PBS NewsHour - 2009-03-05

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] mine.

[0:07] [music]

[0:10] >> Good evening. I'm Jim Lara. On the

[0:12] NewsHour this Thursday, the lead story,

[0:15] the prospect of bankruptcy for General

[0:17] Motors. The other news of the day with

[0:19] another stock [music] market dive. The

[0:22] White House summit on healthc care

[0:23] reform. State Supreme Court arguments on

[0:26] same-sex marriage in California. Iraq,

[0:30] Afghanistan, and other matters as seen

[0:32] by former Iraq Study [music] Group

[0:34] chairman James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

[0:37] And a trip to Battleville by Horton

[0:40] Foot.

[0:42] Major funding for the NewsHour [music]

[0:43] with Jim Lara is provided by

[0:48] the world is changing and how we use

[0:51] energy today cannot be how we'll use it

[0:54] tomorrow. There is no one solution. It's

[0:57] not simply more oil, more renewables, or

[1:00] being more efficient.

[1:02] It's all of it. Our way of [music] life

[1:05] depends on developing all forms of

[1:07] energy and to use less of it. It's time

[1:11] to put [music] our differences aside.

[1:13] Will you be part of the solution?

[1:14] Chevron, human energy.

[1:17] >> What has made Grant Thornton a truly

[1:19] global accounting organization with

[1:21] access to resources in more than 100

[1:23] [music] countries? Is it their global

[1:26] capabilities or is it their passion for

[1:28] how they serve their clients? Grant

[1:31] Thornton

[1:33] >> and the National [music] Science

[1:34] Foundation supporting education and

[1:37] research across all fields of science

[1:39] and [music] engineering

[1:43] and with the ongoing support of these

[1:46] institutions and foundations. [music]

[1:51] And

[1:53] >> this [music] program was made possible

[1:54] by the Corporation for Public

[1:56] Broadcasting

[1:58] and by contributions [music] to your PBS

[2:00] station from viewers like you. Thank

[2:03] you.

[2:06] >> The future of General Motors became a

[2:09] question mark today. Its own auditors

[2:12] raised substantial doubt it can survive

[2:15] without a major restructuring. GM is

[2:18] currently seeking up to $30 billion in

[2:20] government funds to stay afloat. Over

[2:23] the past three years, the company's

[2:25] losses have total $82 billion. The news

[2:28] helped drive stocks down on Wall Street.

[2:31] The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost

[2:33] 281 points to close at 6594.

[2:37] The Nasdaq fell 54 points to close

[2:40] at$1299.

[2:42] Both lost more than 4%. Ray Suarez has

[2:45] our lead story report. The possibility

[2:48] the GM may still need to file for

[2:51] bankruptcy loomed again today following

[2:53] that ominous report from the company's

[2:55] outside auditors. For more, we're joined

[2:57] by Frank Langfit, who covers the auto

[2:59] industry for NPR. And Frank, what did

[3:02] the auditors say today to shine such a

[3:04] harsh light on General Motors?

[3:06] >> Well, what they said, Rey, is that

[3:07] there's substantial doubt that it can

[3:09] continue as an ongoing concern. And what

[3:11] that means in in audit speak is

[3:13] basically the company doesn't have

[3:15] enough money going forward and that if

[3:17] it doesn't continue to get enough

[3:18] revenue or get more help from the

[3:20] government um it could be headed into

[3:22] chapter 11 bankruptcy court.

[3:23] >> Now earlier in this crisis period let's

[3:26] say fall of last year they forecast

[3:28] trouble but they said they still were

[3:30] sitting on a substantial amount of cash.

[3:33] What happened to all that cash?

[3:34] >> They've been burning through it really

[3:36] fast at rates of a billion or even two

[3:38] billion a month. And one of the things

[3:39] that's happened recently that's really

[3:41] accelerated the problem is car sales

[3:44] have just collapsed. Consumers have lost

[3:45] confidence. People are putting off

[3:47] buying a new car. And so for instance,

[3:50] in February, GM's car sales fell yearon

[3:52] year about 53%. Very hard to run a

[3:55] company in that kind of condition.

[3:57] >> In this filing, has the company itself

[3:59] started to lay out scenarios for a

[4:01] possible bankruptcy?

[4:02] >> It did that back in February. If you

[4:04] remember, there was that viability plan

[4:06] that it sent to the White House auto

[4:07] task force and it it laid out several

[4:09] scenarios for bankruptcy, but it's also

[4:11] said all along it does not want to file.

[4:14] Its great concern is that unlike say a

[4:16] steel company or an airline company, it

[4:18] makes a product that it's afraid people

[4:20] just won't want to buy if they think the

[4:22] company isn't going to be around for a

[4:23] while. Now, today, General Motors closed

[4:26] below $2 a share. Now, this was once the

[4:29] largest industrial corporation on planet

[4:32] Earth.

[4:33] >> Absolutely. Did this signal that even as

[4:36] GM is asking for more money uh that

[4:39] there's a really substantial question

[4:41] about whether it can survive just the

[4:42] next several months? I I think it is

[4:44] very much up in the air. Uh and what's

[4:46] going to be really interesting is to see

[4:48] what the White House task force does as

[4:50] they look at this issue going forward.

[4:52] They have this month uh to work with the

[4:54] bond holders, uh the United Auto Workers

[4:56] to try to get GM's cost down so that

[4:59] they can continue to move forward. and

[5:01] only if the White House task force

[5:02] thinks that they're really viable going

[5:04] forward will they be able to get more

[5:05] government money.

[5:06] >> Let's talk about the bond holders and

[5:08] the union. Now, the bond holders

[5:10] obviously are holding a substantial

[5:12] amount of GM debt. They met with the

[5:13] Obama task force this week. Uh do you

[5:16] know anything about those conversations?

[5:18] >> Well, I think they're very tough

[5:19] conversations. The bond holders, like

[5:20] all the other stakeholders in this, they

[5:23] they want to cut the best deal that they

[5:24] can. And one thing that they're

[5:27] concerned about, they want to stay out

[5:28] of bankruptcy court because a bankruptcy

[5:30] judge can be a little like Solomon. Uh a

[5:32] bankruptcy judge can really enforce

[5:35] terms uh that are kind of outside the

[5:37] political arena. So right now they're

[5:38] trying to work with GM and with the task

[5:41] force to get the best deal they can.

[5:43] What GM wants to do is give stock in

[5:46] exchange for payment on the bonds. But

[5:48] of course, as you just mentioned, that

[5:49] stock is continuing to fall. So the bond

[5:51] holders are worried about how much

[5:52] they're really going to lose here. What

[5:54] about the United Auto Workers? Didn't GM

[5:56] borrow heavily from their retirees

[5:59] health care system?

[6:00] >> The big issue on retirey health care is

[6:02] this. Over time, uh GM is going to owe

[6:05] the United Auto Workers about $20

[6:07] billion. It made a deal more than a year

[6:10] ago to offload the healthcare retirey

[6:12] benefits to the union. Now, it doesn't

[6:14] have the cash to pay that. So, again,

[6:16] it's offering stock. United Auto Workers

[6:18] are also very concerned. You know, they

[6:20] want to make sure that they have money

[6:21] to take care of their retirees. So, are

[6:24] suppliers are parts companies starting

[6:26] to get the GM contagion? Are they in as

[6:29] much trouble as the company? Now,

[6:30] >> there's a that's a really big story that

[6:32] hasn't been covered enough. Uh, some of

[6:34] the suppliers are beginning to edge

[6:35] towards bankruptcy. Um, and their

[6:38] concern is that with these falling auto

[6:40] sales, it's this upstream um, you know,

[6:43] impact that if there are fewer cars

[6:45] being sold, there are fewer parts. And

[6:46] so they're actually, as you as you well

[6:48] know, they're actually asking for the

[6:49] Treasury Department for a lot of money

[6:51] too to get them through this period.

[6:53] >> NPR's Frank Langford, thanks for joining

[6:55] us.

[6:55] >> Happy to do it. Right.

[6:57] >> In other economic news, new requests for

[7:00] unemployment benefits dropped

[7:02] unexpectedly last week, but overall

[7:05] remained high. The Labor Department

[7:07] reported the number of workers filing

[7:09] dipped to 639,000.

[7:12] Still, more than 5 million Americans are

[7:15] now claiming jobless benefits. The House

[7:18] of Representatives moved toward passage

[7:20] of a bankruptcy home loan bill. It's

[7:22] part of a larger housing rescue package.

[7:25] It would let bankruptcy judges cut

[7:27] mortgage payments for some homeowners.

[7:30] Democrats praised the legislation.

[7:32] Republicans said it could actually raise

[7:35] interest rates.

[7:37] >> The safeguards are there. The

[7:39] opportunity is before us. The question

[7:41] is, do we want to protect Home Street to

[7:45] the same extent that we want to protect

[7:46] Main Street and Wall Street? There are

[7:49] people who are suffering. This is the

[7:51] opportunity to help them. This

[7:53] legislation will punish the successful,

[7:56] tax the responsible, and hold no one

[7:59] accountable.

[8:00] If we pass this legislation, what

[8:02] message does it send to responsible

[8:04] borrowers who are making their payments

[8:06] on time? How can we ask them to foot the

[8:08] bill for their neighbors mortgages?

[8:11] >> That House debate came on the same day

[8:13] the Mortgage Bankers Association

[8:16] reported a record 5.4 million American

[8:19] homeowners were late making mortgage

[8:21] payments last year. In other news today,

[8:25] NATO agreed to restore its ties with

[8:28] Russia. The decision came at a meeting

[8:30] of foreign ministers in Brussels. Normal

[8:33] relations were frozen last summer after

[8:36] Russia's incursion into the former

[8:37] Soviet Republic of Georgia. At the same

[8:40] meeting, US Secretary of State Clinton

[8:43] called for a high level international

[8:45] conference on stabilizing Afghanistan

[8:48] and her invitation included Iran.

[8:51] >> We have presented this idea which is

[8:53] being discussed. Nothing has been

[8:55] decided uh as a way of bringing all the

[8:58] uh stakeholders and interested parties

[9:01] together. uh if we move forward uh with

[9:05] such a meeting um it is expected that

[9:08] Iran would be invited as a neighbor of

[9:11] Afghanistan.

[9:12] >> Separately, Clinton called for the

[9:14] immediate release of an Iranian American

[9:17] journalist being held prisoner in Iran.

[9:20] Roxanna Sabi has reported for the BBC,

[9:23] National Public Radio, and other media.

[9:26] She has been detained for the past

[9:28] month. Swiss officials are helping the

[9:31] US gain more information on her

[9:33] condition and her whereabouts. In Iraq,

[9:37] a car bombing south of Baghdad killed at

[9:39] least 13 people. The explosion tore

[9:42] through a busy livestock market in a

[9:44] mainly Shiite area near the town of Ila.

[9:48] Police said dozens more were wounded. In

[9:51] political developments in Iraq, the

[9:53] parliament broke a deadlock and passed

[9:55] its 2009 budget. It was sharply reduced

[9:58] to $59 billion on account of falling oil

[10:02] prices. The president of Sudan expelled

[10:05] three more aid organizations on top of

[10:08] 10 that were kicked out yesterday.

[10:11] President Albashir ordered the aid

[10:13] organizations out after the

[10:15] International Criminal Court issued an

[10:17] arrest warrant for him for war crimes.

[10:20] At a rally of his supporters in Kartum,

[10:23] Albashir denounced the UN and other

[10:26] international organizations.

[10:31] We refused to submit to colonialism and

[10:33] rejected all kinds of economic,

[10:35] political, and diplomatic pressures. For

[10:37] 20 years, we are in a constant battle

[10:39] against neoc colonialism and all the

[10:41] tools. Starting from the security

[10:43] council, the IMF, the criminal court,

[10:46] and all the institutions that they try

[10:47] to use to recolonize people and loot

[10:50] their resources and capabilities. Aid

[10:53] workers warned their expulsions could

[10:54] lead to a humanitarian crisis,

[10:57] especially in Darur. And UN Secretary

[11:01] General Bon Kimmoon warned Ambashir's

[11:04] actions would cause irrevocable damage.

[11:07] He urged the Sudin government to

[11:09] reconsider its decision.

[11:18] And next, the push to overhaul health

[11:20] care in America. President Obama tried

[11:23] to kickstart those efforts today with a

[11:25] healthc care summit at the White House.

[11:27] More than 150 leaders from Congress,

[11:30] business, medicine, and consumer groups

[11:32] were there. He told them the status quo

[11:35] was no longer acceptable. Here is some

[11:38] of what he said.

[11:40] >> We're here today to discuss one of the

[11:41] greatest threats not just to the

[11:43] well-being of our families and the

[11:46] prosperity of our businesses, but to the

[11:48] very foundation of our economy. And

[11:51] that's the exploding costs of health

[11:53] care in America today. In the last 8

[11:56] years, premiums have grown four times

[11:59] faster than wages. An additional 9

[12:03] million Americans have joined the ranks

[12:05] of the uninsured.

[12:07] The cost of healthcare now causes a

[12:09] bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds.

[12:13] By the end of the year, it could cause

[12:16] 1.5 million Americans to lose their

[12:18] homes. Even for folks who are weathering

[12:22] this economic storm and have healthc

[12:24] care right now, all it takes is one

[12:26] stroke of bad luck, an accident or an

[12:29] illness, a divorce, a lost job to become

[12:32] one of the nearly 46 million uninsured,

[12:36] or the millions who have healthcare but

[12:39] really can't afford what they've got.

[12:40] Let me be clear.

[12:43] The same soaring costs that are

[12:45] straining families budgets are sinking

[12:47] our businesses and eating up our

[12:49] government's budget, too. The call for

[12:51] reform is coming from the bottom up and

[12:54] from all across the spectrum. From

[12:55] doctors, from nurses, from patients,

[12:58] from unions, from businesses, from

[13:00] hospitals, health care providers,

[13:02] community groups. This time there is no

[13:04] debate about whether all Americans

[13:06] should have quality affordable

[13:07] healthcare. The only question is how.

[13:10] And the purpose of this forum is to

[13:12] start answering that question to

[13:14] determine how we lower costs for

[13:16] everyone, improve quality for everyone,

[13:20] and expand coverage to all Americans.

[13:23] And our goal will be to enact

[13:25] comprehensive healthc care reform by the

[13:27] end of this year. In this effort, every

[13:30] voice has to be heard. Every idea must

[13:33] be considered. Every option must be on

[13:36] the table. There should be no sacred

[13:37] cows. Jeffrey Brown has more about where

[13:41] reform efforts may be headed.

[13:44] >> And for that, we have our own mini

[13:46] summit with three people who took part

[13:48] in today's gathering representing

[13:50] consumers, doctors, and business. Ron

[13:52] Pollock is the executive director of

[13:54] Families USA, a consumer advocacy group.

[13:56] Dr. Nancy Nielsen is the president of

[13:58] the American Medical Association, and

[14:00] Helen Darling is the president of the

[14:02] National Business Group on Health, which

[14:04] represents more than 300 large

[14:06] companies. Well, Ron Pollock, first help

[14:09] the rest of us understand where we're at

[14:11] today. How much actual consensus is

[14:13] there now on what can and cannot be

[14:16] accomplished? I think there is a growing

[14:18] consensus. What's totally different from

[14:20] what we experienced in 1993, 1994, and

[14:24] other past failed attempts is that the

[14:27] various stakeholder organizations,

[14:29] whether they're doctors or nurses or

[14:31] hospitals or uh the uh business

[14:34] community, uh we're all actually trying

[14:36] to sit together to find common ground.

[14:39] And I think there's a better chance of

[14:41] passing healthc care reform this time

[14:43] than ever before. The president clearly

[14:45] wants it. All of the committee chairs

[14:47] have said this is their top priority.

[14:50] The stakeholder organizations are trying

[14:53] to cooperate with one another and are

[14:54] doing so so far. So I think we've got a

[14:56] real shot of getting health reform done

[14:58] this year.

[14:58] >> Helen Darling, I mean we heard the

[15:00] president interesting several times he

[15:01] said this time this time. Clearly

[15:04] contrasting to 1993 and other times.

[15:06] What do you think? Well, I think I think

[15:08] with his leadership and with the

[15:10] collaboration of the political leaders

[15:12] because it's all about leadership at

[15:14] this point and which isn't to say there

[15:16] not a lot of complicated problems that

[15:18] need to be solved, but there is

[15:19] consensus u in some big areas including

[15:22] that there has to be adequate affordable

[15:25] coverage for all Americans and there's

[15:27] agreement on that and I think there's

[15:29] probably less agreement before even

[15:31] though people thought they were they

[15:33] believe that but there is a commitment

[15:36] this time around that I don't remember

[15:38] seeing before. There's also just the one

[15:41] final point is uh the emphasis on having

[15:44] to control cost was not there before and

[15:48] that's completely different and I think

[15:50] that's something that everybody

[15:51] understands. We don't really have a

[15:53] choice anymore.

[15:54] >> Do you do you agree with that?

[15:56] Especially on the emphasis on cost, Dr.

[15:58] Yes, I I think so because we do spend a

[16:00] great deal in this country compared to

[16:02] what is spent in other countries and and

[16:05] so there's no question that we need

[16:07] better value for the healthcare dollar.

[16:09] But I want to add just one thing, Jeff,

[16:11] to to what is different this time and

[16:14] that is with people losing their jobs in

[16:17] droves and therefore losing their health

[16:19] insurance uh the status quo is simply

[16:22] not acceptable. So, it's both the cost

[16:24] issue and the number of people without

[16:26] insurance that is going to drive this to

[16:29] to a conclusion.

[16:31] >> But doesn't that very thing make this

[16:33] even harder? I mean, the the economic

[16:36] downturn make it harder, stretch the

[16:38] system even more.

[16:39] >> It makes it makes much more tension for

[16:42] change. That's true. But it doesn't make

[16:44] it impossible. In fact,

[16:47] controlling the health care costs and

[16:49] getting better value for those dollars

[16:51] is going to actually be the key to

[16:54] improving our economy. And the president

[16:56] has said that and there is great

[16:58] agreement about that. So if there if I

[17:00] mean if everyone agrees that that um the

[17:02] system doesn't work and that we're at a

[17:04] moment when something can happen, what

[17:06] are the tough choices that have to be

[17:08] made when you look Ron Pollock at the

[17:10] situation, the things that you've wanted

[17:11] for many years, particularly access,

[17:14] greater access, what kind of tough

[17:16] choices are going to have to be made to

[17:17] provide that?

[17:18] >> Yeah, just one point about that access.

[17:21] Uh we just issued a report that showed

[17:23] in the last two years there were 86.7

[17:27] million people who didn't have health

[17:29] coverage for some portion of that 2-year

[17:32] period. So the key issue I think that's

[17:34] going to confront the Congress is

[17:36] whether there's going to be an upfront

[17:39] early investment to try to make sure

[17:41] that the subsidies that are needed to

[17:44] make health coverage affordable will be

[17:46] provided. We've got so many people who

[17:49] today are just priced out of the health

[17:51] care system. And so, uh, the president

[17:54] has made a significant investment. He's

[17:56] put up $634 billion over 10 years, fully

[18:01] paid for. But he's also made clear it

[18:04] was a down payment. And I think that's

[18:06] going to be the toughest thing because

[18:08] if you don't get that upfront

[18:09] investment, then you won't have the

[18:11] subsidies and people still will not be

[18:14] able to afford healthcare coverage.

[18:16] >> Right. But he put up the 600 billion in

[18:18] this blueprint and then right away

[18:20] experts, many experts said, "Well,

[18:22] that's only about half of what it would

[18:23] cost to do what he wants to do." So,

[18:25] where do you see the tough choices to

[18:27] get there? Well, I think one thing is

[18:31] someone will have to decide, and it's

[18:32] not clear who that'll be, is whether or

[18:34] not the co package of coverage that's

[18:37] going to be offered and paid and have to

[18:40] be paid for is going to be very rich or

[18:45] it's going to be adequate and good but

[18:48] not totally comprehensive. And the

[18:50] hardest decision particularly for the

[18:52] people who want universal coverage is to

[18:55] say we may not immediately be able to

[18:58] afford everything for everybody at the

[19:02] you know the first year out because the

[19:05] packages right now in the United States

[19:06] unless somebody's going to give up some

[19:08] income and there's not a lot of evidence

[19:09] that anybody wants to do that is cost a

[19:13] family about $15,000 is a comprehensive

[19:16] package of coverage in this country

[19:17] right now. But coming up with that for

[19:20] families and to finance that

[19:22] particularly all the ones who will need

[19:24] subsidies especially now is going to be

[19:26] very hard.

[19:28] >> Well the right away there's there's a

[19:30] level of friction that you can imagine a

[19:32] sort of cultural and social how much

[19:35] care

[19:36] should people get what would do where do

[19:39] doctors see the kind of friction point?

[19:42] >> Well we certainly we certainly feel the

[19:44] pain of our patients. We know what

[19:46] happens when patients don't have health

[19:48] insurance. So it it is really a moral

[19:50] imperative as the president said that we

[19:52] we get to covering everyone. But but the

[19:54] issue is is about value. What is it that

[19:57] we're getting for those dollars that

[19:59] we're spending? And and this is frankly

[20:02] a shared responsibility. And that was

[20:05] actually addressed a little bit in the

[20:07] final session, but not enough yet. It's

[20:10] it every one of the stakeholders in in

[20:13] all of this enterprise uh is is going to

[20:16] have to be able to come to grips with

[20:19] let's look at how we can do things more

[20:21] efficiently.

[20:22] >> Can I can I ask you though to be

[20:24] specific in the case of doctors? I mean

[20:26] is there a specific savings

[20:27] >> absolutely that you could offer to us

[20:29] now?

[20:29] >> Absolutely. First of all, we've we've

[20:31] seen we've seen a jump start on that in

[20:34] the stimulus package with the with the

[20:37] promise of of helping doctors have

[20:40] health information technology that will

[20:43] allow us to be more efficient. It's not

[20:45] efficient to not have a laboratory value

[20:47] or a chest X-ray and have to do it

[20:49] again. It costs money. It's not good for

[20:52] patients. It's not good for anyone. So,

[20:54] so health information technology will

[20:56] enable us to do things better. But what

[20:59] I want to also throw in here is that it

[21:01] is a shared responsibility. And when you

[21:03] look at the costs, 75% of the costs are

[21:08] due to a few chronic conditions. If we

[21:11] can can really invest in prevention and

[21:15] wellness as a society, then we're going

[21:18] to prevent those very costly conditions

[21:21] that emanate from obesity and diabetes

[21:24] and and cancers due to smoking and that

[21:26] sort of thing. Ron Pollockw uh big

[21:29] things on the on the table uh cost

[21:31] quality access. Is it possible to deal

[21:34] with all three at the same time? What if

[21:37] it comes down for example to um dealing

[21:40] with cost at the expense of of of wider

[21:44] access for a time?

[21:45] >> I I don't think you really can trade

[21:47] those things off. Uh we clearly would

[21:50] like to make sure as the president said

[21:52] that everyone has access to highquality

[21:55] affordable health care. But as you

[21:57] expand access, if you don't deal with

[21:59] cost, that's going to be a pirick

[22:02] victory because over time individuals,

[22:05] families will not be able to afford the

[22:07] coverage. Businesses will no longer feel

[22:09] that they can provide coverage to their

[22:11] uh workers. And so you've got to do both

[22:14] things at the same time. That's

[22:16] different from what happened in 1993,

[22:19] 1994. I think the public perceived the

[22:22] debate in 1993, 1994 to only be about

[22:26] coverage. As important as that is, but

[22:29] we have to combine coverage with cost

[22:32] and when we deal with cost, we have to

[22:34] make sure that we improve quality and I

[22:37] think those are not incompatible. Do you

[22:40] think all three are possible and

[22:41] particularly again at a time of economic

[22:43] crisis when there's not a lot of money

[22:46] out there?

[22:46] >> Well, I would say again we have to do

[22:48] all three simultaneously and in and in

[22:51] some important ways. There are

[22:53] opportunities on the quality and safety

[22:56] side as Dr. Nielsen talked about in

[22:57] health information and technology. We

[23:00] can get much better care for people with

[23:03] health information technology. We can

[23:05] also improve reduce um errors and uh

[23:10] safety problems in hospitals, healthcare

[23:12] acquired infections. Those are things

[23:14] that cost a lot of money. They drive up

[23:17] cost of healthcare right now. And if we

[23:20] can improve the record in those areas,

[23:23] we can have safety, quality, reduced

[23:26] cost and better access.

[23:28] >> Okay. I I note that Orin Hatch today he

[23:30] said that bringing you all together

[23:32] bring for the president to bring you all

[23:33] together was probably easy part and he

[23:35] said there will be some broken pottery

[23:37] soon enough in this process. Can we all

[23:39] agree on that?

[23:40] >> Well, there are going to be some issues.

[23:42] I mean you even saw when the president

[23:43] put on the table the $634 billion. One

[23:47] group raised an issue there, another

[23:48] group. But I think we're together to try

[23:51] and make this happen at the end of the

[23:52] day.

[23:52] >> Okay. Thanks very much Ron Pollock,

[23:54] Nancy Nielsen, and Helen Darling. Thank

[23:56] you all three.

[23:57] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[24:05] >> Now, the continuing battle over same-sex

[24:08] marriage in California. The state

[24:10] Supreme Court heard arguments in that

[24:12] case today, and NewsHour correspondent

[24:15] Spencer Michaels was there.

[24:18] The stakes were high this morning as

[24:20] hundreds of people on both sides of the

[24:22] same-sex marriage debate gathered

[24:24] outside the California Supreme Court in

[24:26] San Francisco

[24:28] judicial power to the

[24:30] >> today's proceedings which were broadcast

[24:32] live focused on three lawsuits seeking

[24:35] to overturn Proposition 8, a

[24:37] constitutional amendment which defines

[24:39] marriage as between a man and a woman.

[24:42] Californians voted for the measure 52 to

[24:45] 48% last November. California voters had

[24:49] once before in the year 2000 passed a

[24:52] ballot measure designed to ban gay

[24:55] marriage. But in May of 2008, the

[24:58] California Supreme Court declared that

[25:01] law unconstitutional

[25:03] because it failed to provide equal

[25:05] protection for gays and lesbians.

[25:08] that opened the door for same-sex

[25:10] couples to legally marry in the state.

[25:13] 18,000 tied the knot between May and

[25:16] November of last year. Yes, we will win.

[25:20] >> Opponents of same-sex marriage responded

[25:23] with Proposition 8. This time, a change

[25:26] to the state constitution. Its passing

[25:28] not only halted the new weddings, but it

[25:31] put the status of the 18,000 previously

[25:33] married couples into question.

[25:39] Last night, advocates of same-sex

[25:41] marriage staged a vigil, marching from

[25:43] the Castro district, where many gays

[25:45] live, to the California Supreme Court.

[25:48] Among those protesting were Jenny Olsen

[25:50] and Julie Dorf, a married lesbian

[25:53] couple, with their two daughters. Before

[25:56] the election, their 5-year-old daughter,

[25:58] Sylvie, worried that Prop 8 would split

[26:00] up their family. Sylvie said to me, um,

[26:05] so just very casually, so if Prop 8

[26:09] wins, who do I go with? Mommy Julie or

[26:12] Mommy Jenny?

[26:13] >> What do you want to see the California

[26:16] Supreme Court do at this point?

[26:18] >> Well, I mean, we hope that at a minimum

[26:21] they uphold the marriages that have

[26:23] already occurred. And more than that, I

[26:26] think it's time to say measures that are

[26:28] specifically taking rights away from

[26:31] minorities should not be allowed to be

[26:34] voted upon by the California people.

[26:37] >> Sponsors of Proposition 8 argue that a

[26:39] majority of voters elected to ban

[26:42] same-sex marriage and the will of the

[26:44] people cannot be denied. Frank Schubert

[26:47] was campaign manager for Yes on 8.

[26:50] >> The people are the supreme power in

[26:52] California. They created the judiciary.

[26:55] They created a legislature and they

[26:57] control the constitution and they have

[26:59] decided that marriage should be between

[27:01] a man and a woman.

[27:02] >> Their case was argued in court by

[27:04] Kenneth Star, the former prosecutor in

[27:07] the impeachment of President Bill

[27:08] Clinton. We want to restore the

[27:12] traditional definition that has been in

[27:14] place since this state was founded. And

[27:18] almost every other court in the country

[27:21] has agreed with the rationality of that.

[27:23] >> Proponents of same-sex marriage argued

[27:26] that Proposition 8 did not go through

[27:28] the correct procedures to amend the

[27:30] state's constitution. University of

[27:32] California law professor Vikram Amar

[27:35] explained

[27:36] >> the challengers to Proposition 8 argue

[27:39] that the change that it makes is so

[27:41] fundamental that it ought to be

[27:43] considered a revision not an amendment

[27:45] and because uh the legislature did not

[27:48] initiate Proposition 8 uh then it's

[27:51] invalid because it didn't go through the

[27:53] right procedure.

[27:54] >> Such revisions are very rare. Attorney

[27:57] Shannon Mter represented same-sex

[27:59] couples in court. The core of our

[28:02] argument is that a simple majority

[28:05] cannot be permitted to take away rights

[28:07] from a historically disadvantaged

[28:09] minority.

[28:10] >> But Justice Joyce Canard was skeptical

[28:12] of that argument.

[28:14] >> The people

[28:16] are those that have created the

[28:18] constitution. And I think what you're

[28:20] overlooking is the very broad powers of

[28:23] the people to amend by initiative the

[28:29] constitution. This week, the state

[28:31] legislature passed a resolution siding

[28:33] with opponents of Proposition 8. Gay

[28:36] activist and state assemblyman Tom

[28:38] Amiano argued that marriage for gays and

[28:41] lesbians is a civil right.

[28:44] >> The constitution has to recognize it. It

[28:46] may make you uncomfortable. It may make

[28:48] you want to move away, but that doesn't

[28:51] make it right.

[28:52] >> I confess to almighty God. But George

[28:56] Netherau, the Catholic Archbishop of San

[28:58] Francisco who worked hard to get Prop 8

[29:01] passed, sees things differently.

[29:03] >> California has been a state for nearly

[29:05] 160 years. For all of that time until

[29:09] May of this year, there was no civil

[29:11] right in California for same-sex couples

[29:14] to marry.

[29:15] Despite Prop 8's passage, the closeness

[29:18] of the vote and public opinion polls

[29:20] suggest the trend is in favor of those

[29:23] supporting same-sex marriage. Law

[29:26] professor Vicramar says that's a fact

[29:28] the California Supreme Court may take

[29:30] note of. A court that 50 years ago

[29:33] struck down a ban on interracial

[29:35] marriage nearly two decades before the

[29:37] US Supreme Court did. when the courts u

[29:41] banned racial segregation in schools or

[29:44] um eliminated barriers to interracial

[29:46] marriage that might have seemed a little

[29:50] aggressive at the time but within a

[29:52] generation Americans broadly rallied

[29:54] around that and today we take it for

[29:56] granted.

[29:57] >> Nonetheless, some legal scholars say the

[29:59] Supreme Court may be reluctant to

[30:02] overturn the vote of the people. A

[30:04] decision on the case is expected within

[30:06] 90 days.

[30:08] Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,

[30:10] Baker and Hamilton and farewell

[30:13] Hortonfoot.

[30:15] But first, this is Pledge Week on public

[30:17] television and we're taking a short

[30:19] break now so your public television

[30:21] station can ask for your support. That

[30:24] support helps keep programs like ours on

[30:26] the air.

[30:29] >> Hi, I'm Allison Frost from OPB News here

[30:31] with Vince Patton from OPBTV. There are

[30:34] some things in life that make such a

[30:36] difference they become a necessity.

[30:37] [music]

[30:38] For so many people in our community, OPB

[30:40] is one of those things. And programs

[30:42] like the NewsHour is just one of the

[30:44] reasons this is true. That's what OPB is

[30:47] all about. Programs you value. Programs

[30:49] [music] you trust. Programs that

[30:51] illuminate our world and keep you

[30:53] connected to it.

[30:54] >> Life truly is better with OPB. And OPB

[30:57] is better with you. Your financial

[30:59] support brings us all more informed news

[31:01] on the NewsHour every night. It brings

[31:03] us the world with unparalleled coverage

[31:05] of national and international news.

[31:08] >> And it gives us the opportunity to

[31:10] listen to each other through in-depth

[31:11] interviews and features. You make it

[31:14] happen at OPB. It's time for you to make

[31:16] your contribution to keep OPB thriving.

[31:19] Call 18002452346

[31:23] or give online at opb.org.

[31:25] >> People like you provide the vast

[31:27] majority of OPB's funding. In fact, 70%

[31:30] of the funds we raise come from OPB

[31:32] members, from people like you. It's a

[31:34] very special community of people who

[31:36] come together each year to help make our

[31:38] world a better place through OPB. It's

[31:40] more welcoming and inclusive. It's more

[31:42] concerned with citizens than consumers.

[31:45] And it's more open and curious about the

[31:47] world.

[31:48] >> And that's why your financial

[31:49] contribution now makes such a

[31:51] difference. Please make that call of

[31:53] support now to 1 800-245-2346

[31:57] or give online at opb.org. It doesn't

[32:00] take much, but it does take everyone. Of

[32:02] the 117,000

[32:05] people who support OPB each year, some

[32:07] give $10, some give a $100, some give a

[32:10] dollar a day, and some join our

[32:12] cornerstone society with a gift of

[32:14] $1,000 a year.

[32:16] >> And the truth of the matter is that the

[32:18] amount you choose is up to you. It

[32:20] really is your participation that

[32:22] matters most. In fact, basic membership

[32:24] in OPB, which includes our monthly

[32:26] program guide, now with listings and

[32:28] highlights for all three of our digital

[32:30] channels, is just $35 a year. For

[32:33] seniors and people with disabilities,

[32:35] it's just $25 a year. And it's been that

[32:38] way for more than 20 years now.

[32:40] >> Through all the change that's happened

[32:42] in our communities in the past 20 years,

[32:44] we haven't changed the price to join OPB

[32:46] one bit. That's because your

[32:48] participation is what really counts. We

[32:50] want membership to be available and

[32:52] affordable for everyone who lives here.

[32:55] >> And it's your support that truly makes

[32:57] OPB television worth talking about. And

[32:59] speaking of things to talk about, we

[33:01] have some wonderful gifts to thank you

[33:02] when you contribute in support of OPB

[33:04] right now. Give $60 and we'll thank you

[33:07] with this brand new, beautiful ceramic

[33:09] mug with a fantastic design of the Three

[33:11] Sisters Mountains on it. It's perfect to

[33:13] make your mornings happier with your

[33:15] favorite beverage.

[33:16] >> Or contribute $90 in support of OPB now

[33:19] and that's just $750 a month and you can

[33:22] make your life more refreshing because

[33:24] we'll thank you with our very popular

[33:25] stainless steel water bottle complete

[33:28] with a lovely mountain scene and Bruno

[33:30] the Elk looking on.

[33:32] >> Or if you'd like to make your life more

[33:34] artistic and wear your support of OPB,

[33:37] we'll be pleased to thank you with our

[33:38] newest Oregon Icons t-shirt. We'll send

[33:41] it your way in your choice of size,

[33:43] extra small through extra large when you

[33:45] make a generous gift of $120 in support

[33:48] of OPB. Now, that's just $10 a month.

[33:50] And it's a gift that will pay off for

[33:52] you and our community every single day

[33:54] of the year. What could be better?

[33:56] >> This is how you take that important

[33:58] step. Grab your credit card, go to your

[34:00] phone or computer, and make your gift

[34:02] now. Please call 18002452346

[34:06] or visit opb.org.

[34:08] And when you do, you know you'll be

[34:10] doing your part to make life better for

[34:12] everyone who lives here in our region.

[34:14] >> OPB truly is better with you, and you

[34:17] make it all happen here. Thank you for

[34:19] your support.

[34:30] And next tonight, Baker and Hamilton.

[34:33] Former Secretary of State and Treasury

[34:35] Secretary James Baker, a Republican, and

[34:38] former Democratic Congressman Lee

[34:40] Hamilton. They co-chared the public

[34:42] study group that reviewed Iraq policy in

[34:45] 2006. Hamilton also was co-chair of the

[34:49] 911 Commission. Both testified in

[34:51] Congress today on war powers

[34:53] legislation. and I talked to them

[34:55] earlier this evening.

[34:58] >> Gentlemen, welcome.

[34:59] >> Thank you.

[35:00] >> Congressman Hamilton, do you support

[35:02] President Obama's troop withdrawal plan

[35:03] for Iraq?

[35:05] >> Yes. I think he's really following the

[35:08] recommendation that Jim Baker and I made

[35:10] uh several years back and exit in a

[35:14] responsible way. Uh I think the exit is

[35:17] going to be tougher and uh maybe the

[35:21] president thinks certainly most

[35:22] Americans think because the fundamental

[35:25] problems have not been resolved in Iraq.

[35:29] But even so, it's time for the Americans

[35:32] to begin to pull out and let the Iraqis

[35:34] take over. We can't stay there forever.

[35:37] But Jur, the the study group's plan was

[35:39] for a much earlier withdrawal than

[35:41] finally happened here. Correct.

[35:43] >> Well, that's not really true, Jim. What

[35:45] we said was that with proper training of

[35:47] Iraqi forces, uh, American combat troops

[35:51] could be withdrawn by March 2008. Could

[35:55] be, could be,

[35:56] >> not should be or would be. And and that,

[35:58] by the way, was the Bush

[36:00] administration's own date, General

[36:02] Casey's own date. But to to amplify a

[36:04] little bit on what Lee said,

[36:06] >> the Obama administration is also

[36:08] proceeding with the diplomatic

[36:10] initiative that we call for in Iraq

[36:11] study group and they're opening

[36:13] discussions as you know uh with Syria,

[36:16] extensive discussions with Syria.

[36:18] >> And looking back on it now, the two of

[36:20] you really studied this Iraq situation

[36:23] from beginning to end. Was it worth it,

[36:25] Mr. Secretary? Was this war worth it?

[36:27] What we

[36:28] >> I think I think the jury is still a

[36:30] little bit out on that, Jim. I mean, the

[36:32] the the verdict on that will come in if

[36:36] we're ultimately successful. And as Lee

[36:38] just said, uh, President Obama is is uh

[36:41] has been cautious in the pace of

[36:44] withdrawal of American combat forces, I

[36:46] think we're now talking about uh 19

[36:49] months instead of 16 months. If at the

[36:51] end of that time, Iraq is a stable

[36:54] country and a and a friend of the United

[36:57] States in connection with the war on

[37:00] terror.

[37:01] Yes, it will have been worth it. We have

[37:03] to be see we have to wait and see

[37:05] whether that's the case.

[37:06] >> You agree was it was a war we should

[37:08] have fought.

[37:10] >> Uh I think the verdict is still to come.

[37:13] Uh I think Iraq could go in any number

[37:16] of directions.

[37:18] It could become a chaotic place. It

[37:21] could become a dictatorship.

[37:23] It could become a reasonably stable

[37:25] country with uh good influence in the

[37:29] region. it will not become a flourishing

[37:31] democracy.

[37:33] But uh whether or not the war is judged

[37:36] a success or not, I think is still

[37:38] remains to be seen.

[37:39] >> What about Afghanistan? President

[37:41] Obama's going to send 17,000 more

[37:43] American troops in there. Is it a

[37:46] parallel situ situation at all with

[37:48] Iraq? Is this the right thing to do, the

[37:50] right decision to make now looking at it

[37:52] now? Well, [clears throat] you know, the

[37:54] the uh attack on the United States uh on

[37:57] September 20ou in September 2001

[38:00] originated

[38:01] in Afghanistan. I think it's the right

[38:03] decision for the United States and for

[38:06] the president of the United States to be

[38:07] very concerned about that country

[38:09] becoming a safe haven for other

[38:13] terrorist attacks on the United States.

[38:15] So, I must say yes, I think so.

[38:17] hopefully that we won't have to be

[38:20] gradually escalating the number of

[38:22] troops. There's a serious everybody will

[38:24] tell you today that we have some serious

[38:27] problems there. We need to see [music]

[38:28] more participation by our NATO allies in

[38:32] the fighting there. But was it a was it

[38:34] is it the right decision to try and deny

[38:36] Afghanistan, deny a failed state to al

[38:39] Qaeda? Yes, it is.

[38:41] >> Is it a war that is winnable? Is that is

[38:43] it a war in a traditional sense, Mr.

[38:46] Hamilton that hey, okay, now we're going

[38:47] to go to war. We're going to escalate

[38:49] the war with 17,000 more troops in

[38:51] Afghanistan and on such such a in such

[38:54] and such a time we're going to win this

[38:55] war.

[38:56] >> Well, I hope not.

[38:57] >> It's not that.

[38:58] >> No. My my deep concern in Afghanistan is

[39:01] mission creep.

[39:03] I do not think we can make Afghanistan a

[39:06] flourishing democracy.

[39:09] Afghanistan has been like it is for a

[39:11] thousand years.

[39:13] it'll continue to be like it is for a

[39:15] thousand years. And we have to have a

[39:19] real strong dose of realism to

[39:22] understand

[39:23] uh our limitations there no matter what

[39:26] resources we put in. And I don't think

[39:28] the American people would support very

[39:31] large resources for a long period of

[39:33] time. But what Jim said is correct. Our

[39:37] enemy is al-Qaeda

[39:39] and we should go after al-Qaeda and the

[39:44] extremists and we should not take our

[39:47] eye off the target.

[39:49] >> I don't think our goal there is a is a

[39:51] Jeffersonian democracy. The president

[39:53] has been clear about that. president,

[39:55] the new president uh and the the

[39:57] secretary of defense who carried over

[39:59] from the Bush administration, they both

[40:01] said very clearly denying uh al Qaeda a

[40:05] failed state in Afghanistan is our

[40:07] objective.

[40:08] >> But Mr. Secretary, this been going on

[40:09] since 2001.

[40:11] >> That's right.

[40:11] >> And there we are. We're putting 17,000

[40:13] more troops in there.

[40:15] >> Well, that's right. Well, what we had in

[40:17] there before wasn't enough, obviously,

[40:19] but the objective is still a very uh uh

[40:24] noble and and worthy objective in my

[40:27] opinion. This is where the attacks on

[40:28] the United States originated from.

[40:31] >> We can we cannot permit al-Qaeda to have

[40:34] a sanctuary.

[40:35] >> No. 2001 came about because they did

[40:38] have a sanctuary in Afghanistan,

[40:41] not interrupted, protected by that

[40:44] country and its government, and they

[40:46] plotted and planned that attack against

[40:48] the United States. You've got the same

[40:51] thing now. Al-Qaeda has a sanctuary, not

[40:55] this time in Afghanistan, but in

[40:57] Pakistan. We cannot permit that because

[41:00] that does represent a threat to the

[41:02] United States. Now, we're talking about

[41:05] two wars here. Both of you are very much

[41:07] involved. You've just testified today,

[41:09] in fact, about uh the war powers, uh

[41:12] legislation, etc., and the way the

[41:15] United States now officially goes to

[41:17] war. Does it work? Does our system for

[41:20] going to war work?

[41:21] >> Well, I think it has worked, but it's

[41:23] not the best system. And we were

[41:25] [clears throat] charged with uh the

[41:26] obligation of trying to see if there

[41:28] were any suggestions we could make to

[41:30] improve it. We've come with a a

[41:32] different bill, a different statute. We

[41:34] call it the War Powers Consultation Act

[41:36] of 2009 to replace the failed War Powers

[41:40] Resolution of 73. No, it doesn't work.

[41:43] It was passed over the Nixon over Nixon

[41:45] veto. Uh it's probably unconstitutional.

[41:48] Every pre American president, Democrat

[41:50] or Republican, has treated it as

[41:52] unconstitutional. So, what we're calling

[41:55] for is a practical approach. We

[41:57] recognize this is not going to solve the

[42:00] constitutional arguments that the

[42:02] branches engage in. Nothing could solve

[42:04] that except a Supreme Court decision or

[42:07] a constitutional amendment. We don't

[42:09] even try to. We protect the right of

[42:11] each branch to make its constitutional

[42:13] arguments. But we say there's a better

[42:15] way to go and this is it. More

[42:17] consultation at the beginning.

[42:20] >> Now consultation, one person's

[42:22] consultation is another person's uh

[42:24] whatever. Uh, Secretary Baker, you come

[42:27] primarily from the executive branch.

[42:29] Congressman uh Hamilton, you you spent

[42:32] what over 30 years in in the House of

[42:34] Representatives. Is there is there

[42:36] legitimate consultation or should there

[42:38] be more legitimate consultation between

[42:40] the executive branch and the executive

[42:42] or is it the way it is now? The

[42:44] president decides to go to war, they go

[42:45] to war, right?

[42:47] >> My view is that if an American president

[42:50] wants to go to war, the Congress cannot

[42:52] stop it. Should that be the way it is?

[42:56] >> Well, it is the way it is.

[42:57] >> It is the way it is. And you're not

[42:58] going to change that. And we don't

[43:00] change it by this statute. What we try

[43:02] to do is to make sure that the president

[43:05] of the United States when he has this

[43:07] awful decision in front of him gets the

[43:10] best possible advice, not only from his

[43:13] official team, Secretary of State,

[43:15] Secretary of Defense, and so forth, but

[43:17] also from the Congress, which can give

[43:19] independent advice. They're not

[43:21] dependent on him for a job. And the

[43:23] president needs to touch all the bases

[43:25] before he makes the gravest decision

[43:28] that a government makes. Do you send

[43:30] young men and women into war? We want to

[43:33] make sure there is meaningful

[43:35] consultation. Now that's a limited

[43:38] effort.

[43:40] >> And there isn't. Now what you're both

[43:41] saying there is not awful consultation.

[43:44] >> Sometimes there is, sometimes there's

[43:45] not.

[43:45] >> Sometimes there is, sometimes not. What

[43:47] we what we seek to do here is simply to

[43:49] formalize the process specifically tell

[43:53] in the statute the who who the pre name

[43:56] who the president should consult with

[43:57] the leadership of the congress

[43:59] leadership of the relevant committees

[44:00] and so forth and u and it requires the

[44:04] president before initiating uh a

[44:06] significant armed conflict defined as

[44:08] one that lasts more than seven days to

[44:10] go to the congress and talk to him about

[44:12] it meaningful discussion timely exchange

[44:15] they don't have to vote They don't have

[44:16] to then then the statute [clears throat]

[44:19] requires that they vote

[44:20] >> within 30 within 30 days that they vote

[44:23] up or down

[44:24] >> on it. If they vote it down, of course

[44:28] uh if well if they vote it up, president

[44:30] goes ahead with his plan. If they vote

[44:32] it down, it will have to be presented to

[44:35] the president uh as a resolution of

[44:37] disapproval for his signature under the

[44:39] presentment clause of the constitution.

[44:41] If he vetos it, that's the end of the

[44:44] line. If he vetos it and they have

[44:45] twothirds vote to override it, it's not

[44:47] the end of the line.

[44:48] >> Finally, um uh a I started to say

[44:52] political, but it's not a political

[44:54] question. You're a Democrat. Uh

[44:55] Congressman Hamilton, you're a

[44:56] Republican. Uh Secretary Baker, how well

[44:59] do you think President Obama is doing?

[45:01] He's six weeks into the job now. What

[45:03] kind of what kind of uh wake are you

[45:06] seeing here from this presidency?

[45:08] >> Well, I think Well, let me say this. as

[45:10] a Republican and one who's been an

[45:11] adversarial Republican. I think this

[45:13] president came to office with some of

[45:15] the greatest challenges facing him or

[45:17] any president in uh in my experience and

[45:20] in my lifetime, particularly given

[45:22] what's happened to our economy. So, he's

[45:24] got to focus on a whole lot of things. I

[45:26] think he's doing a pretty darn good job

[45:28] of doing that. Uh do I do I agree

[45:31] philosophically with some of his

[45:34] conclusions? No, I do not. I'm a

[45:36] conservative Republican. He's a Democrat

[45:39] and perhaps a liberal Democrat. I do

[45:41] agree with much of the pragmatic

[45:43] approach that he has exhibited toward

[45:45] foreign affairs and toward international

[45:48] relations. I think it's very it's a I

[45:50] see there a very healthy dose of

[45:52] realism. And I see a foreign policy that

[45:56] looks not a whole lot unlike the foreign

[45:58] policy of President Bush 41's

[46:01] administration, President George HW

[46:03] Bush.

[46:04] >> Hamilton. Well, legislatively pretty

[46:08] impressive. A stimulus package extending

[46:11] health care to children, uh, dealing

[46:13] with employment discrimination with

[46:15] regard to women. Uh, I think it's

[46:18] domestically a pretty good uh, record.

[46:21] He has a proposal before the Congress,

[46:26] proposals I should say, that are really

[46:28] transformational in [snorts] this

[46:30] country. and uh he's rolled the dice for

[46:34] a major change of direction. I don't

[46:36] know whether he can pull it off. I don't

[46:38] know whether the Congress can deal with

[46:39] all that at one time, but I do think he

[46:43] has the support of the nation at this

[46:46] point for genuine change in education

[46:49] and health care and energy and other

[46:51] areas. On foreign policy, I very much

[46:54] agree with Jim. He is a pragmatic fellow

[46:58] when it comes to foreign policy and he

[47:00] wants to know how to solve the problem.

[47:02] And when you talk to the president, he

[47:04] wants to know with regard to Iran, with

[47:07] regard to Syria, with regard to the

[47:09] peace process, what do I do now? What's

[47:12] >> how do I get it done?

[47:13] >> How do I get it done?

[47:14] >> He listens. Does he listen?

[47:15] >> Not beyond that.

[47:17] >> He listens. He understands what you say.

[47:20] There's a big difference. He does.

[47:22] >> Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

[47:24] >> Thank you.

[47:28] >> [music]

[47:33] >> And finally tonight, a scene from

[47:35] [music]

[47:35] the master storyteller Horton Foot. He

[47:38] wrote more than 60 plays and films

[47:41] capturing the dignity and frequent

[47:43] struggles of American life. He died

[47:46] yesterday at the age of 92. Foot was

[47:49] awarded the National Medal of the Arts,

[47:52] a Puliter Prize, and two Academy Awards.

[47:55] The first for his movie adaptation of

[47:58] Toquilla Mockingbird in 1962.

[48:02] Here's a scene from The Trip to

[48:04] Bountiful, his play that he adapted for

[48:06] the movies in 1985.

[48:09] We see the main character, Carrie Watts,

[48:12] talking to a young stranger on a bus as

[48:15] she makes a final visit to her Texas

[48:18] hometown.

[48:21] Nobody needs to be ashamed of crying cuz

[48:24] we've all dampened a pillow sometime or

[48:27] other. I know I have. If only I could

[48:30] learn not to worry.

[48:32] >> I know. Yes, we all asked that.

[48:35] Jesse May, my daughter-in-law, don't

[48:37] worry. What poor? She says, well, like I

[48:40] tell her, that's a fine attitude if you

[48:43] can cultivate it. Trouble is, I can't

[48:45] any longer.

[48:48] It is hard. I didn't used to worry when

[48:51] I was younger. I was so carefree. I had

[48:53] lots to worry me, too. Everybody was so

[48:56] poor back in Bountiful. But we got

[48:58] along.

[48:59] I said to my papa once after our third

[49:01] crop failure in a row, whoever named

[49:03] this place Bountiful, he said his papa

[49:06] did. Cuz in those days it was a land of

[49:08] plenty. You just drop seeds in the

[49:10] ground as the crops will spring up. We

[49:12] had cotton and corn and sugar cane. I

[49:14] think it's the prettiest place I ever

[49:16] heard of. Jesse May says it's the

[49:19] ugliest, but she only says that to

[49:20] bother me. She only saw it once and that

[49:22] was in a rainy day. At that she says

[49:24] it's nothing but an old swamp. That may

[49:26] be I said but it's a mighty pretty swamp

[49:29] to me.

[49:31] >> That actress of course was Geraldine

[49:33] Paige. She won an Academy Award for her

[49:35] performance.

[49:43] And again, the major developments of

[49:45] this day. General Motors auditors raised

[49:47] substantial doubt it can survive without

[49:49] a major restructuring. The news helped

[49:52] drive stocks down on Wall Street by more

[49:54] than 4%. And late today, the House of

[49:57] Representatives passed a bankruptcy home

[49:59] loan bill. It lets bankruptcy judges cut

[50:02] mortgage payments for some homeowners,

[50:05] home owners. We'll see you online and

[50:08] again here tomorrow evening with Mark

[50:10] Shields and David Brooks among others.

[50:12] I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night.

[50:19] >> Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[50:22] Lara is provided by

[50:25] oil, energy, the environment. Where are

[50:30] the answers? This isn't a liberal or

[50:32] conservative issue. It's a human issue.

[50:36] As an energy company, Chevron [music]

[50:37] has a great responsibility.

[50:39] So, we've improved our own energy

[50:41] efficiency [music] 27% since 1992. And

[50:45] now, we ask you to join us in one of the

[50:47] most important efforts [music] of our

[50:48] time, using less. Will you join us?

[50:52] Chevron Human Energy,

[50:56] Grant Thornton,

[50:59] the Atlantic Philanthropies,

[51:03] and with the ongoing support of these

[51:06] institutions and foundations.

[51:12] And this program was made possible by

[51:15] the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

[51:17] and by contributions to your PBS station

[51:20] from viewers like you. Thank you.

[51:33] IM PBS.

[51:37] Just as two voices are stronger than

[51:39] one, a thousand voices are stronger than

[51:41] 10. 117,000 voices are a virtual chorus

[51:45] working together to make OPB all that it

[51:48] is. Hi, I'm Vince Patton here with

[51:49] Allison Frost of OPB radio. That's how

[51:52] many people join together each year.

[51:54] 117,000 people to bring OPB to everybody

[51:58] in our community. They are the people

[52:00] who help make life better for everyone

[52:02] [music] who lives here. And you are the

[52:04] one who can make a difference now

[52:06] because life is better with OPB. And OPB

[52:09] is better with you. It's your financial

[52:11] support. Your investment in OPB that

[52:14] makes the programs you love shine. Your

[52:17] support creates a first class outlet for

[52:19] the best independent and unbiased news

[52:21] around. Your support helps us all

[52:24] stretch our minds and challenge our

[52:26] imaginations. Your support allows us to

[52:28] explore the world and the people who

[52:30] live in it in ways we never could

[52:32] without OPB. From the NewsHour to Oregon

[52:35] Field Guide to Antiques Road Show, Nova

[52:37] and Masterpiece, OPB enriches our world

[52:40] with the best of science, the best of

[52:42] nature, the best of history, and the

[52:44] best of the arts. [snorts]

[52:45] >> It's your support that allows OPB to do

[52:48] this so well. Please take a moment now

[52:50] to join the chorus of people who back

[52:52] OPB. Make a gift now. Call 1 800-2452346

[52:58] or give online at opb.org.

[53:01] >> Whether you join OPB with a contribution

[53:02] of $35 or whether you can support OPB

[53:05] with a larger gift of $60, $100, $200 or

[53:09] more, you make all the difference here.

[53:12] As a steady viewer and fan of the

[53:14] excellent public affairs programs you

[53:15] find here on OPB every day of the week,

[53:18] you know there's simply nowhere else you

[53:20] can find this level of integrity than on

[53:22] OPB. Call [snorts] 1 800-2452346

[53:27] or use our safe and secure online giving

[53:30] form at opb.org.

[53:32] This special kind of programming has

[53:33] been a staple on OPB since the very

[53:35] beginning. The NewsHour, Washington

[53:37] Weekend Review, Frontline, Nightly

[53:39] Business Report, Now, and much, much

[53:42] more. And because we're public

[53:44] television, we have a very special

[53:46] commitment to giving you what you want

[53:47] from these programs. It's non-biased,

[53:49] nonpartisan, in-depth news and analysis.

[53:52] Frankly, it's television that matters.

[53:55] >> It's a fact that public broadcasting is

[53:57] the most trusted media institution in

[53:59] the nation. And it's a fact that you

[54:01] simply can't get anything of this

[54:03] quality anywhere else on the dial.

[54:06] >> OPB is not driven by the ratings game.

[54:08] It's not swayed by advertising dollars.

[54:11] OPB is created only to serve you. And

[54:14] that's exactly why we're asking you to

[54:16] support OPB. Now, we're independent and

[54:18] proud to be that way. But that means we

[54:21] must rely on you to pitch in.

[54:22] >> I'm familiar with that, right?

[54:23] [laughter]

[54:24] >> Internet circuit file. Let's go to

[54:25] Nashville, Tennessee, which has been

[54:26] named the manliest city in America. New

[54:28] study used criteria like the number of

[54:30] professional major league sports teams,

[54:32] popularity of the tools and the

[54:34] hardware, frequency, the monster truck

[54:36] rallies. The least manly city on the

[54:38] list, New York City, apparently because

[54:40] it lacks in areas such as fishing, home

[54:41] improvement, and drag racing. Now,

[54:43] where's Portland on there? 47th out of

[54:45] 50. Seattle was number 40. But my

[54:47] question, how could we possibly be

[54:49] number 47 with guys like

[54:51] >> you guys?

[54:52] >> We're manly.

[54:53] >> See you tomorrow, folks.

[54:57] >> Fisher [music] Communications.

[55:13] Hey

[55:19] Thank you.

[55:20] >> Great milk comes from happy cows. Happy

[55:23] cows come from California. Look for

[55:25] dairy brands with the real California

[55:26] seals.

[55:29] >> If you have fibromyalgia and experience

[55:32] widespread [music]

[55:32] muscle or joint pain, excessive fatigue,

[55:35] and trouble sleeping, you may qualify

[55:36] [music] for an FDA approved prescription

[55:38] drug research study for fibromyalgia.

[55:40] Call Summit Research Network, 503228

[55:44] care. Get your next loan with

[55:46] convenience, privacy, [music] and peace

[55:48] of mind. At Silverlining Jewelry and

[55:49] Loan, you'll find an ethical,

[55:51] experienced, and [music] compassionate

[55:52] staff ready to help you get a regulated

[55:54] collateral loan. Next time you need a

[55:56] loan, visit Silverlining Jewelry and

[55:58] Loan.

[56:00] Tired of glasses? Sick of contacts?

[56:02] [music] Wish you could afford LASIK?

[56:04] Well, now's the time to call Lasic Plus

[56:06] Vision Center. We don't just change your

[56:08] vision, we can change [music] your life.

[56:11] And now you can get $400 off. Plus, it's

[56:14] easy to qualify for no money down and no

[56:16] interest financing [music] for 24

[56:18] months. So, call now to speak to a LASIC

[56:20] specialist and schedule a free no- risk,

[56:22] no obligation LASIC vision exam with one

[56:24] of our doctors and [music] find out if

[56:26] you're a candidate for LASIK. At LASIK

[56:28] Plus, all we do is laser vision

[56:30] correction. And with [music] over 1

[56:32] million procedures, you can trust your

[56:34] eyes to the experts at LASIC Plus,

[56:36] treating nearsighted, far-sighted, and

[56:38] aigmatism. So call LASIC [music] Plus

[56:41] now and get $400 off LASIK. No money

[56:44] down and no interest for 24 months. This

[56:46] special offer [music] won't last. Hurry.

[56:49] Call now. 1 8002162020.

[56:52] [music] 1 8002162020.

[56:55] We don't just change your vision. We

[56:57] could change your life.

[57:00] >> There's always been in this nation a

[57:02] spirit that just plain knows what's

[57:04] necessary when faced with a challenge.

[57:07] Judgment, some courage. But most of all,

[57:10] a willingness to act, to move forward.

[57:13] During the Great Depression, at AT&T, we

[57:15] built the most sophisticated phone

[57:17] system in the world. Sure, it created

[57:20] jobs, but it also created a future no

[57:23] one had dreamed of. We've just built the

[57:25] world's first 40 gigabit data network, a

[57:28] faster and more advanced broadband

[57:30] network than any other in the world. In

[57:33] 2009, we plan to invest billions of

[57:36] dollars into infrastructure, and we're

[57:38] bringing home over [music] 5,000

[57:41] American jobs with 3,000 home already.

[57:45] If what we do stimulates the economy,

[57:48] that's critical. But if it stimulates an

[57:50] even stronger future for all of us, even

[57:53] better. We're AT&T. Your world

[57:57] delivered.

[58:00] >> US Bank. Five-star service guaranteed.