thantom brokaw on his more 50 years of reporting on world events. then on the c-span networks. for complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> q and a is 10 years old. to mark a decade of compelling conversations we are featuring one interview from each year of the series. our 2005 interview with kenneth feinberg, who oversaw the compensation funds for the victims of 9/11 and wrote a book about it. ♪ >> this week on "q&a" our guest

is kenneth fine berg, from the victim compensation fund and author of the book "what is the life worth? the unprecedented effort to compensate the victims of 9/11". >> kenneth fineberg, why did you call the book that you just wrote "what is life worth"? >> because congress in setting up this program after 9/11 delegated to me and really to me alone the requirement -- the obligation to try and calculate what each death caused by 9/11 or each physical injury should be paid out of public funds. >> what were you called? >> i was called -- a rather judicial term -- a special master. that connotes in the law somebody who is sort of delegated authority. usually by a court. to act as some administrative arm of the court to administer or design a settlement and then to allocate the proceeds of the

settlement. >> how many people did you award money to and how much? >> i awarded 7 billion dollars of taxpayer funds, all public funds, to approximately 5300 people. 3,000, roughly, 2,900 families who lost a loved one on 9/11 and the remaining claims were physical injury claims to survivors of 9/11. >> what was the largest award, what was the smallest award, and what was the medium? >> the largest award was $8.6 million, tax free, to an individual who survived the world trade center collapse with third-degree burns over 85% of her body. who came to see me. the smallest award was $500 to somebody who broke a finger

escaping from the world trade center. the average award, tax free, in this program, was $2 million, and the median award, half got more, half got loss was about $1.7 million. >> what was the hardest part of your job? >> clearly, the hardest part was the decision i made in designing the program to meet with any individual family or any individual victim who survived who wanted to see me personally to discuss their plight, why they felt they were entitled to more money, why they felt that 9/11 was an unfair, unjust curveball thrown at them. and accordiaccordingly, over a h period i met with 1,500 individual family members and that was harrowing. >> which meeting -- i know

you're reluctant to give names in this, but which meeting do you remember the most? >> the very first. a woman came to see me, 25 years old crying, sobbisobbing. you have awarded me about $1 million to take care of my two little children, six and four, who lost their father. i need more money and i need it fast. and i said to her, why? why do you need more and what is this request that you make for speed? well, you see, mr. fineberg, i have terminal cancer. i only have two months to live. my husband was going to survive me and take care of the children. now, they're going to be orphans. can you please help me quickly? and we did. i substantially increased the award, accelerated the payments

and she died two months later. but at least knowing that a structured program, financial program had been set up for her two surviving small children. hundreds like that. >> give us another meeting that you remember. >> mr. fineberg, i lost my husband. he was a fireman, and he died at the world trade center. and i just want you to know that there is no god, mr. fineberg, because my husband rescued 30 people from the world trade center and brought them to safety. his battalion chief said stay here, too dangerous, don't go back, and he said, i'm sorry, there are 10 more people trapped in the mezzanine of the world trade center. and then she said, while he was running back across the world trade center plaza, he was killed by somebody who jumped to their death from the 103rd floor

and hit him. if he had been one step either way, mr. fineberg, he might have survived. but like a coordinated missile, somebody leapt to their -- leaped to their death from the 103rd floor and hit him, killing them both. and i want you to know, mr. fineberg, that no amount of money there is no justice, why me, why me? why my husband? stories like that. >> did you ever get mad at somebody? >> never. never. i think it's critically important -- and the public understood this, the public understood, these people were in grief. the victims of life's misfortune, traumatic deaths, perfunctory good-byes that morning, never saw their kid or spouse again. vaporized.

frustration, not anger. not -- i never got mad at anybody. frustration sometimes. >> did anybody ever threaten you? >> no. well, there were some pretty difficult moments. anger, invective, epithet, but never threatened. >> how long did they meet with you, where did they meet with you and were there other people in the room? >> we first met over a year -- i thought it very important to walk into the lion's den. i met groups of families. firefighter widows, servicemen widows at the pentagon. we filled up the marriott marquee ballroom with the survivors of roughly 850 cantor fitzgerald victims who all died at the world trade center. a whole ballroom filled with

angry, grieving people. i spent a good year and a half probably going around the country, around the world, meeting with groups of families who needed to understand the program. then, i also met with individual families over the course of 33 months. >> you talk in your book about the different reaction you got in different parts of the country. new york versus california versus london. explain. >> it's interesting. it's sort of a cultural phenomenon. when i met with families in new york in groups, angry. where's my money? the government causeded this. this should have been prevented. and you're the visible representative of the government. and you better pay. virginia, the pentagon, the servicemen, very respectful.

thank you for coming, mr. fineberg. we appreciate you're here. we'd like to present a plaque for your service. anything you can do, we appreciate what our government is trying to do. california, sort of a public outpouring of grief. hold hands, let's say a public prayer. and -- >> london? >> london, disbelief, skepticism about -- not the wisdom, skepticism about the program itself. you mean to tell me, mr. fine berg, that my son, an english citizen died at the pentagon, and your government is going to give me $2 million tax free? what's the catch? do we have to give up our citizenship? no. do we have to surrender our passports? no. do we have to come to the united states to get the money? no. what's the catch? why is america doing this for

us? undocumented families who lost a loved one in america at the world trade center -- >> you said there were 11 of those? >> seven. maybe 11. yeah, 11. 11. mr. fineberg, why are you giving us this money, are you going to deport us if we apply? no. are you going to put us in jail? no. are we going to be fined? no. i'm even going to give you a greencard. skepticism, distrust. gradually, all of these groups came into the -- we had 97% that ultimately ultimately opted into the program rather than stay out. which they had a right to do. how long did you work on this? >> 33 months, from the time i was appointed, i began the design of the program right up

until we cut the last check. >> why did you not take money to do this? >> couldn't. i don't think any american doing this in post-9/11 world could get paid for this. first of all, i can't think it was right to get paid, to serve the people of the united states in an unprecedented, unique task like this. second, there was, also, a practical reality i confronted. if i ever got paid for this, they would have been after me, you're getting paid on the blood of my lost wife? how dare you. i had enough foreidable challenges without dealing with that problem. >> a lot of people did get paid to help you. >> oh. >> how much did you spend in those 33 months? >> we dispensed $73 billion at a cost to the taxpayer of under $100 million. if there was ever a program in

the history of our nation where the overhead was kept low, relative to the amount of money that was disseminated, this is it. price waterhouse coopers was awarding a contract by the department of justice to administer the program. different offices, branch offices of mine, calculating awards, opening up files for each and every claimant. massive task. they had about 450 people working on this project, at its height. at a total cost, overhead, everything, less than $100 million. >> how many people did you have on your staff? >> my staff was very small. i had about 18 people, all lawyers. some worked pro bono, some were brought to me on detail from the united states department of justice, or other branch agencies. to assist me.

very lean, very small. >> where were you located? >> we had an office at the department of justice, but my main office was my law firm, where i sort of worked out of, my law firm, where i had the support staff. but we also had branch offices throughout the united states in areas where there was a substantial group of claimants. >> which experience in your own life probably had the biggest impact on your ability to pull this off? >> this proved unique. the closest that -- analogy, i would say, when i did, acted as a special master in the agent orange case, involving vietnam veterans, who claimed injury from exposure to agent orange, dioxin, while serving in vietn vietnam. judge winestein, federal judge,

imminent judge in brooklyn, had that case. and appointed me. but even that didn't prepare me for this. >> what did you do in the agent orange case? >> i first acted as a mediator to help resolve the dispute between a class of vietnam veterans claiming injury. and the chemical companies who manufactured the product. after i settled, helped settle that case, under judge winestein's auspices, we established a claims program to allocated funds, $180 million, which grew to about $300 million over 10 years. and we allocated that, and targeted that to eligible veterans. >> did you have a time in your 33 months where you said i've got to get out of this, this is driving me nuts? >> never, never. there were some rough times. but -- >> the roughest, what were they? >> at the beginning, the families. never the american people. the american people, the

politicians, the media, solidly behind this program. even families from other terrorist attacks, who weren't eligible, like oklahoma city, or from the first world trade center in 1993, very supportive of the program. the toughest part was convincing the 9/11 families themselves of the wisdom and the bona fideness of the program that. was tough. especially the first year. so close to the 9/11 disaster itself. >> what would have happened, we know how feelings are now, what would have happened had this program not succeeded to the airlines? >> i don't know. the airlines pushed this program ras an alternative to litigation. the airlines were concerned that if thousands of people sued the airlines, and the world trade center, and the port authority, and boeing and the security

companies, that this litigation would inhibit, or undercut, any -- the willingness of anybody to fly. so they felt this was an important diversion out of the court system. i think, probably -- i'm not sure how successful it was in preventing bankruptcy. the airlines seem to have enough difficulty, as you say, as it is. that was the genesis. >> there are a number of names in your book. chuck hagel, senator from nebraska, a republican. >> senator hagel is the reason i really was appointed by the attorney general. as a former chief of staff to senator kennedy, i wasn't exactly the person who everybody would automatically assume would be assigned this task, by the attorney general and the administration. chuck hagel, who i have known since agent orange for over 20 years, personally pushed at the white house and at the department of justice, claim

that i was the right man to do this. >> you wanted this job, you say. >> oh, yes. i think millions of people would have wanted this job. >> did many people apply for the job? >> of no idea. >> to this day, i don't know if the administration sought out others. or offered it to others. >> what were you doing at the moment you decided you wanted the job? >> i was feeching at the university of pennsylvania law school, i was teaching. and i read about the program. i was coming back on the train, and i said to myself, i think this is something that i want to do. >> because you -- step back. where were you the moment of 9/11? >> at the university of pennsylvania law school. i had just come out of a class that i was teaching. up in the student union television, i saw the first plane, the results of the first plane hitting the world trade center. and while i was in desire belief saw the second plane hit.

then i headed back from pennsylvania to washington. >> were you on the train when you headed back? >> i was on the train when the plane hit the pentagon. and the train, amtrak, stopped in wilmington, and announced that was it. i knew a couple of people on the train, heading back to washington. and we went outside, we negotiated with the cab driver to drive us the remaining hour and a half. and we drove back together in a taxi. >> what did you talk about on that taxi ride? >> just that this was something that is hard to believe. that it could happen in america. disbelief, like everybody else. we discussed about how it could happen, the implications, was there more attacks that would be in the next few hours, would we suffer more attacks. i was worried about my two children at least, one was a student at new york law school, near the world trade center. another was a student at georgetown, across the river

from the pentagon. we worried about their safety. not as concerned about my third, who was an undergraduate in ver ront, at middle bury, rural area. still you worry about the family members. >> if we asked your kids today about your job for 33 months, what would they say? >> i don't know. i think they're very proud. i think they're very proud. i think that they were concerned about my physical and mental well being doing this job. but i think they beam with pride that i did it. and that i did it well. >> now -- >> my wife, who, i don't want to leave her out, was incredibly supportive of the whole process. >> there wasn't a time when she said, ken, or some people call you, kenny, it's time to get out of this? >> no, to the contrary, very, very supportive. my wife is -- was a stalwart in not only urging me to do it, but more than anybody else, sort of being there, every night, when i came home, at my side and

reinforcing my resolve to get it done. >> you forget, until you read your book, the time between september 11, 2001 and the time they decided to do this was minimal. >> 11 days. that was the problem, you see. the emotion of 9/11, was so pronounced, so recent, so real that explaining to family members the wisdom of the program fell on deaf ears for a long time. mr. fine berg, you're here offering money, they haven't even found my husband's body in that rubble. and you're here, like some lawyer, with a release and a check? how dare you. and that pervasive obstacle to success, ees, venting, ranting

about the unfairness of life greatly inhibited my ability to succeed during the first 12 to 18 months of the program. >> did you ever ask them why they were so strong in the reaction? >> didn't have to. they offered. either they were -- they played away at the failure of the government to protect their loved one, they, sobbing, would vent at the unfairness of life, why my husband, why my wife, why my son and not him and not her. great concern expressed about how they're ever going to move on with the loss of a loved one who was the glue that kept the family together. all of these religious complaints, how could god ever allow this?

i was the, sort of, the target for all of the emotional trauma. >> you say that two things in your past impacted how you went about your job. one, you came from a blue collar family. and your jewish heritage. explain that. >> i think that had -- obviously everybody is influenced by their heritage. my respect for the underdog, my respect for those who are not at the pinnacle, but are trying to improve their lot. my respect for the vagueries, the uncertainries of life, are part of my jewish heritage. i think all of that helped formulate some of an approach that i took where the program couldn't have been more nonadversarial. i was a fiduciary for these families. >> what's that mean? >> i was really there as their

supporter, to help them, not to question, not to antagonize, not to undercut. to the contrary. i was there asking them, help me give you more of an award. i have rules i have to follow. but i'm here to really help. over time, over the 33 months that i was the special master, i think that view became well entrenched in the families perspective about the program. >> your blue collar background was what? >> my father had been a tire salesman, a retail tire salesman in massachusetts, a blue collar town, brockton. and striving, everybody trying to improve their lot. he was the son of immigrants from eastern europe. and i just think that respect for the unfortunate, for the underdog, had a lot to do with

it. >> what about your mom? >> my mother, the same. very loving homemaker. very loyal to her three children. my sister and my brother. and also eager to help the less fortunate. >> explain more about the jewish heritage, what is it about the jewish world that you -- it's different than, say, other worlds. >> i don't know how different. maybe other religions have similar characteristics. in my case, i think a very healthy respect for the less fortunate. the minorities. those who are not mainstream. also, part of my heritage, i think, a recognition that there are no certainties in life. i think the jewish heritage

acknowledges that there are always situations you can't anticipate, that -- don't always assume, where is it written that life is fair. where is it written? it's not written that life is fair. it's not written that you automatically can control all aspects of your destiny. and i think in the course of this program, if i ever learned anything, that reinforced that, it was learning how one person survived and another didn't, based on the most sern into us reasons. mr. fineberg, i would have been in thatting for the first time, i wasn't there, i had to take my kid to the first grade, to school. otherwise i would have been in the building. one family from a foreign country, the husband had never been in the united states, ever.

he flew in the night before, first time in the united states, first time in new york, first time at the restaurant on the 103rd floor, he died. one family lost a loved one, they had escaped from russia in the 1970's, had gone to israel, had immigrated to israel. decided that israel was too dangerous a place because of arab terrorism. immigrated to the united states. he died in the world trade center. so, you become resigned to this. never assume. that you control your destiny, you don't. i'm much more fatal is particular. i don't plan more than two weeks ahead, i don't think i will ever. >> what does your wife think about that? >> i'm not sure. i'm not sure what she thinks of that. life throws too many curveballs at you.

i've learned that from this fund. >> talk about your own reaction to all of this, what else has changed in your own head? has it really impacted you in other ways? >> i think it has. i don't think how it couldn't. professionally, it certainly has. i'm not as interested as i was before 9/11 in mediating and resolving major lucrative commercial disputes. after doing the 9/11 fund, i pick and choose my professional targets very carefully. i've downsized my law firm. it was a larger firm, i've cut it back to about 7 to 10 people, one other lawyer. because i didn't want to do the same thing after 9/11. >> have you changed your reading habits, your dalely habits of how much time you spent on anything, have you taken more time off, any of that? >> no, i'm probably working

harder than ever. as i've said before, my love of classical music, opera, it was a big help to me. i think i went to more concerts and listened to more classical music in the 33 months that i did this program, than i ever thought i would colorado. >> where did you get your interest in classical music? >> as a child, the kanter in my sin a going, in brockton, massachusetts, he was my tutor and got me interested more and more as a child in classical music. and it just stayed with me and expanded. from my kantor in the sen a going. >> chuck hagel, where did you first meet him, how did you get a friendship going after you'd been -- for how long, the chief of staff, for ted kennedy? >> chuck hagel, before -- this was after i left senator kennedy i met chuck in the context of the vietnam veterans settlement

have agent orange, he was a deputy at the veteran's administration. and helped me, tremendously, in designing and helped judge weinsteinstein in implementing the program, the settlement. and then chuck went home to nebraska and decided to run for the senate as an underdog. a big underdog. and i immediately got involved in his campaign. contributed to it. financially. that friendship, right up until my days, right up to 9/11, we stayed close. >> how did he, then, introduce you into the system? >> i think senator hagel just, don't forget the attorney general had been a senator, senator ash krofert. -- ashcroft. and chuck was a valuable member of republicans in the sen

another, friends with the administration. and he really went and explained to them that based on my background, based on my -- frankly, i think, based on my relationship with senator kennedy, that it would be a good appointment. and i interviewed twice with the attorney general, who was enormously helpful and supportive. i met with mitch daniels, who is now governor of indiana, very, very supportive. and the president, extremely helpful. everybody. couldn't have asked for more help. >> but you know, the image outside this city, defies the image that this is a town that's divided and confrontational, very partisan. now, are you still a democrat? >> i'm loyal to senator kennedy, let's say that. i will say this, if there was ever an example of a bipartisan bit of legislation, this is it.

i had the support, and this is why the program, one reason the program was so effective, i didn't have any, any elected or appointed official yiping at my heels, the sizing, everybody was solidly behind the program. that helped a great deal. when you have got everybody from the president, and andy card, who on a number of occasions expressed great thanks for what we were trying to accomplish. and you have senator kennedy. and senator shuman, senator clinton, and congresswoman mccarthy, and rush holt and others, all saying keep up the good work, that helps a great deal. >> you did talk about senator schumer sadling up to you, saying can you get me some money from the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. what kind of pressures like that did you have, and how did youing

deal with them? >> not much pressure. as i said earlier, i would have thought, going in, that the families who lost loved ones in the world trade center in 1993, oklahoma city, the african embassy bombings, the uss cole, anthrax, i would have thought all of those people would have been demanding similar generosity on the part of the fund. no. there were a couple. i would say a handful from oklahoma city. one from kenya. one, senator schumer, from the 1993 world trade center. i think 9/11 was different. it was certainly different from the perspective of the american people. that i have no doubt. but i think most families, for whatever the reason, didn't come running to me asking for similar

treatment. the public, certainly, was behind the program. >> why shouldn't all of those people have gotten the same kind ofs as the 9/11 people? from the per spec tev of the victims, i don't see any distinction. if you try and justify my program, on the basis of the victims lost, i can't convincingly explain why 9/11, yes. 1993 world trade center, no. i this the only way you justify this program as a special carve-out, is from the perspective of the nation. a recognition that 9/11 was along with the american civil war, pearl harbor, maybe the assassination of president kennedy, and 9/11. it's -- its impact on the american people was such that this was really a response from

america to demonstrate the solidarity and cohesiveness of the american people towards these victims. that's the only way to explain this program. i think convincingly. >> let's go over the numbers again, how many human beings got money from the taxpayer? >> 5,300. we received over 7,000 applications. about 2,000 were ineligible. >> for what reason? mps they weren't either -- almost all of them claimed physical injury, which we felt was not sufficiently related to 9/11. either geographically or circumstances. >> any of those sue? >> maybe. maybe some did. but 5,300 people received a check from the u.s. treasury. >> for how much? >> $7 billion. >> was there a limit? >> no. there was no cap. congress delegated to me the

discretion, programly unfettered to determine what appropriate award should be. >> so you could have spent $25 billion. >> i suppose technically i could have. if i had spent $25 billion, i think i would have been fired and the bipartisan unanimity that blessed the program, there would have been bipartisan unanimity that fineberg should be shipped to a foreign country. i felt there was some limit, based on my own judgment, not the legislation, that must be imposed. in carving out such generosity for very few people. relative to the rest of the country. i didn't think it was appropriate to award double-digit millions to people. i didn't think it was right. >> when you got an award, did you get it all in one lump sum? >> you could. you could get it in lump, we offered structured settlements over time. we offered to try and tailor any

award to the financial plan submitted by the claimant. and we offered, in every case, free financial planning to any claimant, any family, that wanted to take the benefit of that. >> the one that got the $8 million, for what reason? again, you said this was a burn survivor. how old was the woman? >> i can't get into the details. if i give -- it's very confidential. if i give any detail, it will be too easy to trace. >> she came to visit you. is she out and about, living a decent life? >> trying. >> 85% of her body. >> decent life? i mean -- >> i didn't mean that it way. she is not confined to -- >> she came to see me, let's put it that way. she came to see me, heroic woman. heroic. and came to see me, with the courage and a determination to

move forward in the most unbelievable circumstances. and very impressive. she received the highest award. >> and why the highest? what was the reason? >> the nature of her injuries, suffering, ongoing suffering, that she had confronted and would confront the rest of her life. the fact that she had a very high-paying job, don't forget, i was not permitted by this statute to give everybody the same amount. i was obligated by statute to take into account the economic circumstances of each death and injury. it just so happened that this survivor had a very successful wall street profession. and that profession was ruined by her 9/11 injuries. and i had to take that into account, which i did. >> you talk about one of the biggest problems you had, if i remember correctly, that inlaws

and families and people who weren't directly affected, how much greed did you see? >> greed? very little greed. i think grief not greed. but i must say, nowhere in this statute is there one word from congress as to who should receive this money. in the family. who should even file the claim on behalf of the family. congress completely ignored that whole topic and left it to me to decide among competing family members who should get the money. and we had to design what i thought was a very fair way for determining, among not only competing family bs, fiancees, same-sex partners, all claiming some legitimate degree of credible demand for the

compensation. >> who was overlooking everything that you did? >> the attorney general of the united states. >> but actually who looked at it? >> a couple of the attorney general's designees. jay lefkowitz, fill perry, bob mccallum at the department, peter keesler. these are all people that i worked very closely with, who i think formed life-long friendships with, as a result of their help in this project. >> you said in the book that you did not know who phil perry was before you hired him. >> i didn't realize he was the vice president's seasonal. -- son-in-law. i didn't her him, he was the designee that the attorney general urged to help me at the department. and i learned that later. didn't matter one way or the other. but he was just fabulous. >> how often did you find a situation where, and you write it in the book, where after the

deaths, the inlaws or the parents wouldn't talk to the spouse that's left, or even the person that was -- the fiancees. >> not only. it -- not often. it didn't happen that often. most families worked out agreements in advance with fiancees or domestic partners, what have you. there were qualitatively, however, some battle royals that i'll never forget. mr. fineberg, i was the fiancee of the victim. we were going to be married on october 11. i should be treated like a spouse when it comes to the award. biological parents, what do you say about that? oh, that marriage was never going to take place. my son called us on september 10 he was having second thoughts. fiancee, what do you say to that? is that right?

look, here's a copy of the wedding envitation, we were going to be married. on august 11, those parents, they threw a shower for me and said we're not losing a son, we're gaining a daughter. how dare them now post-9/11 deny the inevitability of the marriage. there were a few like that. and i worked out most of those disagreements. not all, but most. >> what keebed of records did you keep about all your conversations? what kind of records did you keep? >> we probably kept, as complete a file on every claim, on every family, on every conversation. all confidential. maybe some day it will be made available, it's a tremendous amount of raw data. that we felt an obligation, it's the taxpayers' money and it's a lot of taxpayers' money. we felt an obligation to keep very stringent records. >> where are those records kept? >> filed in the u.s. government

archives. >> and in your opinion, should they be made public, ever? >> maybe some day. after the families are dead and time has passed. maybe they should be made public. but not while people are alive. >> did you keep a diary? >> i didn't keep a diary but i kept at least not a rigid day by day diary. i did keep notes, especially of the individual meetings. i needed to back and review my notes in deciding, meeting with the families, individually, whether to raise the awards or not. and notes that i hatted scribbled and kept -- notes that i had scribbled and kept proved invaluable. >> you implied you got off to a rough start. >> i don't know about imply, it was very rough. >> give us an example. >> the first meeting with firefighter widows in manhattan. the first meeting. within a month after 9/11. two months.

a lady stood up and said mr. fineberg, you're giving firefighter widows, based on your formulas that you have announced, $1 million less than the widow of an accountant on the 103rd floor who represented enron. i spit on you and your children, mr. fineberg, i spit on you. that was an example of the invective at the beginning. very emotional. on the part of many, many families. >> what did you do? >> i listened, i responded as calmly and as best as i could, absolutely no point in engaging people in anger or disrespect. >> you said you changed your tactics. >> well, as time went on, i became, i think, less of a lawyer and more of a family counselor.

less the technicalities of the program, and more empathy in trying, as best i could, to deal with the emotion, the raw emotion arising out of 9/11 and i think that was one factor that represent turn the program around towards success. time certainly helped. a statutory deadline to file a claim certainly helped. but i think all of this, together, ended up helping the program succeed. >> were there any restrictions on your staff about writing this story, like you have written in the book? all these raw emotions would lead to quite a narrative. >> tremendous restrictions. it's all prohibited by law. you can't disclose in a book any of this. the reason i was able to write this book, as i say in the preface, is because with the help of the department of

justice, i felt it important that this book be written. for future generations. i and the department went out and formally, in writing, sought and received written waiver requests from over 60 families. in which they formally gave their permission to quote, without attribution, from the hearings and their personal family circumstances. otherwise none of this could have been printed. >> were the town meetings open to the public? >> yes. >> open to the media? >> yes. >> was that the way you wanted it, was that fair, would it --. >> i think it was fair. this is taxpayer money. this is a government program. i didn't think it appropriate to close off community town hall meet evenings to the public. or to the press. if a particular family wanted to meet with me privately to discuss the personal,

confidential concerns they confronted, that was closed to the public. that was closed to everybody other than those invited by that family. that was the way we sort of balanced the public's right to know, with private, confidential family circumstances. >> now, when they met with you privately, did you have a good cop-bad cop routine with staff people? >> no routine. >> i didn't mean the word routine, did you ever have a protection in the event that somebody lost control? >> plenty of people lost control. and the way we handled it is if i anticipated lost control, i would adjourn the hearing for a while. if i thought that a family was rolling off on an irrelevant track, i would try and bring the family back to the issues at hand. i occasionally needed an

adjournment, for me to clear my head and walk around the block. because some of these, many, most of these individual family meetings were chilling. >> did you ever break down yourself one of these meetings? >> not in the meeting. but i broke down sometimes. but not in a meeting. >> go back to the legislation, who was responsible for writing the legislation within that very short period of time, after september 11? >> the bulk of the legislation dealing with airline stabilization and airline protection was written by the senate and the house, with input from the airlines. they were all over the hell. the airline lawyers and lobbyists seeking loan guarantees and financial protection. as that legislation moved forward, very quickly, the american association of trial lawyers, leo boyle, larry stewart, richard beader and

their washington office, felt it was very important if the airlines were going to be immunized from suit, or that obstacles were going to be raised to protect effective lawsuits, there has to be something done for the victims. they went and saw congressman gephardt, senator schumer, senator daschle, and out of that came a hybrid statute. airline protection, minimize lawsuits, victims compensation. and it sort of came together in a unified, bipartisan way. >> you served up there for five years with senator kennedy. some were behind the scenes, somebody had to write this stuff. >> i think it was written, if you said who were the scrineners i think it was the staff of senator daschle and congressman

gephardt, with input from the trial lawyers. >> and were the democrats in control of congress at the time? >> i don't believe so. >> why would the republicans allow that to happen? >> i think it was not a political issue. i continue to believe that as a result of 9/11, the country as a whole, regardless of party afill yeation or ideology, felt that this idea of a compensation program to help these people, at the same time demonstrate the country's solidarity in the wake of this foreign attack, had a lot to do with the bipartisan support leading up to this program. jack rosenthal of the "new york times" foundation has coined a phrase, which i love, vengful philanthropy. we'll show those terrorists and

those countries harboring terrorists what america is all about. this was the result. >> you go back to your life is unfair. john kennedy said that years ago life is unfair. you talk about fairness. you can just hear people listening to this conversation, this is maybe a stretch, but you drive on the interstate highway, we pay federal -- we pay tax on that. and we pay for protection. i don't know what the figure is, 40,000-some people killed on the federal interstate highway system. why shouldn't they have compensation? >> that's not the american way. forget this legislation for a minute. the american character, as i say in the book, self reliance, choices made and not made, resignation in confronting life's unfairness, individual dignity and individual integrity. the american people, the heritage of the american people is not the government as a

guarantor of all of life's mess fortunes. this is wan aberration, this program that i administered. its uniqueness, is that it runs so counter to the way, at least in its generosity, certainly, so counter to the way that americans confront curveballs. that i don't think there are many people who would say, actually, that when you're injured or killed on a federal highway the government should cut you a check for $2 million. to the contrary, most of the american people would say, that the 9/11 fund, to the extent that it was a good idea, and i think i say in the book it was a great idea, don't do it again. it is an aberration, it is unique, and i think they're right even if there is another terrorist attack? >> i don't think congress will do this again. >> why not? >> i think congress will view this as a response to a very

unique historical disaster. like pearl harbor. the next time it happened, god forbid, i'm dubious that -- i say this in the book, i'm dubious that congress will replicate the program. if it does, i suggest, congress will probably, if it does anything, will probably give everybody the same amount and not ask one person to say you get $3 million, you get $2 million, you get $4 million. i don't they'll do that again. >> what did you do about the difference in the suffering that each person had to endure? >> i concluded at the beginning that when 9/11 families came to me and said, my wife endured more suffering in the world trade center than somebody else, shed me on the cell phone and told me she was going to die, so i'm entitled to more money than the person killed instantly, i

rejected that. i said i am not solomon, i can't make distinctions on the basis of who suffered more or less. we will have one size fits all, everybody gets the same for suffering. $250,000 for the death of the victim, $100,000 in addition for each surviving spouse and dependent. that's it. don't come to me and argue for more money for suffering and emotional distress. >> brockton, massachusetts for how many years snfergts i lived in brockton mas for high school, then am hurst for another four. it wasn't until i was 23 that i left massachusetts to go to law school and move on. >> you went to new york university of law? >> nyu law school. >> why did you want to become a

lawyer? why did you make the comment earlier you stopped thinking like a lawyer and thought like a person who had to deal with emotions? >> i was thinking about becoming an actor. i had done a lot of acting in high school and college. my father gave me some very sound advice. he said, you know, most actors end up waiting on tables in new york city. why don't you become a lawyer instead. and put your acting talents to use in the courtroom. i followed my father's advice. but i found in administering this program, that lawyer skills in analysis, technical understanding of loss and economics and calculations, proved much less valuable than psychiatry and philosophy and counseling, empathy. much more valuable.

in assuring the success of the program. >> what did you get out of new york law school, what year? >> i graduated 1970. >> what did you do then? >> then i was a law clerk to the chief judge of new york for two years, imminent jourist, then after that i went to work as a prosecutor in new york. then to work for senator kennedy. >> you were there in what years? >> i was with senator kennedy from 1975 through 1980 when i left him to go into private practice. >> how long were you in private practice? >> i've been in private practice oned off from 1980 to the present. >> how much of your ability to pull this job off is due to your personality, and i'll say a couple of things. you're very distinct, you have the boston accent. you're very pronounced, there's no sense that you don't -- what you say is quite strong.

how much did that play when you had to sit down with these families who were either looking for more money or looking for sympathy? >> i think personality was a great benefit and a great hindrance. it was a hindrance at the beginning. this personality of, this is the way the program is written and this is the way it's going to be done, this is what we can do and what we can't do. a lawyerly assureness rubbed many of these families the wrong way. over time, i think the percent the modification, willingness to help, the willingness to try and deal with the unique problems that each family brought to me as sort of a counselor, not as a lawyer, i think my personality ultimately proved helpful. in galvanizing support for the program. >> there was, in the back you have a lot of accounting

numbers. there was one line i wanted to ask you about. aspen, $3 million? >> the aspen company was the communications arm of price waterhouse that reached out, 1-800 numbers, mailings, over 33 months, helping to staff local offices and phones. it is a company that is in the business of helping communicate with large numbers of eligible claimants. >> if you were to do this again -- that's probably a big if -- what would you change? >> everybody should get the same amount of money. as i say in the book, if i were advising congress, one, don't do it again. it was a unique response. but if you decide to do it again i think you would be well advised, congress, to provide, as the law does today in some

other respects, a flat amount for every eligible claimant, without variation. >> name of the book is "what is life worth," our guest is kenneth fineberg. thank you. >> thank you. >> for a cop oi, call 1-8p-662-7726. for free transcripts or to learn more about q and a, visit us at q and a.org. >> q and a is 10 years old in each interview is available online at c-span.org. among the interviews you will find, former secretary donald long felt in his book -- donald

rumsfeld in his book. president george bush on his remorse. and that attorney general. and all this week, we will look back at 10 years of human day on c-span. tomorrow's program features lovely lunch. -- lonnie bunch. tomorrow 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> tomorrow on "washington recent housing and mortgage trends and what the house in the market impact is on the u.s. economy. and after that, an author on her on coveringalled" the obama administration. we'll take your phone calls and e-mails and tweets. washington journal is live on tuesday.

couple ofming up, a programs on cancer research and technology. francis collins, the national institutes of health. and from capitol hill, lawmakers supporting cancer research and innovation. and later, violence in the black community. >> a look of some the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span network. all of the festivities start on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama and a lighting of the capitol christmas tree. p.m., celebrity activist. supreme court justice samuel alito and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on