preeminence. because of financial limited stations. . . >> and it opened up for me. the world. this is what particularly the philosophy course taught me, moral values, etiquette is. and i was exposed to history, politics, international

relations. it was an eye-opener, and and i have never forgotten it in one talk a little bit about the military but let me jump. i might pick up some of the other stuff to this photograph right here. >> that is a photograph of what we call the whiz kids. there were 10 of us. we had served in the army together. is was a long story. we had served in the army together and we were led by one man. tex thorton, this man. you just can't believe the story. he went in as a second lieutenant. robert, but in an investment banker in new york had become assistant secretary of the army. there was no air force at the time. it was what was called the army air corps, and robert have become assistant secretary of the army for air. and he came in there and they had, i have forgotten figures, these are rough orders of

magnitude. they had maybe a thousand airplanes, 1500, 1700 officers, almost all pilots. and you will recall, roosevelt, one of things he did, we have to produce produce 50000 airplanes a year. we are going to fight germany and possibly later japan. and we had i call it a thousand airplanes. so robert began to work on that. the first thing he found an investment banker. know when you how many airplanes we had, what conditions would they were in, what the future was. so he thought he had to get some information. and somebody mentioned to him, some second lieutenant who had been working in one of the departmedepartment in washington as a civilian, but who was i believe in the reserve, could be called up to do the. they say you know something about data and information, facts and statistics. why don't you get a hold of him.

so he got a hold of thorton and thorton built the whole thing and became known as statistical control. and that was the foundation of the management system, for managing what became a tremendous operation of u.s. army air corps. c-span: fill in the blanks and whiz kids. hold it up again for just one second. >> wrong page, i'll get it c-span: >> of the 10, two committed suicide. two became president. he by the way was in effect fired. we can talk more about him later. he was a fantastic person after he was fired. henry ford wanted to say i want you to stay on as chairman of the board. rj to his credit said no way.

at least he said you will stay on the board. for 40 years after that rj was the most influential director. anyway, two committed suicide. and the other six including -- know, to quit. and the other for plus arjay and me, these were 10 people hired in a package. >> how old were you in that picture. >> twenty-nine c-span: and you have been harbored by then? >> i had graduated from business school and then i gone to san francisco for a year after i graduated. and the dean at harvard called me and asked me to go back to teach their. and i was in the midst of according a young lady who i'd known since i was 17. c-span: which one do you want? >> this is the young lady after we were married.

here i am a captain. i left her behind with our one year old daughter. at that time there was gas rationing you would get a limited number and she could really drive the car much so she had a bicycle, and this is our young daughter behind it. but let me, if i may, i really want your audience to see what this lady was like. c-span: in the second section. you said her name was margaret? >> margaret c-span: and she died 14 years ago? >> fourteen years ago. >> c-span: which one do you want? >> she is speaking at the university of california and los angeles in the place of lady bird johnson. she and i were backpackers and we back back there. there is one i want to show. let me take a second. i will get back to those of whiz kids just a second.

i might digress a moment. we're going to get back to the vietnam prospect. when president kennedy called the cabinet lies together in january of 1961 and said, you know, you will hate me. i think margaret was there. they said why are we going to hate you? and he said because you're never going to see her husband. we're going to work so hard you will never see the. but he said i will tell you what you do. do your own thing. do what brings you satisfaction. he said if you take your husband and i are screwing up the government go demonstrate in front of the white house and make real change. margaret had been a teacher. i met her when were 17. i met her in the first week i was at berkeley in august 19 33 when we were 17. it took me some years to convince her to marry me. but when the dean asked me to go back to harvard, she was traveling across the country with her aunt. and i said to the dean, well,

i'm certainly convinced of this courtship. and i would say this. i will, if i can persuade the lady to marry me. he wanted me there in six weeks or something. he said i will come if i can persuade the lady to marry me. if i can't, you know, so that i tried to find out where she was. i talked to her father. he said back in baltimore. i said where are they going to stay? he said you might try the ywca. so i called the ywca and i got her on it pay telephone and i persuaded her to marry me there and she did. but in any event, she had been a teacher at the time. go back to that one picture i wanted to show. this one. kennedy, as i said, do your own thing. she had been a teacher. she loved kids. so she went into the district, public schools, fifth and sixth grade just to see what they were like. she found that children couldn't read. so she said she could use her position in the cabinet,

ministers wife and bring in remedial pictures, which she did. didn't help me. they still couldn't read. and she began to probe and try to find, finally she said, neither one of us believe, then or now, and inheritance genetically and superiority. there is no evidence of that. in one way it was worse. it wasn't inheritance through the genes. it was a cultural inheritance. she said you know what, many if not most of these children are children of single parents. no father. they are in homes where there has never been a single piece of printed material. not a book, magazine. i said i don't believe it. in the capital, the richest country on the will. she said you come with me and look.

so finally she concluded, the kids weren't learning to read because they weren't interested. so she said how can i get them interested in reading? and as i say, she had been in homes. she saw there wasn't a single book and i'll. never. so she said well, i will get some books and see if they might be interested. so she got books, put them on a table, and said if you're interested, take one. it will be yours. you can take it home, keep it. they just flocked to it. now, she chose books, comic books. i said my god, why do you do some classics or something. you are exposing them to comics. the first thing is to get them interested in books and getting them interested in reading. she did. and she started by herself. and when she died, there were 70000 volunteers working on the program. and president carter, four days

before he left the white house, 17 days before she died he awarded her the medal of freedom for the. and the program is still going. barbara bush is a director. la richardsons daughter is a director. after she died, yes, this is the president carter award. 14 days before she died, four days before president carter left the white house. c-span: how many children do you have? >> three. c-span: how old are they now? >> forty-five, 48 and 54. c-span: where do they live? >> one lives in california, one lives in hearing what was is in atlanta, georgia. c-span: boys or girls? c-span: the middle one is a boy. c-span: had you by chance talk to them about this book? grant. >> c-span:

>> i did have copies until last friday. so i shipped to them, but one of them was with me last night, gave a book party. i was embarrassed that she did but it turned out she did a wonderful affair. my daughter was there. the one who lives in washington and she was very excited about it. you're talking about protest, this is a disjointed conversation, but let me mention this. because my children were of college-age, my son, the youngest, was nine years younger than the oldest. he went to stanford after i left the department of defense. but my oldest child was at stanford while i was in the department of defense, and my middle child was in the university as well while i was there. of course, they were all exposed to some degrees to protest in some fashion. so last at this book party we

got to talking about protest, in the middle child, kathy, was there last night. and i recalled, and as a matter fact i make in the book, that she had a friend who organized thousands of young people to march against the president and against me on vietnam. and after one or two of these marches, she invited her to dinner. so they came and had dinner at our home. i recall one occasion after dinner we went in a library and talked a little about 10:30 p.m. or so. he said very seriously, he said, well, i guess nobody can be all bad. the man's name is sam brown. he was nominated by president clinton, the ambassador to the

csc council on security and cooperation in europe about a year and a half ago. senator helms said hell no, that guy was a traitor. you're not going to confirm him. so sam wrote me a note and said, bob, would you write senator helms and say whatever you want. but say i wasn't a traitor, that i believed in this nation and i was trying to save the nation. well, i considered to be mistake. maybe i was wrong. he surely wasn't a traitor. so i wrote senator helms and told him. had no impact. they refused to confirm him, but he is dedicated to serve under public-service india serving over there now as a u.s. representative to the council and security cooperation as u.s. ambassador. c-span: when did you literally say to yourself i'm going to do this? >> well, not until relatively recently.

let me give a long answer to that. the preface of the book i mentioned that mark brought to my attention, 35 or 40 years ago for lines from t.s. eliot, and i think they are from his text that's in the preface. that's right. exactly. the lines, i can't remember, but i know what they say. they say we shall not cease from exploring and at the end of our exploration we will return to where we started and know the place for the first time. now, i haven't cease to export but i'm a further along than i was 15 or 30 years ago. and i think i see a little more clearly, not as clearly as i will, a few years before i die. but i see more clearly today and i saw five, 10, 30 years ago events.

and to tell you the truth, i didn't really see clearly to be confident in my judgment about the mistakes we made india dom until two or three years ago. i saw clearly for a long time, at least i believe it was a failure. i believe this. in 1966, that's when i first had the idea of the pentagon papers, and i thought then this is a failure, we are not achieving our objectives. scholars should and i hope will wish to review what happened. how did we get in this damn mess? and i knew enough about government can no, it isn't a deep people, destroyed documents. the government as large as ours documents get misplaced. so i started the pentagon papers to bring these things together. and to come back now to your question, after i left the

department and went to the world bank, i was there 13 years after i left and i had been involved in others i don't want to talk about or interested in. but it was only about two and a half years ago that i thought i understood the lessons, i had understood long before it was a failure. but i wouldn't completely clear in my mind why it was, and in particular i wasn't clear what the lessons were. and about two and a half, three years ago i was in my office one day. and i just felt compelled to try to write down. i don't use a computer. i write longhand. and i just felt compelled to write down off the top of my head with no research, no documentation, no reference to books that have been written on it at all. just off the top of my head what i thought were the lessons. i wrote them down, and the last

chapter, which include mistakes, the statement of 11, was almost verbatim how i wrote it at that time. and just having written that, i thought, well, maybe people have been pressing me to go much further. maybe i could go farther. and coincidentally at the time, a young man began to write a biography that i had never heard of. he called and asked if i would be willing to talk to him about his biography. he said, of course, there will be no opportunity for you to see what i write, and no opportunity for you to censor it. if you are willing to do it on that basis, he said i would be happy to talk to your it turned out that he is a very, very

assistant at the naval academy, professor. moreover, he had written, his guy is on the cover, because he had written -- brian vander bart. he had written one book, one small book on vietnam, and he had assisted bart clifford and the colbert and writing clark's book. so vander bart came after at least two or three interviews. he said, you know, i'm a historian. i'm a professional historian. when i advanced in the scholarly world what i write, and in a sense i should write vietnam, writer biography, or whatever. but he said i have begun to understand that really the only person that can talk authoritatively about vietnam is you. and you say that you are never going to do it. because you didn't take any papers out of the defense

department except one of three ring binder of very high classified papers that you didn't keep a diary. you don't have any classification access to classified materials. you say you can't buy yourself develop the document. you say you don't want to write off the top of your head. remember, you don't trust. it isn't, you say, that you would come and speak to it isn't that you would consciously star but you told me, macnamara, you told me that is your experience that people writing about themselves and their own decisions, look at that through classes that are favorable to them. and you say you don't want to do them and that's one reason you haven't done it. was that i would be willing to do the research, and moreover, i would be willing to review

everything you are writing and adhere to the strictest standards. and if you ever deviate from the written record in any way for a. express judgments that you might not have had the time, or if you appear to be writing in ways that put a favorable oak loss on your position, your action, he said i will agree that i will check that and bring it to your attention. so i said okay. i signed a contract to write a novel biography. first after he said on an autobiography, i developed a written proposal covering my life, the early years. my education, harvard, my experience in world war ii, my years at ford motor company.

my southern years in the defense department and my 13 years at world bank. i laid out each of those sections of my life, but i will call the story that i was going to use as a foundation for the autobiography. i hired an agent, a wonderful agent. and asked him to take this to the publishers. he did. a number were interested. for put forward very substantial proposals, and out of that i chose one. then i knew i had to cover vietnam. and i knew that, or thought it would be the most difficult part of it. so i said to brian vandemark, i will start to. i was secretary for seven years during that period we went to the whole series of decisions in the not. nine. , not ink will in late. but nine peerage related to the

subject, the decisions, the policy, the decisions of those periods. i will give those calendar page to you and i want you to go to all the libraries, all the depositories, the defense department, the library of congress, the lbj library, that kind of deal, etc. and i want you for each one of these nine periods, bring me the piles of documents and i will draft a chapter based on that. and then you take the rough draft and you compare the document and be damned sure that it's founded in doctor mentation. and in reality, and not in my desire to make the decisions look wise today. and that's the way we worked. i am way off. c-span: two years ago we did this book. who participated in some 20 interviews and i just wondered

if you have read this, if they said anything to do. >> it had nothing to do with it. c-span: while they're on the subject of the book, i've got a quote here as you well know there's been a lot written about this. before i redo this, let me ask you about what's this experience like for you to go from studio to studio, from show to show, from network to network? >> i am so pleased to be here because trying to tell a very complicated story with nuances, soundbites. it's almost impossible. and moreover, i've been dealing with people who haven't read the book. i will do just one illustration, and i hope we can talk a little more about this later. and if you are interested in the book, i hope they will do this. there is an appendix in it, a nuclear appendix. is there because today i think the world faces a very serious risk of nuclear war.

that's not justification for putting a nuclear appendix in a book on vietnam. it's there because during vietnam at times the reference to possibly using nuclear weapons. and it should be understood that the possible use of nuclear weapons remains part of our contingency war plans today. so that appendix is put there to describe the risks as i observe them, both in relation to vietnam and didn't particularly to this crisis. the american people today do not understand how close we came to an absolutely catastrophic nuclear war in october 19 62 in connection with cuba. but we also face a possible use of nuclear weapons in connection to vietnam. and johnson and i were determined to avoid that. today, if the world, the

agreement that yeltsin and bush made the terms of which required that u.s. reduced its strategic nuclear forces to 3500 weapons by the year 2003, and the soviets to 3000. if you add tactical weapons and the weapons of france, britain and china, india 2003, there will be about 10000 nuclear warheads in the world compared to what i want to say 40000 today. i don't think we would survive a nuclear war in which 10000 words could be exchanged at a world in which 40000 had been exchanged. both would be absolutely devastating. that's a problem we have to focus on. that's why the appendix is there, and it's related to some other risks and it not. c-span: go back to the question what has it been like. in these interviews, and i know, are you reading all the newspapers? >> i read as much as i can. i haven't had breakfast for the

last three days because i have been on the morning shows. and i have gone from morning to close to midnight, and the answer is i read a lot of. i haven't read all. c-span: what does it feel like to have beige. >> well, there's been a lot of controversy. some of the articles are very, very thoughtful. somehow i think think been quite superficial. there are still open wounds relating to vietnam. one of my hopes was, and you will think exactly the reverse has occurred, i don't think so. one of my hopes was that the book would help close wounds instead of opening. i knew they were open wounds. and what we have seen in the last week is a reflection of that. but i hope it will close, and it may, give me a second to find it, a paper. this is unbelievable.

in the book i relate that, i talk about the protesters. and i had great sympathy for the protesters. my wife and my children and my friends wives and children shared many of the views of the protesters. but in any event, one day, i believe it was 1965, a man burned himself to death in front of my window. his name was morrison. as the flames were consuming him, he had a child in his arms, and passersby were observing and shouting, they screened it they screened it saved a child. he threw the child out of his arms. c-span: 1965? >> i believe 1965. the child is alive today. the mother of a child, the wife of morrison. i would like to read if i can.

it's a beautiful, beautiful letter. he was a quaker by the way. she obviously is bought as well. he said to heal the wounds of war we must forgive ourselves and each other. we must help the people of vietnam to rebuild their country. i am grateful for robert mcnamara or his courageous and honest reappraisal of the vietnam war and its involvement in it. i hope this will contribute to the healing process. now that is, of course, what i had in mind. but you have it it come from her is fantastic. i talk to her on the telephone this morning. she is a noble person. c-span: what is she lifted a? >> she lives in north carolina. he and she, the man who burned himself, were members of the stony ridge meeting house in baltimore at the time. she wrote this statement and send it to the quaker meeting house and sent me a copy.

c-span: where do you live now? 2 i live in washington. i live in the same house for 35 years. c-span: 78 years old c-span: i will be 79 in for five weeks. c-span: do you exercise? >> you won't believe this. a month ago i was on the continental divide. i crossed the continental divide at 12500 feet on skis. i wish i would've had the book. it's obvious enough when taken a month ago. it was a fantastic ski trip. but i was with a man that in the picture there. why don't they put the page numbers on pictures? i don't know why. that's it. this photograph was taken two years ago just about two or 3 miles from where the same man, this is doctor eisen. he is former vice chairman of american college of surgeons. one of the most outstanding surgeons in the world. he and i., for five weeks ago,

or about three or 4 miles from their crossing the continental divide at 12500 feet. that photograph is at the top of the home state teak 13200 feet. we were there two years ago. it is an unbelievable beautiful country. so the answer is i do exercise and i love it. . . vietnam veterans. he should not profit from the tragedy he caused. >> well, let's deal first with the crimes against humanity. ranks with hitler and stalin. i think that's, a basic

point that needs to be addressed, and, i try to, try to address it. and, maybe i can read from the preface because it deals with that. i don't know whether i can -- yeah, here it is. i say, we of the kennedy and johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on vietnam, acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. we made our decisions in the light of those values. the principles and traditions of this nation. not the principles of hitler. not the principles of stalin. the principles and traditions of this this nation, yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. we owe it to future generations to explain why. and i go on to say, i want americans to understand, why

we made the mistakes. the colonel is half-right. we weren't, what were his words? i don't believe we ranked with hitler and stalin but he is right in the sense we made mistakes and the nation paid a terrible price. i go on to say, i want americans to understand why we made the mistakes we did, and to learn from them. and i hope we will. c-span: what about the profits? a lot of peoples skin? >> profits. tell you the truth i haven't had time to focus on them. i didn't think, i don't know what they would be, i didn't think they would be very much and i haven't focused on them. i, whatever i do, in way of giving them to charity will be done privately. and i just haven't made up my mind. i have one or two projects that i would very much like to, that would be in the public domain, that i would very much like to see furthered and, i'm, in

negotiations with some people now to see whether that can be done and those are kinds of things i would do but i'm not prepared to discuss it now. c-span: would you give all the profits to charity? >> i don't know. i don't know what the profits are to tell you the truth and i don't know what i'm going to do with them. there is one project, that would take all the profits, need all the profits. i don't know whether i'm going to do it or not. it's, depends on parties that are outside my control as to whether we pursue it or not. c-span: let me ask you it differently. did you do this to make money? >> oh, my god, no. my god, no. long ago, i mentioned in the book, that money has never been a motivating factor for me. people say i'm wealthy, and in a sense that, my children are well-educated. that i have a nice house, sure. but, in the sense of wealthy, no way.

and, never mattered it my children. we moved, the book mentions this, it wasn't that i was trying to stick my finger in the eyes of my fellow auto executives but, my wife and i wanted to build our, bring our children up in an academic atmosphere, not, in the wealthy suburbs of detroit in which the auto executives lived, bloomfield hills and gross point. so we moved, we moved to ann arbor. and we lived in a modest house. when i was president of ford motor company, we lived in a house that cost around $50,000. and when i, margaret and i, when i said to president kennedy i wasn't qualified and i couldn't possibly accept his offer to be secretary of defense he kept pressing me. i went home one weekend. we talked about it. we brought in the children, and we said, now this is

what we're considering. and if we do it, we'll be going from, in today's dollars what would have been i suppose $2.5 million a year down to what then in those dollars, was 25,000. it is hard for people to believe but the cabinet officers salary was 25,000. my children could care less. margaret didn't care. as a matter of fact, because i was president of the company i had to drive a new car, new cars, once a month. we turned them over and i, gained experience in various models and margaret had one of the cars and she turned them over. occasionally every four weeks or so i would have a lincoln continental. the children wouldn't let her drive them to school in a lincoln continental. they didn't want to be seen in a luxury car. all this has to do with your question. my god, the last thing in the world that motivated me was money. i could care less. c-span: the second point on this same kind of an issue, you've been asked to come to the vietnam's veterans,

memorial wall, and confront the veterans. >> i've gone to the wall. i don't want to confront the veterans. i want the veterans to be respected and admired by our people in ways that they haven't been. and i hope the book will contribute to the that. c-span: so you don't see -- >> it wasn't the veteranses who caused this. they're the ones who did their duty. and we should respect and admire them, and, greatest help we can give them, in my opinion, is to ensure that their sacrifice isn't repeated in the future. c-span: let me go back to this. if it turns out that the two things that bother people the most after this book you say you want to help, are that you're going to keep the money and they don't know where it goes and you won't talk to veterans in some kind of a formal setting, would you change your mind? >> well, i think so. i'm not going to give you an answer today. i think so.

the purpose of the pock is to, as i say, heal wounds. and my god, i don't want to open wounds. and i say in the book, what i believe. that part because i have served myself but most of all because i understand some of the trauma that they have gone through. i believe our nation owes them respect, affection, recognition. and i think the greatest respect we can give them is to understand what caused this tragedy, to ensure it doesn't occur again. c-span: the regular viewers to this program think we're about out of time but this is a two-hour conversation. >> my god, we haven't talked about the book. c-span: we have present of time. >> i haven't answered your question about ford. i'm terribly sorry are i'm taking so long. c-span: we've got a lot of time left. i just want to mention it, i'm sure folks watch this, he hasn't talked about this war yet and i'm going to get to that. but i do want to go back

quickly over the points, uc berkly, united states army, ford motor company and you became president of ford motor company, what year at what age? >> i became president at 44. i was the first president of the company ever who had not been a member of the ford family. i was elected president in early november, 1960. and i left five weeks later. c-span: how did you leave? >> when president kennedy asked me to serve as secretary of defense. c-span: before i get to that though, the edsel. you know how often -- >> i, this will take more time than you have. let me take the edsel for a moment. c-span: tell me what the edsel was. >> you will never believe this. well, first, you have to understand that, that ford motor company totally dominated the auto industry up until 1926, and, henry ford's basic, henry ford,

sr.'s basic view was he will build the cheapest car so the ordinary working man in the this country would buy it and he was going to pay wages, think if i recall correctly, $5 an hour to so the working man would have money to buy this very cheap utilitarian car. and among other things ford said, henry ford, sr. said was, it will be painted any color they want so long as it's black. i mention this because, he, was, in a sense, forcing onto the public an austere product. then, general motors came in. dupont bought into it in 1919 and they put in some dupont executives and it really began to advance. they had some of the finest industrial leadership this country has ever seen. and it began, as they began to change their product they began to take market share away from ford, and finally in about 1926, henry ford

recognized he had to, to change the model, offer other colors than black, if you will, but most importantly offer other than the model-t. so he went and introduced the model-a. but they were out of business for a couple years in effect and they began to lose market and it was in a hell of a mess. that's why we at ford, i didn't get to finish the story about this picture of 10. the, at the end of the war, texstarten he was a fantastic promoter. at the end of the war he had perhaps, illusions of grandeur. he thought group of fellows he put together -- let me digress and say, i was at harvard. harvard graduate school of business recognized that, market of ordinary students would begin to dry up as the draft came in. so the dean, very intelligently, sent professors down to the washington, said, can't we

help in the educational process to train officers? authority ton needed officers, so he said yes. he gave a contract to harvard and we trained officers. we thought we were going to get the a-list people in the air force. the way to do that, as candidates, we'll bring them up to harvard and give them this course and they will be the without any question, a-list people in whole air force for non-flying jobs. so went down to miami, went through all, i'll call it the recruitment statements for every single individual drafted or volunteering for the air force. we put them through ibm machines. we sorted them out on the basis of college education, grades, every other quality you could think of, we selected the candidates to come to harvard. we put them through the course. then we took brightest and ablest to those and we recommended them to thornton.

out of them he took this group of 10, they were very able people. he thought, by god, we can run anything in this country. c-span: whiz kids. >> whiz kids. we could run anything in this country. so he, in a sense, who needs our help? well, he had read in "life" magazine that edsel ford had died in 1943. and, sidelight on that is, mrs. edsel ford, when i left ford motor company, i talked to her because she felt that henry ford, sr. had in a very real sense killed his son, edsel ford, by thrusting him into an extraordinarily complex situation that caused him ulcers and, other physical ailments from which he died. and she was determined that was not going to happen to henry ford the 2nd. i was supposed to be the one who prevent that.

any event, edsel ford died envelope 1943 i recall. henry ford, sr. was still alive and they brought in henry ford ii out of the navy to, yes, to come back, to run the company. so, tex thornton read in life magazine, this young man who attended yale, i don't think he graduated from yale, which was being brought back to run this company which was in a hell of a mess. ford motor company from 1926 to 46, at a time general motors made billions, barry broke even including the war. after we arrived there in the first eight months, we loss $50 million in cash. it was a hell of a mess. in any event tex had illusions how competent this group was. he said to henry ford, i've got just the bunch you mead. we'll -- need. we'll make you a deal, 10.

tex said to me, you got to come bob. you will be second-in-command. i will run it. i said no way, tex i'm on leave from harvard. three years margaret and i spent at harvard when i was young instructor and very junk assistant professor, they were happiest i could ever imagine. we're going back to harvard. look, you don't seem to understand. you and margaret had polio and in your case was relatively light and you got out in month or month or two. she is still in the hospital. she was, at johns hopkins children's hospital. c-span: you both had polio? >> we both had polio. vj day in august of 1945 we were both in the air force regional hospital in dayton, ohio with polio. it is unbelievable. my case was relatively light. i got out in couple months or month and a half. she had to be transferred from the air force hospital where they couldn't care for her, transferred, i got dean at medical school of harvard to help me and she was

transferred to children's hospital in baltimore associated with johns hopkins. they did a fantastic job. at that time they said she would never lift a arm or leg off bed again. people today don't understand polio. it was a terrible scourge. dr. salk and others eliminated that but at that time it was terrible. she would never lift arm or leg off the bed again. tex said to me, bob, you can't go to harvard. i know what those medical bills are. no way. you got to come to ford. finally i said, tell you what i do. i will go out there with you. i think it is insane. some way or other i will pay the damn bills. he said you come. i went out there. i will go only if we all go out there and we meet henry ford and find out what in the hell he has in mind to take 10 people he doesn't know to run the company. so we go. we were in a meeting. he had a person named john bugsa, vice president of industrial relations with him and it was clear he didn't want us hired. and i learned later the

reason. bugsa thought he was the rising star and he thought he would become president of the company. this is 19, november 45 we're all out there. at one point, john bugas said to henry, henry if you want to hire -- henry said, what are you talking about. what if you mean i want to hire them. i already told you want to hire them. it is a done deal. it wasn't a done deal. so we're hired. we're going to start 1st of february, 46. we're eager beavers. get out there three or four days ahead of time. we report in, and they say well, we're happy you're here a few days early. there are two days of tests we're going to give you. they gave us every test in the world. intelligence tests, achievement tests personality tests you name it. bugas thought he would get rid of it we do poorly on the tests. i don't know the results of tests until few years ago. four of us scored in the upper percentile.

upper 1%, what is called the 100th percentile on intelligence tests. several of us scored highest grades ever on judgment tests. john wasn't able to get rid of us. 15 years later in an he will voight tar in colon, germany in july, 1960. henry and john bugas were over there visiting the colon plant. three of us got back in the hotel. we were in elevator going up to our rooms. his room was on floor higher than mind and john's. we get to our floor, john and i started to get out and henry ford, bob come up, have a night cap. henry, i don't want a night cap. i want to go bed. come up. john, said i will come up. henry, i want you to go up there. i want you to be president. henry, i'll have to think about it.

i will talk to margaret and let you know in a week. that's when it occurred. c-span: but you didn't build the edsel. >> i'm sorry. no, i'm terribly sorry. i got way off, the point is, i go on and finally, i'm, appointed general manager of the ford division. what i started to say, way off the subject is, at that time, general motors had chevrolet, pontiac, oldsmobile, buick and cadillac. ford only had three. we had ford, mercury and lincoln. they had five, and we had three. so how are we going to, get as much of the market as they did? we have to put another line in there. that was the edsel. the edsel was named for henry ford's father. it was a total disaster. i had nothing to do with it. i was general manager of the ford division. i was a director of the company at that time and the car divisions were under the control of what was called a group vice president. leo caruso. he believed that because the

edsel would to some degree compete with the ford as the pontiac did with the chevrolet i would oppose the edsel. he wouldn't allow me to have copies of the papers even though i was a director of the company. then he died. the edsel has been approved. it had been designed. it had been tooled. we were within, whatever, three, four, five months of its introduction on the market. the as shemppably plants were receiving the parts -- assembly. parts were being machined in other plants. and i was put in charge. and i had to bring that damn car out. it was a total fiasco, total failure. at that time it was the biggest loss that any industrial company had ever suffered. we had to stop it. some of the dealers committed suicide. one of those 10 people was made, had caruso made him general manager of one of the divisions. i had to fire him and he committed suicide.

it was a god-awful mess much and to go on, senator goldwater, in the 1964 campaign was campaigning on as much against me and i mentioned this in the book, i describe why he was opposed to me. he thought i was disarming the nation. that is why he was opposed. campaigning against me as much as he was against president johnson. he was making most outrageous statements which are quoted there. and one of higgs, -- his chief financial associates, helping to finance the goldwater campaign had been the executive vice president of ford motor company when the edsel had been approved, ernest breach. to his everlasting credit he wrote goldwater a letter and said, dear senator, i will never give you another dime if you once again say mcnamara was responsible for the edsel. he had nothing to do with it. that charge haunted me, for years. finally i took that breach letter, he sent me a copy, i

sent it to every newspaper or magazine that printed it and finally it stopped. c-span: in a second part of this two-hour conversation about the in retrospect book by robert mcnamara. we'll talk about vietnam. robert s. mcnamara, author of, "in red very suspect." you talk about -- retrospect. you talk about in the kennedy administration about the backgrounder and missile gap. >> i blush to think about it. c-span: what happened? >> this will take a little while too. the 1960 campaign, president kennedy won the election, against nixon, was fought in part on kennedy's charge that the republicans had left the u.s. facing a missile gap that threatened its security. the soviets had more

missiles than we had. that came about, that came about because at that time there was no coordinated intelligence organization in the government. the cia reported, the air force reported, the army intelligence, state department, navy intelligence and so on. the air force had estimated that the soviets had more missiles than we had. they weren't trying to deceive anybody. it was just blinders that the air force had. but in any event, the report had been leaked to senator kennedy. he had accepted it on face value and he charged eisenhower and republicans with having endangered this nation with the missile gap. so obviously, one of my first responsibilities as secretary was starting on january 21, 1961 was to determine how large the missile gap was and what action was necessary to close it. so i spent a large part of the first three or four weeks doing that. and my deputy and i did that. we met with the major

general of the air force, so-called a-2 charge of intelligence, who had been the source of that. we went over everything he had. he was honest guy. he was looking at it what i call, a air force point of view. in a sense if they had more missiles than we did, that would justify more missiles. it was an ear erroneous conclusion. we came to that conclusion, we told the president about the same time my assistant secretary of public affairs, bob, you haven't met the pentagon press. they're a great bunch. they're were a great bunch but in terms of newspapers they were sharks out after a story. arthur, i'm from auto industry. i don't know washington, i don't know the press. i'm not prepared. come on up. they are great people. no problem at all. so we have a press conference. i forgot when, early in february, i guess, mid-february, maybe. they're all in the room next to me. there might have 40 there. and, he introduced me and i thought he said it was all

off the record. now he probably said it was for background. i didn't know the difference from background and off the record. for background means they can report it. not in my exact words but they can report it. so, the first question was, mr. secretary, you've been here three or four weeks. missile gap obviously was an important element in the campaign, a major security issue. what are you doing about it? well, i said, you're quite right. it was important. it is important. i'm focused on that and i determined there wasn't a missile gap, if there is it is in our favor. you couldn't hold the damn doors. they broke the doors down. that was about 2:30 in the afternoon. the afternoon edition of the evening star carried that story. mcnamara denies missile today. the next morning, ev dirksen, majority leader of the republicans in the senate, called for my resignation and called for rerun of the election because the president had won under false pretenses. i was devastated. so i went over to see the

president. look, mr. president, i came down here to help you and all i have done engender requests for resignation and i'm prepared to resign. he said, hell with it, bob. we all put our footh in the mouth occasionally. forget about it. it will blow of and it did. i love him for it. c-span: the same man you mention, arthur sylvester, your press spokesman -- >> yes. c-span: allegedly, i don't think you can find the quote specifically, said at one time the government has a right to lie. >> i think he probably said it. i would have hard time putting my finger on the quote but i think he probably said it. and if he did, i'm not positive of this, but i think it was in connection with the cuban missile crisis or one of those crises, and, this is a terrible dilemma if, if you're in, if the situation is dangerous for the country, for example, in case of cuban missile crisis, the

president refused to allow any information to the public, and very, very little to people in the administration, excepting the top people for a week. so we could think what in the hell to do. now during that time, as i remember, i may be wrong on this, i they called or asked some of us to ask one or key newsman who had the information and asked them not to use it. suppose for the minute somebody come in during that period and say, mr. president, we hear there are missiles in cuba. what are you going to do about nuclear missiles, what are you going to do about it? it's under these circumstances that arthur sylvester might have said, i think, we're justified in lying until we have time to think about this. i don't, i don't think he was right but, you have to understand the kind of a problem it was.

i'm not at all sure that that quote, which think was an accurate quote, not at all sure it either related to the bay of pigs or cuban missile crisis, i've forgot enwhich. it was an unfortunate gnat quote, i will say that. >> one of the things you find in the book i wrote a bunch of it down out of context so i could ask you about it, was, you say, many times that you stretched the truth or didn't tell the truth or lacked candor. >> i don't say many times. this is an important point. and let me get some of this. let me give you, an illustration just exactly what you're talking about. in december 1963 i had gone to vietnam to appraise what the situation was, just shortly after kennedy died. by the way, we should get onto this, it was within, a few weeks of the time that, on my recommendation he had announced we were going to plan to withdraw all u.s. military personnel by the end of 1965 and that we

would withdraw 1,000, before the end of 63 within 90 days of the date he made the announcement. and furthermore we could announce it publicly which he did. so here it is within that 90-day period. we're withdrawing, we did withdraw the 1,000. so what i said to the press was when they asked me, i quote, we observe the results of very substantial increase in vietcong enemy activity. that was true. then i added, we reviewed the plans of south vietnamese government and we have every reason to believe they will be successful. unquote. that was overstatement at best, because i said to the president in a written report, quote, the situation is very disturbing. that is the kind of thing you're talking about. now, but, i think, you should also understand, or your people should, when they read the book they will see, that to the press, in 1964 i said, the situation is serious, and again in '64

i said the situation in south vietnam is unquestionably worsened. in '65 i said it will be a long war. in august of 67, after i spent all day, before the stenis committee, senator thurmond said, your words are the words of a communist appeaser. it is a no-win policy. so, at times, i was excessively optimistic, no question about it. but, at other times, i was candid and accurate, and charged with being a communist appeaser. . .

and one with brinkley. in the cronkite interview, he said, in effect, it's a south vietnamese war; only they can win it. in a later interview with brinkley, he said just what you said, that ... c-span: i got it here. "i think we should stay. we should use

our influence in as effective a way as we can. we should not withdraw." >> guest: that's right, but there was an implicit qualification there, which he had outlined earlier. and the implicit qualification was twofold. number one, that there was a sufficiently stable political regime that outside troops could be effective. that condition was not met. secondly,

c-span: you speak very highly of john f. kennedy, and in the book, at almost every point, you say that he was your favorite and that ... >> guest: no, i didn't say he was my favorite. compared to johnson. i never said that. c-span: he's not? >> guest: i'm not going to say. let me put it this way. i loved and respected and admired both of them. they were totally different people. i mentioned that. johnson was a paradoxical figure. at the end -- we won't have time to go over it, but i hope your audience will read -- i got so emotional when i left, because johnson and i -- i say to this day, i don't know if i quit or i was fired. on my ideals, you don't quit. if your president wants you, you stay. it was certainly not my intention to quit. frankly, i don't think i did. i was with kay graham, the former publisher of the washington post last night, and i made this statement to her. she said, "bob, you're crazy! of course you were fired." now, i don't think i

was. but, in any event, at the end, it was so emotional. he awarded me the medal of freedom in a glittering ceremony in the east room of the white house, all the diplomats and the members of congress and executive branch and judiciary and my family and friends and so. and after he'd finished reading the citation, i was so emotional, i couldn't speak. but, in there i say what i think i might have said, if i had spoken. i describe him as he was. i said, "many in this room believe him to be crude, devious, mean, but he's much, much more. i think he'll go down in history" -- i believed it then; i believe it today -- "as one of our greatest presidents, drawing our attention to the ills of our society, the poor, the disadvantaged, the racial problems." we still have them. he was sensitive to that. i admired him and respected him immensely for it. c-span: you say mac bundy, the head of the national security

council in the white house, was the best public servant you'd seen in that job in 40 years, except ... >> guest: no, no, i don't say "except." c-span: no, but you've got an asterisk on henry kissinger. >> guest: no, i didn't say "except." let me just take a second. you're rather humorous. i say that mcgeorge bundy, who served as national security adviser to president kennedy and also later for president johnson, was the ablest national security adviser i've seen in observing them for 40 years. footnote: henry kissinger, my friend, is going to take exception to that. i've already thought of the answer i'm going to give him. while he was in the white house, presumably national security adviser, he wasn't. he was secretary of state. c-span: you can hear the folks saying, if he was so good as the national security adviser, and if henry kissinger was so good as secretary of state, why is this vietnam war so devastating

to a country? and how did they all get us into it? >> guest: this is so important, and i can't give a short answer. you've got to read it. but let me deal with an important aspect of it. let me go back just one second, and i know you're limited in time, but i want to tell you something about us, "us" being mcgeorge bundy, "us" being dean rusk. dean rusk was one of the greatest patriots this nation's ever had. i'm so glad he died. now, that sounds inhuman. he died december 20. i'm so glad he died. i thought often after i sent that book into the press -- he died after it went to press -- i thought, my god, i can't face dean when he reads it. it's going to hurt him. to the day he died, he believed we were right. the subtitle of the book is "the tragedy and lessons of vietnam." he didn't believe it was a failure. he didn't believe it was a tragedy. he thought it was an essential step to defend this nation. now, why did he think

that and why did the rest of us err, as you say we did? and as we did. c-span: no, you say you did. >> guest: i did. you're absolutely right. now, why did we err? you've got to understand where we came from. dean rusk, john kennedy and i had all served in world war ii, three or four or five years. churchill has said millions were killed in world war ii whose lives would have been saved if the west had earlier addressed the menace of hitler taking over all of western europe. and by implication, he said, for god sakes don't allow that ever to happen again. so after world war ii, the soviets took hungary, poland, czechoslovakia. they sought to subvert the established governments of france and italy. in my years, in seven years in the defense department, in august of '61, they tried to take west berlin. we came very, very close to war then. i called the supreme

allied commander in europe, larry norstad, to my office, and i said, "look, larry, how's this thing going to evolve?" we talked about it, and finally he said and i said, "what do we do then?" he said, "well, we're going to have to think of using nuclear weapons." it was a very dangerous situation. a year later, khrushchev put nuclear weapons in cuba. to this day, our people don't know how close we came to nuclear war. in june of 1967, the egyptians were determined to erase israel from the face of the earth. they thought they'd have the help of syria and the soviets. the israelis knew it as we did. the israelis knocked the hell out of the egyptians, plus jordan. the soviets began to be concerned about what was going to happen to syria. the hotline had been in use three years. for the first time it was used, they sent a message to johnson and said, "if you want war, you'll get war." at the same time, we had the soviets and chinese supporting the north vietnamese. we totally

misjudged the threat. we believed that vietnam, as eisenhower said in 1954, was a domino, and if the soviets and chinese controlled it, the rest of southeast asia would fall -- cambodia, laos, malaysia, thailand, indo-china, and maybe india -- and that the communist strength would be so increased that western europe would be in danger. now, that's what we thought. we were totally wrong. but that's what motivated us. that's why we acted as we did. it's very hard for people today to understand that. c-span: what did you think the impact of the press was? >> guest: well, i think two things. number one, this was the first war -- and people don't understand this to this day -- the first war in which the press acted without censorship, and i think that was good. the second point is that many people today -- and i've heard it expressed

within the last week or so -- believe that, well, it was the press that lost the war, that if they'd just kept their mouth shut, the people wouldn't have turned away from it and we'd have had the american people behind it and we could have won. that is totally wrong. we were fighting -- and we didn't realize it -- a civil war. now, true, obviously there were soviet and chinese influence and support and no question that the communists were trying to control south vietnam, but it was basically a civil war. and one of the things we should learn is you can't fight and win a civil war with outside troops, and particularly not when the political structure in a country is dissolved. so it wasn't the press that was the problem. the problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics. c-span: you quote david halberstam in your book as being supportive of america's commitment in vietnam. how come?

>> guest: well, i mention other press. what i was trying to say was -- this is a rather subtle point, but it's true. let me digress. i'll come back to halberstam in a moment. last week a friend of mine who worked for bill fulbright ... c-span: former chairman of the foreign relations committee. >> guest: yes. and fulbright was an early -- well, he managed the tonkin gulf resolution, which, in effect, gave the president authorization, although neither the congress nor the president at the time it was passed intended to use the authorization, but it gave the president authorization to go to war. fulbright managed that and pushed it through and supported it. later fulbright turned against the war. one of his close associates called me two or three days ago, and he said, "my god, bob. i'm reading all this press, and you'd think that" -- i mean "all the comments on your book" -- "and you'd think that the congress opposed the war at the time you

were talking about it or that the public opposed it." he said, "they don't seem to recognize i, working for fulbright, tried with fulbright to get the congress to pass a resolution," i'll call it, "withdrawing the tonkin gulf authorization or otherwise limiting it." he said, "we didn't have the votes." at that time, the polls were showing the public was for the war. the press was for the war, and the congress was for the war. now, i want to tell you, that doesn't relieve us -- this was in 65, 66, 67 -- that doesn't relieve the leaders at all of the responsibility for the war. the leaders shouldn't be captives of the polls. the leaders should lead. and we were leading in the wrong direction, and it was our responsibility. it wasn't the responsibility of the press. it wasn't the responsibility of the public. it wasn't the responsibility of the congress. it was our responsibility, and we were wrong. c-span: let me read this from newsweek. this is david halberstam. "the book is shallow

and deeply disingenuous. for him to say we couldn't get information borders on a felony, because he was the creator of the lying machine that gave him that information. the point was to make a flawed policy look better. it's almost a time warp. he sees mac bundy as the best national security adviser ever and maxwell taylor as a soldier statesman. taylor actually hammered anyone who told the truth and said the war wasn't going well." >> guest: that's a libel. max taylor was one of the greatest soldiers this nation ever produced. he put his life at risk for us over and over again. he was a soldier scholar. he spoke seven languages. he jumped with his division in the battle of the bulge and helped save us in world war ii. that is a libel. that man, max taylor, was a great patriot. he didn't keep anybody from speaking up. he

encouraged people to speak up. i understand why halberstam is writing it, but that's just wrong. you should read the newsweek -- maybe you have -- that came out on monday of this week. c-span: colonel hackworth. >> guest: the article is written by colonel hackworth. colonel hackworth is today the most decorated soldier alive. he has 101 medals. he was wounded four times in vietnam. he fought in the korean war and in the vietnam war. read what he says. what he basically says -- and i don't repeat this -- he says, "mcnamara is telling the truth." he hopes it will be a healing process. he hopes it will show us why we went wrong and where the mistakes were made so we won't create them again, and he basically says, "mcnamara's telling the truth." and i just urge you to read that article. it was, to me, a very, very moving statement. i'd never met

hackworth. c-span: in the back, you have a whole scenario of when the troops were sent, a chart. but in the time you were secretary of defense, seven years, 1961 to right at the beginning of 68, how many trips did you make to vietnam and back? >> guest: i'll just give you a figure off the top of my head. vietnam or honolulu? because we sometimes brought our vietnam personnel into honolulu at the cincpac headquarters to meet. i'd say vietman or honolulu, 30 times. c-span: you keep talking in your book about how you would come back and make one statement in front of the press and then you would have a private report. >> guest: i did, but only once or twice were they significantly different, and i mentioned one of them. c-span: when you do that, though, what was the thinking? >> guest: this is a good point.

one of the things i've learned in my life is you can't compartmentalize your audience. when i was asked planeside in saigon or planeside in honolulu or planeside at andrews air base as i arrived, what i'd found, i was speaking not only to the american people; i was speaking to the enemy -- to the chinese, to the soviets and to the viet cong. i was also speaking to our allies, the south vietnamese. the question is, how candid can you be? i don't know the answer to that. at times i tried to shade it, avoid, i'll call it, false optimism. at other times, i was just, as i said to you, very,

very candid indeed. let me just mention again -- march 64 in a speech in washington, i said, "the situation in south vietnam is unquestionably worsened." november 65 to the press in saigon, i said, "it'll be a long war." so what should i say to the enemy? we're losing? by the way, my report to the president, in which i said in december of 65 to him, "there's only a one in three chance or, at best, a one in two chance, that we can win militarily." he said, "do you mean to say you don't think we can win militarily?" i said, "yes." and that was my report to him. should i have said that publicly? what do you think? what does your audience think? now, this is a terrible dilemma, and particularly so when i want to tell you that i was in a very small minority. i'm not saying i was right. other people thought

then, and many think today, that we were winning then, and, as i've suggested, some people think today we were winning then and it was the press that caused us to lose. that is baloney. but it is not baloney to say that other people thought i was wrong. and in any event, suppose we all thought we weren't winning and there was only a one-in-three chance or a one-in-two chance of winning. is that what you say publicly to the enemy? are you endangering your own men when you say that? these are terribly difficult issues. i've tried to lay it all out in there and tried to draw some conclusions on it. c-span: by the way, how long will you talk about this? in other words, in the next weeks, are you going to do another book on this? >> guest: no, i'm not. c-span: are you going to speak on the circuit? i mean, how far do you play this string out? how long will people listen to this? >> guest: oh, i hope -- i don't plan to continue to talk on it longer than you all want me to in relation to this book. i'm not going to write another book on it. that's what i believe happened. that's the truth as i

see it. c-span: having the discussion on the book, what has surprised you about the process? >> guest: not much. you know, i've lived through -- i've lived in washington 35 years. i've been in public life in various ways, different degrees for 35 years. i'm familiar with it. i understood this. some of the people that were working with me on the book didn't. they thought i was wrong in saying that there was going to be a tremendous controversy stirred up by it. i thought there would be. i'm pleased in one sense. people stop me on the street and they say, "for the first time, i'm beginning to understand what happened." the new york times this morning carries a report that their may 3 book review

will say it's the number one bestseller on the nonfiction list, and i'm pleased with that. not to sell the books -- that doesn't mean a damn thing to me. what i'm pleased at is that people, as i sense, from on the street -- i came down on the shuttle yesterday from new york. the hostess in the shuttle said, "i've just bought your book and i want to thank you for writing it." i'm not arguing it's a great book. that's not my point. what i'm arguing is the subject. it lies below our conscience. we need to surface it; we need to understand it, and we need to avoid it in the future. c-span: because this is a book show and it's a special two-part series, we didn't ask you to sit for calls. it might be an interesting thing for you come back and let people talk to you. but we have taken calls and we got one that seems to have a lot in it. it lasts a couple of minutes if you want to get out your notes. we're going to play just the audio of it. this is a woman who called this past week,

on monday, from tracy, california, and we'll just listen to it and get your reaction to it. tape excerpt: caller: good morning, brian. c-span: morning. caller: would you please indulge me this morning. i'm both nervous and angry at the same time. c-span: that's not too good, you know. caller: well, i'm calling about the bob mcnamara book, which i haven't read nor do i intend to, not because i want to be ignorant but because it would hurt so much. see, i had a young brother that was killed in vietnam. my brother would have been 49 years old this year, the same as clinton, but he'll be 21 forever. and this book has caused such pain to me as a family member who lost someone in vietnam. i carry it around like a sack of rock. i try to get rid of it, but i can't. it's strictly involuntary and it's visceral with me. c-span: can i ask you about --

would you have rather that mr. mcnamara had not written the book? caller: no, and that's another part of the confliction of vietnam, isn't it? there are both sides, and, you know, i respected those that demonstrated out of heart and out of true belief. i respected joan baez and her husband, david harris, who went to prison for his belief. muhammad ali for his beliefs. i don't ask everybody to believe as i do, and i didn't believe in war. i don't believe in war. but i believed in this country. i believed in my brother. i believed in the young people that went there, men and women that went to vietnam. we were all citizens here supporting our young people there. so i respected the other side to this issue.

c-span: have you watched any of the interviews with him? caller: yes, i did. i hadn't heard, i sort of heard rumors about the book here and there on the television, and then i happened to watch diane sawyer, not intentionally, but there it was. and it hit me like a lightning bolt, brian, when i heard what that man said, and for him to try to salve his conscience over my dead brother, who already gave his life once, and now he wants to pull him back and take it again. what are we to, how are we to feel, brian, sending our young people there? my brother died saving three others in his platoon. he was the platoon leader. and the helicopter was trying to come in and take them out, and my brother protected them and was shot and he kept going and was

shot again and he kept going and was shot again, and that was the fatal wound. >> guest: that's a very moving statement, and i quite understand her and i think, i hope, she would find some healing if she read the book. earlier in the program, i referred to the letter from mrs. morrison, whose husband burned himself to death in protest of the war. and i don't know whether i mentioned at the time i read the paragraph from the letter, i talked to mrs. morrison this morning, and she found the book to be part of a healing process, as did colonel

hackworth, whom i believe we mentioned earlier. it's intended to be part of a healing process. the lady whose call you just played deserves the sympathy of all of us. she also deserves an understanding, an explanation of how it came about. that's what the book tries to say. i hope she'll read it. and with that understanding, i hope she, and all of our citizens and certainly our leaders, will behave in ways and act in ways that'll prevent a similar tragedy in the future. c-span: did you ever sit down and talk to richard nixon about this? >> guest: no, but i -- well, i think the answer is no. the reason i say i'm a little

uncertain is i did talk to henry kissinger. when i was president of the world bank, i, in a sense, was not allowed to play any role in national affairs at all. i was an international official and was foreclosed from taking part in national affairs. but henry kissinger had been an old friend of mine, and there's, i think, a very interesting story in the book about how he and i tried to initiate negotiations to stop the war. c-span: what year? >> guest: that began in july of 67, and out of it came a formula that ultimately did lead to peace negotiations in may of 68 after i'd left the department. but henry was an old friend and he, when he was national security adviser, although really functioning as secretary of state, he asked me to come privately and quietly to his office on several occasions and talk about it, and i did. c-span: what did you think of

the way he handled the rest of it? >> guest: i won't comment on that. i'm just going to comment on my days. i'm responsible for enough. i'm not going to put it off on anybody else. c-span: the book "best and the brightest," and that term "best and the brightest," you lead almost on the first page. is that good for you and others? >> guest: well, leave me out of the category. they were the best and the brightest, and that's the point of the book. not only were they the best and the brightest, they were dedicated servants of their people and their nation. they served because they believed every citizen has a responsibility to serve. they sacrificed money, whatever. they didn't care. that wasn't their -- they felt an obligation to serve. they were bright. they were well educated. they were experienced. they were dedicated to serve the nation. we were wrong. why? that's the story of the book. how does it happen? "the best and the

brightest" has become a pejorative term. it was a very apt description, if not of me, at least of my associates. how did it happen the best and the brightest failed? that's the story. c-span: you list 11 things. >> guest: i list 11 lessons. that's right. c-span: if you were to go back in that position again with president kennedy or with president johnson, give us examples of things that you would do differently. >> guest: oh, i can't. you know, i don't know how much more time we have, but there's not enough time to get into that. c-span: well, what about -- just start with ... >> guest: let me say this. in relation to today, i think there's several lessons we need to learn, and one of them is the strength of nationalism. across the world today -- and that's in a sense what we were fighting in vietnam, and we didn't really realize it. we thought this was

a war of aggression, communist aggression against a democractically inclined state, south vietnam. there was some element of that, don't misunderstand me, but basically it was a civil war. we looked upon ho chi minh as an associate of stalin and khrushchev. he was an asian tito. he was leading a civil war. today we don't understand the forces of nationalism. that's one point. secondly, we didn't understand then the limitations that military force have in dealing with a failed nation, failed politically. you cannot send in outside troops to reconstruct a failed political system. and i would say today -- and i know many of your listeners may disagree with me on this -- there's no way for the west to send troops in to bosnia today to reconstruct that state or that nation. now, there is, perhaps, a way for us today to prevent macedonia and kosovo

from exploding and dragging in greece and turkey and having the whole of the balkans erupt. but the lessons are very important, and i'm terribly sorry we don't have more time to talk about it. this one in particular i want to come to, though, but the subject is complex. please, mr. audience -- i know you read it -- please, mr. audience, read the last chapter with the lessons. that's the purpose of the book. c-span: go back to ho chi minh just for a second. as you know, he might have even been in this country at one time in the 20s. he was in paris ... >> guest: not might have been -- he was! c-span: ... and helped start the french communist party. but he was in moscow ... >> guest: look, i don't know whether you had a chance to really read the tale. the way kissinger and i got going on this, i'll call it, peace initiative that extended from july of 67 through september and later had implications for the paris meeting in 68, was he was attending what's called a

pugwash meeting, which was a meeting of soviet and western scientists, primarily, some others. he was invited to attend. a man named aubrac came up to him and said ... c-span: a frenchman. >> guest: a frenchman. two frenchmen, marcovich and aubrac. they said, "if the u.s. wants to send a message to ho chi minh, we'll get it to him." so kissinger sent a cable to rusk and said, "i got this. what should i tell them?" i'd been away, but a copy of this came to me. i rifled through these messages when i got back, and i saw this one and i called my assistant secretary, john mcnaughton, and i said, "what's happened, john?" he said, "nothing." i knew nothing would because dean and the president and i had tried before and nothing had happened to get try to get these going, and they thought i was nuts trying to push it. i said, "what do you think ought to be done?" well, he said, "what do you think?" i said, "hell, i asked you first. what do you think?" he said, "why don't we try?" i took the message -- that was monday -- the next day, tuesday, to the tuesday luncheon and i brought it up. they said, "bob, you're insane. we've tried it.

nothing will happen." i said, "look, i will promise not to get us in trouble." this is foreign policy. it's state department work. but i said, "you let me handle this. i'll promise not to get in trouble," and i did. therefore, henry and i had contacts, and i learned -- i couldn't believe it. ho chi minh was the godfather of aubrecht's child. ho cho minh had lived with the aubrecht family in paris. by the way, he'd also been a pastry cook, if you can believe it, in london. but in any event, ho chi minh had lived with aubrac. aubrac and marcovich did go to hanoi. they did deliver messages. we did have that exchange, and it failed. and to this day, i'm not entirely sure why. i suspect it was some clumsiness on our part. at some point i'd like to see the kind of an exchange with the vietnamese and u.s. officials of the kind we had on cuba, with the russians and cubans and u.s. on the missile crisis, and see if can learn something about this. i think we both failed, to tell you the truth. we both

missed opportunities to end a god-awful war. if i may take just two minutes -- i know you're running out of time. i begin the book by saying my earliest memory was of armistice day in 1918. we believed and wilson believed it was a war to end all wars, and it wasn't a war to end all wars. we, the human race, have killed 160 million people this century. is that what we want to do in the next century? we're ending not just a century; we're ending a millennium. my god, what's our view of our objective as human beings? well, my objective is to prevent the 21st century from being a replication of this century. one step in that, an absolutely essential step, is to reduce the nuclear risk. if any members of your audience buy this book, i hope they'll read the appendix. people don't ordinarily read appendices. this appendix deals with the nuclear risk that this country and the world faces

today and is based in part on our experience in vietnam and in part on our experience in the cuban missile crisis. please, read it. c-span: have you ever sat down with a group of veterans? >> guest: oh, of course, sure. c-span: recently? as you know, there are so many audiences out there watching this. >> guest: there are. there are all kinds of veterans. i was with a doctor last night from hopkins. he had just treated a veteran that day who had been wounded and was still bearing some of the costs of the wounds in vietnam. the veteran had read the book and was deeply moved by it. now, other veterans say they won't read it. so, it's going to take time. you've got to read that [david] hackworth article in newsweek because he is the most decorated of all veterans. he says what we need is healing. we need to understand what happened, and this book throws light on it. c-span: go back, though, the lesson. in 1967, troops surround

the pentagon; people march on the pentagon. you refer to the fact that had they been gandhi-like, they might have been successful. they would have shut the pentagon down. >> guest: they would have shut us down. c-span: what would you say to people about demonstrating? you talk about going to your ski lodge in aspen and finding people waiting for you and your son. >> guest: well, they tried to burn it down, tried to burn my house down in aspen. what i would say ... c-span: what year was that, by the way? >> guest: it was august of '67. c-span: and what did you do about it when you got there? >> guest: i inspected the damage, which wasn't very great, and just went on. but to go back, i respect demonstrators. my children have been part of demonstrations. my son was at stanford at the time. he participated in demonstrations.

he also said he would not accept an educational deferment, [that] he was privileged when his peers were being killed. he was going to expose himself. but in any event, regarding demonstrations, i believe in demonstrations, but i believe in peaceful demonstrations. i believe in effective demonstrations. the demonstration on the pentagon was not effective. it's a long story, and it's described in the book. but they lost public support because of the way they behaved. i say in the book, if they had been gandhi-like, they would have shut us down. there were 20,000 or so. all they had to do was lie down on the street. at the time, the regulations required that to move a female, we had to have four people, one on either extremity, to lift the female off the street. we would

have been totally shut down. moreover, they wouldn't have lost the support of the public. the public turned against them because of the way they behaved. i am in favor of demonstrations, but lawful demonstrations and effective demonstrations. c-span: do you remember when the kids came from voluntown, connecticut, and camped outside the war room? they laid down on the floor. they were peaceful. >> guest: i've forgotten that. when was this? c-span: about '67. as i remember, you left them in there for a couple of days and you said, "out!" and they eventually had to ... >> guest: i'm sorry, the answer is i don't remember it. but i've been ... c-span: would you say that demonstrating works or doesn't work? >> guest: the dr. spock kind of demonstrations, i think, work. i

think they draw attention to, i'll call it, ills of our society, and they mobilize that attention into some form of action. but if the demonstrators appear to be irresponsible and behave in ways the society doesn't accept, i think they lose the power of the demonstration. let me just take one further second. i think the harvard law graduate who demonstrated, including a hunger strike, which is a peaceful form of demonstration, with respect to the loss of her husband in guatemala recently, brought a tremendous amount of attention on that. and look what's happened as a result. the, i'll call it, coverup that was associated with that is being exposed, and changes are going to be made in the administration

of the portions of the government that were involved in it. i think she was very effective. one woman with a hunger strike brought it all out. c-span: the second point i wanted to ask you about was truth. this is page 148: "of course, total candor is not customary for politicians under such circumstances, and the circumstances were the 1964 johnson-goldwater campaign," talking about whether this war would be escalated. >> guest: it's a very, very important point. but on that same page, i think, or at least in that chapter, i say i don't have the answer, to tell you the truth, as to how politicians can be completely candid. when i say that johnson was not completely candid during the 1964 campaign, neither had roosevelt been completely candid in the 1940 campaign nor had president

wilson been completely candid in the 1916 campaign. in the case of wilson in 16, he was, in a sense, saying we're not going to get involved in world war i, and he very quickly did after he'd been elected. roosevelt was saying in the 1940 campaign, we're not going to get involved in world war ii, and very quickly after, he did. johnson was saying in the 1964 campaign, we're not going to send american boys to do what asian boys should do. yet he did. these are very difficult issues. i am in favor of candor, but i recognize the difficulty of politicians in the election process. let me just -- on that point, johnson asked me, in relation to the '64 campaign at one point, would i accept the vice-presidential nomination? i hasten to add, had i said yes, he might have later said, "bob, you know, i've been thinking about that. you said yes. i don't want to impose that burden

on margaret. that just wouldn't be fair to her. so, let's forget it." i didn't say yes; i said no. the reason i said no was not that i didn't value the vice-presidential nomination. it wasn't that i wouldn't have wished to be vice-president. i thought i was incompetent to be. i didn't know how to campaign in 1964, and particularly, i didn't know how to deal with this kind of an issue. and i'm not really sure i do today. c-span: you were also offered, what, secretary of the treasury at one point? >> guest: kennedy instructed sarge shriver to offer me first the secretary of the treasury. i said, "it's insane, sarge." then he said, "well, the president has said if you won't accept that, he wants you to serve as secretary of defense." c-span: weren't you also offered something called an executive vice-president role in the new johnson administration? >> guest: well, that's what some people say, but, in a sense, johnson used me in some of those roles, but there wasn't any executive vice-president role. c-span: let me go to another issue, the rolling thunder,

march 1965. bombing of the north. if i read you right, there was a plan by president johnson not to tell the congress or the american people the bombing started. >> guest: that's not quite correct. my recollection -- i may be wrong on this. it's in the book, but i don't recall this specific point. my recollection is not that he wasn't going to tell them that it started, but he wasn't going to -- i think this is the exact point. it wasn't that he withheld the information that it started. i think i say in the book that he briefed the leaders of congress on the start of the bombing campaign, but then he said, "i don't want you to imply to the press that this is a change in our military

strategy." that was the point -- because it was a change. johnson, on two or three occasions, took military actions that had implications that were not disclosed. it was impossible to take a military action that wasn't disclosed with an uncensored press, including a bombing action against the north. you couldn't bomb the north without the press knowing about it. hell, the north vietnamese would have announced it if you didn't. you couldn't withhold the fact of the military action. what you could withhold and at times he did withhold were the implications of it. he specifically said -- i think it was to senator dirksen if i recall correctly; again it's in the book -- "don't indicate to the press that this is a change in strategy or an escalation," in effect, when it really was. c-span: near the end when you resigned in '67, you testified

before senator stennis. it was a week of hearings, off the record. you were not in front of cameras. >> guest: no, but there was a transcript taken, and the transcript was released within a couple of weeks. i've forgotten the degree to which it was amended. the thrust of the testimony was there because i read it and johnson read it, and he just felt the hearings were devastating to him and to the war effort. c-span: why did senator stennis have those hearings called? >> guest: we haven't talked on one very, very important point in connection with all this. stennis had the hearings called because he believed that johnson and i were constraining the military, forcing them to fight with one arm tied behind them

and that this would cause us to lose the war and that if he had the hearings and exposed all this, that the president and i would be forced to "unleash the full military power." i don't know how much time we have, but this takes a few minutes. this was one of the most contentious issues, and is today one of the most contentious issues. could not we have won if we had "unleashed our military power"? there's never been, and this is a point that the newsweek article, that hackworth makes in his article on this monday. it's a very important point. he says there's never been a thoughtful retrospective analysis of the military tactics. by implication, hackworth says, if that were made, the conclusion

would be mcnamara's, that there was no way to win that war militarily. the chiefs were honest enough to say on two or three occasions, "mr. president, we believe you should do this. if you do it, it may draw in the chinese and soviets. if that's done we may have to use nuclear weapons." westmoreland was honest enough in a fascinating statement at the johnson library at a meeting in 1990 -- i didn't attend it because i didn't think it would be handled on what i'm going to say is a scholarly basis. but, westmoreland was there, mcgeorge bundy was there, a lot of other people were there. and westy said at the end, he said, "you know, i felt at the time that we were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. but," he said, "i now understand what the president was trying to accomplish was to prevent an escalation of this war, an enlargement of the war to involve the chinese and the soviets, which would have been devastating." and he said, "he

did prevent that, and i'm very glad he did." i thought it was an extraordinarily honest statement. but, the purpose of the stennis hearings was to present the view of those who opposed the constraints and say remove those constraints. the major problem that johnson faced in 1967 -- and much of the comment on this book in recent weeks doesn't catch it at all was not, i'll call it, from the left; it was from the right. "for god's sakes, unleash the military. knock the hell out of them." and the fact that that would have perhaps brought in the chinese and soviets wasn't considered. c-span: have you ever sat down with general westmoreland, talked about this? >> guest: often -- i said often. that's not quite true. he was falsely accused of trying to deceive the president and me. westy and i had many, many arguments. you'll see them in the book. when that false accusation was made, it led to a

fantastic television series and trial and tremendous to-do. he was accused of lying to his president, seeking consciously to deceive. although i had had many arguments with him, i volunteered to testify in his behalf, and i did. i admire the man. i disagree with many of his judgments, but i admired him as a patriot. c-span: of all the things said about you in the last week, has any of it hurt? >> guest: i don't want to say it hasn't hurt. of course. i don't like to be criticized, whether it's right or wrong, any more than anyone else does. but, so many people have stopped me on the street and said, "mr. mcnamara, i want to say how grateful i am to you for writing the book. i'm just beginning to understand what happened, and i hope your readers will feel the

same way." c-span: this picture in the east room has you sitting alone. was that your idea? >> guest: no, it was not my idea, but i went to the kennedy library -- and we surely don't have the time. i went there to listen to the tape of the october -- i didn't know kennedy took any tapes. this was a secret taping process. he taped a few meetings. a critical meeting was october 2, 1963, when he accepted my recommendation to announce that we were going to try to withdraw by the end of '65, and we'd withdraw a thousand. i went up to the kennedy library because i'd heard there was a tape of that. i got permission of the family to listen to it. when i was there, i came across that photograph, and i just slipped it in with all the other photographs, and they chose to put it on the front of the book. c-span: you think two hours is enough, and it isn't. here's the cover, and we thank robert s. mcnamara, author of "in retrospect" for joining us.

to negotiate new arms control treaty, substantially lowering levels of nuclear warheads for both countries. again at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, you can see the whole news conference and here's a brief look at it now. >> the president and i agreed that the relationship between russia and the united states has suffered from expensive thrift, we resolve to reset u.s.-russian relations so we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest. today after less than six months of collaboration we have done exactly that by taking concrete steps for on a range of issues while paving the way for more progress in the future. and i think is particularly notable we have progressed the top priorities, these are not second-tier issues, there are fundamental to the security and prosperity of both countries. first, we've taken important

steps toward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. this starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenals, the world's two leading nuclear powers, the united states and russia was lead by example and that is what we're doing here today. we have signed a joint understanding for a fall on treaty to the start agreement that will reduce our nuclear warheads and delivery system by up to a third from our current treaty limitations. this legally binding treaty will be completed this year. we also agree on a joint statement on nuclear security cooperation that will help us achieve the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years, progress again build upon later this week at the g8 summit. together these are a part of steps for implementing the agenda i laid out in prague. as we keep our commitment so we must ensure that other nations keep theirs.

two that end we had constructive concessions about north korea and iraq. north korea has abandoned his own commitments and violated international law and that is why i am pleased that russia joined us in passing u.s. security council resolution that calls for strong steps to block north korea's ballistic missile programs. iran also poses a serious challenge to its failure to live up to international obligations. this is not just a problem for the united states, it raises the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would endanger global security while iran as ballistic missile program could also pose a threat to the broader region. >> began a full news conference coming up tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m., congress returning this week from the fourth of july recess, the house in tomorrow with several items on their agenda including the fiscal year 2010 budgets braggart soldier state and military construction and

veterans affairs departments. senate majority leader read it and senate select al franken met today and i spoke a little earlier, here is what had to say. >> i am very happy to welcome to our capital senator elect al franken. he ran a very hard-fought race and that is an understatement. i was talking to him and a few minutes ago and told him about my hectic race that took six weeks before the results were

in. his took a months. his took eight months. he is going to work hard and be an outstanding senator. but don't take my word for unnecessarily, even though i think it's absolutely true. i served in the house with former congressman weber come out there was so somebody that had laid things out the way that he saw them and he said this morning when people find out his a smart guy who is serious about the issues and a hard worker, there will be pleasantly surprised and they will be. much has been made of the expectations of al franken, join in the senate. here are my expectations: he, of course, is going to work hard to the people of minnesota. they have gone far too long without full representation.

i expect him to help deliver on the changes that this country is demanding, to strengthen our economy and ensure all americans have access to quality health care, and make our country energy independent. i'm confident that senator elector franken will make a difference. but we need more than just his presence to of the actively address the nation's many problems. these problems, these challenges we face are not democratic challenges or republican challenges or non-partisan challenges. they are america's challenges and they're too great to be solved by partisanship. moving america forward and will still require the cooperation of my senate colleagues who are republicans and. the last eight years have shown us in the american people want

us to work together, democrats aren't looking to senator frank and election as an opportunity to ram legislation through this body in turn, senate republicans must understand that senator election must abdicate from them the responsibility to govern. that is why we have and will continue to offer senate republicans a seat and in negotiating table. it is up to them to decide whether they will continue to sit down and gave the party of no or sit down and work for the common good of the people. it is up to them. i would hope that the party of no is coming to an end. >> thank you. thank you, mr. lehder. i want to thank the leader for all your support and during and after the campaign and i look forward to working under your

leadership a lot has been made of this number 60. the number i am focused on is the number two -- i see myself as the second senator from the state of minnesota. in minnesota and are very practical people. they want to make sure that the work we do and the senate makes sense. and that the decisions we make for the future have a strong return on investment. minnesotans what a rational health care system that provides health care for all americans, that is accessible and affordable, it gets the cost down. minnesota dance -- minnesotans want an economy that works for working families and that means jobs. means these in today's wage for an honest day's work and it means protecting people's

retirements. americans want a new energy policy that creates jobs, that addresses climate change, and that is going to eunice from our dependence on foreign oil. anna minnesotans want their kids to have an education that prepares them for a 23 century economy. i am going to work day and night to make sure that our kids have a great future and that america's best days lay ahead. i am ready to get to work. thank you. >> i'm going to have a stake out tomorrow after the luncheons, a lot of questions will be asked that and a lot of questions answered. al and i are taking questions -- are taking no questions now.

>> thank everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] al franken will be sworn in on in the senate floor as the second u.s. senator for minnesota tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. eastern, join us then. and here is what it looks like in washington d.c. today, a live shot of the u.s. capitol. we will go inside now to the senate floor where lawmakers are returning from their fourth of

july recess. at 3:00 p.m. senators will resume work on the legislative branches fiscal year 2010 budget and debate on amendments in the final vote expected later today, also this week 2010 spending for homeland security. live ascetic coverage now you're on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain will now lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: almighty god, architect and creator of our tesourdestinees.

we marvel at your power, majesty and might. from your beginning your grace has underlain the foundations of our lives, so we ask that you would lead us in the paths of your purposes. today, awaken in our lawmakers the ability to see the opportunities that exist in the challenges they face. may this knowledge motivate them to move forward with faith and optimism. lord, show them unused resources that can be mobilized to solve problems and to make dreams come true. when they experience doubts and uncertainties, give them the

wisdom to ask you for your guidance that will save them from all false choices. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, monday, july 6, 2009, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark

warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the senate will be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. following that morning business the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2198. senators should expect two roll call votes to begin at 5:30 this evening. those votes will be in relation to the mccain amendment and massage of the legislative branch appropriation bill. there are a few other amendments that are in order. i have been told by the manager of the bill, senator nelson, that he doubts there will be other roll call votes. we hope to reach an agreement to begin consideration of homeland security appropriation bill tomorrow. mr. president, i, of course, want to welcome you and all of my colleagues back after the

july 4th, recess and now we're closer to the end of this year than the beginning of this year. we have much to be proud, but our time is short and we have much more to do in the coming weeks and months. so far this year we've started to get our country back on track by passing bills that already started to revived our economy. that's revived it enough? of course not, mr. president. but what would we be in -- what kind of financial meltdown would the world be in had we not move order? we have started to strengthen our national security, started to improve the environment, we started to promote equality and ensure progress. progress as america returns to being positively reviewed by the world community. norm ornstein with the

conservative american enterprise institute calls this congress as active and productive as any i can remember. end of quote. he goes on to say -- quote -- "the number of major bills passed and enacted into law, serious sustained activity in broad, complex, an critical importance are all truly impressive." end of quote. some pundits said, mr. president, that the work we've done so far this year is unmatched except during the first year that president grang lynn roosevelt was -- franklin roosevelt was in office. this will not stop. we will finish the year in the same active, productive way in which it started. i encourage my republican colleagues to join with us. i'm confident that the steps we've taken in the first half of this year and that we will continue to take will certainly anchor our recovery. it has anchored our recovery and

it will do even more so. i also know we must keep going. we must do more, lots more. one of the most important steps we can take is reforming health care and doing so the right way. it has to wind up, mr. president, being health care that helps the middle class. it hps everyone. not just to take care of those who have none. it has to be one -- it has to be a program that takes care of those who are afraid they're losing their insurance and have lost their insurance. that's why we'll soon bring to senate floor a plan that lowers the high cost of health care. we'll also makes sure that every american has being a stows that quality affordable care and make sure that people can choose their own hospitals, doctors, and health plans. we will no longer allow insurance to use a preexisting condition to deny. we it will allow small

businesses to give employees health care. we're committed to a plan that protects what works, fixes what's broken and ensures if you like the coverage you have, you h.u.d. be able to keep it -- you should be able to keep it. we'll lower cost by preventing disease and encourage early detection and effective treatments that saves lives and money this is the year we must act and when we do, we must act as partners, not partisans. rising health care costs and the risks of losing one's health care is now greater than ever. the status quo is unacceptable. doing nothing is not an option, because the cost of inaction are too great. managers are paying too much for health care, they can lose the health care with one pink slip, accident, or illness. every day more americans go bankrupt or lose their homes just trying to stay healthy. and every year -- every year we don't act, health care costs increase by the billions of dollars. we must and we will pass health

care reform. health care is not the only issue on our aened aiment we will also -- agenda. we will work on a number of appropriation bills to keep our government running a funding the government. with the republican cooperation, we can finish these bills starting today by funding the legislative branch and tomorrow by doing the same for the department of homeland security. we'll continue workingor confirm president obama's many nominees for critical positions including his outstanding nominee for the supreme court, judge sotomayor. those who have chosen to serve our country must get to work without dlaivment w delay. we have far too many nominations that need november ahead. the independence day was a day that all americans observed the birth of our country. the independence holiday reminded us of the debt we owe to the first patriots who stood for liberty and the many who

died for liberty. brave americans have never stopped sacrificing so we can know the -- keeping the department of defense strong is one of the many ways we can support an thank those patriots. we will do that by passing the department of defense authorization bill. the revolutionary document that congress adopted on july 4, 1776, declared that power derive from the consent of the government. in the 233 years since that day, we will also have learned that we must govern by consensus much we will discuss debate i urge my colleagues to remember to find common ground is in our common interest. i urge them not to forget that those who sent us here sent us with their hopes and we'll work with each other, not against each other. finally, mr. president, let me say that the long, long senate race in the state of minnesota is over.

al franken will be sworn as a senator tomorrow before the weekly party caucuses. history will write about that race for generations to come. three million votes were cast by hand. the recount was long, deliberate and fair, and al franken won by 312 votes. he's a good man. he's somebody who is extremely smart. he's harvard educated. he had chosen his life's work in the entertainment world. he's been on many, many u.s.o. caravans and trips. he has a great love for the american soldier. i met with him. his first piece of legislation will be one involving veterans. very unique.

very important. i want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that we have 60 senators on the democratic side. mr. president, which means that now, more than ever, we have to work together. we have no intention -- i have no intention of running roughshod over the republicans. i think that we have proven that over this first six months. we want cooperation from the republicans. we deserve cooperation from the republicans, as they do from us. i started my remarks by talking about what a terrific legislative session it's been so far. we've accomplished, i repeat, as much as any other legislative first six months other than the first roosevelt year. and, mr. president, we've accomplished all of that. we've needed republican votes to get it done. we haven't gotten a lot of republican votes, but we've had enough to get it done. i would hope that in the next

few weeks that we all realize that we have so many important things to do. i laid them out within my remarks here today. we have to get as many appropriation bills done as we can. we have to finish the defense department bill. we have to do health care reform. we have to do judge sotomayor. we just have a huge schedule. and, as i've said, and we all know, everyone has been alerted this, this is certainly no message that people haven't heard. this five-week period is going to be a long, hard slog. we have lots to do. we're going to work in the evenings, mondays, fridays, weekend, if necessary, to get all of our work done. so i say to my republican colleagues, i, of course, am very thankful for al franken. it's terrific that minnesota has two senators. for eight months they've gone with just one. but, i repeat, this isn't a time for anyone to be arrogant or

tend to throw their weight around. things need to change. we need to work together. that's what the american people want and that's what the message is to my republican colleagues. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and there will be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kyl:. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: we've herpd debate centered on -- we've heard debate centered on whether it is appropriate for judges to consider foreign law and public attitudes when determining r.u.s. constitution and laws. in our constitutional system, the american people, through their elected representatives, make the laws by which we are governed. as james madison said in federalist 49, "the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived." mr. president, judges have the responsibility to faithfully interpret the constitution and the laws that have been adopted through our democratic processes. again, judges don't make law. they interpret it. within our constitutional structure, the growing idea of using foreign law to interpret our own laws and constitution is troubling and problematic for two main reasons. first, as chief justice john roberts pointed out during his

confirmation hearing, the consideration of foreign law by american judges is contrary to the principles of democracy. foreign judges and legislators are not accountable to the american electorate. using foreign law even as a thumb on the scale to help decide key constitutional issues devalues americans' expressions through the democratic process. an analogy would be to allow noncitizens to vote in our elegislations, thus devaluing the votes of every american. even if the use of foreign law were not inconsistent with our constitutional system, its use would free judges to enact their personal preferences under the cloak of legitimacy. if an american judge wants to find a foreign judicial decision or legislative enactment consistent with his or her preferred outcome in a case, he or she could find it in the laws of at least one of the 192 united nations member states. and that would be judicial activism compounded by the error of using inappropriate

precedent. as we soon begin to consider judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the nation's highest court, both the american people and the senate deserve to know where she stands on this issue of using foreign law to interpret the u.s. constitution. although we do have some materials that suggest her views, we're still waiting on a number of important documents that will help us better understand her views. for example, in response to the senate judiciary committee's questionnaire judge sotomayor identified 200 public speeches she halves given. we have not received a draft, video for more than 100 of them. these include four occasions in which she publicly spoke on the issue of foreign law. on one of these occasions, judge sotomayor apparently participated in a panel discussion with foreign judges at st. johns law school in november of 2006. her judiciary committee questionnaire, she said she spoke on the permissible uses of

international law by american courts. and in october 2008, judge sotomayor participated in a round table discussion at new york university's law school on the dynamic relations between international and national tribunals. with hearings scheduled to begin in a couple of weeks, getting this information is critical to our understanding of her judicial philosophy. the most notable of the materials we do have is the 22-minute speech that judge sotomayor gave to the aclu of puerto rico on april 28, 2009 entitled how federal judges look to international and foreign law under article 6 of the u.s. constitution. from that speech, we begin to see how foreign law could shape judge sotomayor's jurisprudence in the future. her views were not casual observations but directed to the specific topic. in this speech, she says -- and i quote -- "international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled

issues in our legal system. it is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do so because within the american legal system we're commanded to interpret our law the best way we can, and that means looking to what other, anyone has said to see if it has persuasive value." mr. president, i would ask what on earth does this have to do with judging? asking what -- quote -- "anyone else has said to see if it has persuasive value." how about using the traditional rules of judicial construction, precedence and judicial tests based on common law heritage. judge sotomayor reveals she believes foreign law is a source for good ideals that can set our creative juices flowing, in her words. deciding an antitrust case or a commerce clause dispute or an indian law issue or an establishment of religion case does not require creative juices. indeed, it could interfere with

the specific rules of construction or application of precedent. judge sotomayor says that not considering foreign law would be asking american judges to close their minds to good ideas. what is closed minded, i would ask, about requiring that american judges interpret our laws and our constitution? that's what they take their oath of office to do. let's also remember that judge sotomayor has previously stated that appellate courts are where policy is made. when you combine the notion that judges may usurp the legislative power of policy making with the view that foreign law is an incubator for creative ideas for a judge to employ as he or she sees fits, you open the door for judicial activism, untethered from american legal principles. judges do not have the responsibility of finding new good ideas that would make good policy. that's the role for our elected

representatives. the ideas expressed by judge sotomayor threaten to undermine a system that has served us well for over two centuries. judge sotomayor went on in the o criticize two sitting justices and align her views with justice gunsburg who endorsed the use of foreign law at the college of law at ohio state university. specifically, judge sotomayor stated -- and i quote -- "that the nature of the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of the american use of that concept of using foreign law and that misunderstanding is unfortunately endorsed by some of our supreme court justices." both justice scalia and thomas have written extensively criticizing the use of foreign and international law in supreme court decisions. she continues: i share the ideas of justice ginsburg in thinking that unless american courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases and by international cases, we

are going to lose influence in the world. justice gunsburg explained -- ginsburg explained this adds to the story of knowledge relative to the solution of a question. and she's right. mr. president, judge sotomayor's rationale for judges looking to foreign law so the united states does not lose influence in the world is absolutely irrelevant to the role of judges in america. it is the province of the president and the legislative bodies, not activist judges, to make policy and manage foreign affairs. in defending the supreme court use of foreign law she made an astonishing argument: courts, she said -- and i quote -- "just using that law to help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and to help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking." but the words of our

constitution were not intended to reflect the "mainstream of human thinking." think about the mainstream public opinion in europe or shay russia or africa or south africa at the end of the 18th century. even today, it's doubtful the united states would be satisfied by the thinking of most other governments such as china, much of the muslim world, and the dozens of other countries around the world. as i noted in my remarks that related my concerns about harold koh's views on foreign policy if the founding fathers were given to transnationalism, america would not be the leading light of freedom in the world that it is today. nor would it be a leader in convincing other nations to protect free speech, and other political freedoms such as our being asserted in places like iran today. do we really want judges to look to the laws of foreign countries when deciding our most treasured

constitutional provisions? such as, for instance, the second amendment. i do not. and the american people share my view. judicial activism is not a popular concept. while i do not intend to judge her qualifications to decide cases on the u.s. supreme court based on this one speech, i believe it's fair to ask, what else judge sotomayor has said on the subject? there are apparently other speeches that we do not have. the nominee should find these speeches or ask whether there are other records. for example, trips, tapes our video recordings, press accounts and so on, that would indicate whether her april 28th speech is indicative to her approach to judging. mr. president, as we begin to consideration the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor we need this in ftion to properly evaluate her qualifications as it relates to her view that using foreign or international law is an appropriate way for u.s. supreme court justices to

interpret our u.s. constitution. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, the parliamentary procedure is, we are in morning business? the presiding officer: the senator is permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each in morning business. mr. nelson: mr. president, i may request some additional time. i don't think i will take it but let me just at the outset ask consent for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, tragedy struck and it's not like we haven't been warning. with the proliferation of the burmese python being brought

into the united states these pythons that people buy as pets and then they get so bed the people don't want them around the house anymore and they release them. and, of course, in south florida, they're releasing them into a natural habitat which is the florida everglades so much so that the superintendent of the everglades national park has now estimated they have proliferated to the tune of 150,000 to 180,000 of these burmese pythons. when secretary salazar came down a month ago for us to take him into the everglades so he could see that extraordinary feature of mother nature, the river of

grass, and we took him in an airboat out across this river of grass, we also wanted so show him what is lurking beneath that grass now so we took him to two captured burmese pythons. one was about an eight-footer and another one was a 16-footer. now, a 16-foot burmese python in his midsection is that much in diameter, mr. president. and it took three grown men to hold that python, 16-footer. the oldest registered burmese python in captivity has again to

27 feet! and, indeed, an 18-footer was captured and killed in the everglades and it was a female and they found inside of her 56 eggs that were ready to hatch. that's why we have a proliferation. now, we have spent a lot of money along with the state of florida to reofficer the -- to f glades. mankind, over the course of three-quarters of a century has diked and drained the everglades. we're trying to restore that now. but here we have an invasive species that has been introduced that is upsetting the entire

ecological balance. already we have found, for example, somehow this burmese python swam across the ocean to key largo and they found inside this burmese python, the endangered key largo wood rat. they found a full-sized bobcat. they have found a full-sized deer. indeed, the burmese python is at the top of the food chain. these pythons, in fact, get into fights with alligators and they found inside one of the burmese pythons a six-foot alligator. now, i want to show you what we're talking about.

i want you to see this critter. now, this is only a six footer. this burmese python is two feet shorter than the burmese python four days ago after it had escaped from its glass container at midnight when the man of the house found him missing, went and got the burmese python, put it back in the container and, unfortunately, did not secure the to which the container and put, if you can believe it, put a quilt over the top and secured down the edges of the quilt. well, guess what? an eight foot, two feet larger than this, one can, coming out of a glass container? and tragedy struck because that

python slivered throughout the house and up into the baby crib where there was a two-year-old little girl named shianna, close to orlando, florida. that burmese python attached its fangs to the forehead of that child and then do what they do, wrapped its body around the body of the little child and proceeded with all of that muscle to strangle the child to death. this is what we have been saying was going to happen. this happened in a domestic pet in a home. this is what is capable of happening with 180,000 of the

pythons in the florida national everglades park. sooner or later a burmese python will get the endangered florida panther. sooner other later, for an unsuspected tourist in the everglades national park, there will be an encounter with a human. and tragically, it took this events of the strangulation by one of these snakes, of a child within their own home, in the child's crib, to bring this to our attention. this wednesday there will be a hearing in senator boxer's committee. i will be testifying. i will by further evidence than these photographs.

here are wildlife officers encountering -- and you can only see part of the snake -- with an attachment that grabs the snake from right behind the head. in this case it is probable a 6.5-footer, relatively small but you can see the size. this is solid muscle. that's why these constrictor snakes have the capability of afficapability ofstrangling the. their jaws can totally open up as they ingest the entire victim into their body. and that's why in the old phrase "a pig in a python," that's exactly what it is and that's the alligator that was found,

the six-foot alligator found within the stomach of the snake, that's the same thing. well, there's something we can do about this. number one, the u.s. fish and wildlife service has the capability under law right new to declare this an injurious species. since they have been sturdying this for the last -- studying this for the last 2~1/2 years and have not acted lorks i believe secretary of the interior, ken salazar is getting them off dead center and will get them to start moving, but there's something else we can do, we can change the law. we can stop the importation by changing this from being a species that is allowed to be imported into a species that is injurious. that change of definition in the law would stop the importation

of these snakes into this country and would stop the exporting of these snakes from one state across state lines into another state. the state of florida has put a registration fee. they now require the implantation of a chip so if the snake got loose you would have a chance of chasing them down. nevertheless, when you have from 150,000 to 180,000 of the snakes just in the everglades national park you can see the ecological balance of mother nature is definitely being upset. we must change it. we must do it quickly. therefore, in front of one of the committees, senator boxer's committee, will be the hearing on the legislation that i filed

with a number of other senators if trying to put a halt to the things that led to this tragedy of this little girl now being strangled to death. by a burmese python. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quoar quoruquorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, over the past several weeks, americans have heard a number of proposals for reforming health care, and they're increasingly concerned about many of the details. americans want reform, but they want the right reform, not a

reform that ends up costing them much more for worse care than they already receive. unfortunately, the government-run plan that some are proposing would do just that. a government-run plan would force millions of americans to give up the care they currently have and replace it with a system in which care is denied, delayed, and rationed. instead of increasing access and quality, it could limit access and options. it could lead us into deeper debt and millions could well remain uninsured. americans are skeptical about all of this, they don't want to be forced to exchange the coverage they have for a government system they don't particularly want. and some of the advocates of a government plan are beginning to sense this growing public opposition to their proposal. but rather than make their case on the merits, they're basing their arguments on the urgency of the moment. we keep hearing that time is running out, that the clock on

reform is about to expire, that the entire health care system and the whole economy will soon collapse without this particular reform. well, we've been done this road before. earlier this year we heard the same dire warnings about the stimulus. if congress didn't pass the stimulus, we were told, unemployment would continue to rise and the economy would continue to falter. we didn't just have to pass it. we had to pass it right away. and the results are now coming in. higher unemployment, soaring job losses, higher debt, huge deficits and growing fears about inflation. many of us saw this coming. that's why we proposed an alternative stimulus that wouldn't add $1 trillion to the debt and would have gotten to the root cause of our economic problem, which is housing. and that's why in the debate over health care, republicans are proposing reforms that would make health care more accessible and less expensive, without

destroying what people like about our health care system and without sending the nation deeper and deeper into debt. every cost estimate we've heard about the administration's plans for health care is astronomical. the administration realizes this is a problem and yet they have no good plan for covering the cost. some of the ideas that have been floated are a series of taxes including a tax on soft drinks. but even that wouldn't come close to covering the cost, so they've been looking frantically for money and the target they seem to have landed on is medicare. the government health plan for the elderly. now, just last month the administration proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts. it said that by taking this money out of medicare and putting it into a new government-run plan for all americans, we could help pay for health care -- for health care

reform. not only is this aimed at concealing the cost of the new government plan, it also is a reckless misuse of fund funds tt should be used to stablize medicare instead. just weeks before the administration proposed its cuts to medicare, the government board that oversees this vital program issued an urgent report on its looming inial is hav ins. just weeks before the administration recommended medicare cuts to pay for a new program, the government board that oversees this practical issued an urgent report on its looming insolvency. already medicare is spending more money than it's taking in. it runs out of money altogether in just eight years. and over the coming decade, medicare is already committed to spend nearly $40 trillion that it doesn't have. if there were ever a crisis that can't wait another day for reform, it's medicare -- medicare. yet rather than do the hard but

necessary work to put this program on a sound financial basis, the administration wants to take money away from it and use it to create an entirely new government-run system that would presumably have the same fiscal problems down the road that medicare does today. this makes no sense whatsoever. savings from medicare should be put back into medicare, not a government plan that could drive millions of americans out of the private health care plans they have and like and lead to the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing of health care that we've seen in other countries. we must be committed to reform but not a so-called reform that raids one insolvent government-run health care plan in order to create another insolvent government-run health care program. the administration should be applauded for trying to fix what's wrong with our nation's health care system, but it needs to slow down and take a deep breath before taking over what

amounts to about one-sixth of our nation's economy with a lilg piece of legislation that -- with a single piece of legislation that lacks bipartisan support. the administration rushed ahead with a poorly conceived stimulus plan that hasn't stopped half a million americans a month from losing their jobs. we should learn from that and not rush a poorly conceived health care plan with money we don't have. we don't need more rush and spend policy make. we need to reform health care, but we don't immediate to weaken medicare to do it. we can reform both, but we should start with medicare. at a time when americans are increasingly concerned about the future of health care and also about a political system in which they see fewer and fewer checks on the party in power, now would be the ideal time to advance a truly bipartisan reform.

the president has repeatedly expressed open no, sir reforming medicare in -- openness to reforming medicare in the past. we stand ready to strengthen and preserve medicare, if he chooses to follow through on those assurances. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i congratulate the republican leader on his remarks and i remember his first address following president obama's election was at the national press club. senator mcconnell's address. and it was to the president saying, mr. president, we look forward to working with you, and the pressing issue is the entitlements facing this country, the automatic spending this athat means more and more and more -- that means more rand more and more debt. i would ask the republican leader whether there's been any response from the administration to him about the opportunity to work together across party lines to deal with social security, which, as i remember, in january was your proposal?

mr. mcconnell: well, i would say to my good friend from tennessee, unfortunately, no follow-up whatsoever. there seemed to be on the part of the president and the president's chief of staff at the beginning of the administration a willingness to support the conrad-gregg proposal which would have given us a way to gate handle on at least -- to get a handle on at least social security. they didn't seem to want to deal with medicare -- and i think we now know why. at least social security with an up-or-down vote guaranteeing a result. but i would say to my friend from tennessee, no word on that lacy. mr. alexander: in my visits to tennessee, if i heard two things is too many washington i can washington takeovers. the other is too much debt. i found people with a great deal of fear about the amount of debt wire a piling up in washington. mr. mcconnell: i think there is a genuine alarm. the americans see the government running banks, insurance

companies, automobile companies. the senator from tennessee points out student loans. and now they fear they want to take over the government -- the government wants to take over health care as well. i think there is a growing suspicion that this is exactly the wrong way to go. mr. alexander: i thank the senator and his comment about checks and balances. there's somebody innate in the american character about checks and balances. alexis de tocqueville warned about the tyranny of a majority. we like to see results, but we don't want to see one party or one faction run away with policy. we seem to know that it's better if there is a check and a balance and the genius of the american system is that we have many checks and balances. i wonder, mr. president, hof time i have remaining? -- how much time i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has eight minutes remaining.

mr. alexander: thank the chair. mr. president, health care is not the only issue before the senate. we have the nomination by the president of a distinguished jurist, judge sotomayor. hearings will begin next week on whether she should be confirmed for the supreme court. and tomorrow the senate in the environment and public works committee begins discussion on climate change and global, a subject we've talked about a lot in -- and the house of representatives has made that a issue by passing just about ten days ago a report that no one in the house of representatives read before it was passed. 1,200 pages served up the day before they vote. they just voted and sent it on over to us. so we have energy and climate change to deal with, which are the subject of my remarks this afternoon. my question is this: why is congress and to a great extent the administration ignoring the cheap energy solution to global -- nuclear

power? consider this: number one, coal-burning power plants produce about 40% of carbon. and carbon is the principal greenhouse gas. second, nuclear power plants which produce only 20% of all of our electricity in america produce 70% of our carbon-free, pollution-free electricity. so coal-burning power plants produce 40% of the carbon and nuclear power plants produce 70% of the carbon-free electricity and our goal is to get rid of the carbon is slow down global. i think that's the goal anyway. so if that's the goal, global warming is your issue, why not build 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years to deal with it? nuclear power costs less than one half cent per kilowatt hour to produce which means it's

cheap enough for building the plants and still leave electric rates low. now, the rest of the world seems to understand this a little better than we do in the united states today. france gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear and has among the lowest carbon emission rates and electricity prices in the european union. the united states, our taxpayers, are helping india. we're helping china build nuclear plants and japan is building one a year. the president has even said that iran has the right to build nuclear power plants. but the united states hasn't built one new nuclear plant in 30 years, even though we invented the technology. so instead, the house of representatives 10 days ago chose the high-cost solution to the climate change energy dilemma, narrowly passing a a h.

so-called economy cap-and-trade bill. this is a job-killing, $1 billion-a-year new national energy tax which would add a new utility bill to the budget of every american family. the house also mandated the use of solar and wind power, which is 6% of our carbon-free electricity. now, remember, nuclear is 07% of our carbon-free electricity. so the house says ignoring nuclear, they say let's expand solar and wind which is 6% of the carbon-free electricity. even though both are more expensive and more unreliable. since solar and wind power can'ting stored today. which means that you have to use it when the sunshines and wind blows and wind, especially, barely works in some parts of the country such as the southeast. so the choice, mr. president, is

between a high priced or low-priced clean-energy strategy. i think we all want a clean-energy future. but do we want a deliberately high-priced clean energy future. cheap energy advocates almost all republicans in congress and some democrats and i hope a growing number say build nuclear plants and double research to make renewable energy cheaper and reliable. high-priced energy sends american jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. i see that in all the auto plants we have in tennessee and the auto suppliers. they're operating on a very thin margin. add a little cost and those cars and trucks are built in mexico and japan instead of tennessee and michigan. cheap energy not only creates jobs, it will reduce global warming faster than taxes and

mandates. here's why: 100 new plants in 20 years would double u.s. nuclear production, making it more than 40% of all electricity production. add 10% or so for sun and wind and biomass. another 10% for hydroelectric, and we begin to have a cheap as well as a clean energy policy. some predict renewable sources will be 20% of electricity in 20 years. i predict it will be about half that after americans understand its costs and its lack of reliability and they begin to see what some conservationists are calling the -- quote -- "renewable energy spread." unquote. 50-story wind turbines along the foothills of the great smoky mountain national park and blue ridge parkway and shandon doa valley. and solar thermal plants five miles wide next to parks.

plus since the sun shines and the wind blows only about one-third of the time, remember, you can't store it. we will still need nuclear plants for base load power. step two for a clean and cheap energy policy is to electrify half of our cars an trucks. there's so much unused electricity at night, we can also do this in 20 years without building one new power plant if we plug in vehicles while we sleep. this is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, keep fuel price low, and reduce the one-third of carbon that comes from gasoline engines. step three is offshore -- offshore exploration for natural gas. that's low carbon. and oil, we should use less, but use more of our own. and, finally, we should double energy research and development to make renewable energy such as solar more cost competitive. mr. president, obstacles to nuclear power are diminishing. used fuel can be stored safely

on site for 40 years to 60 years, while scientists figure out ways to reduce it. it can be 1/10th the costs of the big ones we're used to today and can be put together at the factory, an american factory and shipped to the site and assembled like lego blocks. all of this american made. and with air cooling towers, not water cooling, and the towers are only two stories tall. mr. president, i have introduced legislation to deal with global warming ever since i came to the senate. but i'm not in favor of an economy-wide cap-and-trade. it's unnecessary. it's complex. it has unintended consequences, and our economy can't toll trait. a simpler way to do it is to focus on smoke stacks, tail pipes and find alternative ways

to deal with the coal and oil that we want to use less of. we have that with tail pipes, cars and trucks. we can shift to electric cars an trucks, and the cost to the consume her be as low or lower as they plug in at night to electricity. we also have that with smoke stacks. we can shift some of our dirtiest coal plants to nuclear power and instead of increasing the cost of energy, we can keep it steady or probably reduce it. so why would we want to deliberately proceed with a high-cost energy strategy when cheap energy is the key to our national security to rebuilding our economy and -- and the key to so much of what is important to america's future. there is an old rule of thumb that sometimes in government we take a good idea and expand it until it doesn't work. i'm afraid we're doing that with renewable energy, which is a good idea. the idea to put up your own wind

nil your back yard, put some solar panels on your roof, use biomass an cut your energy costs and cut our use of fossil fuels. that's a good idea. but it's only going to produce a few percent of what we actually need to run a country like this which uses 25% of all the energy in the world. biomass, for example, to produce the amount of energy that one nuclear power plant produces, you'd have to forest continuously an area the size of the entire great smoky mountain national park which is 550,000 acres. to produce enough electricity to equal a nuclear power plant from solar power, you would have to cover an area of about the size of 270 square miles. that's five or six miles on each side. or the same with wind or the

same with hydroelectric, and we're not going to be building any big new reservoirs anymore of that size. so we should take what we can get in appropriate places of wind and solar and biomass. we should put a few turbines in the mississippi river and pick up some megawatts for the t.b.a., but that's a few hundred megawatts for a system that needs to produce a few thousand megawatts of clean electricity every year. the only technology that we have available to produce large amounts of clean, reliable electricity in the next 20 years is nuclear power. we invented it. we know how to use it. the rest of the world is taking advantage of it. why don't we? and especially in this economy, mr. president, when we have nearly 10% unemployment. when in tennessee and virginia and in the midwest we're trying to find ways to rebuild the

economy, when we know that cheap energy is the key to new jobs and that high priced energy drives jobs overseas looking for cheap energy, why are we ignoring the cheap energy strategy for dealing with global warming? cheap energy based on nuclear power, number one, electric cars and trucks, number two, offshore drilling for natural gas and oil, which we're still going to need and push egg head with many -- pushing ahead with many manhattan projects to figure out renewable energy and make it cost competitive while we move ahead. this is not only the fastest way to increase american energy independence, clean the air and reduce global warming, it is the best way to help strained family budgets and a sick economy with 10% unemployment. i thank the president and yield

the floor and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: and i ask for the clerk to report. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration

of h.r. 2918, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 84, h.r. 2918, an act making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. mr. nelson: mr. president, we're returning to the legislative branch appropriations committee bill for further consideration today. it's my understanding that my colleague from oklahoma has an amendment that he would like to introduce. i saw him here momentarily. perhaps he will join us again shortly. to recap, this is the legislative branch bill which has a number of different important issues in it, not the least of which is the fact that when you compare the percentage of an increase this year with previous years, it's an

effective 2.4% increase. we've controlled the growing costs associated with the new visitors' center, which were significant in the last budget. the total is $4.6, 116.11 million, an increase of $200 million. but let me at this point in time yield to my friend from oklahoma, who i believe now would like to introduce his amendment. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i thank the chairman of the skph-fplt i want to spend -- chairman of the subcommittee. i want to talk about leg. branch and us. i appreciate consideration of my amendment. right now the average income in this country is down .4% this

year, across. historically people wonder why congress can't control spending. and they can't control spending because they can't even control their own budget. we're going to see about a 3.2% increase in this bill. the house is coming in at 6.1%. that will go to conference, and somewhere between those two will be what the legislative branch increases its expenses on the american public. and the reason that spending's out of control and the reason that we're shackling our grandchildren with enormous amount of debt, another $5 trillion in the next five years, is because we don't even do a good job of managing our own office budgets. and i'm on the floor a lot complaining about spending, wasteful spending, earmarks and other issues, but i don't do that without setting the proper example in my own office. and i've been here for four complete years. i'm in my fifth year. and during that time i've turned

back in 2005, $321,000. 2006, $529,000. 2007, $516,000. and 2008, $491,000. about 16% to 17% of my budget. and if i can do that, the question the american public ought to ask is why can't everybody up here do that? why can't we manage our own legislative branch expenses? and in the economic environment that we find ourselves today, the american people ought to be asking, what are our elected leaders doing to cut their expenses because we're borrowing a good portion of this money? why aren't we setting an example? and it goes back. if we don't do it, then we're certainly not going to have the various federal agencies do it. and if you look at spending increases outside of the omnibus and outside of the recovery act,

congress increases spending almost 7.2% last year. the budget has a 7.3%. that's three times the rate of income growth prior to this recession. and yet, we're growing the government three, four times faster, and we're growing our own budget 2.5 or 3 times faster. this year we're going to grow it 5 or 6 times faster than the americans' income is growing. so the question has to be asked is if we're not good stewards with our own office accounts, how can we be good stewards with the rest of the money that is entrusted to us? so i have an amendment which i'd like to call up. it is amendment number 369. i ask -- amendment number 1369. i ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an aupld numbered 1369 to amendment number 1365.

mr. coburn: mr. president, this is a very simple amendment. what it says is we'll take the money we spend and we'll make it online available to the american people so they can see how we spend it. right now there's a limited number of books that are published. we have it on the computers. we've transferred the computers to a book, but we don't give it to the american people so they can see how we're spending their money on our own office accounts. senator nelson and senator reid have graciously said that they support this amendment and agree to it. and so we'll have limited debate on it. but the one way to get this spending under control in our individual offices as well as the federal government is make it available where the american people can see it. and so my hope is that this will be a short period of time, at the end of this year the american people can go on a web site and see how tom coburn spent his money allotted to him by the senate in terms of running the junior senator's office from oklahoma.

and i think what they'll find is i'm just as frugal with their money in my office as i'm trying to be on the floor of the senate when it comes to all the wasteful spending, $350 billion worth of pure waste a year, either waste, fraud or duplication, is going to go through this year without one stroke of a dilemma. $350 billion worth of waste and not one legitimate stroke of that eliminated as we go through what the appropriations committees, what the president's budget -- he's trying to eliminate some. we won't even do a line-by-line review. my hope is we'll accept this, start leading by example and the american people can see and hold us accountable for how we're spending their money. with that, i'd yield the floor to the senator. mr. nelson: mr. president, i know of no further -- the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: i know of no further discussion in conjunction with this, or anyone willing to speak on its behalf.

the presiding officer: no further debate on the amendment. if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. mr. nelson: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso:republicans and democrats agree that we need and want health kay refume. having practiced medicine for two decades in wyoming, i know that doing nothing is simply not an option. but let me tell you from experience the devil is always in the detaissment details. we must be careful, thoughtful and deliberate about the changes that we make. health care is a very complex and an intensely personal issue. it deserves a serious, open, and

a transparent national debate. any changes that congress makes is going to impact millions and millions of american families. these are people of our nation. these are not nameless or faceless statistics. these are husbands, mothers, neighbors. these are our wives, our friends, and our coworkers. these americans are our children, the nation's most precious resources. we must act, but still at issue is whether congress will act without sacrificing our health care system's greatest strengths. and what are those strengths? the freedom to choose your own doctor; the freedom to choose the hospital that you want; and the freedom to choose the health care plan that fits you and fits your family's needs. mr. president, i travel home to wyoming every weekend. i was there yesterday and one of the top issues that i hear about

is health care. the people of wyoming are concerned about the cost of their health care. many families worry that they will lose the health care coverage that they currently have. still others can't afford health insurance at all. this is what's wrong with the current health care system. this is when we need to fix -- this is what we need to fix. wyoming families want to purchase health insurance coverage at an affordable price. they do not want to be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. they don't want to lose coverage if they change jobs. but, most of all, these families do not want washington telling them -- wont want washington telling them -- do not want washington telling them who they have to see for their medical care. everyone should have the freedom to choose the doctor, the hospital, and the health care plan that they want. no washington bureaucrat should ever be allowed to deny that

right. some in congress continue focusing solely on government solutions. they want washington to take over health care. some in congress want to create a government-run health care plan. their plan creates a government-run insurance model that could limit patient choices, eliminate personal freedoms and decrease the quality of care. what starts out at one option could quickly lead to being the only option, and we all know how this happens. unlike regular health insurance, government health plans have unlimited access to taxpayer money. they use the known temporarily susubsidize the cost of service. according to the lewin group, 119 million americans would lose the coverage that they currently have if they have a government-run system. i know some in the senate and administration keep saying, if

you like your insurance coverage, you will get to keep it. the lewin group data provides otherwise. their substitute shows that businesses will face a situation war it's cheaper for them to ensure their employees through the government-run plan so employers will then transfer their workers from the private insurance that they currently have and may like to this now washington-run government plan. so where's the personal choice? at this point, the individual has no option. the government-run plan is their option, is their plan, unless that person changes jobs to an employer who is willing or can afford to offer private coverage. so, what happened to the "if i like my health insurance plan offered by my employer i would be able to keep it?" well that promise is out the window. now, some say we can create safeguards that will ensure a level playing field between private insurance and a government-run plan. well, as a doctor, i can tell

you from personal experience that the government will never, ever compete on a level playing field with private business. washington will never let its health care plan go bankrupt -- never. it'll lose money. it'll hide costs. and ultimately taxpayers will pay the difference. private plans will not enjoy this same kind of support. that is exactly how the heavy hand of government can drive out competition. so, how does government compete with private business? well, congressman mike pence of indiana summed it up pretty well. he said the government competes with private business the way an alligator competes with a duck. supporters of a government-run takeover of health care says the plan will keep costs low. how? by paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, home health agencies, hospice providers and long-term care facilities less than private insurers pay.

this so should sound familiar. this is what already happens with medicare and with medicaid. any participating medicare or medicaid provider will tell you that today, right now, doctors and hospitals have to shift costs onto private insurers just to keep their doors open. the cost-shift to make up the difference between what a procedure costs and what the government is willing to pay for it. knows what they call cost shifting. we see it every day. a government hft run plan will not encourage competition. it will take away your access to private health insurance. the private plans that millions of americans have today, the program this they lirk the one tha--the program that they likee one they want to keep, will be gone. the only choice remaining will be the government plan. so what does this mean to someone who is listening in to the patient? it means politicians making health care decisions, not patients making those decisions

with their doctors. it means washington bureaucrats deciding if you can have the hip or the knee procedure that you need. it means the government saying, you cannot have lifesaving government treatment because it's too expensive or because you are old. it means washington restricting your or your child's access medical equipment, it means preventing testing dlairks it means diagnosis dlairks it means treatment delays. delayed care is denied care, and we do not want that in america. take a close look at what is going on in canada right now. last year in calgary, ophthalmologists, eye doctors, there is no waiting list for people needing cataract surgery. thenal beer t.s.a. cash-strapped government made a decision -- they made a decision that they said, hey, we're going to arbitrarily lower the number of

cataract oppose rigs that we pay for. they just arbitrarily said we're going to pay for 2,000 fewer cataract operations this year in alberta than we did last year. so what does had a pean for the people there? many patients have to wait a year for treatment, a year. why? the cutback to cancel all of the operationings that they had scheduled on people with moderately severe cataract conditions. so now they only book the most severe cases. ophthalmologists are concentrating their efforts only on the patients who are about to go blind. not the people who have a hard time seeing, the people who are about to go blind. patients in alberta have to almost go blind to get cataract surgery. is that the kind of medical care that we want for americans? absolutely not. americans should strive to offer its citizens the highest

quality, most timely health care services in the world. that means that americans should not have to wait weeks at a time for tests and treatments they need. it means no one should be denied health care services because of government limits or government restrictions. it means no government bureaucrat should interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. currently the senate "help" committee has been debating a health reform plan that has been put forth by senators kennedy and dodd. well, the nonpartisan congressional budget office told us -- first it told us that the kennedy-dodd plan increases spending by more tha than $1.3 trillion in the first 10 years. once it's fully operational a 10-year fee would be closer t to $2.6 trillion. the number was staggering. people cried sticker shock. what did they do? they tweaked it around a little bit and came out with a new estimate. well, they're just guessing much even more disturb something that

the plan is incomplete. the congressional budget office still has additional policies to score, to come up with a price tag on. clearly this estimate does not reflect the bill's true cost because they left out medicaid, something they've been forcing on to the states. and governors around the country have been crushed by these medicaid increased fees and increased expenses. so 10 years, trillions of dollars, congressional budget office also tells us that this plan only refuses the number of people who do not have insurance by 17 million. that leaves over 30 million americans still without health insurance and they're spending $1 trillion. finally the congressional budget office indicates that about 15 million people would actually lose the insurance that they have now, be forced off their employer-paid for insurance under this trillion dollar plan.

well, this, to me, this kennedy-dodd plan suffers from what i call the three c's, it costs too much, it covers too few, and it causes too many people who already have insurance to lose the coverage that they have. now, some in congress believe that unless we completely dismantle the current health care system and build it up in the image of big government, well, then reform, they say, is simply not worth doing. i disagree. americans do not want the same government bureaucracy that has given us the department of motor vehicles, do not want those people controlling our medical decisions. americans do not want increased bureaucratic hassles, we don't want long waits and we don't want restrictions on our medical care. what we need is a serious transparent health care debate. that's what americans want. they want us to listen to their ideas, their concerns, their

suggestions. the only way they can give us their ideas, concerns, and, specifically, their suggestions about a health care bill is if they actually get to read the bill. whether or not we should reform our health care system is no longer in question. americans have answered with a resounding yes, and they don't want to continue to wait. they want simple, practical, affordable changes now. changes like prohibiting the use of preexisting conditions. changes like allowing people to take their health insurance with them when they switch jobs. madam president, you have young -- a young family, i have a young family. they're going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of their lifetime. they need to be able to take their insurance with them. we need to have changes like offering premium breaks for making healthy lifestyle choices. changes like the same tax breaks for people who buy their own insurance that the big companies

get when they pay for insurance for their employees, we need families to have the same tax breaks. we need changes like allowing people to shop across statelines to look for better deals on keeping their costs down. i want to continue to come forward with commonsense ideas. i want the majority in congress to work with me and with members of my party on a bipartisan health reform plan. that's the need. that's the need the country's expecting. that's what i would like to do. we cannot simply put government in charge of health care and put bureaucrats in between patients and their doctors. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. demint: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be suspended. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. welcome back. i can't say i'm glad to be back but there are important things to do here. i'd like to start by calling up amendment 1370 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes an amendment numbered 1370. mr. demint: i ask unanimous

consent further reading be dispensed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: i would like to make a few comments before the majority responds. this amendment is about the capitol visitors center. among other things, we all know this new capitol visitors center which is very beautiful welcomes folks from all over the country and the world to our capitol. it includes interesting and valuable museum-style exhibits about the history of the capitol and congress. unfortunately, the way the capitol visitors center has been built and the way the displays have been set up, it conspicuously ignores america's unique religious heritage and the role that heritage played in the founding of the republic. indeed, the original exhibits that are there now seem to suggest the federal government

was the solution to all our problems and the fulfillment of human aspirations as if we were a government with a nation instead of the other way around. even the national motto was misrepresented as "out of many, one." my unanimous consent agreement will help correct the record as it is displayed. it will authorize the engraving of our true national not troa which is "in god we trust," and it will order the engraving of our pledge of allegiance with its reference to ours as "one nation under god," in a prominent position in the visitors center. from the going, many of us were concerned about what looked like a historical whitewash of our nation's faith heritage from the capitol visitors center. i want to thank senator feinstein and bennett for their sport. i have a letter they both signed

formalizing our agreement for the historical corrections that i've got in my amendment. i ask this letter be submitted to the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. finally, i make a point about the unfortunate expense associated with these design corrections. i regret these funds must be spent. that the historical whitewash of the original design contained these accuracies. it was unfortunate, certainly. but the $150,000 this project will cost is less than .1 of the cost of the visitors center. anyone interesting in finding offsets can count on my support in identifying waste in the underlying bill that's funding congress for next year. when these engravings are completed and we can welcome god back into the capitol visitors center, visitors to the capitol

will see a fairer and more historically accurate depiction of the all-important relationship between faith and freedom in america. madam president, i understand the majority is prepared to accept my amendment by voice vote our unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: if there is in further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye; opposed, no. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the ayes appear to have it and the ayes do have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. demint: thank you, map. -- thank you, madam president. i have another amendment and i am informed the majority plans to block consideration of amendment number 1367 regarding the transparency at the federal reserve. i would, nonetheless, like to

take a few moms to discuss it. if that is -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: the federal reserve, the unelected extra bank of the united states enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to congress since its creation in 1913. since 1913, our dollar has lost more than 95% of its purchasing power. my amendment is called the federal reserve sunshine amendment and it is models after legislation sponsored by representative ron paul of texas in the house and our colleague, senator sanders, of vermont, here in the senate. this amendment amends section 714 of title 31 of the u.s. code to remove existing restriction on how the government accounting office can 5u9dz it the federal -- audit the fell reserve. the feds discount window

operation, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would also be finally open to congressional oversight. the government accounting office would be required to audit the fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to congress. every dollar created by the fed has an effect on the value of the dollars in our pockets and bank accounts. we need to pay more attention to the effect of washington's decision, whether fiscal policy made by congress or monetary policy made by the fed. they all are ultimately borne by the american people. the federal reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis. americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone, exactly how much has been spent, and what

collateral has been taken in return. that is why you see so much bipartisan support in the house in bernie sanders and jim demeant being on the same side in the senate. inflation is a hidden tax and we, unfortunately, forget about it too often when we debate spending bills here in congress. our fiscal actions, higher deficits, increased long-term debt, entitlement obligations, will necessarily need to be paid for by printing new money or burring more money from an increasingly skeptical world. either option results in higher interest rates for consumers in a devaluing of the dollars they have already earned and saved. allowing the fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation, and a lower calculate of life for every american. unfortunately, the majority has decided to use a procedural tactic to block a vote on this amendment by invoking something

called rule 16. this is a rule that prevents policy from being added to spending bills. the majority claims that we do not legislate on appropriations bills. of course, that is false. in fact, there are already rule 16 violations in the bill we are trying to amend. we also saw this majority airdrop the cash for clunkers program into the recent supplemental appropriations bill much the majority may claim this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill but, in fact, there are already provisions in this bill related to the government accounting office audits so this language is quite appropriate on this bill. the legislation is already received the support of more than one half of the house of representatives within a few short months of its introduction. it's time for the senate to show its support. mr. president, i would like to ask the majority leader, again, to allow a vote on amendment 1367 regarding a g.a.o. audit 6

the federal reserve -- audit of the federal reserve. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: madam president? mr. demint: madam president, i would like to call up amendment 1367. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes amendment numbered 1367. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: i make a point of order against the demint amendment that it's legislation on appropriations. the presiding officer: the point of order is well-taken. the amendment falls. mr. demint: i would like to make a few comments about that since the other side is arguing that rule 16 applies here. my amendment contains language to an existing g.a.o. audit of the federal reserve. it is legislative in nature, and because it actually addresses

the audit itself and not just the funding for the general accounting office. they say because of that, it's out of order. madam president, i'd like to and a parliamentary inquiry. is the language in section 1501 (b) dealing with an existing g.a.o. audit of the national transportation safety board legislative? the presiding officer: it is. mr. demint: i thank the chair. does it violate rule 16? the presiding officer: it does. mr. demint: so the democrats are suggesting it is illegitimate for me to offer an amendment dealing with an existing g.a.o. when they have included language dealing with other audits that flatly violates 16. madam president, just further parliamentary inquiry: is the language in section 1501 (c) regarding a g.a.o. audit of local educational spending legislative in nature and in violation of rule 16?

the presiding officer: yes. mr. demint: i thank the chair. what about section 1501 $repealing an audit of the small business participation in the alaska national pipeline? is that legislative in nature and does it violate rule 16? officer sphe yes, it is. the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. demint: i have a long list here that i understand from the parliamentarian that the answers will continue to be "yes." so, madam president, we have several provisions obviously dealing with the g.a.o. and g.a.o. audits in this bill. the other side cannot stand behind a rule that they have flagrantly violated themselves. there is an earmark in this bill for nebraska. it's the only earmark in the bill. i would ask the chair what about the provisions in the library of congress section containing a $200,000 earmark for durham museum in omaha, nebraska?

is that a legislative item desands it violate rule 16? -- is there a legislative item and does it violate rule 16? the presiding officer: it is legislative but the chair is aware of the defense in germaneness. mr. demint: thank you. would it be accurate to say that the provision contains legislative language that meets the definition of rule 16, even though it is arguably germane to the house language? the presiding officer: it is legislative in flair. it is legislative in nature. mr. demint: thank you. i think i've made my point. and i won't take this any further. clearly there is a double standard here. one of the most i think sought after amendments that we have probably brought up in the house and the senate since i've been here is an audit of the federal reserve. everywhere i went last week, people were thanking me for finally looking at what the federal reserve was doing in

trying to let the american people know what is happening. this is an audit that has broad support, and i would enurge my colleagues -- encourage my colleagues on the democratic side to allow this amendment to be voted on. bubut apparently the other side has decided to challenge it with a rule 16, which they don't afly their own lafnlgt but as i said, madam chairwoman, i have said enough and i thank you for your indulgence and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: