tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 18, 2013 1:00am-3:01am EDT
enefit, not worth the trouble, but nonetheless, i benefit from what is happened is that the sharpened awareness of the fact that this will take place at the table, that hopefully there will we believe the budget, the house democrats have put forth, and the senate democrats, and the president, is values based, about the future of our country in terms of investments and education, sensibly reducing the deficit, as we create jobs for all americans who want to work hard, pay by the rules, and achieve the second dream. with that, i will be pleased to take any questions. >> the enrollment of the affordable care act. it started the same day at the shutdown. i wonder if you think about the rollout so far and what you think is a reasonable amount of time to fix problems? >> i'm so excited about the
affordable care act, and it is no coincidence that they wanted to shut down government. after a while they forgot why they shut down government because the reasons change as we went along. i am proud of my state of california, where it is going great, and most of the states that have their state-run exchanges, going positively well. the question that what has happened 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 will take to have that be fixed. that is about the technology, about the benefits, about the liberation of people to live a
healthier life, liberty and freedom to choose their happiness -- that all remains. i hope we would have some answers soon and that the answer will be ok, we have found a glitch or whatever it is, it has been corrected, and here's a demonstration as to how people, when they approach it now, will be received. again, i hope that will be soon. yes, ma'am. >> once people started to read the bill and there has been criticism about things that were included that had not been talked about, different appropriations, from small things -- >> the affordable care act? >> last night's bill. with this crisis -- was this crisis the right time to add things that the not have time to do with reopening government?
>> my members have some of the same questions. when you have a cr, it is an appropriation, and yes, this would be the normal place for them to do something like that. now, we in the house are suspicious of the senate when they want to go first and what are they doing over there. i think the questions i asked about because my members were asking those questions, as an appropriator i understand when you have a continuing resolution it is all the preparations for the preceding year, and this was consistent with what would be in a continuing resolution. >> the people look at it and say is this the thing to add things when -- >> it was just a continuation of what went before, but whatever it was, it was not enough to say we are not going to open up government because it was something that senator mcconnell
put in about a road or something? i do not know what that was. >> a lock and dam. >> that has been an ongoing project for many years, and this was a continuation of that. i'm not here to defend what that is. i'm here to say that i did not like the number. forget about whether it was appropriate. i did not like 986 billion. i did not like the timetable. i have bigger problems than what that appropriation might've been, 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. >> you cite your history on the appropriations committee, and an anomaly is not an appropriation. this is an alternate -- and to have that put in a bill that is an appropriation -- >> what difference does it make?
we are talking about a bill that i am not asking anybody to vote for this bill on the merits. let's focus on the fact that 986 billion is not a figure that allows government to work for the american people. february is not an appropriate extension. it should be at least one year. if you want to have an objection to the bill, there are bigger things to object to. the fact is that we had to open government. the ways of the senate on these issues is something that i have my own concerns about. when we were going to have the bill first, i thought it will be just a bill. when the senate takes it up, the senate is the senate. you have to talk to them about what is in the bill and what its purpose was. what i said on the floor, i'm not pinning a rose on this bill, but i'm giving it a vote because we have to open government, and we did not have to close
government, because we made this offer of a number that we knew was inadequate, but at least takes us to the table. >> there is a public frustration and cynicism about how congress has been operating, so when they see things added in, does it add to that? would you have a message to people? >> you have to take that up with the senate. that is not how the house works. you will have to take it up with them. the cynicism is not about that. the cynicism is about the government was closed for 16 days, because the ideologues in the republican caucus were the tail wagging the dog, and it was 62% of their caucus voted to keep government shut down, 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 where of that and they are aware of the particular of that. i do not think any of that should be in the bill. i do not know how it got in there. in fact, i displayed my own dismay at it, only learned of it because i said what is holding up the bill? they said they were dealing with some of these things. i said what are these things? that is how i found about it myself. you need 60 votes, and the senate is another place. i think your question should be directed to them, because this is nothing that we were consulted about or anything. it just became part of the bill. yes, ma'am. >> looking forward, how much confidence do you have in the budget conference committee to be able to produce an actual workable solution? >> if it is a transparent
negotiation, i have more hope than if they say we are meeting ourselves and then one day we will have one open meeting or hearing and then we will come back and meet ourselves. senator sessions and paul ryan did not go for the bill last night. they did not vote for this bill that takes us to the table. they did not vote for that. so i think it will be interesting to see what that means, what is to be inferred from that. but i think you are the answer to that question. the more transparency, the better the outcome. the more the public is aware -- abraham lincoln, public sentiment is everything, or public is aware, instead of finding out that the bill is coming over at the 11th hour or 12th, hour, practically -- and i
do not know if these things are a big deal, but they are not the issue. the issue is how do you work together, knowing that you're not going to have it all your own way, but how do you go there to influence a decision based on values, respect for what comes out of it, because what comes out of it has to be again, sold to the caucuses to vote for it. it has to have merit. the bill last night in my view did not have merit substantively. it had merit as a path to go to that table. if the table is closed down, if there is not live coverage, then it is hard to see how a product can come out of this that we can put to our members to say it was an honest debate, this is how it came down them and this is how we have to go forward. and you know what is contingent upon it is reopening government
in january and lifting the debt ceiling in february. this is not just an isolated conversation. >> there are a number of members in the house and senate that have pledged to return the money that they earned throughout the shutdown. [indiscernible] i'm wondering if you have any intention of writing a check for charity or putting it back to the treasury toward the debt or anything for the money that you are paid? >> i am a regular contributor to charities. i can pretend to give it to charity, but i do not intend to write a check to the federal government. >> will there be a need in -- to consider delaying parts of it? >> it is about technology. >> [indiscernible]
>> no. i don't think so. >> how soon should these federal workers expect back pay? know what the process is. >> there has been a little ambiguity. do you have any thoughts? >> sooner than that. as with many of you, they have mortgages to pay. they have contributions to tuition. some of them do it on a monthly basis. they have a life, thank god. again, 2.1 million federal employees, 800,000 of them for pay.-- furloughed without i don't know -- most go paycheck to paycheck. therge number of that, of
2.1 million our veterans. many of them are disabled veterans. of the hundred thousand, a large number of veterans. some are disabled veterans. when they are talking about veterans, they put this meager bill on the floor which is so much less than we all voted for in a bipartisan way and savior helping veterans. we are for loving you, taking away your paycheck, you will get it back as soon as possible whenever that is. that is how we are helping veterans. i would hope that it would be as soon as possible. people, we all know. everybody knows they need their paychecks. as soon as possible for another way. one of the things i hope that comes out of this is that people see what the impact of the shutdown has been. it may not affect everybody in the same way at the same time, but it has affected a lot of people. many of whom do not have strong
voices to be heard in washington dc. these workers nature the social security checks are out. they help veterans. i mentioned earlier in terms of food stamps for children. the courts, the irs, all of the things that have government function now curtailed. furloughed,y was but curtailed. we thank our federal workers for what they have done. i am 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. i thank them for their service and i hope as soon as possible, means as soon as possible. thank you all very much. green,ng up, adam cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee talks about the future of the progressive movement. a look at the future of the tea
party following the deal that reopened the government and raise the debt ceiling. kibbe,st is matt president and ceo of freedom works. >> friday, health insurance plans continues a conference on the implementation of the health care law. you can see it live at 8:45 a.m. eastern on c-span two. years, when you look back at the books that had an impact on a president, what did you find? that was one of my inspirations for writing this book. i was curious to see whether books had an impact. michael harrington wrote a book in the early 1960's about poverty in west virginia.
kennedy is supposed to have read that book and it led to the war on poverty. it is not quite that simple. what he read was the book review by dwight mcdonald, one of the most famous new yorker articles ever. that inspired kennedy to tell walter heller, is chairman of the council, to look into policies that could be used to alleviate poverty. kennedy tragically died obviously in november 63, but johnson then heard about this program and said, that is my kind of program. >> 200 years of popular culture in the white house with tevi troy sunday night at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a." >> the leaders of the house and senate budget committees spoke with reporters thursday morning to discuss negotiations of a long-term federal budget deal. both the house and senate passed their own budgets earlier this year. house republican leaders had not agreed to begin negotiations to
reconcile the two until it was included in the 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 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 to find 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 the budget process is 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] >> most people think of film as stories that you see in theaters. the truth is that most film is a much much broader category. the movie that you see in theaters are really only a small national andotal world production of film. when you begin to broaden out films on thehese internet archive, you are able to get a much broader sense of what our country custom history is. i think that in the neighborhood of around 200,000 educational
films were produced in the united states. ,hey range from works of art consciously produced as films with some sort of special production value and creativity, to tremendously banal films about how to brush your teeth or how to ask for a date. the value of educational films they are aat tremendous documentation of how they wanted young americans to turn out. they show us what we were supposed to be. >> now that the soup is served, that he sees that the crackers are passed. floyd passes the crackers to dorothea before he helps himself. should he have helped himself first or not? >> a rare glimpse at american life from the 1920's through 1960's. sunday at 7:00 p.m. on american artifacts, of c-span3's "american history tv are he and
>> a look at the congressional deal that reopened the federal government and lifted the debt ceiling. stephen moore was a guest on washington journal. this is 25 minutes. host: joining us now is stephen moore from "wall street journal" what are the lessons learned from your perspective? guest: one of the lessons form republicans is you cannot win this kind of fight against the president when you are not unified. our editorial page said there is no one in america that wants to get rid of obamacare more than we do, but this was not a smart strategy because this president was very unlikely to ever agree to defunding his signature achievement.
so, our view, and it was validated with what happened yesterday, was that this was a story that would not have a happy ending. in general, i would agree with a lot of your callers that say there is no real winners. you could play the political game and say the president won because he forced republicans to back down, but we extended expansion of our debt and we did nothing about it. as an economist, that is something i am very worried about. host: now that we have this health senate conference about to take place, do you find any comfort -- [laughter] guest: do you know how many of these commissions i have seen in the last 20 years? i think it is laughable that they created another committee. they have only extended the budget for six weeks, so it is
possible we could be sitting here talking about the same thing. i do not think republicans have the stomach for a big shutdown fight, but we could see a fight over the debt ceiling in january or early-february. host: holding on, not raising until concessions are made? guest: who knows? the one thing that has been forgotten is republicans have been playing with a week and, that they have one thing democrats are desperate to get rid of, the sequester and the budget caps. democrats who want to spend more money are very eager to get rid of that, or at least suspend that. you could possibly see some kind of negotiation where, for example, president obama might
say look, we have known from the debacle of the exchanges of the last 10 days, it is not ready to go, not ready for prime time. only .3% of the people that went on the website got through. and possibly a one-year delay on penalties in exchange for a one- year delay on the budget caps. that is one idea. the other thing is whether they will go to the other entitlement. host: taxes will be a sticking point? guest: taxes will not go up there publicans -- go up. republicans will not let taxes go up because they will make the case president obama had his tax increase. host: the numbers are on your screen.
here is joseph. albany, new york, republican line. go ahead. caller: i was thinking sometimes when i cash my paycheck, i spent three dollars before i leave. if you could take three dollars a year, times 250 million people, it is a lot of money. i would take it from everybody, welfare, social security, paychecks, and like a bandit, i would take it and pull it once band-aid, i would take it and pull it once.
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 floor.ring a bill to the 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, that 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. these 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 house and 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 disagree 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. he also talks about entitlement cuts for small people when big business pays little or none. 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 have called a head start program for every other country that competes against the united states because we have the highest statutory 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.
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 disgust 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. this 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 opinion if obamacare is going to fail, let it proceed. let the american 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 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 than 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 part 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 they are contributing to our society. we will need new, young, hard- working workers in this country. the great thing about america is they want to come here and contribute. 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. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. caller: last night, 80 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 hurt herself and had to get disability. 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 -- the epa and president obama want to put the coal mining industry out of business. 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. 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 -- arlington, virginia, and on our republican line. caller: 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. the economy is not going to get better. 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 harry reid's state. a question for our guest please. caller: why isn't the wall street journal addressing this? why aren't they educating people that were the economy is is not because of the parties but because of the choices that we
innocently made are continuing to make. guest: this is a good subject to end on. -- i am somewhat bullish about the economy. this woman is right. the economy has been lousy for five straight years. incomes are lower today than they were before the recession. we are some three or 4 million jobs people -- below where we were. things to bee optimistic about. the energy industry -- the biggest oil and gas boom in this country is going on right now. a wonderful thing to see. i heard you got talking about this. the united states of the number one energy producing country in the world. those are high-paying jobs. number two, technology is doing very well. that is the future. number three, american corporations and companies, they have really become lean, mean fighting machine's.
i believe if you want to look at the best companies in the world, they are here in the u.s. that used to not be the case. there is some reason for optimism. we have to keep our fingers crossed. the number one issue for all americans 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 kind of good jobs americans want. host: stephen moore, thanks for your time. >> coming up on the next washington journal, adam green, cofounder of the progressive change campaign the talk about the change of the progressive movement. matt kibbe, president and ceo of freedom works. washington journal is live every morning. >> the headline, republican
senator mitch mcconnell promises no more shutdowns over obamacare. based on an interview with alexander bolton from the newspaper who is turning us on capitol hill, thanks so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: how did this interview come about? guest: leader mcconnell was trying to sell his version of the deal that was inked on wednesday with senate majority leader harry reid. i think he is under some pressure to justify this deal because conservatives are slamming him for it. in particular, the senate conservatives fund, which in september funded $340,000 worth of television ads that were critical of mcconnell's role in the fight to defund obama care. conservatives said mcconnell is not fighting hard enough. many conservatives were not satisfied with this bill. 18 republicans voted 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 got on
the phone with me. host: there is one quote we want you to follow up on. i think we have fully acquainted our new members with what a losing strategy that was, in reference to the government shutdown. clearly he had to be referring to tea party members and ted cruz? guest: yes, he said he compared the political fight of the government shutdown to a kick from a mule. one of my favorite kentucky sayings is there is no education in the second kick of a mule. the first kick was in the 1990's shutdown. the second kick was over the last 16 days. there is no education in the second kick of a mule. there will not be a shutdown in january. 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 january 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 team on its own 2-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 levels above what was mandated in the 2011 budget control act. mcconnell stood firm against that and is claiming victory there and claiming victory because this deal did not raise any taxes. those were two red 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 patty murray, the chairman of the senate budget committee and paul ryan of the house budget committee 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 sequestration. if there is, 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 shutdown 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, alex bolton. this is a temporary c.r. that raises the spending levels until 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 the lowest it has ever been in a gallup 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 lead- up 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. he thinks republicans will be in a better position to do so february or march next year.. 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 entitlement reform. host: you can read the full story on thehill.com alex bolton joining us on capitol hill. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. remarks by actor and gay rights activist george take a come you can see this event from the national press wrote live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> so much that has been written about the decline of american liberalism has been to look at what conservatives did to liberals. awayrt of takes all agency from liberals. the premise of the book is to look at what liberals did to cause their own decline, what
historians now consider the age of reagan, american liberalism warned and the name coined by fact that was around. when we talk about federal , looking for problems to solve, not just solving problems that come to the door of the white house, this emanates from the new deal. to thes a response emergency of the great depression. obviously, 30 years later, john kennedy comes to the white house. there is no great depression. the problem for american liberalism at that time and for john kennedy was to update liberalism for an age of affluence. it was no longer the immediate postwar era. it was the liberal project of the early 1960's. how do you update liberalism when you don't have a depression ?i don't intend to do that.
-- tv saturday at noon on c-span2. sunday at 5:00 on c-span3. >> a discussion on the 40th anniversary of the so-called saturday night massacre. when president richard nixon fired watergate special prosecutor archibald cox. this event posted by duquesne university is an hour and 40 minutes. >> welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter with bloomberg news. it is my distinct pleasure, honor and privilege to welcome each of you to the audience this
evening and our distinguished analyst. -- analysts. panelists.club -- the press club played a part in this event. i will turn over the theivities, the event to chairman of our national press club history and heritage committee and the 1994 national press club president. [applause] >> thank you very much. welcome once again to the national press club. professor.nalist and our program tonight marks 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 on the afternoon of october 20 right next-door in the club's ballroom where he insisted that the president had to turn over all of the secret tapes. we was a brief clip of that later. that evening, the club held its first fourth estate award ceremony that honors a journalists lifetime achievement. that night, the award went to walter cronkite. as the great cbs news man was delivering his or marx, word began spreading through the ballroom of what nixon had done people began running in another room and poor walter was trying to figure out what was going on
the chairman of the event that evening finally announced to the entire crowd what was happening it was a momentous event. now 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. house.lliam rickles house 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]
an iconic figure in american journalism that covered the third, watergate drama for the "washington post" has co- authored numerous books including all the presidents men, the final days, and other riveting accounts of the nixon presidency, mr. bob woodward. [applause] the only female assistant watergate special prosecutor on the trial team that served as general counsel for the u.s. army under president carter. as solicitor general or of illinois jill [indiscernible] , 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 presidential power struggles. the dean of duquesne university school of law in pittsburgh and the man who did all the hard work to organize tonight's event , mr. ken gormley. [applause] come on up. >> thank you, gail. you, gil. when i first contacted the national press club about collaborating on this
event, they immediately recognized it to extort goal -- its historical importance and said yes. as he said, i was privileged to write the biography of archibald cox, the principled watergate special prosecutor. one of the wonderful things about working on that project 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. he became a lifelong colleague until hisof death. along the way, this young member of the special prosecution force built his own illustrious career. 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
-- then his office on k street during the watergate a's. ladies and gentlemen 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 and don't overstate my role in watergate. phil andnto work with my job was trying to write a memo to organize the i.t. people. people don't remember what that was. richie is here, joe is not. i try to organize things when they came in to prosecute. it was not a question of what i gave, but what i got out of it. one part that i got out of it, i openly remember two lines from
four years of latin at lowell high school and one of them 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. of course. the other thing is about these two people. elliot richardson i had met a couple of times. but of course, what do i think of when i think of him? my wife is a clinical psychologist. she spent a year having seminars on heroes. she invited heroes from all walks of life. she told us about it and said
they had one thing in common. the thing they had in common is that they never thought twice. they just did it. they didn't reminisce or intellectualize it. whatever it was they did, they did it. if you asked them why they say, i don't know. that was the thing to do, wasn't it? whether when the moment arrives if you would act different. i say that of elliot richardson because he was a career politician. at that moment, he gave up his career. why did he give it up? distracts people over the age of 40. 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.
now that is built into him. he didn't have to intellectualize that. and there we are the chips are , down, what do you do? and he quit. ok? good. we say, in advance, tough for him. tougher than we think. now 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. 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 is there to lead an investigation. and where the investigation goes, that is where he goes.
so he hires a pretty good loop of people there and works to investigate. that is it. do the job. and then if that job leads you into this alley where it is going to cause a lot of chaos because of what you just saw, what than it is. you do it you have to do. and what do you do? you do the job. and by the way, this i like. americans will listen if you explain to them what is happening. he said i sometimes worry that i have grown too big for my britches. that is very new england and very much archie. it was also his expressing his view. he is not there to change the -- to chase the president out of office. he is there to do his job. the third thing was, when he told the people there, they were came into the office and told the people there, they were really excited. you saw what that was like. i think his message was calm.
don't all run out and say you are going to resign. after two weeks nobody will care anyway. you stay right where you are. we are all here because we have a job to do. so do it. i am just giving you an example. it has made a huge emotional impression on me. now you will hear from the others in which it has made a big impression. [applause] >> thank you, justice breyer. before we start with the panelists, we will see a brief film clip from cbs. i want to thank cbs and the senior executive vice president who is here with us tonight. we have a couple of wonderful clips for you to set the scene.
>> here is cbs white house correspondent dan rather. evening 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, eliot 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 office. >> here is cbs white house correspondent dan rather.
>> good evening. >> thank you very much for being here. we have so much ground to cover and we have asked panelists to be succinct. we know how difficult that might be. we are going to start with bob woodward. recognizing that some members of the audience were not even alive during the dramatic events of watergate, let us start with a quick snapshot of the scandal that led to the unraveling of the presidency. give us a brief snapshot of what was watergate. >> it is great to start with an easy one. if you look at it broadly, it was an effort to destroy the process by which presidents are nominated to run in the political parties and are elected.
it was not just the watergate burglary, it was espionage, sabotage operations. if you listen to enough of the tapes or read transcripts, it is clear that regularly he ordered the illegal abusive activity -- if you get into it, what you find is the dog that never barks on the nixon tapes. no one says, what is in the best interest of the country? it was all about nixon. it was all about using the power of the presidency to settle scores. end, and i think it wasn't just the crimes and abuse that drove nixon out it was the
, smallness of the vision that he was always looking out for his political interest. people heard that and it was barry goldwater, the conservative republican from arizona that summarized "too many lies, too many crimes." >> phil hyman, you are one of the first people hired by archibald cox after he was appointed special prosecutor. how did cox come to be appointed and how did you end up going off to washington to investigate the president? >> those two things sounds like they are somewhat co-incidental, but they were by no means coincidental. cox was the seventh choice and chosen because he had elliot richardson as a student. elliott trusted him. they were both new englanders. he had lost his hearing, archie
did, in at least one year all most of the same time that he was appointed. anythingk he ever said about that, but he went completely deaf in one ear. i went to see him and said you , can't possibly handle this without me. i have had four months [laughter] of experience as a public defender. that is what i told him. no, 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. was cox someone who seems to have a political ax to grind and wanted to condemn -- and wanted to bring down the president?
>> archibald cox was surefooted when it came to the law. when it came to the judgment of what was important and 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 he point out to the senate watergate committee that it was in conflict with his own investigation? press andhim with the the public, at least at first. but it helped reinforce something that he knew from day he needed not only to conduct one. scrupulously,ion but he needed to take things to -- he needed to take pains 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. . for years he had been a mediator, an arbitrator, and he started out thinking that he was probably going to work this case and it would turn out that way with neither side happy with the outcome. he had no clue how damning the evidence would be against the president. but he knew it was his job to find out.
>> bill, let me ask you, you are summoned to the white house in early august of 73. serving as deputy attorney general. did you have concerns about the president's involvement in watergate? did the president's chief of staff, alexander haig, 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 -- when he asked me to become 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 in 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. as the director it seemed to be overwhelming well before the tapes are released, that he was more deeply involved then we admitted. -- then he 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.
back in 1973 there were many female lawyers generally was it , let alone many high federal prosecutors. an uncomfortable position to be in? >> well the answer is neither yes nor no, it was both. i was used to it by then. only two percent of lawyers were women at the time. i was an oddity. lean inarned how to before there was a lien 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 were usually full-length.
others on the trial team with me were all head shots. very professional. so there was some good and some bad. >> let me ask bob woodward, the counsel to the president testifies that nixon was involved directly in the watergate cover-up. the key is, who's telling the truth, nixon or dean? even before the presidential aide spilled the beans about the white house taping system, archibald cox told me there were suspicions. "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. he said, i have dean on tape. so the lawyers went to nixon and tape.o, there was not a i have a dictatorial which was 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, and in fairness to a and garment 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 resign. >> phil hyman, when alexander butterfield acknowledged that there were tapes during the
watergate hearing. this is like a bombshell being dropped in the investigation. inside the special prosecutor's office, what were the problems you saw getting those tapes? this was a separation of powers, a nightmare for cox, was in that? >> cox was always very respectful of the president, reverential towards the office of the president. he was also dedicated to the supreme court. see a series of bad consequences. you the presidency was going to be badly undermined and he, again, respected the presidency. or the president was going to comply with the supreme court going to declined
to comply with the supreme court order. >> your team was specifically this is extremely damaging. involved. once we find out about the taping system, nine specific tapes having to do with watergate. in a federal judge supports the august, team. the white house refuses to comply. put archie always said was a great act of courage, the grand jury issued a rule of cause. it said the president 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? -- were you going to walk in past 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 conversations about crime.
was on behalf of the grand jury, we felt we had a right to those tapes. it was different from the senate. how different it is doesn't really matter because we got the tape. ours were related to looking at a crime. that is really what mattered in the end. we immediately went into action to try to figure out which tapes not a problemure with executive privilege. we knew that that would be something he would raise and so we try to get tapes that were corroborating john dean who, let's remember, testified before the senate without knowing that he had been tape-recorded. so it was his word against the president's. and but for those tapes am not sure we would had a very different outcome because the president would've had the
benefit of the doubt. versus ushe president thirtysomething year-old attorneys, i think america believe the president. but once he had artie testified in once we had the tapes, when he said on march 21 that it was a cancer on the presidency, there is no question what the outcome is going to be. >> in early october. there was another crisis brewing. it wasn't so public. your office was working with the prosecutors in maryland to deal with spiraling evidence that vice president spiro agnew had been accepting bribes in little white envelopes. tell us about that crisis. were you worried that could blow up? >> 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. this was a serious charge, needless to say. 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.
so we thought getting you to we bargain with him and getting him out of the way in the event something were to happen to the president was imperative. crises, we often forget about this dimension of the whole saturday night massacre, but jim doyle one of , the issues that swirled around at this time was national security. president nixon at this time was making dark references, especially to elliot richardson and his conversations come about the escalating war in the middle if you is forced to turn over the tapes, how that 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.
president nixon and al haig tried to use it as a reason for cox to back off. firing,eek before the haig was on the phone to richardson almost every day. richardson was dealing with cox privately about a compromise. haig would start out by talking about what happened in the middle east. richardson came to the conclusion that they wanted him, remember that he had been deputy secretary of state. he was secretary of defense when he was asked by richard nixon to come over. richard was ready to put on his uniform. it was a serious situation. the soviet union was reinforcing the arab armies in force.
the united states started out helping the israelis by wanting not to escalate the situation. the arabs at this point were doing extremely well. so, and its final discussion with richardson saying, 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 cox define my instructions. the firings, he called the white house to get instructions from the president. he could get neither nixon nor
haig on the phone and he finally and toldsinger tantrum the operator to get hate on the phone. line and saidhe henry why are you bothering us, -- wee trouble c-reactive have troubles here? >> spiro agnew shocked the world by resigning as vice president. the court of appeals directed that nixon had to turn over the tapes to cox. they made judgments about national security claims. the court of the appeals gave the president five days if you wanted to appeal to the supreme court. 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 best, most comprehensive credible memoir. this would be a big asset. obviouslythis would be a big asset. , what is stunning in this sequence is that 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. those are 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 dean, 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. the court of appeals has given the president five days to hand --r the tapes and compliant and complied. as this is happening, the lawyers 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 is not allowed to subpoena anything after that. cox told me that he agonized over this. he cared so deeply about the institutions of government. why did he in the end decide that he could not go along with that senate compromise? >> i was with him when he was deliberating about what to do. there were two big problems from his point of view. maybe a third that he would not tell me. one was that he was afraid that if he stood his ground and the supreme court ruled in favor of him, the president might say what andrew jackson had said. enforce 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. second of all he was afraid that he would not be able to use the transcription of it 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? in hindsight, do you think that he was being set up by the president in retrospect? >> i decided that before high site. [laughter] 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. i think that is what haig had in mind as well. >> 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. and as all of this is coming together, as the stennis compromise is being proposed, john dean decides to plead guilty. so for we can watch the clip. >> ken 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. so when i did break rank i was , not sure how that was going to unfold. the one thing i had on my side was the truth. when i went before the senate
and testified before the senate, after i had artie prepared my statement at the very end, i and in onethe back or more of the conversations he might've 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. they were hiding me in a home in melbourne florida. 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. but i need to meet with you tomorrow and i sure that marshals can get you back up, which they did.
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 fact that there was a 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. anyway, it turned out i had a very favorable reaction. jim hamilton watched me and saw this big smile come across my face i won't repeat the words in and 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.
as he could conceivably get one out. the senate committee never did get them. the fact is that the prosecutor did get them. i did develop 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. it far exceeded his days there. in fact, i had a call from him 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 then
richard benvenista, 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 had come to have faith in cox and the whole team. so on the 18th of i went into october court knowing that there would be troubles. cox's job was in jeopardy. but at that point i thought it would be impossible for nixon to
abolish the whole office and to put it back in the department of justice. anyway, i did and went into court with cox on the 18th. that had beening determined beforehand, to plead. a few days later he had his famous press conference where he refuses to accede to nixon's request to the tapes. to answer your last query, ken, i did not think nixon was going to prevail in the long run. i thought the truth would catch him and indeed it did. as it turned out, the saturday night massacre proved to be part of the reason that he fell when he did. he misplayed it, misjudged it, because 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 -- to preserve evidence in case nixon tell us about the intense tried to abort investigation. tell us about the intense weeks. also, tell us the story about their garbage. >> those are two unrelated stories. we discussed in the office what was going to happen and if the president refused. ultimately, going at the press conference. 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. we had the evidence in case the president took some extraordinary measures, we would be able to do something. i'm glad we never had to face that because a grand jury testimony is secret and we would've had to say some very
serious ethical -- we would had to face some serious ethical issues. tofelt that the time we had protect the case. i was burglarized shortly after the press conference. the first place i looked at when i had been burgled was the -- was the attic. a reporter asked a press 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] our offices were not far from -- --it is a service we were [laughter]
thank you. we were putting it out in clear plastic bags. we weren't even concealing our garbage and their officers were not far from ours. one morning i woke up. nowadays, you say you don't put anything in writing 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. >> that was not under the byline, right? >> no. >> let me ask jim doyle, described the white house on the e felt the deadline. their only days left. how did they try in the final hour to ram through that stennis compromise as a fade to a fairtsh -- as
accompli f -- as aait accompli? >> john dean was in the office so much with numerous task forces and giving them information. as a journalist, i was thinking if the press knew that this guy was walking around, it was unbelievable. it was a coke machine, this machine owes me $.25, john d. [laughter] >> make sure he gets that. >> cox and richardson were talking and richardson men and -- and richardson mentions john stennis. the office knew that he might be the monitor or whatever. he has described all considerations. but what we didn't know is that 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.
he had been on his deathbed at -- he had been on his staff at one point, counsel to the president of the united states. he was going to help cox -- i mean stennis translate this stuff. in any case, even though we were taking precautions like making copies for stuff and that sort of thing, i was really kind of blindsided. what the white house did was, it held on friday night of a three- day holiday weekend in the fall, perfect for leaf peeping etc., -- theydy in town
called in the white house press corps and said we have a compromise. then they described this compromise and said that cox will not seek any more tapes, ac. it sounded like it was three-way compromise. justice department, watergate prosecution of course white house. the only people who knew anything about it were the people at the white house who were holding this press briefing. us -- don't where we the "los was we called angeles times" washington bureau and said what is going on? we had no clue. , we have the word of a compromise. we had to do two things on deadline. tight deadlines. we had to make clear to the
press that archibald cox had major reservations about this that went to what the court then we hade, etc. to get through that to all of the roadblocks this would raise, all the questions it would raise. so we were successful getting a short cox statement into the first round of the news cycle. and so, and then, also successful in announcing, thanks to john barker who was in the room and several others. some of whom may be in the room. we got to the press club and announced archie cox was going to hold a news conference.
that news conference was as important an event as pretty much anything of those weeks. i felt terrific about it because we were shorthanded like everyone. it was late and they had managed the news cycle. the government always does that , but i feltnight good when the next day's paper had the story about the compromise and bennett said in the new york times headline, "cox defiant." >> we will see that in a minute. it was this pressure cooker environment that archibald cox takes a long and lonely walk from the offices on k street to this building at the national press club. that is where the title of the book comes from. i wanted to read this excerpt because i went with them to retrace the steps.
if you don't mind, i will stand second cu as i read this. but it is still for me 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. let's walk, archie said. cox would never allow his staff to see him upset or nor fist -- or nervous. on this saturday, his face looked lifeless. the four of them walked in silence up for mont through mcpherson square. they glanced momentarily at the white house glinting under the october sky. electric blue the president of the u.s. sat inside thinking strategy and waiting for the same press conference. would this tour the country into a more confused states?
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 -- not an easy trip to make. they insisted on compliance with the court order and had to adhere to the terms of the court order to which she 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? all of a sudden, too much seem to be expected of him. one of the reasons that he loved his job was he had heard it called the conscience of government. now, however, it seemed that his
washington newspapers and democratic senators and other people expected him to stand up and represent the conscience of the entire american people. -- could any one woman man how could anyone woman or man serve as a 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, awake in a collective sense of principle that had been lost in a city of grand marble edifices. if that happened, maybe the hulking machinery of government that was built to represent but them would eventually respond. but how did one do this? cox had no idea. the walk to the club seemed to last an eternity. i don't know how i ever got there, cox said. it was only with my wife's help. if we can, let's watch a clip of what took place right here at the national press club.
>> this is 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. with mississippi senator john stennis having unlimited access to verify the completeness and the accuracy of the summer. -- summary. special prosecutor cox interpreted that as a presidential refusal to obey the decree of the court that violated the solemn ledge he
-- the solemn pledge that he as a specialenate prosecutor. he said last night that he would have more to say a little bit later on. and in this setting today, archibald cox would have more to say. we see him coming to the press club ballroom with mrs. cox. we watch and listen. >> i read in one of the newspapers this morning, the headline "cox defiant." i do want to say that i don't feel defiant. in fact i told my wife i hate a , fight. some things i feel very deeply about are at stake and i hope that i can explain and defend them steadfastly. i am not looking for a confrontation. i have learned a great deal in my life without the problems of
imposing too much strain upon our constitutional institutions. i am certainly not out to get the president of the united states. i'm even worried in colloquial terms that i'm getting too big .or my britches what i see as principal could be vanity. i hope not. , i decided that i had to try to stick by what i thought was right. >> mr. cox, you'd seem to be and what we would call in nonviable position right now. are you going to wait for the president to dismiss you? >> i'm going to go about my on the terms of which i assume them. >> when and why did elliot richardson and you decide to
resign rather than fire cox? conference a press in the attorney general's office at the justice department, as i recall we had discussed this but of pleadingly before, the friday before this press and hisce elliot assistants and i were sitting around discussing the likely outcome of the white house's response to the special prosecutor's request. it seemed to us that the likelihood was that the president would ask first elliot in then me to discharge cox. and said,ked at him what are you going to do if he asks you that? >> well i would have to resign. and they looked at me. and i said i don't think it there is any set of conditions
in which it was possible to discharge cox. you didn't see me hard decision to me. with elliot and i had testified in being confirmed before the senate that we would only discharge cox for extraordinary improprieties. that phrase was used in our testimony. in all thed he not dealings of both of us had had with him had had any extraordinary improprieties, he had presumed his duties in the most appropriate way possible. there is no grounds for discharging him. we both said no. we wouldn't do it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]