broad base as far as the law schools. and probably the broadest as anyone in the court with the exception maybe of justice stevens. and so there are quite a few in the pool. the reality is that it is the -- it's a hispanics and blacks who do not show up in any great numbers. >> they don't show up, why? >> well, you look in the pool. >> so how do we increase the pool? i would hope that -- >> well, i don't think it's up to us to increase the pool. the pool comes from law schools and from other judges. .

>> those who show up are inclusive of the populations. >> but what you look at is what is the pool. >> but what is in the pool, has to do unfortunately with your decisions on the supreme court. that have shut out many people of color in these institutions. so we go there, we could have a healthy discussion about some of your decisions. but i think we would want to see

a broader pool. >> i think people want. >> and you help develop it. >> i think that we should have people from all over the country on the court. and as i have indicated it would be towards one region of the country. >> but justice thomas, i am trying to see how to change that. you don't want to see a supreme court extrematory defactor. and that is what happens. >> i think you broaden the areas you look. like many of us do that. i don't think we have the capacity to change other federal judges' hiring practices. >> you don't have the capacity. >> to change other judges' hiring practice. >> wouldn't it be good to say

that you would like to have a diverse law clerk in this country. >> i think they know. >> they may not know that. but that's what you all want to see. somehow you need to communicate that's what you would like to see. rather than taking who will show up. because we know who will show up, especially from harvard and yale. >> i would say this conversatior is not as inidate as you may think. i came to the court 15 years ago and i was surprised of the numberw1- of minorities and peo of color of hispanic background. who were law clerks. i would say in the last 15 years there has been change and i think it's not as difficult as people might think. and i think once you establish credibility in the areas that

think, i don't have a chance. no, you do have a chance. i can't say that, but know people that tell other people and then gradually yeah, i do have a chance. and get in the pool. whatever the pool may be. like anything else when you hire you have to do through networks and contacts. that's at least part of it. and i have seen that change. so i don't think i have had a huge problem in this respect. not perfect. but not the kind of problem that i think you might be thinking of. >> well -- >> i think there are quite a few in my office of quite diverse background and i have told the chairman, i have even, mr. chairman, have a law clerk of

ponce, and i don't finish that's part of puerto rico. but if you are, you are special. >> mr. chairman, i would ask to see the report of ethnic, gender and regional diversity. is that possible? a current report so we can look at that. >> this is a very important issue for us and the committee and has been for me. i can understand what the justice is saying. and maybe it's not their all to say, send me this person and that person. >> i understand that. >> no, in view of that, this committee asked the judicial conference to give a report. and the report that came back was pretty pathetic of the numbers at that level in their courts. so what this committee wants to continue to try to do, to apply

pressure, if you will, where the pressure needs to be. at those low levels to make sure that the pool increases. our information is that it's not happening, and i intend for this committee to tie what we do to an understanding that they can't come every year and ask for a lot of support and continue to give us those numbers. >> yeah. >> and then they can look at a pool that is more diversified. >> sure, i have seen those numbers, and i hope we get an updated report. and i think, mr. chairman, there should be some intent or the supreme court justices make a statement, this is something we would like. you can't say send us a diverse pool but it would be nice to see diversity reflected and you can do that. >> i agree with that.

>> and ask that you do something about that. >> i agree with it. >> thank you very much. >> and for the record, i want to state that if she asked the question i was going to ask. and justice thomas, you and i have discussed this publicly for a while. this is still a concern. and i add to my concern in the past, that in a way that does not compromise the integrity of the court, the supreme court itself speak in some way -- i not asking for a court decision, i am still waiting for the one where the purity rican can run for president of the united stat states. you but have to speak to people, there is a problem, and unfortunately every year when you come here, it's the court that takes the brunt of the

questions. and in fact i agree with you, but in addition to the pool being a problem or inspite of the pool being a problem. if the court were to say we need this to change, we would begin to see change. and i have nothing against harvard or yale, but there are different places around the country that can provide good folks. now whenever we have you before us, we try very hard to speak only to budget issues. but we can't pass up the opportunity to touch slightly on other things. but if we honor the long tenure of justice stevens over the next few months, i can't notice that we lose certain unique characteristics of the demgraphici is his or others,

justice steven was one of the last to serve in world war ii. and the last justice with supreme court confirmation hearing was not televised with other things. as we begin to lose with justice stevens, we must look forward to absent of any philosophy. are there any experiences legal or otherwise that you believe that court will be well served by a new justice. and secondly do you think of having all the current justices of judicial experience at the federal court of appeals helps or hinders the cites at the court levels? or do you feel that the court

will have at the state level as justices. or at the state level. without getting into philosophy what best serves the court in your opinion? >> to all the above, mr. chairman, i would say yes. i don't think it matters as much. i think what the experience is, as long as its experience making decisions and hard decisions. just as it helps us if someone is from a different part of the country. and it helps us if someone practices law or maybe talk a particular area or prosecuted or defended in a particular area. a trial judge versus an appellate judge.

mr. white was a wonderful judge, a world war ii veteran, and he wasn't a judge but an attorney general before coming to the court. just an excellent member of the court. so i think all the above works. what we look for, those of us who have been there fair while. someone we can get along with, who will an honest person, a person who will be conscientious and i don't think we have discussed how a particular person will vote. and that's the way we operate. i don't have a formula for what a judge should actually have. i like the way the court is. that people come from different problems and different perspectives and with a different background.

i think it's helpful to have that sort of mix. so, and i think that most sitting judges learn in doing this job, it's a humbling job. simply because the only people who have ready-answers are the people who have no authority to make the decision and no responsibility to make the decision. those of us who have to make it, have to be more cautious. and have to be more humble about our ability. so i don't think any of us would say to you, we have a formula for what the next member should look like. just as long as the person is a capable, good person. >> i think in respect to what you are talking about, you should keep in mind that the job, and why it's a better job

for an older person in a way, is sitting in a room. that's how i spend my day. looking at the word processor. yeah, sometime us forget and i am there all night. you are reading and writing. to do your homework, you can have a job for the rest of your life. and you need to think not just what those books say and cases say, that's part of it. but you would have to have what i would call a certain kind of imagination. you have to think beyond the room and you have to have a realistic imagination so you understand what the impact of this decision will be on those people. i can't give you a magic touch stone to tell you whether you

have that kind of person. i just tell you that the nine people that are there, try as hard as they can. and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don't. but it's that kind of imaginative experience of others that really makes the difference in how you write those words. >> it's interesting, justice thomas, when you say it's a humbling experience. i will tell you a quick experience i had. i represent as you know the south bronx and a lot of immigrants and a lot of folks with english the second language and poor folks and with little education. and even explaining on a daily basis after 20 years in congress, what congress does, it's a daily routine fornñ me. when sonia sotomoya was being

considered andaá: everyone knew this was huge. this was big, that was important. that was the coming of age for the community. and it became something where everywhere i went, you better be sure this happens. yeah, i spoke to -- it's a done deal. but the importance, i have told you in the past, much to the dismay of some of my friends on the left, that i feel uneasy for having a hearing for the supreme i ht. e for the court. i don't always agree with the decision, but i have a respect. it's humbling and the public understands the importance of

what you do, and the bearing it has on our country. we always thank you for your service and tell the other search. >> thank you mr. chairman. and it's always an honor being here. you and i have been at this together for a decade and a half. >> i am glad to hear you don't think that a judge has to be on the court. because i am not a judge. >> you haven't asked that question. >> really. >> we are abating that one, giving you an option. >> so the last three justices appointed to the supreme court were 55, 56 and 50. last retiree, 90. some have referred to becoming a

justice or appellate judge as taking the veil. and i am just curious. do you all think that it's good for the court to have these younger justices serve term that could be easily 40 years in length. curious. >> well, you are talking to a person that was supported in his 40s. i guess i am an extreme example of your example. and i can say this and let me answer it this way. i am very pleased that i had the opportunity to work with members of the court that had long tenures. each brought something unique,

they had a view of the law in the job that had is different and had more depth to it when those of us show up in the first two or three years. they have been there. to hear justice stevens talk about being there in the early days and with stewart. and what the decisions were. and having sat on so many cases that now form the precedential of our jurisdiction. i don't have a magic formula of how long judges should be on courts. if it was 25 years, i would be close to done. and would move on to another phase of life. but it's not that. it's a life-time appointment in

this country. and i see from my perspective not necessarily for me, but i see some advantages to it. and some disadvantages. but so far i simply do not see in serving with members who were in their later years, i just hadn't seen all the disadvantages. they have been wonderful colleagues to a person. >> i appreciate that, justice breyer. >> i don't know 40s, i don't know what that number is. and you dismissed holmes service but it's important that they be long-term. and the reason i believe that, because you will have different members appointed by different presidents. and while presidents think they make a huge mistake why they don't choose someone that agrees

with them. ted teddy roosevelt nominated holmes, and on general philosophy there is more of a correlation. i came to this court, i was a judge in new england. i grew up in san francisco, i spent a lot of time teaching. and i thought my god, i have seen a lot of people i have disgredi disagreed with and i think that's a good thing, there are 300 million people and there are 900 points of view. every race in this country and religion, and they have learned how to live together under law. and our greatest perk, benefit is that we get to see that. it's a very good thing that i serve with people that don't always agree with me.

sometimes they might, but who don't always agree with me and have different points of view. i think you ought to serve at least long enough to pick up some that. >> i appreciate that. and let me ask something that may be a touchy subject. i am not trying to put you on the spot but this is a big decision with vacancies at all levels. are we having a tough time retaining judges because not cost of living dx%t5%ses. >> yes. not only are you having trouble retaining some of the ones who are on the bench. we are beginning to see push-back or resistance of being nominated by some of the best talent. but that's just part of the

reality. but i would like to take a brief second to touch on one aspect of the diversity question. i think mrs. lee had a good point. one of the things that you run into when you visit law schools that are not the ivy league is a sense among the students. and it doesn't matter whether they are minorities or women or males, that's just many of the students. that there is no chance that they can be here at our court as law clerks or any other capacity. that is something that i think we can eliminate. and saying that possibility exists. and that spreads throughout. i also think that justice breyer is absolutely right, that a lot of our hiring. there are only four to each of us a year. there is no system, we all do it

individually. it depends on the people you know. so if you know more people, say at the university of georgia or george mason or other schools, you have a tendency to rely on their advice about a young person applying. and it's individualized. the broader that net is and the more changes you have of bringing individuals in who are now excluded on a large scale or significant scale. >> and i am grateful for you saying that. i look at my husband who is a brilliant attorney, who got in two schools, university of missouri and yale. and chose to go to university of missouri to prove that he could

prove to be a better than yale lawyer. that's silly and risky. but i think it's important to move beyond the ivy leagues. because there are so manyro pee that can't afford to go to the ivy leagues schools and they are brilliant. and i am glad to see the sensitivity of bring in more diverse schools. >> this reminds me of a thought i have so often, we are a people that love our country. we love our system. and we should. it's the greatest system in the world. we love our democracy and we should, it's the greatest in

the world. and we love is so much that we impose it on other people. but we don't care about the people that run the system or the people that make the judges decisions. it seems like a lot of americans think this runs by itself. there is this incredible contradiction, i guess, but healthy, that we love where we are going and the roads get built by themselves and the hospitals run by themselves and nothing but a computer. let me ask a couple more questions, and this one bear with me. there has been some confusion as for the supreme court's requirements of cases involving the death penalty. my understanding is that generally the supreme court only requires four votes to grant

this, that allows that case to be reviewed by the court. and it's my understanding that the court has not made exclusive their cases involving the death penalty. although many scholars say that the court needs a five-person majority. and this could involve the court to grant the death penalty for a particular individual but not stop an execution for going forward. it would be possible to get a firm explanation to grant the stay of execution in capital cases. and do you think that cases discussed on the article where the supreme court heard a death penalty and refused to go forward on the court of appeals.

and i apologize if you feel i am going into court decisions. i am trying not to do so. >> i think it's a fair question, the practice has been since i have been at the court, to be sensitive to this difference of the number of members of the court it takes to grant for, versus the number it takes to stay, any action to be honest. not just an execution. and in the past the reason it rarely comes up is because it's resolved internally with individuals casting a vote to stay it, even if they don't agree with it. so you don't have that inconsistency. and occasionally you may have inconsistent in the underlying merit.

there are cases why you don't get the fifth vote, but the normal practice is that five is automatic. >> it's important to see in things like this, it's a very important matter. there are informal ways of working things out. say the four that want it granted. are also thinking there is an issue here. and you may have enough discussion with the other members of the court, it may be an issue but not a winning issue. and others may test the strength of feeling, and perhaps like you might have in a caucus or discussion. where you try to get things to work out. and normally it works out. and not always to everyone's satisfaction, but normally works out. >> thank you. >> that difference is always

there, and by the rarity of the occurrence it works out. and justice breyer's key words of the arrangements that we have many at the court, allow you to make adjustments as circumstances change. >> just ending here. march 18 we starting hosting the website of the court itself. will be keeping records of the different pages and parts in the site that get hit. and how will you use that? >> now i am not aware of whether or not we will do it for each page. but let me have our web people, our i.t. people report and get back to you. >> and to find out how they are going to use that data. >> yeah, that would be good. if you have a chance, it's

www.supreme court.gov. >> i have been there, and i apologize for being a little late today. i was putting on facebook that we were being on c-span. and to make my c-span people happy, my last question, c-span aired on the supreme court and all justices agreed to be interviewed. and they agreed to be heard from the justices about their work. what other steps have the justices taken individually or collectively to help inform the public with the court's operations and its important reporting of the democracy and the constitutional structure. and i must say i am a big fan of informing the public more and more and more of what the court is all about. because it's so important. >> i think that on what you see, when we started that, this conversation about informing the

public. i think of the things we were talking about, making the briefs available. >> right. >> all the briefs are now available. >> a short time after. >> that's right, a joint arrangement of the aba, right after their file. now with a joint arrangement with c-span, you saw that wonderful presentation, every member participated. and c-span does a particularly good job, because they don't have an angle other than to get it done right. and i think you will see the website, the fact that we have control of it now. allows us to do more and more of this. to do things, for example to work with our historical society and other institutions, aba and other organizations like c-span, to make the court accessible to people that can't get there. we can talk about oral

arguments, they are a minuscule of the solution and there is so much more and more accessible to the public. you will see more cooperation with organizations like c-span and the american bar association. >> i think that's such -- that may be the only single thing we can do in response to your earlier question. and that is why do people in this country not understand what it is we do. and although you, i am sure, and i know we do and i have seen him give infinite number of speeches, we're talking to high schools and i was talking to law

schools. and c-span is such a help beyond belief, they put it on. and i think for insomniacs. >> justice o'connor has been denoting her retirement years. and justice sutter and this is to get to explain to children through a lesson plan what you do. she's got a website and other foundations, and carnegie supports it. and i believe in it and we love that. >> i know when i was there, and

to see certain people here addressed in a certain attire for this presentation, it was beautiful. once again thank you for coming before us. thank you for service to our country. as we move forward on this budget process, we will beg into consideration your requests and you know in the past we have done the right thing and we will continue to do the right thing. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> hearing is adjourned [gavel] >> you can watch this and other "america and the courts" on our website, and join us next weekend for america and the

courts, saturday 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you are watching c-span, created for you as a public service by america's cable companies. up next remarks from president clinton on the oklahoma city bombing and the impact that the bombing had on americans. and later regarding the apollo 14 mission and today marks the anniversary of that return after that near disaster. earlier this week, former president, bill clinton, talked about the oklahoma city bombing on americans, it's been 15 years

and president clinton talks about this event, this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you michael for your remarks and for your service to our country. i want to thank john and al for hosting this forum. 15 years after oklahoma city. i want to thank the panelist, mr. brownstein, mike waldon and jamie relic. i must tell you that's the first time i have seen that film. and i as has been said

continuously going back to oklahoma city. i am going back in a few days, they are having a week-long observation for the 15th anniversar anniversary. even now it seems real as if it happened yesterday. there was a story in "the new york times" by a reporter who has been positively, and i say that in a positive way, positively interested in this. drawing parallels to the time running up to oklahoma city, and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today. that's a legitimate thing to do. and it's important before we overdo that, to put this in the context of what happened and to try to understand what it meant

for america and what it means for all of us in the way we exercise our citizenship. before the bombing occurred there was a sort of fever in america. in the early 1990's. first it was a time like now of dramatic upheaval. a lot of old arrangements had changed, things that anchored people's lives and gave certainty to them had been unravelling. some of them by then 20 years. median family income began to stagnate and inequality in our country went back to the 70's, and before the global system and before we had an adequate response to it.

and there were huge numbers of americans who were working longer hours for lower incomes. more and more families under enormous economic stress. meanwhile the fabric of american life had been unravelling. there was a lot of violence in our cities. there was a rise of gang violence, in particular, there were people putting political spins on some things that the gangs were doing. and the structure of the world where we lived in, where we knew where our enemies were in the polar world, itself was coming to an end. oklahoma city was a few years after the fall of the berlin wall. and there was no simple bipolar world anymore. there were a lot

of fist fights around the world based on ethnic, religious and cultural and long-standing geographicical regions. it was a hard time to get a stable position, we moved from an economy that built the bigge biggest infrastructure and to one that built new systems and new problems. there were more people trying to figure out where they fit in. more people that lived in confidence and optimism in the face of change. it's true that we see some of that today. since this country was born in

reaction to abusive power by government, if you remember, that's what the boston tea party was about. it was about no taxation without representation. it was not about representation by people you didn't vote for and don't agree with but can vote out in the next election. and so a part of being an american has always been banging away at the government. you know when i was a young man in politics in arkansas, any time federal government did something we didn't agree with, we would have a standard saying, it was the only institution in america that could mess up a two-car parade. everyone said stuff like that. in the decade of the 90's and

beginning in the 80's, there was a run-up of more seriousness of the government and its employees and an effort to legitimize violence. it was something in my lifetime i had experienced first as a young southern growing up when people saying it was ok to use violence against government people that were trying to promote equal opportunity and racial integration. and for a brief period in my lifetime, in the late 60's early 70's, the idea of violence against the government and the weather men. a few of you are old enough will remember that. but by the 80's we began to have the rise of violence from a

branch you could call right-wing, but it was political ring that believed that all taxes were illegitimate. in the 80's two of my personal friends were murdered in arkansas. one of a sheriff that was my rural coordinator that was charged to work with the federal officials to lead the effort to catch a tax collector, gordon kault, that was well armed and in the shoot-out he killed my friend. there was a young african-american state trooper that just by accident, doing his job, stopped a man in a big van who had an entire arsenal in the

van. and he did not want to be apprehended. so he killed this young man, who i knew. then as we moved into a new decade not long before i took office, the incidents at ruby ridge. and then we had in '93 after i took office. the first world trade center bombing, from people from other countries and illegal immigrants and the first incident of international terror on our soil. and then we had waco. where people can argue back and forth about what the right thing to do was. i wrote about this rather extensively in my auto birography, but there was no question that david kerschner

believed he could use violence against the government and do things in that encampment, to children, that were illegal and unconsciousable. and the sense was that waco and ruby ridge were not the fault of those advocating violence, but the government attempting to enforce the law. so it became symbolic. so this was all going on. a great uprooting in america. people feeling disoriented. i will never forget a young woman who helped me understand that she was a 17-year-old high school senior in new hampshire, when i ran for president, at

that time new hampshire was one of the worse economies in the country. and she introduced me to her parents, and her father said i can't look in the face of my wife and children at dinner anymore, because i feel like a failure. this sense of loss of incapacity of impotence makes people v vulne vulnearable. to the song of simple explanations, wanting the world to make sense again. there was a rising music in the 90's that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot but one that fell in the soil

for so many people of a world that no longer made sense. they wanted a simple, clear explanation of a complex mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy but personal conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. and so demonizing the government and the people that worked for it sort of fit that. and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying, that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problems the federal government itself. and we have to realize that there were others who fuelled this, both because they agreed with it, and because it was in their advantage to do so. when i became president, it's hard to remember this, there

were only 50 site on the worldwide web. there are more added than that since i have been talking. but it exploded in my first term and has continued to explode ever since. and among those who first saw its potential and made use of it, are those who used the internet to even share information on how to make bombs. we didn't have blog sites back then. so the instrument of carrying this forward were the white-ring radio talk show hosts. and they understood that emotion was powerful than reason and they got more listenship and more advertis

advertisers if they kept people in the white heat. it was just that, turn on the radio, listen to something you didn't agree with, vent your anger and go on. but it shaped the environment in which we were in. and another thing that needs to be reconciled or stated here, that was different from the current situation. is that when i took office, americans were literally still divided over the issues that divided us in the 1960's and 1970's, we were still divide over the race movement and vietnam war and still divided over the women's movement. we were still fighting about abortion and all the other issues that flow out of it. and into that combustible mix

came in the late 80's and 90's is a fresh debate over gay rights and what that meant. and a lot of these battles that were spoken about by me and speaker gingrich, was an attempt to finally reconcile where we were going forward on all of these issues. i got a very moving letter from robert mac mcnamara that was a member of the white house and he wrote me a letter and said that the vietnam war ended with my election. for some it did.

i have on my2ñeú wall a big cas the battle medals of the vietnam veteran that is gave them to me on the various stops that they opposed to the war and they didn't stop with me. but entered a new phase. a lot of this current uprooting was overlaid by the unresolved issues of the 60's and 70's. and aggravated by the new ways people had of communicating both through the radio/talk shows and the insipient internet networks. so, in the two years after the world trade center bombing and before oklahoma city, we had

worked hard and largely on a bipartisan basis, to begin america's effort to protect ourselves against terrorism better. and there were a number of things done, and one thing that i thought had been done, that we learned on 9/11 wasn't, and i issued anr/y executive order requiring the f.b.i. and c.i.a. to share information. and i didn't know before 9/11 that the president was not supposed to know what was going in the f.b.i. and stay 90 miles away from that. both agencies had honored that order in the breach. they had nominally transferred people but not much cooperation. all which is reported in the

9/11 commission. but some had happened with tunnels and planes flying to the philippines and west coast. and in an attempt i had sent legislation to congress to ask them to further strengthen our encounter against terrorist attacks. and it was making its way through. and meanwhile timothy mcveigh had made up his mind to take a different course. and on the anniversary of waco, which is symbolic of the people that see government as the problem. he drove or fertilizer truck up

next to the murrah building and down. people had just come to work that day. and it's worth knowing that 168 innocent people were killed. people that were mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and good neighbors and citizens. one was a secret service agent, named al wikfer, he wanted to take his family to oklahoma city because he thought it would be a wonderful place to raise his children, a safe haven, idyllic upbring in america. 300 buildings were damaged, 19 children themselves were killed

with many others. and in the immediate response there was an amazing set of acts andáf$fj humanity and heroism. a man i later recognized, a 49-year-old veteran and he was there and got out and then went back in. where people were falling, and i think you fell several floors and richard dean went back in to save the lives of several women. there were fire rescues to pull out survivors for days. i sent a crisis to the f.b.i. and sent

fema to assist, you saw that in the film. and then firefighters from all over america showed up to help. people came from new york to help. i will never forget after 9/11 and we lost firefighters and at a memorial service, a guy came from oklahoma city. and said, i came here because they were there for us. america stood with the people of oklahoma city and maybe the most important letter i got out of all the letters i got. was the one that you quoted. because the whole issue was is how will the city, how will the state, how will the victims and their families respond? a heart-broken nation was looking at them and pulling for

them and wondering what they would do. and essentially the pan am 103 widow told them, it was ok to keep on living. the only way7$ honor their lost loved ones was to reclaim life. and do with life what their lost loved ones would have done. it was better than anything i could have said, and she had more credibility saying it. and i think it helped not only the victims and their families, it also helped everyone else. so after oklahoma city what happened. well, at one level we did rational things, i went back to congress and asked for the

legislation i sent them. bob doyle was great, we had bipartisan mission, we disagreed about fertilizer and regarding a mission, and scientifically it's hard to do. but there was a sense that this is something that we had to do together. and that's exactly what happened. i proposed measured to increase law enforcement officials dedicated solely to fighting terror. and domesticallied terror efforts. i asked for the approval ofb2sz military exerts that were not permitted to involve nuclear weapons. we wanted law enforcement to have greater access to financial

records and track money trails, and two, to have the same rules apply to organized crime figures and for those selling explosives used in a terrorist incident. congress passed this bill in seven weeks with strong bipartisan support. and i tell you since we have had 9/11 and since, that legislation helped in my administration and in president bush's administration, it's worked several serious terrorist . .

i think its also important to note that oklahoma city changed the country in other ways. we didnt stop our political fights. you remember, i kept fighting when newt gingrich and the"x republicans shut the government down twice at the end of 1995. you know, everything didnt turn into sweetness and light. but as tough as it was, it was different. ill tell you an interesting, entirely personal story. you saw gov. keating and his wife talking there. frank keating is a very conservative republican who, by coincidence of history, was the

president of the college of arts and sciences student body at georgetown when i was a student there, in student government. and believe it or not, we had the school of foreign service and the language school and the business school had an entirely separate student government. we had been fighting for 30 years -- over issues when that oklahoma bombing happened. i know mayor norrick and had a great relationship with him. but i always liked frank keating because i always knew that he was honest, straightforward and believed in his positions just as strongly as i did in mine. but i thought it was -- its just something you should know. we had been involved in political conflict literally since the early 1960s -- when oklahoma city happened -- since we were college students. and i cannot say enough about the way he and his wife handled themselves, the way the mayor of oklahoma city did, the way the people in the community and the state did. they were great. it changed something in us.

we sort of got over the idea that our differences justified our demonization of one another. and i think thats really important. a couple of weeks after the legislation passed, i went to give a commencement speech at michigan state. and i thought it was very important, because michigan had been the site of the rise of a lot of the militia groups -- people who were drilling with weapons and who had various strategies about what it is they were supposed to do. some of them, plainly, were sanctioning terror with their words -- or violence, illegal violence -- but to be fair, a lot of the militia group leaders also condemned what was done at oklahoma city and said they wanted no part of that; it

was wrong; it was illegal; the perpetrators should be punished. so i went to michigan state and spoke to both the students and the militia members. i thanked those who had opposed the bombing. and then i took on those who hadnt, and explained that their actions and their words had consequences for people like timothy mcveigh. by then, it had come out that hed had a very troubled life, that he was a profoundly alienated person, and that he was highly vulnerable to the suggestions and implications of the most militant rhetoric at the time. lots of other things happened after oklahoma city. we had to put more barriers

around federal buildings. against my strong desires, i gave in to the unassailable logic that we had to close pennsylvania avenue, because the white house is a very old building and i saw the schematics of what would happen if timothy mcveighs fertilizer bomb in a pickup truck were just parked in front of the white house, which is much -- you know, and that street, pennsylvania avenue, is farther away from the white house by a good stretch than his bomb was from the murrah building. and still, because of the construction, they said it would blast out the windows in the old building and collapse the west wing, with potentially calamitous consequences for the government. and so we restricted access to pennsylvania avenue. but most of the consequences of this, i think we cannot fully appreciate.

i think, first of all, oklahoma city impacted young people profoundly. hillary and i actually did our weekly radio address together one day, and we had young people who were profoundly troubled because theyd never seen kids killed before. and there was an enormous effort by parents, by school leaders, by religious leaders, by others to help them come to grips with this, and asked what they should do with it, and questioned what their responsibilities to one another were. these young people are now young adults. and its very interesting how theyve turned out -- this generation.

first of all, theyre remarkable for their commitment across all party and philosophical lines to community service -- to non-governmental service. they also vote in higher percentages than people just a little older than them did at their age. they work in elections in higher percentages than people just a little older than them did at their age. theyre more likely to volunteer for americorps, teach for america, their local religious institution, the united way or for some other purpose. its just part of their dna. and i think that is also extremely, extremely interesting. i know that what happened at oklahoma city and how it affected them when they were young in their conversations with their mentors and parents,

is part of the reason why. most of them are probably not at all conscious of it. but it changed their psychology, their orientation to the rest of the world. so what are we supposed to make of this? what are the lessons of this for today? first, we know that living with confidence in a time of change and adversity is difficult. and we are living in a time of change and adversity. so we have to be more sensitive. before the economic crisis, which began on september the 15th, 2008, with the failure of lehman brothers, after inflation, median income in america was -- for families -- was $2,000 a year lower than it was when i left office. ninety percent of the gains of the last decade went to only 10 percent of us, 43 percent to 1 percent of us.

thats profoundly disorienting. once again, where more people were working harder for less. and now, we have the highest percentage of americans whove been out of work for six months or more weve had in decades. this is disorienting. and people are looking for anchors to make life simple and understandable, and adjustable again, and sometimes with the idea that they need to go back to an idyllic time that never existed. thats a big part of the explanation for this anti-immigration law that arizona just passed; or the idea that we ought to bring back confederate month in virginia without talking anything about slavery; or the idea that you ought to be able to pack a loaded six-gun into a starbucks and order a cowboy latte. all of this is really about, where do you feel oriented

walking through the day -- how to feel secure in the face of insecurity; how to feel ordered in the face of chaos. im not defending the specifics of any of these; im just telling you thats whats going on. there is an enormous psychological disorientation today. and that is also the way it was in the early 90s. and we must not forget that when that happens, we have to pay special care both to have a raging debate, because we need to figure out what to do about this, and to do it in a way that nurtures the best in us, not the worst. the second lesson we have to learn is that we cant let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose focus of our common humanity. its really important.

we cant ever fudge the fact that there is a basic line dividing criticism from violence or its advocacy. and the closer you get to the line, and the more responsibility you have, the more you have to think about the echo chamber in which your words resonate. look, criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. nobodys right all the time. but oklahoma city proved once again that, beyond the law, there is no freedom. and there is a difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedom and the public servants

who implement them. and the more prominence you have in politics or media or some other pillar of life, the more you have to keep that in mind. i acknowledged that in my political career, i had, on more than one occasion, in the face of a government policy i disagreed with or a practice i thought was insensitive, referred in a disparaging way generally to federal bureaucrats, as if all of them were arrogant or insensitive or unresponsive. and i have never done it again. you could not read the stories of the lives of the people who perished at oklahoma city and not respond in that way. do some people still abuse their power? yes. do some of them treat their customers and the people that

pay their way in an inappropriate way? yes. does congress sometimes do things that dont work and dont make sense, or the president? absolutely. but our criticism should be aimed with a rifle, or preferably, with a b.b. gun, in a way designed not to demonize the institution of the government or the people who work for it. and i, too, learned that from oklahoma city. and i think its worth repeating again today. as we live in another highly contentious, partisan and uncertain time. now, i have to tell you that i had a great time fighting with newt gingrich and tom delay and dick armey. i loved seeing that picture of him in the post today -- the outline -- armey with his cowboy hat on. i remember when he called hillary a socialist.

i remember when newt gingrich, shortly after becoming speaker-elect, said that hillary and i were the enemies of normal americans. it didnt bother me a bit. i was glad to get in and mix it up. but what we learned from oklahoma city is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold, but that the words we use really do matter because there are -- theres this vast echo chamber. and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious, alike; they fall on the connected and the unhinged, alike. and i am not trying to muzzle anybody. but one of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in america is a reminder that no law can replace personal

responsibility. and the more power you have, and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have. look, im glad theyre fighting over health care and everything else; let them have at it. but i think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled. we know, now, that there are people involved in groups -- these hatriot groups, the oath keepers, the three percenters, the others -- 99 percent of them will never do anything they shouldnt do. but there are people who advocate violence and anticipate violence. one of these guys the other day said that all politics is just a prelude to the ultimate and inevitable civil war. you know, im a southerner. i know what happened. we were still paying for that

100 years later when i was a kid growing up, in ways large and small. it doesnt take many people to take something like that seriously. so i dont want the whole story of this retrospective just to be about this, and trying to turn everything into politics. and i guess thats naïve, me being in washington and all. i still have some memory of it. but i think that the point im trying to make is, i like the debate. this tea party" movement can be a healthy thing if theyre making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend. and they say theyre for limited government and a balanced budget; when i left office, we had the smallest workforce since eisenhower and we had four surpluses for the first time in 70 years. and if the people they say should be elected had not

gotten elected, we would be out of debt in just a couple of years for the first time since the 1830s. but when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for. think about your own life; forget about politics. every time youve made an important decision in some non-political -- totally personal -- way, when you were angry or frustrated or afraid, theres about a 75 percent chance you made a mistake. isnt that right? you know -- and the older you get, the more youll see that. its about a -- you know, doing things when you are mad is, by and large, a prescription for error. so the only thing im saying is, have at it, go fight, go do whatever you want. and you dont have to be nice, and you can be harsh. but youve got to be very careful not to advocate

violence or cross the line. yes, the boston tea party involved the seizure of tea in a ship because it was taxation without representation, because even the massachusetts bay colony, which had been largely self-governing, had it stripped from them. this is about -- this fight is about taxation by duly, honestly elected representatives that you dont happen to agree with, that you can vote out at the next election, and two years after that, and two years after that, and two years after that. thats very different. this whole thing goes right back to our countrys beginnings. when george washington served his two terms and went home to mount vernon to retire and john adams became president, he was called out of retirement one time. you know what it was? he was called out of retirement

to command the armed forces sent to pennsylvania to put down the whiskey rebellion, because good americans who had fought for this country crossed the line from advocating a different policy and opposing the current one to taking the law into their own hands in a violent manner. once in a while, over the last 200 years, weve crossed the line again. but by and large, that bright line has held, and thats why this is the longest-lasting democracy in human history. thats why there is so much free speech. thats why people can organize their groups. it may seem like fringe groups that advocate whatever the livin sam hill they want to advocate. thats why. but we have to keep the bright line alive.

so thats the second lesson. the third lesson is, its always a mistake to bet against america. what happened at oklahoma city -- something that horrible, which could have just made all those people so full of anger and hatred. and you saw that monument on that gentle slope and that beautiful pool, with those 168 empty chairs, and how they responded and how we did. and you heard the former governor, george nigh, saying nobody remembered who was a republican, who was a democrat. its always a mistake to bet against america. we tend to figure this stuff out. and we zig and we zag, and we go up and we go down, but look, we still have a growing population with a very healthy

fertility rate, which is a good thing in the 21st century. we can accommodate more. immigrants still want to come here, notwithstanding the legislation in arizona. its more true today than it was when president kennedy said at the berlin wall, freedom has many difficulties and our democracy is far from perfect, but we never had to put up a wall to keep our people in. and we can put up all the walls we want to try to keep them out, but as long as we are free and open and full of promise, people will want to come. so by all means, keep fighting; by all means, keep arguing. but remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. we owe that to oklahoma city.

we owe it to keep on fighting, keep on arguing. they didnt vote for me in oklahoma in 1996. it was still a republican state. but i loved them anyway, and i will till the day i die, because when this country was flat on its back mourning their loss, they rallied around the employees of the national government and they rallied around the human beings who had lost everything, and they rallied around the elemental principle that what we have in common is more important than our differences. and that's why our constitution makes our freedoms last because of that bright line. thank you very much.

>> ladies and gentlemen, we will continue the program in a few moments. please remain seated. >> after bill clinton concluded his remarks, forker administration officials and members of congress took part on the discussion of the impact of the oklahoma city bombing. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we have our closing act, our panel discussion. i am ronald brownstein, political director for atlantic media and a columnist for "national journal" magazine and john podesta earlier gave you an introduction so i'll quickly run through our panel.

on my right, your stage left, mike wallman who is the executive director of the brennan center of justice at the n.y. center of law and was director of speech bringing from president clinton from 19 67-1999 and his time in the white house called "otis speaks" of us time in the white house. on the other side is mark potack at the southern poverty law center in new york. at the southern poverty law center, one of the premiere group tracking extremist groups. before that i spent almost 20 years as a journalist, a reformed journalist, who publications from "usa today," the dallas times herald, "the "miami herald" and covered the siege in waco, the oklahoma bombing and the trial of timothy mcveigh. next to him, congressman kendrick meek from florida. currently a candidate for the u.s. senate, member of the

house ways and means committee. formerly on the homeland security committee and served before any of this as a captain in the florida highway patrol. so he had direct experience. mickey edwards, representative of oklahoma city in congress for 16 years, serving on the house budget and appropriations committees and is a member of the house republican leadership in another era. after leaving congress, he taught of course for many years at the kennedy school of government at harvard and has been affiliated as well with the program on law and public affairs at princeton university. on his other side, jamie gorell, former general counsel, deputy attorney general under president clinton and now a partner at bloomer hail where she shares the defense, national security and government contracts practice group. finally, brad buckles was the director of the a.t.f. for alcohol, tobacco and firearms,

1999-2004. earlier served as chief counsel and then deputy director, currently executive vice president at the reporting industry association of america working on issues relating to intellectual property. so with those introductions, let me start, if i could, jamie, with you and bradley, if you don't mind, also, tackling this first question, i want to talk a little bit, obviously, with the book we're going to talk about the implications of those events to what's going on today but let's start by trying to understand the issues themselves. president clinton said tim mcveigh was a troubled individual, but there was also a very contentious crime, if you sort out the positives of something you like in this magnitude, is it fundamentally rooted in a deeply alienated individual, or is there a social content, a political

context that sets it in motion and how you kind of portion between the two in determining this kind of -- >> i think the president said quite aptly, you take a troubled individual and you put him in the context of a movement that is disparaging of and dehumanizing of other people, and it becomes permissible, indeed in the mind of such a person, to kill those people. the notion that you could so demonize federal workers and their children that it would -- you would be unremorseful in blowing them up requires both. we had at the time a really rabid movement that demonized federal employees that viewed waco in particular as a -- an

assault by the federal government on freedom and acertain ideology and you take an unhinged person like tim mcveigh and you get oklahoma city. i mean, you could not have sat at the justice department -- and i came in to the justice department in 1994, so after waco. but you could not have sat there and read the letters just that janet reno got and not have been worried about what was out there in the water, and tim mcveigh drank that water. >> one of the things we'd seen even moving into this period is there have always been unhinged individual with different motives for taking this action and before there was timothy mcveigh we had the unabomber, we had mr. moody who sent a

pipe bomb to a federal circuit court judge because he was mad at the government and the court system. but what we saw developing during this period was really moving beyond some kind of personal motive and personal agenda to latching on to something that was a bit more frightening and providing kind of a premade agenda for people who were otherwise searching for a way to assert power and control over their lives, and there was a frightening number of people who were moving into this area, both in the rhetoric of talking about committing violence and sometimes not doing it, but talking it and then those around them, like a timothy mcveigh that took it the one step further. >> so you're saying that really the distinction here was not just the lone individual with the kind of grievance but

attaching something larger pulling them in this direction. >> there was a -- what we call sort of gun show culture, there was a culture the kind of literature tim mcveigh read and carried around with him, was passed around, discussed and erased. >> mark, any thoughts on that, that kind of -- do you agree that that is a kind of distinction and to what extent is it perhaps relevant now? >> i think it's very relevant now. i think it's absolutely true that many of these people are mentally ill or really disturbed by something that laces their personal life. you look at a guy like joseph stack who flew the airplane in the i.r.s. building in austin. i think if you read his final testament, his last document, he's mentally ill. he was angry at a lot of things, he was angry at unions and corporations and executives who got bonuses. he was angry at his ex-wives. but you know, this guy was out there, he came into contact

early on, about 1987 with the radical tax protest and was part of the patriot movement and started to focus his ideas, so i think ultimately, it's impossible to say, would he have killed somebody else? but ultimately his anger was focused on the government and very specifically the i.r.s., and as a result people died. . >> we find whether it's the

degree of partisanship that now exists in our political environment or it's the absolute conviction, whether you're on the left or the right. that you're correct and the other people have lost their minds, that leads to things like this. people can't calibrate the way they need to. >> i think one difference between now and 1995, which is president alluded to, is that the distribution channels for what were fringe or extreme ideas or organizing have exploded. in the sense that there's always been the turner diaries or the john burke society or the militia movement. but now, as was said, the internet has exploded. there are more radio channels. shouted opinions nonstop on cable tv. so the distinction between having -- being disaffected and

alienated, having the institution be part of that that's dangerous and being in a wider soup of overheated talk is much harder to see. and that seems to me to be something that is new and scary and we haven't really come to grips with it. >> it seems to me also that it's absolutely true that back in the 1990's, you had talk radio, you had the beginnings of the internet, and i absolutely agree that those have had their importance. but now wu see it leaking into a much larger kind of stage, so that we have politicians who are willing to say the president is setting up death panels, we have politicians who are willing to say criminally illegal aliens, murder or drunkenly run over and kill 25 people. we have people willing to say fema, on fox news or wherever it may be, that fema may be running secret concentration camps. we didn't have people who had

audiences of three million people saying those kinds of things with absolutely no justification whatsoever, and they do exactly what the president talked about. they demonize particular groups of individuals. i.r.s. workers, federal workers, mexican immigrants, and it all seems to add up. >> the relationship between political discourse and this extremist behavior. congressman, let me bring you in. the president said, and maybe what mark just said is relevant to this discussion. president clinton said that oklahoma city did change the political climate in the sense of getting people more of a sense of the limits of how far they should go. if that was true, has that evaporated? has that worn off over time? do you feel that people still feel a restraint? or do you feel that there is simply kind of this sense of almost anything goes and making charges against the other side? >> i think now with social networking and individuals being

able to sit in their private homes and get their views out to the world i think is even now more open than it's ever been before. i think 15 years ago, did not have the effect that 9/11 had, as it relates to the politics of the way policing that kind of activity and identifying it early on. it's so much of it. you know, you can find it on a google search in a matter of seconds. i want to agree with mark by saying that when you have people of influence in power, and especially political power, that validates something that can be counterproductive to a safe environment for all of us. for instance, the recent health care debate. i saw sergeant livingston who

had this distraught look on his face. i asked one of the gentlemen that was working with him, you know, in his office, i said, is the sergeant ok? he said, well, the sergeant is just trying to stop the members from bringing individuals into the capitol that should not be in the capitol. when you look at frit that standpoint and the -- at it from that standpoint and the egging on of, it's ok, take it to the next notch, it could very well bring about a political environment that could be quite unsafe. i can tell you with the upcoming elections, more of that is becoming more evident that someone needs to act out, neither from the left or the right, to show the movement that it's worth the fight. >> let's go directly to that, to the question, which is sort of moving over this. we have certainly seen our share of unsetting incidents. you mentioned the plane crash into the i.r.s. office in texas. the arrest of the militia. in pittsburgh, there were some reports in the early

administration of a spike in threats against the president. president clinton alluded to the battle over starbucks and so forth. when you look across the landscape, how does the threat of domestic terrorism now compared to what you saw in the 1990's -- you want to start? >> well, let me first say this. i think that what the president observed, which is that words matter, is in part an answer to your question of did oklahoma city change our body of politic? this is what you see in movements. after oklahoma city, we asked the f.b.i. to approach the different militias that were operating all over the country. we saiding look, you can speak, you can exercise with your guns

in the woods, but you can't kill people. >> seems reasonable. >> well, you know, when the montana freemen hole themselves up and the f.b.i. surrounded their compound, they called out to the militias to come, and no one showed up. after a spate of abortion clinic bombings, there was one outside of boston, and we went to the church and we said, you're preaching against abortion, which is fine. but could you also say that it is not proper to take a life in advancing that position? and they did. and there was never another one in that time period. i say these things as waves. i think we are having another wave right now. it feels that way to me. and i am hoping that there is

something short of a catharsis, which in the case of oklahoma city and the abortion clinic bombings and others, that will stop that sway. >> maybe starting with mike and coming this way, everybody respond to what jamie gorelick just said. are we in the midst of another wave? another threat? >> i don't feel i have the law enforcement expertise to know in a really concrete sense the v. menace toward government as an entity is strong as i've seen it since the early 1990's. i think that there are dislocations, even greater than the ones the president talked about, that are rumbling and rattling through the political system that people in washington, people in new york haven't even focused on. the president mentioned september 15 as the day the

lehman brothers fell. i think for tens of millions of americans, what happened then and the response, tarp, which may have been very necessary, was utterly startling, called into question their faith in the government, and gave fuel and legitimacy to things that seemed extreme and irrational. i think that until we understand how the economic crisis is being felt in people's lives, we can't understand how people are talking about government and politics. it certainly feels very troubling. >> mark? >> i would say the same thing. i don't think there's any doubt that we're in another period very much like the run up to oklahoma city. you know, i agree very much with what you said, jamie, about the idea of these things come in waves. we're in the middle of a kind of backlash. we've done a recent study that shows an absolutely enormous

growth in the anti-government and patriot groups and militias and so on. on one level, maybe they're trying to be a little bit more modern. the plot in michigan, planning to murder several hundred police officers and so on, a lot of the other militias rushed to say, that's not us, we're not like them. the reality is that most of these groups do have a set of beliefs that lead to small minority divides. they really believe the government is getting ready to impose martial law, that those who resist will be thrown into concentration camps, which may or may not be run by fema, and ultimately, the united states will be forced into a sort of hell, one-world government and so on. i think the president was absolutely right in what he said about the causes and dislocations of the time back in the 1990's. well, now we're going through a very similar period. i think the big driver's mentioned already, but one of the big things that's not much spoken about is the racially

changing demographics of our country. i mean, most of the people i cover, as a matter of day to today, have imprinted on their brains the year 2050, the year white is no longer the majority. there's a lot of trouble, a lot of feeling about that. i think jimmy carter was pretty much right on when he said behind a lot of this angst and anger and fear and frustration lies race. the economy seems to have become to me just as big a driver. i don't think there's any question about it. there's a fury out there. and it's connected to the ideas not only of i'm unemployed, my family's in trouble, but sose sons of bitches in the banking industry, the auto industry. executives walk off with bankrolls in their pocket and we get nothing. and the third piece of it. just a second longer.

the role of commentators who are essentially in my view pandering for votes and ratings. it just stokes the fire and i don't see anything that's moving us towards any kind of calming down. it's a difficult jeannie to get back in the bottom. >> another wave? >> we also have to understand that this is america and individuals have the right to free speech and access. and it's a very difficult thing to deal with. but the warning signs started very early on in the last couple of years after the last election. there was some intensity in the country, especially online and also verbally. and you watch 24-hour news cycle and you see individuals that are very, very -- going over the top as it relates to their views, versus the average american. you can see something there that is not just, "i'm upset because

there was a bill that passed," or that i got a letter reminding me to pay my taxes. it's something else. i do believe leadership is going to have a lot to do with how we avoid future incidents. i think responsibility -- i always say leadership brings about responsibility. and you have to be more responsibility. so i call on leaders. need to be local leaders. need to be religious leaders. local or federally or state-elected leaders or religious leaders getting out in front of what they may believe. may be a movement that may be counterproductive to us all as americans and saying it's wrong. and we have that, and a lot of that, when we created the homeland security committee in congress, came out of the 9/11 recommendations. it was a bipartisan commission, but it did talk about the country and the government being focused on homeland.

it was easy. oklahoma, home grown terrorism. 9/11, them versus us. so it gave the political "ok" to start looking at these issues and having debates about patriot act, privacy, how far we go, how much we protect it. so we're still having that discourse. and i do believe that when we get out of the business of reacting to incidents and trying to prevent it from happening in the first place, i think we'll see a more safer society here in our own country, that everyone should be safe, but everyone believes that individuals should have their right of free speech. >> we're obviously in the midst of intense, passionate political debate. but do you also think that this is bleeding over into something more dangerous? >> oh, i'm sorry. >> i don't see this as a new

wave in the same sense, because i see it as something very different. something very different has come into the process. there was a time when had i been fortunate enough to serve in the house at the same time kendrick was there, i would have certainly disagreed with him on some things and i would have respectfully disagreed with the gentleman from florida and then we probably would have gone to lunch together and had a friendship. but things changed dramatically not just on the outside, but on the inside. large part of it, during the gingrich years and the idea that -- when i first ran for congress, i advocated my points of view, ied a ro -- advocated my party, and then i was sworn in and i stepped across this magic line and i became a member

of the government. i became a congressman with real serious obligations and responsibilities. and then later in the gingrich years, it became you ran for office to be anti-government. you ran for office to be anti-congress. and so we see now not just the people out in the community exercising their -- upset about whatever policies are being promoted, but you see members of congress on the balconies egging on demonstrators outside. you see the rhetoric on the house floor. joe wilson, "you lie." or alan grayson, republicans just want people to die. it has become an advocation of responsibility by the people on the inside that is helping to fuel and to stir up this anger on the outside. and that's something very different. >> and for what you're saying, even more ominous than what was the case in the early 1990's?

>> yeah, i think it's very, very ominous, because the people -- the tim mcveighs of the world, they were dangerous, but they were unusual. they were not part of the real mainstream. now you have prominent members of the united states congress stiring up all this kind of thing. and that's a different dimension altogether, and the danger that it can pose could be to create a lot of timothy mcveighs. that's what worries me. >> do you see parallels? >> i do see parallels. the troubling thing is it is not the political rhetoric and the speech so much as it only has to touch one person. timothy mcveigh was one person. he had a few people around him who assisted him on this, but it was really his driving force. the most difficult thing from a law enforcement point of view is trying to find that lone wolf, whether it's timothy mcveigh or

eric rudolph a few years later with the series of bombings that he perpetrated. not as deadly, but nonetheless terrifying to people. and this kind of rhetoric. all it has to do is touch one or two people who are unhinged and we can see this same kind of thing blow up again. as i said, we've had people who have had bombs before and other agendas, but the frightening thing is to give people a platform that seems to legitimize what they're doing, and they can feel they are patriots in causing disasters and killing people. and not criminals. >> you know, all a sobering kind of assessment. i just want to dot the i here. are all of you, or any of you or all of you concerned that we are heading toward a serious act of

violence in the next few years? or serious attempts, large-scale domestic terrorism as a result of the climate that you're describing? >> well, i might just start. i think there are a few things going in our favor these days. timothy mcveigh's weapon was a massive 5,000-pound truck bomb made from fertilizer and racing fuel that he used to concoct this. a lot of these things are going to be much more difficult for someone to acquire these days without raising the suspicion of law enforcement. there are systems in place for learning about unusual purchases of this kind of material. there are more controls on the purchase and safe storage of legitimate explosives so that they're less likely to be stolen than they were before. so i think it would be much more difficult for the timothy

mcveigh of today to successfully pull off trying to put a bomb of that size together. what remains relatively simple is we know here in d.c. from even the d.c. sniper incident that two people in a beat up car and a rifle can cause a great deal of terror in our cities as well. so whether it's an oklahoma city bombing of that catastrophe, or something less catastrophic, but just as terrorizing, i think those potentials certainly are there. >> i'm not in a position to know whether we're likely to have an attack. i was merely saying that i didn't like the sounds that i was hearing in the atmosphere. and as brad points out, the tools of mayhem and destruction

are many. you don't need a large truck full of fertilizer to create either real damage or fear. >> how about the tools of law enforcement? are we better positioned today? >> yes. there's no question about it. no question about it. president clinton proposed in 1994, and it was anti-terrorism tools were provided by congress in 1995, again in 1996. then the patriot act after 9/11. and more importantly, leaning into it by government, i can say as a former 9/11 commissioner, we looked at this, and even as of 9/11 felt that we were better prepared and certainly since then. the resources that have gone into this, the tools that are available are much greater than they ever were. so i actually, from that point of view, feel much more

comfortable. >> congressman meek? >> i can tell you that on the committee on homeland security, law enforcement is -- they're just as good as the human intelligence that they receive, from family members, from neighbors, from individuals who say, hey, i didn't seen up for this, i need to go tell somebody what's going on, and to be taken seriously. unfortunately, that kind of thinking failed on christmas day kind of thing, when a man's father came forth and said, hey, i'm concerned. so i think that the attitudes of americans have changed quite a bit to say that i will even turn flesh and blood in if he or she is going to carry out an act against the republic. i think you're going to see more of that. i think law enforcement is taking it more seriously. because as a former person that wore the badge and carried the gun, i know many times

individuals come up and say, hey, i see something, i think something, they just think it's just a barking dog. now it has to be taken serious because law enforcement could very well -- that individual who doesn't take it seriously could be making a career decision. i think that's good for the country, at the same time, putting the responsibility on everyday americans and those that live here need to be a resident or something, saying it's your responsibility to keep all of us safe. that's the reason we have amber alert and all of those things. law enforcement can only work as good as the individuals that work in the country allow it to. >> mark, are we stronger on the other side? >> i agree completely with what jamie said and others. i think absolutely that law enforcement has more tools and they are using those tools in an effective way. i also think that oklahoma city was obviously a huge wake-up call for law enforcement. there was a lot of reluctance to describe fellow americans as terrorists for a long time. the f.b.i. didn't consider

abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists or the murderers of doctors and their escorts and so on. and that changed. there was a bit of a shift of focus after 9/11, when once again, the enemy seemed to be foreign and didn't look like us, wore a turban on his head, that kind of thing. i think especially, on the street, mihm and women who work -- men and women who work at law enforcement are a very big part of this. i think there's a very high awareness out there. at the same time, we should remember. there were -- since barack obama became a candidate, we've seen a man found in maine before he was even inaugurated found to be building a dirty bomb packed with radio active material, can he intended to set off at the inauguration. the day after obama was

inaugurated, a man in the boston suburbs walked out of his house and started to murder black people. why? because he had been reading on white supremacist sites for six months that the white race was being subjected to a genocide in the united states. on and on and on. june 10, the holocaust museum shooter. my point is, i think it's certainly true that i think it's harder to build a huge bomb like the bomb that mcveigh built. nevertheless, it only takes one to get through and i think that's really the lesson of timothy mcveigh. >> you mentioned earlier the role of demographic change. obviously we are living through an enormous ongoing demographic change. 2008, the first election in our history where more than a quarter of the vote was cast by non-whites. about a third of the population is now non-white. there was a poll in "the new york times" yesterday about the

tea party movement. and it said that more than half of his policies of president obama's administration favors the poor. 25% think his administration favors blacks over whites. i just feel he's getting away from what america is, one respondent said. he's a socialist. to tell you the truth, i think he's a muslim and trying to head us in that direction. i don't care what he says. he's been in office over a year and can't find a church to go to. that doesn't say much for him. just interested in thoughts. obviously this is a different country than many americans grew up in. not only is it more diverse, but the diversity is spreading. we did a piece in the "national journal" a couple months ago. in the 1990's, one quarter of congressional districts were at least 30% non-white. now it's about half. so places that had never seen diversity are seeing non-white faces on the street and in the stores. is that part of what we're talking about here? terms of creating these

sentiments among some elements of the population? >> well, it probably is among some elements. but, you know, i used to be a journalist, and it's easy to pick out a quote. you interview thousands of people and you have an interesting quote. i think that was a very interesting study. surprised me a lot. for example, finding that the tea partiers were apparently both more affluent and better educated than the public at large. so it was really a very shocking kind of study. i think that we don't want to try to paint too big -- i actually think president clinton was very, very good at putting all of this in perspective. there are racists out there and there are people who dislike president obama because of the color of his skin.

but that doesn't mean that that's where most of the anger is coming from. it might be coming from a lot of things that the president talks about in terms of the sense of people feeling disconnected. you know, they're losing their homes, they don't know what's going to happen next from al qaeda, we're engaged in two wars and they lose family members, and i think there's just a lot of angst out there in the country. what has to happen is not just race. i think jimmy caferter was certain -- carter was certainly wrong about that. i think what has to happen is just like what president clinton just did, we have to start pushing back. we have to start pushing back against the idea of demonization of the people with contrary views. i think that's the bigger problem. i think more people were worried not about death -- debt panelings, but about the cost. the governor of tennessee, a democrat made this comment

yesterday, about what the effect is financially in his state. there is real, legitimate debate and disagreement. and what we have to do is all of us collectively make sure that we do what president clinton said, draw that line beyond which the debate cannot go. that's what we have to do. >> mike, you're nodding. >> well, i think that after oklahoma city, after the bombing, there was perhaps temporarily a coming together among the country about what was a permissible line and what was permissible in the demonization of government. in the immediate aftermath at that point, the congressional republicans in the house missed that home. they were still playing the record from two years before saying we're going to shut the government down and everyone's going to be very happy. you heard, you saw president clinton and those of us who worked in the white house at that time saw it repeatedly, the affection and respect he had for senator dole. you could see it in the way he talked about him.

senator dole was noteworthy in being courageous on drawing those lines within his own party, just as democrats drew lines against the weathermen in their party. the real challenge is what lines will be drawn now by people who have strong conservative views but want to make sure that those who follow those views stay within legal bounds. .

there is clearly a backlash particularly among white voters. beyond that, whatever portion goes beyond the pale. president clinton was wrestling with this issue, how do you isolate the sentiment that is separatist and dangerous from legitimate expressions of the political debate?

>> i feel that i should say something, let me say as someone who has been out in the field and talked with people that disagree and agree strongly, "it was conversation, it is something else that is there, it is not in public policy question but they cannot verbally say this in sunlight. but i have a great deal of respect for those that come and petition their government to do the right thing, what they believe is right. i have walked through parades' in my own state had the end, i went over to those who had an issue with my presence and i had some very good conversations on public policy questions.

there are those that have found refuge in these groups. that is a problem. i had conversations with those that were out there. the majority just disagree with that policy and then you had those that did agree and then you had those that could not stop calling me a tyrant and feeling that they need to make a statement about how tall i was. i did not painted them with broad brush's. i believe that this is good. when you look at the politics, i think that there is a question on who is going to vote in november when it you think about it? you have to feed that kind of thinking. that is why the leadership side

of things are not really standing up. you are seeing candidates like john mccain who are having a hard time. you see mr. lieberman say that he is concerned. is the volume higher than it was before? absolutely. he is concerned about the left's extremists that might have environmental issues and they want to go to the next level. the responsibility site i hope can rise up and we will have leaders. i hope that we won't have an incident for that leadership to prevail and for those voices to stay stop. let's be americans and let's know where the stop sign is. where do we yield to fall where do we stop?

i know in my next six or seven months, i will not get rallied up and say that if anyone is walking around with tea, shot them down. let's let america be americans. let's make sure that we have responsibilities. >> as you were talking about responsibility of leadership, the assumption of, we're talking about republican and conservative leaders have been an obligation to draw boundaries. president clinton went to michigan state and spoke directly to the most disaffected elements of society. is there a place where the president can do something like that before we run through the stop sign? >> i think so.

i think it is harder to demonize someone who is real and right in front of you. it was a long time ago, our experience in dealing directly with the militia groups in the aftermath of oklahoma city was pretty powerful. fbi agents for the devil to a lot of those troops, they went right in and they asked him to engage. it worked. i would recommend to president obama that he would do something like that. icing to the hardest challenge in the splintering of the media

is that the mechanisms for the antidote of truth are less. you can say to 8 country, you are a leader, we need you to do what they said it and you're going to do. if people because of the narrow casting of our means of communication only hear that someone is the devil, they can be as reasonable as they can be in person but he is fighting an uphill battle which is not helped by the color of his can or the size of his person. -- by the color of his skin or

the size of his person. i am worried that the normative the size of the media, the norms we had are pretty much gone. >> what is important to remember, but the president is the head of state and government. prior to oklahoma city, president clinton was also a partisan figure, he was seen -- the house minority leader called him your president. in response to the tragedy, it enabled him to be seen by a much larger group of people by fusing with their patriarchate aspects. -- patriotic aspects.

right now, there are not the unifying media. was sorry if there was a tragedy, would there be a rallying around. obama has dealt with some very serious issues. i don't think that we should be under illusions that he would be heard. corks i think that a collapse >> basrah line >> -- >> i think that there is the

concern of trying to name and shame people. at some point, something has to stop. if the leaders of the party are going to do that work, there are other players. i meet people like lou dobbs, like a plague of leprosy came and some how immigrants are responsible. that is not even true. that is benign these days. i am talking about all so the industry. there is 8 resurgent patriot group out there. right before all of those bricks were thrown to a congressman windows, there was a furious item that said to blakbreak to r

windows. it went on and on like that. 48 hours later, the windows get destroyed. this is something beyond vandalism. >> i think that the seeds of animosity pear fruit only if they fall on fertile ground. our society has made some evolutionary changes that allow a lot of fertile ground. we as a people have stopped talking to and exposing ourselves to people have different opinions than our own.

liberals hang out with liberals, conservatives hang out with conservative. people live in neighborhoods made up of people who think the weight that they do. we live in a big echo chamber and dumpe. the melting pot is not melting. we are becoming congealed. we all hang together and we all watch fox or we all watch msnbc and we worship at the altar of either rush limbaugh or keith olbermann. we have got to break that down to make a collective community in the way that we once were even though it will be fertile ground. >> it is rare to find a hybrid

parked next to a pickup. >> the point was brought up that someone needs to push back and someone with a lot of authority. who has that kind of authority? could be the authority to lead the backlash against extremism? how do we combat this and be

heard? >> it has to be collectors. i don't think that any one person has that authority. president obama should speak out that he is one of the people in who is controversial. on you have pelosi and in john boehner and read it together, this is the time for a large number of americans to stand up. this is one of the few people but has credibility. >> extremism might be a source

of partisan contention. you have a number of republicans who say that democrats are trying to whip up a frenzy as a way to discredit what is a legitimate disagreement. there is not even a consensus on the funny if there is a problem. there are competing partisan definitions. >> it will be an increasingly partisan time. in broadcast television, there were a few programs that everyone watched. when they presented a fact, people who saw this more or less have thought it was true. my kids think that it is on

msnbc more than it is on fox. i see that as a change of pace. they see that as a norm. you are seeing a whole generation grow up without a concept of an objective reality or a consensus. that is challenging. >> when you have seen that kind people that commit violent acts, can they be reached by john boehner and nancy pelosi? >> some of this crosses in my current job in the music industry. you have these little echo

chambers. if someone wants to hear a certain thing, they can find a certain thing that looks legitimate. a lot of people want to read what they want to believe. i see that in all sorts of areas. people are violating copyright laws in some ways that they want to think about the government. they go to places where people want to hear what they want to hear and they all talk and forth at each other saying the same thing. >> i don't think the right question is whether they can reach potential terrorists. the question is whether leadership, this affects the

larger community. this takes away the sanction of violence. it changes the way if someone is disconnected thinks that he or she will be received if they do something fast. they are now free not to listen to the participants. you will see this kind of thing with some senators.

moth>> i have a question for congressman edwards about earlier this week there was an issue that took place in the state legislature where they almost legitimized a different militia group not aligned with the state national guard. there was some not about legitimizing a different group. where does this head? are we legitimizing it yet another level? -- where does this end?

>> that is happening in oklahoma, arizona. inside the institutions, inside the state legislatures, we have people who have lost all sense of responsibility. they are carrying on the most extremes' kind of rhetoric and policies. it bothers me deeply that this is happening. here is my oklahoma cellphone. to be from oklahoma is to be from oklahoma forever. it bothers me when i see these things happening in my city order of your city. i don't know how to root that out. it would be wonderful.

i have many good friends in the oklahoma legislature. it would be wonderful if they came together and said that that is not acceptable. i don't know how we make that happen. >> and want to look at it another way of looking at the spike in the activity. we are going through a democratic change. we also have economic strains on average families. some people have been strained pretty much since the 1970 cost. under george bush, all the demographic changes were continuing and we did not see

this kind of wave as we did in the 1990's. to what extent is this not a long-term change in america kind of phenomenon? when you have a democratic control of government and they are seeking to advance the kind of programs that democrats want to advance which typically involve a more assertive role for the federal government. there are some that rockwell from this, is this more was a political or demographic phenomenon? >> i think it's that the debate for the role of the government is at the heart of this. if you look at a gallop poll

which asks people if the government is trusted to do the right thing. in 1994, 24% trusted them. now, 19% trust them. we made an effort to try to push that number up, to get people to once again have faith in government. in fact, that peaked after 2001 and it declined pretty precipitously. you always see this debate over government and over conservatives being mad about liberal policies being enacted. the challenge is of the line beyond that. to me, the litmus test is, if political leaders are not willing to shoot down, if in

fact the president is not a secret foreigner, which millions of people believe, but this is a legitimate as asian of his authority -- this legitimizes his authority. >> is this a political time bomb or political or demographic? -- is this a political demographic or does it have another cost? >> i ran for office to help people in the community and to help make the cities and counties better that i represent. we get kind caught up in this ideological battle. spheri am sitting here as a

candidate in a possible three bomb or four way race. i think is important that everyone understands that politics has trumped public policy throughout the country and it will take a real coming together of leadership after november 2nd, november 4th, january, on trying to reclaim the middle in all of this. i see in my future as a republican as we look at the first scenario and me as one of the 60 moderates in the house.

it will be about who goes out to vote. it should be about who should leave the country and who should stay in the country. those that are pushing those opinions have crossed this politically. it is counterproductive. this might be against my political progress. i just want to say that i think florida and states like it will have this change we are talking about. i think that florida is a place of good will. it is something else now and i am hoping that it does not go there but it will probably be a battle royale for all of the state races. and you have a number of people. pray for the country.

we hope that americans are able to come together and to know the safety and support and things can go over the top and we need to report this. >> to what extent are we seeing a political phenomenon? what are we seeing? >> i remember after the oklahoma city, there was a poll that asked whether or not you thought that the federal government was imminent threat. 39% believed that. the number is now 54%.

that says something about what is going on. there is a fear and frustration out there. i would go quickly back to another point which is your idea about politicians speaking out. even mentally ill people want the justification. they want to feel like what they're doing is saving the world. it is important what people say in positions of power. people like lou dobbs and people who spent years demonizing latino immigrants. is it any surprise that during the time of 2003-2000 for crimes against latinos went up 40%? no. the i don't think that all

people who commit hate crimes are all mad man. they feel that they are standing up for the standards and morals and integrity of the community. the bid if they grew up in a household that said that latino immigrants are coming to destroy the culture or the president is a fascist, they are being given a kind of justification and it gives them justification to feel crimes. they are the young men standing up and raise enough to do what their parents don't have to go to. >> remember, the health-care debate which polarized a lot of

people in some very nasty ways was not beginning. before that there was the stimulus package. people get very concerned about what they saw happening economically in terms of the finances of the country, the national debt. the majority of americans prefer a limited role of government. that is the legitimate grounds for debate. what is really happening is the loss of civility. right now use see a lot of it coming from the right. i am a republican conservatives.

this is not the state police set the political puzzle. -- this is not just a piece of the political puzzle. we have lost the ability to talk to someone we disagree with. i would like to say that this is just a matter of how we can track down the people who can pull a stunt like timothy mcveigh. we have bigger problems with our ability to form a cohesive and collective society of people who interact in a reasonable way. >> i would agree with that completely and just at two points -- i don't think the that the undercurrent of extremism and potential riots will go away. we have had episodes of this throughout our history.

the way i would answer your question is that i think that economic pessimism fuels that. if we can turn the corner in our economy and become more optimistic as a people we cannot be counted out as a country. hougsome of that righteousness s well meaning. they want to make sure this country is great. it is misdirected. if that can be channeled into a job building something in a

community being on the right track, i think a lot of the steam and anger goes out. it is replaced by something more positive. i would look for that as a partial answer to the problem we are observing today. >> in some ways it does not matter. it is clear that the rhetoric that is used is similar to the rhetoric that timothy mcveigh or and eric rudolph attached to it. this is something that allows them to feel like they're doing the right thing. they think that they are attacking a tyrant or being patriotic.

our concern is that it is out there. >> you have been a terrific panel. please join me in thanking them for their presentation. are there any last words before t the end? thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> monday marks the 15th anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing. see that lies monday starting at 9:55 a.m. eastern here on c- span.

-- see that live monday. still to come, an interview with a former nasa flight operator on the apollo 13 mission. today marks the 14th -- 40th anniversary of the return to earth after the disaster. then remarks from president bill clinton. then after that, another chance to see this discussion with clinton in administration officials on the impact of the bombing. tomorrow, martin grutsinger on foreclosure rates. then george pataki talks about his political organization.

after that, the president and ceo of the joint council on international children's services on the processes and challenges that children face with international adoption. >> and gene kranz was the flight director on the apollo 13 mission. he helped to lead the astronauts back to our after the -- back to earth after the accident. today marks the 40th anniversary of the safe return to earth after the disaster.

>> it did not take a second for the office to ratchet up the objectives. what are you going to do? and what we're going to do is that the time that the crew is dissenting, we will give them a verbal guidance update. we will try to alter their trajectory so that they can land. they did not do it. i think that the entire mission ahead this. not for change, i was a spectator. it was interesting to watch other people. the mission started off with a

real bang. shortly after liftoff, the spacecraft was hit by couple bowls of lightning. the navigation system platform has started crumbling and the electrical system drop off line. mission control made no sense. we told the crethey made a recot no one had ever heard. capcom, said the command with a? behind it.

at th-- with a quesiontion mark behind it. we did not know what they're saying. they had a portion that they worship responsible for in the command module. -- that they were responsible for in the command module. when they flip this thing down to of salary and all of the sudden the state is restored properly at mission control and now the controllers could get to work. the concern at the time is that what ever happened on board the spacecraft, they could react to the fuel cells. if this occurs, they will start from oxygen integrity.

it was extremely important to get data back and figured out what happened on the spacecraft. john aaron was a general in mission control. he proceeded to talk the crew through bringing the cells back on line. once they had gotten floweret -- power restored, then the concern of trying to establish what to do with the navigation platform. by the time the crew got to orbit, we had restored a majority of the spacecraft systems. jerry griffin, with the help of his leadership, made the decision. that day i was sitting in mission control talking to a deputy who is concerned about

the spacecraft. be they went down into the trench and started pulling each one of the controllers. i have a picture of them discussing this and tel. the team had only technical issues to work. in the business of mission control, the mission of space flight, you have to make this. it is up to the people on the council to take responsibility.

>> it in part that's because they have the same experiences that you had. >> the name was christopher columbus and this was completely proper for this guy because he was bacunder control. he was the mentor for everyone. he set the mold for everything that would be done thereafter. the flight director was going to

take any action necessary. he knew what these guys were doing. his job was to give them the confidence to make the political decisions. >> when craft moved up to center director, i became the flight operations director. there is the political heat that comes down when someone wanted to land a shuttle. we made a call to launch when all of the mission rolls were

not satisfied. we should have pursued our mission suspension. >> we are coming up on one that made you famous. apollo and 13 was your story with as much as it was that of the astronauts. >> this is an example where the maturity of this team continued to spread forth in a magnificent fashion. we had made the missions earlier. we would always have four mission control teams in place in parts of the missions.

these to not fit neatly into 8 hour shifts. having a fourth team in place made the transition easier. if we had any problems during the course of a mission, this team would try to find some way to work offline and the remaining teams would continue to work 8 hours shipfts. my team was designated and we had responsibilities. we were going to do a consortium. but during the course of the mission, it changed

dramatically. the launch was normal, our crew members were fred hayes, ken mattingly. ken mattingly was a command module pilot. he became disabled late in the training. we trained with backup crews during the course of preparing for a mission so we had all the confidence that we needed. we got them into the mission assignment, the mission had been going very well. we had a minor problem. we lost on the second stage of

hard fight. there was a shutdown time in remaining engines. we made the decision to inject to the moon. the dejection went normal. s some as the first sequence had been accomplished, my team picked up the council and we were following in the shift rotation. we would take a look over the command service module, we did not see anything significant. basically we used this mission to look ahead at the mission and to try to close out any open items that might have been left over from the mission.

we had to get into the sequencing where we would now be in the proper shift for the lunar orbit insertion. the second shift was in the new timing sequence. basically it was 8 hours later. during the course of the shift, we had a lunar module and an initial and module inspection. when they open up the craft, at the has a couple of different broadcasts, a kind of tv tuner of the lunar module. the broadcast was concluded. we were in the process of closing out the items. after the television broadcast

was concluded, the families were behind me. the final thing we had to do was to get the crew to sleep. we had a very detailed checklist we went through. we had gone through each one of these items very meticulously because in mission control, the greatest error is to have someone missed an item in the checklist which causes us to wake up the crew. there were awards given at parties if this happened. we were very meticulous falling through the checklist. we were down to the final item in the checklist.

earlier in the shift, we had had an anomaly. we had a communications antenna that did not seem to work properly. it gave over incomplete problems. the nature of the problem is that the intent would not set the earth signal properly. all of a sudden is started tracking. in a similar fashion we had a series of anomalies assisted with pressure or they had gone through some very rapid cycling.

we were down to the final entry. the fuels that we used on board of the spacecraft are oxygen and hydrogen. this is a supercooled liquid the band is packed in a vacuum tank. we use some of these, they have turned into a very soupy fog or vapor in the tank. inside of the tanks, we had some chance to -- fans to turn on to stir up the mixture and make it uniform. then we increased the pressure. we have asked the crew to do this. in the meantime, the next

control team was reporting. the noise level was building up. the leader of the black teen is sitting next to me at the council. -- black team is sitting next to me at the council. we made a request. attention had been switched to the electric current measurements. they started to do the mixture of the cryo-sitr. -- stir. all of a sudden i get a series of calls from my controller.

the first point is there needs to be a computer restart. the second says a radar problem. then i hear from the lunar module but there is a problem. within mission control lettnothg made sense because the controllers data had gone static briefly. many of the parameters did not indicate anything we had seen before. down in the propulsion area, the controllers saw a lot of jet activity. we then see they fly the space

craft to an altitude where we can commit date. -- where we can communicate. they made no sense. the trading kicked in currening. they started to to restore some of the functions that appeared to be lost in the spacecraft. i have written about this event. it was 65 hours. we wanted to look at the data to see what happened at the time of the event.

i went down sort of a false stracke. i thought we had a glitch in the circuit. most of the problems have been resolved. many that have remained are focused on a single controller. they have the system you need to stay alive in space, they have power, but electrical, heat, water, basically everything they need to stay alive abandone. very quickly it looks like we have lost one of our fuel cells and possibly a second one.

we have a tank that is starting to increase the pressure. they're trying to put these pieces together quickly. in the meantime, a new problem is occurring because we are approaching the problem. some of these cells have been shut closed. we have the ability to control the space -- these are used to control the space craft attitude. there is a problem because they have to go through the process. this is probably about 60-90 seconds. it is chaos in this place.

we don't have the slightest clue what is going on. this continues in an unresolved fashion. jack says, is anything that we can do, is anything that makes sense? i call the control team and this occurs just at the time the crew is calling down. they have some kind of chilled or shock. all of a sudden and status every crew calling, i become more selective in this process. this is something else, we don't understand it.

we started to look into this and get more people in their. it took situation because the situation has become more and more desperate. the first oxygen tank is shot, the second one is shocked.

they come to me and say, flight, i want to shut down the fuel cells. we think much this. this is not going to stop the leaks. i agree to advise the crew that we're going to shut down. the crew agrees to shut the fuel cells down. this is probably the point in the mission where everyone has realized that we are in survival mode.