. when you talk to private business and private households people cut back their expenditures. businesses retooled. they sweated out the waste. that is what government needs to do. i agree with this gentleman that there is more room for that. the military has taken a big art of the cut. there is a a lot of waste in the military. host: will the discussions over the budget coming up deal with replacing the sequester? guest: i am not in favor of

that. the democrats, a lot of these programs they really care about education programs, national public radio -- they are all getting hit by the sequester. this is the potential negotiation -- maybe suspending the sequester for a year to get real entitlement reforms. whether that happens or not, one thing you have to realize -- this is like the hatfields and the mccoys in washington. the republicans and the democrats, they hate each other right now. this is one of the unfortunate fallouts. this president then said he would unify everyone and bring everyone together, i do not know about you, you have been here a long time, i have never seen it so divided. host: the president said the next thing on the agenda is immigration reform. guest: i am strongly in favor of immigration reform.

immigrants are a great asset to this country, and i would like to see this get done. a lot of people are here illegally, and i would like them to get a green card, to work if if they are working and contributing to our society. we will need new, young, hard-working workers in this country. who are smart. the great thing about america is they want to come here and contribute. why would we turn them back? host: the vitriol from the last two and a half weeks, could that affect what goes forward as far as agendas? guest: we will see. it is a poisonous atmosphere. right across the street from where we are sitting, it is pretty toxic and it will be interesting to see how long that lasts. host: sean. west virginia. independent line. hi. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i want to make a comment

and then i have kind of a question. last night, 80-something senators voted no. ted cruz was waving his flag. the country was about to go off of the cliff. what kind of american would lead his country literally go off the cliff and face the trouble that we were facing? now i have a question for you guys. i am a coal miner. i am a coal miner, and about two years ago, three years ago, my wife heard herself and had to et disability. her health had worsened to where i had to leave work. now, i take care of my wife. we get no help but her social security disability. i take care of my sister's two kids. she is deceased. i get no help except for a little bit of food stamps. i have never had to go on any kind of assistance in my life.

i have worked since i was 17 years old. these republicans need to get their head out of their ass and straighten this country out. host: this gentleman is a coal miner, and i am not so sure -- he wants to support democrats because the e.p.a. and president obama want to put coal mining out of business. they want to get rid of the coal industry. hey hate fossil fuels. one thing the gentleman was i think he said there were 80 people that voted against this. i think the vote was 80-20. host: 81 yays. guest: this was a huge margin. if you're concerned about our national debt, is it an honorable thing to keep voting to raise this debt ceiling? that was the question being raised yesterday.

these 18 people voted no. i don't know how i would have voted if i had been in the senate. they basically took the principled position that we have to start now, not tomorrow, to do something about this debt. host: carrie is from arlington virginia and on our republican line. hi. caller: hi. how are you? i have my notes out. i used to be a journalist. my points are the things that have not been discussed. first of all one-third of workers are freelance. he economy is not going to get better and everybody is blaming the republicans, blame technology. everybody loves the free access. it is costing us the jobs. it is costing us the businesses that we know that used to be brick businesses.

technology companies are the ones responsible for a lot of tax dollars going out of the country. a lot of money is being thrown at startups in the tech industry. we are learning what we thought was a free ride was actually an expensive one. we have been paying with our privacy. a lot of these companies, home states in california like washington, but nevada is a state that does not cooperate with the irs. i have done research, which has shown me how many thousands of companies are home-stated in arry reid's state. host: what's the question for our guest, please? caller: why isn't the "wall street journal" addressing this

and educating people that where the economy is not because of the parties but because of the choices that we innocently made that are continuing to make. host: thank you, caller. guest: i think that -- i'm actually somewhat bullish about the u.s. economy. this woman is right. this economy has been pretty lousy for five straight years. incomes are lower today than before the recession. we're 3 million or 4 million jobs below where we were in 2007. it has been a really paltry recovery. there are some things to be optimistic about. the energy industry. the biggest oil and gas boom in this country is going on right now. it is a wonderful thing to see. on the front page last week, i heard you guys talking about this. the united states is the number one energy producing country in the world. high-paying jobs. number two, our technology industries are doing very well.

that is the future. the digital age. that is fantastic. american corporations and companies, small and large, they have really become lean, mean fighting machines. i believe if you want to look at the best-run companies in the world, they are here in the united states. that used to not be the case. so, ladies and gentlemen, there is some reason for optimism. we have to keep our fingers crossed. the number one issue for all americans, including myself, is jobs. let's get america back to work. hopefully now that we have this crisis behind us we can get back to creating the jobs that americans want. host: thank you for being here. guest: thank you so much. thanks for c-span, by the way. >> on the next "washington journal" adam green, o co-founder talks about the future of the progressive move yfment and then future to have tea party, following deal that reopened the government and

raised the debt ceiling. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. there are headline, republican senator mitch mcconnell promises no more shutdowns over obama care based on a interview from alexanderer bolton who joins us from capitol hill. thanks for being here. guest: thanks very having me. host: how did this interview come about? guest: mcconnell was trying to pass his version of the deal that was raise by harry reid. conservatives are slamming him for it. it funded $340,000 worth of television adds that were critical of mcconnell's role in he fight to defund obama care.

many conservatives were not satisfied with this bill. 18 republicans vote against it on wednesday. mcconnell is out there selling it and explaining why it is a good idea. so i think that is why he is out -- host: there is one quote we want you to follow up on. i think we have acquainted our new members with what a losing strategy that was with reference to the government shutdown. clearly he had to be referring to tea party members and ted cruz? guest: yes, he said te compared the political fight of the government shutdown to a tick from a mule. one of my favorite kentucky things is there is no education in the second kick of a mule. the second kick was over the last 16 days. the first kick was in the 1990's. there is no ex-on the second education on the second kick of

a mule. we already knew this would be bad politics. john mccain and richard burr of north carolina warned before this battle started that it would hurt the republicans. that is exactly what happened. the point that mcconnell is trying to make is we knew this would be a tough political lesson. we tried to tell our newer members like ted cruz, the freshman from texas and mike lee, the freshman from utah. they would not listen to us. i think now they will listen to us and that's why he is predicting with confidence there will not be another government shutdown in jahn when funding expires. host: what are the red lines for republicans and for senator mcconnell? guest: well, mcconnell said he got the best deal he could have given the situation and he compares it to a football on its own 20 -yard-line backed up

against its own end zone with a shaky offensive line. he said i wanted to get a punt to put us in better field position. he said the silver lining in mcconnell's view is that the deal he struck with reid did not increase the spending caps. there was some talk over the weekend that some democrats wanted to raise the spending above what was mandated in the 2011 budget control act. mcconnell stood firm against that and is claiming victory there and claiming victory this deal did not raise any taxes. those were two lines republicans were not going to cross on this deal and they will not let those red lines be crossed in january either or february as penney murray and paul ryan tried to put together a broader deal. mcconnell is making it clear now that whatever deal it is, it cannot raise taxes and if it does, undo some of these automatic spending cuts known as

screst ration. there is going to have to be entitlement reform. host: his interview with mitch mcconnell earlier today, what was his overall demeanor? guest: his voice was pretty gravely. i think he is pretty tired. as was majority leader reid last night. he said i'm tired. let's not have too many questions. i want to watch the ballgame. i think everyone has been exhausted by this deal. the stress of having the government shut down and the default or a possible default coming up. so mcconnell was pretty subdued, but i think he is happy that he escaped the situation and now he just wants to make sure it doesn't happen again. host: let me follow up on that point. this is a temporary c.r. that raises the spending levels until

ebb february 7 where the government can borrow money. will it be averted in three months? guest: we're not going to be in the same position with regards to the stopgap, keeping the government operating, republicans have been torched in this latest shutdown. their approval rating has dropped to lowest it has ever been in a glop poll. many house republicans feel similarly singed. the democrats would love for the election to be in two weeks. republicans are hoping we will not see another government shutdown. i think republicans will push for entitlement reforms. that is one of the things they were talking about in the leadup to this deal is what mcconnell talked about today on the phone. he wants entitlement reform to be on the table. that is something he will fight

for. thinks republicans will be in a better position to do so. republicans thought they lost their leverage on the debt limit, something they used to their advantage in 2011 because the government shutdown so hurt them in public opinion polls. now they hope they can avoid that shutdown, that government funding fight as a preamble to the debt limit fight and will be in better position to demand entitlesment reform. host: alex bolton joining us on capitol hill. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. >> friday, the national press club, preventing gun violence. you can see his remarks on efforts to reduce gun violence at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> during the depression, she was thought to be out of touch with the people, but after her

death, it was discovered she provided financial help to hundreds of americans in need and never cashed the checks of those who paid her back. watch our program on first lady lou hoover. live monday night, our series continues. >> this is ellenor roosevelt's typewriter. it was on this typewriter she wrote her my day column. i have the original drafts of some of the columns i want to share. this first one was her first column. it sets the tone for the my day columns to follow. what she is talking about here are the comings and goings of the white house after the holiday season. this clipping is a my day clipping from november 6, 1940, election day. she talks about howed a midnight a larger crowd than usual came in from hyde park. the president went out to greet them. this was a tradition on election night. the roosevelts would come to hyde park and gather the family

around and wait for the results. when they were announced, the president would come out and greet them. >> first lady ellenor roosevelt. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> now a discussion on the 40th anniversary of the so-called turday night massacre when former president richard nixon fired robert cox. this event, hosted by the school of law and the national press lub is an hour and 40 minutes. >> welcome to the national press club. it is my distinct pleasure, honor and privilege to welcome each of you to the audience this

evening and our distinguished panelists. the press club, as i'm sure you'll hear in a few minutes played a big part in the saturday night massacre. we are very excited to host this program tonight and i will turn over the festivities of the event to gale cline, the hairman of our press club. [applause] >> thank you very much, angela. i am, as angela said, a journalism professor at american university's washington semester program. a former club president and now chairman of the club's history and hertg committee. our program tonight mark the 40th anniversary of the saturday

night massacre that ultimately led to president nixon's resignation in the watergate scandal. 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 of october 20 in the ballroom where he insisted that the president had to turn over all of the secret tapes. we will see a brief clip of that later. that ian, the club held its award ceremony that honors a journalist lifetime achievement. that night, the award was going to walter cronkite. as the great news man was delivering his remarks, word began spreading through the ballroom of what nixon had done. people had begun in and out of the room to figure out what was going on. [laughter]

the chairman to have event that evening finally announced to entire crowd what was happening. now, ladies and gentlemen, 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 head of the environmental protection agency and acting director of the fbi. [applause] second, 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. professor philip coleman. [applause]

third, an 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] fourth, the only female assistant watergate special prosecutor on the trial team that served as general counsel for the u.s. army under president carter. solicitor general of yill and other positions of -- illinois and other positions of public trust, jill -- fifth, the special assistant and press secretary for archibald cox that wrote "not above the law," jim doyle. [applause]

and finally, i would like to introduce my co-moderator who has written the award-winning biography of the watergate special prosecutor, archibald cox, and is one of the leaders on special prosecutors and presidential power struggles. the dean in pittsburgh and the man that did the work to organize tonight's event, ken -- ken, come on up. [applause] >> thank you. when i first contacted the national press club about collaborating on this event, they immediately recognized it historical importance and said yes. so my thanks to the president, angela, everyone at the press club for their support and commitment to preserving this

important piece of american history. 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. and who became a lifelong colleague and friend of cox's from high school until the time of his death. along the way, this young member of the special prosecution force built his own illustrious areer. ultimately appointed 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. ken wanted me to say something personal. don't overstate my role in 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. i wasn't there too long, but i was there long enough. it was not a question of what i gave, but what i got out of t.

i openly remember two lines from four years of latin. one of they see is -- he is going there and he says [speaking latin] he says that after waves beating him around, i know what it means. after the waves had been beating him everywhere. he said those words. they meant, perhaps someday it will please us to remember these things. indeed. of course. 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? i think of a seminar with my wife is a clinical psychologist. stanley's wife is a clinical psychologist. she spent a year having seminars on heroes. they never thought twice. hey just did it.

they didn't reminisce or intellectualize it. whatever it was they did, they did it. if you asked them why, they said i don't know. that was thing to do, wasn't it? no one knows how you will act. but we know how they acted. 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? this strikes people probably turned age of 40 anyway, as really weird. he gave it up because he promised the united states senate that he would not fire archie cox under any circumstances. that is making a promise to the american people.

that is built into him. there we are. the chips are down, what do you do? he quit. ok? good. we say, in advance, tough for him. probably tougher than we think. archie, i got so much out of that relationship. why? i think he was a man of integrity. i learned by watching, talking, and associating. what does it mean? one thing it means, let's not talk, let's go do our job. do the job. do it as well as you can. he is not here to chase the president out of office. he said that many times. he is there to lead an investigation. and where the investigation

goes, that is where he goes. he hires a pretty good group of people there. that's it. do the job. if it leads you to an alley where it is going cause a lot of chaos, you do what you have to do. do the job. 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 iew. he is not there to case that president out of office. he is there to do his job. i saw what that meant. saw what the integrity meant. 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 down. don't all run out and say you are going to resign. because after two weeks, nobody will care anyway. you stay right where you are. we are all here because we have a job to do. do it. i'm just giving you examples. they made for four years 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. i want to 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. the attorney general, elliott richardson refused and resigned. the president ordered the assistant attorney general to fire the special prosecutor. he refused. the president immediately fired him. solicitor general 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 ffice. >> here is dan rather. >> good evening.

>> thank you very much for being here. we're going to start our panel. 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 nixon presidency. you covered these events for "the "washington post" and wrote "all the president's men." 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 burglary, it was espionage, sabotage operations. if you look into enough of the tapes or read transcripts, it is clear that regularly he ordered the illegal abusive activity -- illegal activity. if you look into it, the dog that never barks on the nixon tapes. nobody says what is in the best interest of the country, it was all about nixon. it was using the power of the presidency to settle scores. and i think it was not just the crimes and abuse that drove nixon out, it was the

smallness of the vision that he was always looking out for his own political interests and people heard that and it was the conservative republican from arizona who summarized it, too many lies, too many crimes. >> you were one of the first people hired by archibald cox after he was named special prosecutor. how did he come to be appointed and how did you end up going off to washington with him to investigate the president? >> those things and some might they were courts a dental and they were by quit the dental. 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. he went 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. all three went down and started there. >> you became one of his closest advisers. the nixon white house became suspicious of cox. he had a political ax to grind and wanted to condemn the president.

>> archibald cox was surefooted when it came to the law. when it came to the judgment of how 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. or should it be pointed out that 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.

he needed not only to conduct the investigation scrupulously. he needed 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. in the 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. neither 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. do you have concerns about the president's involvement? and did the chief of staff ask you about that? >> he 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. -- to lean in before there was a lean in. he was known for making sexist 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. >> bob 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 white house taping system, archibald cox told me there were suspicions. in the final days, you tell a remarkable story about nixon 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 for all of them was this statement of nixon to henry peterson that is running the investigation. white house lawyers said there was not a tape. people did not know about the secret taping system at that point. nixon said that he had his daily memoir that he would summarize that day. then he said i can't find it. why don't i make a new one. and in the great tradition of the law, we don't have the evidence being requested. it set off all kinds of alarm bells.

when you look at the record, they are all deceased. particularly, it was 17 times. they knew and were conducting not just a legal defense, but 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. he was also in 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] we did limit our subpoena to those tapes that we thought would be hundred stations about

crime. we felt we had a right to those tapes. how 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 will be for sure, not a problem 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. >> in 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. >> it started 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. we did everything we could to break the witnesses down. it was one of 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. the concern we had as the 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? >> well, 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. he would start 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. it was a serious situation. the soviet union was reinforcing the arab armies in force.

they started out helping the israelis by wanting not to escalate the situation. the arabs at this point were doing extremely well. you really have to do this for me at the very end. nixon said to richardson, the 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. the court of appeals directed that nixon had to turn over the tapes to cox. they made judgments about national security claims. why didn't the white house just destroy the tapes? >> it is easier to try to describe the creation of the universe. it is something that has plagued historians and journalists and people involved.

i think nixon made this assertion to richardson and lots of people that he would prove he was innocent. there is 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 sequence is the three days after cox was fired, nixon decided to turn over this batch of tapes. there were nine, but a couple they couldn't find. so there were seven. a recommended turning over the tapes, and nixon was very unsure.

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 their silence? dean 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. the 71-year-old senator from mississippi that suffered gunshot wounds and had a hearing problem would listen to the summaries of the tapes and authenticate that those were correct. cox told 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 ground, 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 court would have maintained the vast respect, and he was afraid that it would crumble if he won. using 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 felt 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 close archibald cox was getting to be able to prove his involvement. a lot of 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 doctor and he told me that stennis, because he suffered gunshot wounds, he was on heavy doses of codein. he confided in 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. there was a real plan to use 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. i was not sure how that was going to unfold. the one thing i had on my side was the truth.

i put this in.] i slipped in the fact that in one or more 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. i was in the witness protection program at the time. not a likely place i would have gone. he 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 butterfield 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. even though i thought i was recorded. 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. there was a working relationship with other members of the staff. a friend of my lawyer, he and i had a relationship in the days of the watergate prosecutor's office. about 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. after months of discussion, my lawyer and i talked about it. we could put them into 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