it is that kind of turn. the thing settles my sling onto this access road. and i go, hey. i made it. how about that? i didn't break anything. that is when i realized i was after that harrowing mess, did you think that would be easy? >> i am stuck in i cannot get out. if i get out it will fly away, essentially. so i am sitting there, it is sunday morning. the adrenaline gets through and

starts to pump and for once in my life, i go, if i had a damn cell phone. i could call someone. so after that event i broke down and joined the cell phone generation. >> patient -- spaceshipone, that was pressure. >> i had not found the vehicle -- loan the vehicle and 10 months. my flight the second x2 flight would be on a monday morning. the night before sunday night was the first airing of the discovery channel plus program called the black sky and there

was two parts to that. the first part was the race to space which was focused mainly on all the effort it took to get the first fight back in june. that was being played out on national tv and when it broke between segments instead of going to commercial, the reporter -- he would interview birds and say the first question was who is the pilot tomorrow? and he would answer that question so miles pushed further

and said how do you think it is going to go? i do not know if you know bert but if you have an audience, a crowd, he knows how to work it and now he has got the world stage at his hand. his response and i am at home pacing up and down listening to this. bert's response is not only are we going to head a home run we're going to hit a grand slam. that was the quote. as though the bar was not high enough, here is bert making it more difficult. three things had to happen. you get above the firing line which was 100 kilometers.

>> that is considered space. >> that is the new definition. waltz would barely be awake at that point. but that was one big deal. that was the $10 million part. we also then had sir richard branson who went to an's -- invest and he had a multi-$100 million contract ready to go should we demonstrate that not only can we get to space but get there without doing all the twisting in tumbling and turning. >> which mike had done a couple of days before. >> mike's flight was on a wednesday. thursday we kind of thought we figured out what was causing that particular problem which

gave me -- thursday night was when it was announced that i was going to be the pilot. up until that point the clever way of doing business the way the chinese had conducted their programs, they leave it to the last minute to tell you who the crew is. on thursday night i find out i am going to be the guy except all the work that i have done to date to keep my hand in the game on the outside chance him again opportunity to fly this little beast of an airplane, now it is all out the window because we need to change it.

the way it was changed is it is subtle but it is on the book. and very well explained. staff all night and read it. it is quite entertaining. it takes a lot of orchestration between myself and mission control in dallas to hit the nose of the vehicle pointed 60 degrees as quickly as you could a lot of stabilizer control and took 50 seconds or so to coast from about 60 degrees to about 80. and then the final endgame, the last 20 seconds or so, we would

be pulling on the vehicle to get up to about a seven degrees nose up. which in the vernacular, there was some angle of attack flowing across the tale which meant you had better direction of control. this rocket motor that gets a little cranky toward the end of the burn does not try to knock you off course. the rocket motors that we flew back then that we fly now, they are not steered for you. they were fixed in space. they had a blade so toward the end of the turn the thrust line of those rocket motors is no longer along the body axis of the vehicle.

it skews off in some direction and now you are in the wispy upper atmosphere aerodynamically trying to counteract that first asymmetry. we figured we could fly to about 150,000 feet before having to shut the motor down to avoid the rocket motor overwhelming the vehicle. we found that we could do a little bit better than that. my flight, i got all the way up to 213,000 feet before shutting the motor down which is about somewhere between 10 and 12 knots. i am just about on a tail stall in terms of aerodynamic control.

>> are the pilots are getting this? >> this new procedure, it worked like, it worked great. there was no expectation that it should. we had only had six powered flights in the vehicle total that this was the flight. the previous five had presented problems, difficulties situations that we had not anticipated, thought about understood and we had to -- this does not make sense, we have to change this and do that different. there was no reason to expect that there is the sixth fight that was critical not only for my personal sanity but for that of the team and that of the

company and that of richard branson. for the hopefulness of the future of commercial manned spaceflight. that would all work out. we scooted out the atmosphere past the common line, past the old x-15 record set by joe walker. quick she went almost 70 miles. >> it does not sound like much but may be in the city 70 miles is a lot. far from my house does not even get you to l.a.. it is straight up, it is a challenge. and that is what we were doing. that flight did it in spades. >> i know that the wait was a

big deal and there was some anecdote where your mother-in-law spilled a 16 ounce soda on you right before you went up. >> your mother-in-law. at the time i was 50. and if your mother-in-law still wants to give you a hug and your mature years in life after the error of marrying her daughter then you take it. and then it is this time of year, it is: the mornings, she had come from the local mcdonald's, she had a large cup of coffee and she is like, she is the same personality as the mother and everybody loves raymond.

you know that mother. >> we got it. >> she pushes her way out of the crowd and i am on my way and she comes up and says -- there is this cup of coffee and she is approaching me. i am wondering what the game plan was for this coffee. and her arms sweep around me, it becomes apparent there is no game plan. a beeline, let's do it. it all flows down the front of my flight suit onto my t-shirt. now i am just sopping wet that coffee is freaking hot. >> but it weighs something. >> it was heavily sugared, the knell of by the way.

anyways, about a pound. 16 ounces. we had a rule of thumb that we would kill grandmother for pound. >> they had to make this altitude. >> one pound additional weight is about 500 feet of apogee. mike on his first attempt to get to -- the space back in in june had just made it by 400 feet. >> i was reminded by our chief dynamics is that he figured i was wearing a neck for 500 feet of apple -- apogee penalty. it was on that note they closed

the space of door and off we go to history. >> is that in your book? >> that is my book. my grandmother -- my mother-in-law is now one of the most amos mother-in-law's and the world because she knows i tell the story. it is all true. it could not have been more disconcerting, this was not a big cabin and us it that door closes, the aroma just overwhelms. that is how we went to space. >> you are up there and you have seen all these pictures and you are a fighter pilot and all the

stuff but when you got up that high explain what you felt when you saw that view. i know what was too busy with his stuff to have any emotion but did you have any emotion when you saw that view up there of 70 miles above the earth? >> shame on you. i am here to tell you it is the most fabulous right in the world. riding a rocket motor it's the senses, because that rocket motor went off like an angry bull, like someone slapped the gate open, and you are just trying to hang on for eight seconds. except, you were hanging on to

this thing for a minute and a half. it is thundering, shaking kind of experience. we had a gauge that would, we were not sure we would be able to read. the flight controls go from light off the mothership to within eight seconds you are supersonic and the control forces are so high. you think you are moving the stick but you are not affecting anything. then you have to transition to electric trams to control the trajectory. the in game, you're back to flying like an airplane again because the motor wants to adjust the thrust line on you.

the magic, and i do mean this, the magic is when you finally turn the motor off. read wonderful things happen. they happen in a blink. the shaking goes away. the shrieking sounds, this big nitrous tank that is 10 feet behind you imaging itself making all kinds of -- it is like a possessed cat behind you. >> i have never heard you say it that way. >> and, then you become instantly weightless. even though you are strapped in, the tension goes away. your limbs, your legs have no weight.

your sense of right side up no longer matters. when the motor is burning you are paying attention to the instruments. after, there is nothing much you can do to affect the trajectory of the vehicle you are on. then you get to look out the window, and there is this view you have never appreciated or never seen before. from a hobby, if you have ever been it is one of the most dreary, disappointing -- >> godforsaken places. >> but the view is spectacular.

you have the pacific ocean, the mountains, weather patterns they normally only show you on the evening news. of course, the void that is space. separating these extremes is this then blue electric curtain of light. that is the atmosphere. it is the first time you get to appreciate and realize that you are now in space, in a spaceship. that sounds cool to say. i cut the grass, i went to space and a spaceship. you have worked to actually get

there. you worked pretty hard physically just to get there. so everything your body feels is wow. and everything you see with your eyes just because they're so much more dynamic than any camera or video is, you take in this vista, is wow. i've told the marketing people at virgin this for years. that they're all going to be out of jobs as soon as they get into business. because it's an experience that's going to sell itself. it doesn't need to be -- you don't need to be coerced into this. people that come out from having had that experience are going to be doing the marketing for them. >> what you just described, i have a ticket on virgin galactic

spaceshiptwo. when it flies, will i feel the things you felt? i obviously will be a passenger. i wouldn't be a pilot. but will i feel that rocket burn and the shuddering and shrieking and all that, is it going to be similar? >> absolutely. it might be more intense for you because, as a passenger, you're not in control of anything you're just, you know, along for the ride. anybody can tell you, in an acrobatic kind of airplane there's a huge difference between whether you're making the control inputs to the airplane or sort of reacting to what somebody else is doing.

and so i think you become a man of god very quickly. >> i already am. but. >> if i was orchestrating the spaceship, i would have a five-second countdown light after separation from the mothership. and that was the time between they arm the rocket motor and they fire it. >> like a drag racer when they take off. >> in those five seconds, your life is going to be changed profoundly. and then off you go. and it's such a compressed experience. it's not like, you know, you're not days in space, you haven't spent an entire career working your way up the competitive

ladder to get there. but you still get all the same benefits, the view, the weightlessness, the experience of riding a rocket motor. in spaceshiptwo, we'll see how it plays out. but it's got a pretty big cabin so you can unbuckle your seatbelt and then you can wrestle with the other -- >> while they're puking? >> well, i don't think puking's going to be a problem. as long as you can reference an outside window an there's plenty of them, you'll do just fine. >> i'll remember that. >> and that's just getting up there. there's still the ride back down which is an entirely different experience in itself.

>> what's that like? >> i liken it to, if you're driving a car and it's starting to rain and you get a little splatters of rain drops on the wind shield and if you're driving into the thunderstorm, then the intensity of that rain just, you know, continues to grow. re-entry is very similar. where the rain is actually the noise of the atmosphere against the -- in spaceshiptwo's characters the belly of the vehicle. and you can actually sort of hear it go from a pinging sound to one that just grows and grows in intensity, as the noise level

grows, so does the g levels that you feel on your body. but unlike riding a rocket motor, and this is strange to articulate, but it is buttery smooth. you are just getting heavy. so it's like going over niagara falls. you're on your way down, there's nothing stopping you and it continues until the vehicle is in a thick enough atmosphere that once again it's subsonic and once the vehicle is subsonic in this funny configuration, the vehicle just doesn't quite know what it really wants to do.

it's sort of in a confused state and so you put the tails back down, you become a glider and now you've got your 10, 15 minutes to breathe again and look at your passenger who's sitting across from you and sort of mentally trying to assimilate to all that has just happened to you in the last hour or so. the majority of the flight on the virgin side of the house is just climbing up underneath the mothership, which is probably from passenger standpoint where

the co-pilot is going to have to have a degree in psychology or stress management or stuff like in that. his the concept is different in that from get-go you take off on the runway, under rocket power there's four motors, you use burt ratan designed informationa light them off is he sequentially so you don't get the big jolt. you take off like an airplane and just keep going. >> now i want to get to that. brian worked for many, many years for scaled composites and when spaceshipone was a success and richard branson invested his hundreds of millions dollars into virgin galactic and hiring brian, why did you go over to excorps which is a competitor of virgin galactic?

>> my motivation, there were several levels to it. given our friends in the back of the room, i'll just say we had spent close to 10 years trying to develop the rocket motor for spaceshiptwo. and i had read a book some time ago called design in nature. and this book makes the case that if you, for example, take the size, the heart of a rabbit and compare it to the size of the heart of a shark or a lion and an elephant and you plot them all out versus the animal's weight, they'll follow on a curve that is fairly predictable. i mean, there's always a little bit of noise in the data. but they follow this curve.

and i just had the sense after 10 years of trying and crying and praying and saying, god, please show us the truth, light, the way for this spaceshiptwo rocket motor, that we weren't on the curve. and that has been the holdup for spaceshiptwo. i'm not a rocket science guy. i felt like my contributions to the program had kind of run its course. here's excorps next door, they've spent their last 14 years of their existence building a rocket motor, a very different type of motor, one that's restartable, which is a remarkable, clever thing to do for a rocket motor. it's reusable, it's gas go, it's

standard liquid oxygen. >> it's a proven fuel over the years. >> there's a lot of history out there versus these hybrid motors, but now they were building an air frame around the proven engine. and if you think about the world of aeronautics, when you go to bill a new airplane you first define the power plant that's going to make this thing work. then you build the airplane around it. you don't first build an airplane and then go, well, where's my engine.

that's kind of the difference, if you will, between what was going on between spaceship one and spaceship two. and excorp. >> when i drove you at 200 miles per hour in mojave, we made a deal and the deal was i'll take you at 200, you're going to fly me in spaceship two. well, that can't happen now. so should i be sell my spaceship two tick get buying an excorp ticket? >> well, i'll just say this, jim, because sir richard branson

has put an awful lot of his own money into making this program work. i believe it will work. it's just taking oodles longer than anybody would have thought. >> tell me about it. >> but on the other hand, you'd be in the quarter million dollar category at this point. >> i bought the $200,000. you. >> any way, you could get two rides for the price of one. >> at excorp. >> at excorp. >> i could save some of my 401-k plan. >> yes, you could, and we'll be sitting side by side. >> just like in the mcclaren on the runway. >> you'll see what i see you'll see all the instrumentation.

you won't be in the back -- >> the angelina jolie. >> well, if you're part of that flight, that might be worth it. ( laughter ) >> you know, i need to know, you have this great anecdote about meeting the late neil armstrong and i think this really goes to the heart of neil's character. can you tell us about that time that you guys met? >> so, it was a rather bizarre the way it unfolded, because i didn't realize neil was anywhere near in town. but my wife and i were at disneyland, okay and we had just finished dinner, had come outside, and from about here to

the end of the room, 20 yards away whatever, is, there was neil armstrong. and he's standing by himself and there seems to be nobody around him. and i'm just thinking, wow here's an opportunity to just say hi. and i point out to my wife, do you know who that guy is. and there's a saying in life, you never want to meet your heros, because they will just disappoint you. and i had this concern that, you know neil probably gets bombarded with all this kind of

stuff, and he is not -- >> that's the odd couple there. >> so, any way, my wife, we went over regardless and under her encouragement and i introduced myself and neil, this was 2007, we had just had a rocket motor accident at mojave. where we had killed three people, sent three others to the hospital. so things were not going well. and any way i introduced myself to neil. neil was gracious enough, i believe, to pretend to know who i was. >> bullshit, he knew who you were.

>> as it turns out we were both his dinner party comes out and we end up walking back to the hotel together and as i'm talking to him i just said how bizarre it seemed in this world of glitter and fantasy land of disneyland that we were unable to repeat what alan shepherd had done you know, 40, however long it had been, 45 years ago which was -- >> the sub orbital flight. >> he was the first guy to do that in the mercury capsule. what neil said next just stopped me in my feet. because he turned and looks at

me and says, you know, none of this stuff is easy it's all hard, it's all very difficult. just because you've done it once doesn't mean you can do it again. the only way you have a chance of succeeding, the only way you know you're on the right track is if you can come into work in the morning and look at the guy across the coffee table from you and appreciate being there and then he used a word that i've heard out of burt ratan's mouth for 12 years, she says if you're not having fun, you know you're not doing it right and you don't belong in the business. and burt ratan, since the day i

met him, since the day i started working for him, always said when ever he got anybody together, was if we're not out here having fun, if we're not enjoying what we're doing, then we're not doing it right, we're not going to be successful, we're going to run into problems, and things will go badly. and here it was coming back on the heels of a rather tragic incident. but nonetheless coming out of now the mouths of neil armstrong, and i was just blown away by it. >> one last question before i open it up to the audience. you mentioned burt rutan. describe the genius of him. you worked with him. the guy is a genius, it amazing what he's able to do. but what is it about him that makes him special?

>> well, other than being a smart guy, he latches onto things and he won't let go. and he will wrestle whatever it is until he is squeezed the life out of it, until he understands every aspect of it, and then he'll take that information and if it's in the world of aeronautics and airplanes he'll apply that knowledge to the next vehicle he builds. burt had a common saying that when ever asked what's your favorite aircraft, he would always say the next one i'm going to build. burt and i were also golfing buddies, and before i started

working for him for a couple years. and burt took, it was the same way in golf as he was as an engineer. he was tenacious. he practiced. he was competitive. he had in his back pocket these laminated cue cards that would show the loft and carry and roll of the golf ball depending on whether he was hitting out of a san trap the rough, whether it was -- >> never heard this either. >> a 60-degree lofted wedge sand wedge or a pitching wedge. whether it was a half swing, quarter swing, the face was open or closed. i mean it was all there. and this is, that was sort of his nature.

he went to extremes other people would not go to, but he was a man of great wit. he enjoyed having fun. he enjoyed pointing out inconsistencies, in other people's behaviors. i went one time with him to singapore, singapore is a little island nation just south of malaysia if you've never been there. and at the time they were doing a tremendous reclamation effort, basically pushing back the china sea so that they can get more land, because they're running out of land, too many people. and burt was invited to talk to this rather large assembly about 1,000 people of bureaucrats military types students, you name it.

and his comments to just sort of tip file -- typify his sense of humid oh, he see you'd be far better off instead of this reclamation effort putting these young men into the new f16's that you've just bought from us and going bombing malaysia to the north getting your land that way. you motivate an entirely new generation, you take advantage of hardware that you've spent good money on, and you do it the old fashioned way. and before the crowd could sort of assimilate this, oh my god, did burt rutan just tell us to go bomb malaysia? you know, he had had moved onto other subjects. >> a followup question.

>> that's the kind of guy he was, and he was a lot of fun to be around and he currently lives up in kerr da len -- could you da len, idaho. he's building himself a sea plane, and he plans to plans to turn it to one that he can fly around the world without ever visiting an airport, would you having to deal with the f.a.a., with whom he has -- >> mixed -- >> a checkered relationship. so even though he's retired he's still out there having fun and still pushing boundaries, and he's still challenging the way people think about

conventional approaches to old problems. >> okay. we're going to open it up for a couple quick questions. anybody have a question for brian? yes, way back there. >> hello, i have a question about burt's relationship with peter of the ex-prize foundation. i'm curious to know hearing you speak about burt's personality peter has a larger than life personality as well. did you see that burt kind of went to the next level after he decided to take on the ex-prize and what was the kind of relationship between those two men? >> you know, these are the kind of questions that if i'm writing it down after maybe the fifth

draft i'll get the words just right to where i can weasel my way through. >> this is off the report, by the way. >> any controversy. but you're right. it was a strained relationship, to say the least. but peter was bringing something to the table that was attractive, it gave paul allan about 40% of his money back if we won this thing. it put mojave on the map because we had to become a space port to satisfy the requirements of the ex-prize. it was peter's side of the house, what he did is i think still fairly brilliant. without his efforts i would have

had my opportunity, for example i don't believe the vehicle would have gone straight to the smithsonian can that would have been the ebb of it. but i've never met anybody out out -- >> even peter? >> even peter. and burt is a big guy. if he stands next to you, he casts a shadow and he starts sucking the oxygen out of the room. and peter, you know, not a big guy, but it's sometimes it's the little guys that you know, are the go getters. so it was an interesting

battlefield. but it ended up being win-win. so it all worked out good. >> one more question because we're a limb behind schedule. anybody else have a question? right here. yes, go ahead, ask the question. >> you're a test pilot. what kind of courage do you need to have in order to be a test pilot? >> it's not about courage. it's -- i like what walt says. fear doesn't really come into play. alan shepherd also off the first sub orbital guy, was a navy admiral, and i think once he

realized that he was going to receive his admiralship, he came up with a test pilot's prayer. and i believe this is one that most, if not all live by, and it's a very simple one. and it's got nothing to do with fear or courage. it's dear god, please don't let me f up. and what he really means by that, i think is there's any number of things that can go wrong. there's probably four or five reactions you can take or make that are incorrect that make that wrong thing worse. and there's one maybe right thing.

and the prayer is really to say in the event something starts to go askew give me the wisdom and the knowledge to do that one right thing. but it wasn't about fear. and it wasn't about courage. >> she and i are going to go do our sentry feunl training in two weeks. any advice? >> you know, i've neve been there. it's a great experience, they don't start you off at 9g's, or hope they don't. >> but they do get you up no nine g's. >> they can -- up to nine g's. they can. they'll do sort of a half g simulation, and they'll --

we're going to do spaceship two. >> i think they're great people there, and i'm sure you'll have good memories of coming out of it. >> all right, let's hear a big plus for brian binnie. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, form we remember former members of congress who died this year. we start with tennessee senator howard baker. then a speech by vermont senator jim jeffords when he changed party affiliations in 2001. later congressman james traficant addresses congress. and after that an interview with former budget committee ranking

member on the 1990 budget deal. the 114th congress convenes in a little over a week. here's a look at some of the numbers. republicans will have 247 members in the house. the largest g.o.p. majority since the 1928 elections. and there will be 188 house democrats. there will be 45 african-americans in the house including two republicans. will herd texas and neil love of utah. the first ever republican african-american woman to serve in the house. the senate will have two african-americans, republican tim scott of south carolina and democrat cory booker of new jersey. >> new year's day on the c-span networks here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern the washington ideas forum. energy conservation with david

crane, business mag nailt t. boon pick ends. warren brown, and inventor dean kamen. at 4:00 p.m. the brookline lynn historical society holdings a conversation on race. then astronaut walt cunningham on the first manned space flight. new year's day on c pan 2 just before noon eastern, author hector tobar on the 33 men that were buried in a chilean mine. and richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. then a former correspondent for cbs news, sharl attkisson on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern juanita abernathy on her experiences and the role of women in the civil rights movement. at 4:00 p.m. brooklyn college professor on the link between alcohol and politics in

prerevolutionary new york city. then at 8:00 p.m., cartoonist patrick oliphant draws presidential caricatures. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> next from 2007 former senator howard baker talks about his career and his work in congress. senator baker died at the age of 88, was interviewed by historian richard norton smith for the dole institute oral history project. this is an hour. i would love to know the difference. >> my dad was in the house. i never was. >> the senate that you came into in 1967 -- how to that differ from the senate today? >> honestly, i have avoided

answering that question for a lot of reasons. one, because i try not to second-guess those who followed me. the other is, in all fairness, you do not know the senate there. you just do not know. you can lose it in a matter of weeks or months. the real touch, the real understanding of what the senate is like. i avoid trying to do that. i have always said it would appear from outside that things are tougher now than they were. more personal, more confrontational. but i cannot say that because i'm not there. >> describe the senate that you walked into. >> the senate i walked into in 1967 was still a senate populated in large measure by the grand girls and dukes -- e

arls and dukes. you had mansfield -- so many who had made a move -- mark for themselves in so many ways. i approached the matter as the youngest member of the senate at that time and the second most junior person in the senate. mark at field was number 100. i was 99. the reason was mark stated that for two days to complete his term as governor. i jumped him by one day. as this day, we referred to each other as 99 and 100. i stood in awe of these people who had been there so long. looking back on it, honestly, i must tell you that has a re

tarding effect on a new center -- senator to jump into the mainstream. but i was pretty respectful. i remember when i made my maiden speech on the floor. which all freshmen are destined to do. i went there excessively prepared. carefully prepared. not so on the floor. one democrat and my father-in-law, the republican leader, he was there out of curiosity. but i spoke for 40 minutes. and then i finished. and then derksen came over and said, perhaps in the future, you should guard against speaking more clearly than you think. that was my introduction to the

senate. [laughter] >> that was the hazing of new members of the senate. >> now, bob dole comes along a couple years later. >> not much later, that is right. >> did the younger members look out for still younger members? >> not really. >> how were they brought into the fold? >> we all knew dole was. many were surprised that he was elected. i was pleased he was elected. got acquainted with him first off. and we established an early and pretty warm friendship in the beginning. but, no, the older members -- it was more like a sophomore-freshmen relationship than anything else.

sophomores are full of themselves, having gone through freshman year. sort of the way it was. but the senate is all about standing seniority or age. not very long before anyone is swimming in the same string. -- stream. but in my time, they developed an early understanding that we were part of this group. we were part of the senate. that is something special. we do not understand what, but we know it is. that continued, i think, until i left. i am not sure it is so now. but i am not there and cannot say. >> you are saying there is institutional loyalty to the senate as a body? >> almost. not loyalty, as such, but a recognition. not a family relationship.

the commonality of interests and whatnot. there is little protecting your younger brother. [laughter] >> the republican caucus was different in 1967 through 1969. you had moderate liberal senators. >> that is right. >> how did that work? >> very well. can never dawned on me that it would not be that way. i was not surprised to find that their worse -- were significant numbers of liberal senators. an even greater number of moderate senators. and i would say that when i went there, the liberal and republican senators were probably the majority. but that gradually eroded. began to go away in spades.

by the time i left, moderate republicans were a vanishing breed. but that is not going to stay. if the two-party system survives, as i think it will, because i see a resurgence of this complex of different points of view. and i think that is good. >> when dole arrived, did it rough edges? my sense is he was someone who was very much a man of his place. of his culture. of western kansas. very conservative house voting record. how does that, over time, involved in the senate? >> you make an interesting point. dole had a reputation.

his reputation of being very tough, very republican. and i guess very conservative. though i do not recall that was one of the hallmarks of his early career in the senate. and that began to wane. he established friendships and relationships in the senate. all those things, that previous image, began to be subsumed by his newer relationships. he fit in. he did not have trouble fitting in to the group. and he did it very easily and effectively. at some point in this interview, i want to tell you a true story about the republicans gaining control of the senate. and that was in 1980. and i was minority leader, about to be majority leader. we were full of enthusiasm.

and late at night, as the results came in, i called, who is in kansas. i do not remember where in kansas. i said bob, we have the majority. you are going to be chairman of the finance committee. and he thought for a minute and said, who is going to tell russell law? i thought there were days that nobody told russell law. but that moves right into the role of chairman of the private committees of the senate. he did so effectively. >> that raises a question. i have heard him talk about the difference between the minority and all of a sudden, you realize that you have to govern. it is also, for someone like him , an opportunity to disprove doubters. that you are capable of doing. >> it is. it is really a remarkable

transformation. republicans had a big problem with that in the senate because they had not been the majority since 1954, 1956. there is not a single person in the republican caucus who has ever been a committee chairman at that time except strom thurmond, a democrat at the time. so it was a brand-new experience, a learning experience. high level of cooperation between members. but the sudden realization that not only we were the majority but we were responsible for the agenda, the timing, we can focus on what the country, or at least the senate would be concerned about, and just as important, what we are not going to do -- that is a big issue. big deal. for while, i said the president will do that. then, after a matter of weeks

it was clear that the republican senate, majority in the senate had it not an equal role of the president, a significant role in setting the national agenda. i remember at the time we first gained the majority 1981, maybe even 1982, i think things were different. we thought of ourselves as equal partners with the white house. and we asserted those views. and we would visit with the president, leadership would, and we would invite the vice president to policy luncheons on tuesday. maybe it is just nostalgia and retrospection.

but it seems to me there was a better understanding of the relationship between those branches at that time. that had existed for a long time, maybe ever. but it had a sobering effect on republicans in the majority. they suddenly realized this is our game. you get to run the show. we have to decide what to do. what not to do. >> what you said suggests that kind of relationship could only work because you had a president who would willing to buy into the. >> that is right. maybe it would not have worked with anybody except reagan. >> what was it about reagan that made it work? >> i do not know. except he never looked down on congress. he never ignored the senate. he was always willing and seemed to be anxious to hear what they had to say.

it was a remarkable relationship. and the republican leadership -- dole as chairman of the finance committee, ted stevens me would meet regularly at the white house at the president's invitation. we would talk frankly about the agenda. i also seem to recall the candor between the congressional types and the white house was remarkable. i wonder if that is still so. it was certainly so with reagan. and may have been that reagan's personality made that possible. >> clearly not everyone agreed on the original tax cut, budget cut, package. that was reviewed by dole himself. >> you are a kindly person for not recovering -- recalling that

when we went to the white house, the president outlined his plan. he was asked about it. the press said, we hear it, we understand it. but it is a riverboat gamble. i caught all sorts of hell about the. the truth of the matter is that is it -- it was a gamble. but it worked. still on the list of things i should never have said. >> dole agreed with you? >> we talked about it. not before, but afterwards. in all fairness, i have to say a good hard about that evaluation of the message was based on what dole and i had talked about. but he was an important influential person, not only in the senate but to me. because -- there is one thing you should know.

i had a meeting with the committee of chairman at the leader's office. all the chairman of the standing committees. we invited one freshman to each meeting who, hopefully, just sat there. that was an extraordinarily important thing to me because it was an opportunity for a chairman to say what they have on their plate. what they wanted to do. but that is where i got insights into what was going on and what might go on. that is where i first came to have such a high regard for bob dole's abilities as chairman of that committee. his analysis was good. but maybe even just as important, his presentation was lucid and prompt. it worked out well. >> what qualities make whole a successful chairman? >> i do not know.

i was not a member of finance except as an ex officio member. it is undeniably so that personality has a lot to do with success or failure. certainly for a committee chairman. dole, from the very beginning, was a highly successful chairman. not only with the administrative staff and providing for housekeeping details of the committee and also in terms of deciding the agenda of the senate. but the people respected his point of view. not everyone agreed with his point of view, but they respected. i continue to. >> the 1981 tax cuts, budget cuts were, not that they were easy, but relatively easy. i imagine easier to pass then subsequent tax increases.

in 1982, where you are basically trying to take the ornaments off the christmas tree. how did that happen? how to the white house feel about taking a step back? >> you know, by that time, a little of the luster had gone out of the republican leadership. they were flexing their muscles here and there. a long way of saying that there was controversy between the white house and the senate. the willingness to disagree with the president or the administration was greater. even so, it was not a hostile relationship.

and the fact that the white house and the representatives and the senate and our representatives would discuss these matters with great enthusiasm sometimes helped reduce prospect of controversy within the house and senate. >> one of the things we're trying to get at is what it is that dole did behind-the-scenes that made him dole. i've never really seen it spelled out. beyond that, there is this whole question of what are the tools at their disposal of a majority leader to get desired results? >> the majority leader is not a statutory position. it is certainly not a constitutional position.

it is a device created by the senate itself to create orderly and is and dispatch to the operations of the body. i'm told that, early on, before majority leaders were designated, that the chairman of the finance committee or the chairman of the appropriations committee did that. by now, the majority leader is taking on special immunity opportunities. and responsibilities. but the power of the majority leader resides in two things. one is the tradition, the president that, in the case more than one senator seeking recognition on the floor, the chair is obligated to recognize the leader. does not sound like much, but my friend, it is a lot. it means you get a chance to

speak first. it means you have a chance, if you everything fails, to adjourn. or try to reason with these people. as a powerful thing. the other is purely by example. i guess it goes back to the human condition that everybody has to lead. everybody has to have a leader someplace. even though it is not statutory or constitutional, that role falls to the majority leader. to agree, the minority leader. when i was minority leader -- as minority leader, there was a special opportunity to go across the aisle to mansfield or bob byrd and say, i know what you are doing. i am sympathetic. but that is not going to work. as long as you have enough to stop it, meeting at least 39

votes, or 44 votes, that you could stop it. both leaders have an important role in recognizing the forms of both leaders but i was first elected majority leader, first one on the floor that day, the first thing i did was go over to bob byrd. i said bob, i will never know the rules and president of the senate the way you do. i will make you a deal. i will never surprise you if you do not surprise me. he said, let me think about it began back later this afternoon and said -- and we never did. i think that tradition is carried on. dole adopted a position as well.

it is a good step position, even if i did first abdicate it. the rules are set up so there is plenty of room for disagreement, plenty of room for controversy. and to do so without the framework of the organizations thinking up on your adversary. >> i wonder, did you learn something from watching your father-in-law? >> i am sure i did. he was a great man. he really was. and i am sure i did. but i would be hard-pressed to -- the one thing i would say is that i have a big admiration for them. the relationship between father-in-law and son-in-law was potentially delicate. i have not really run the records, but i believe i may

have been the only person in the senate that dirksen never asked to vote one way or the other. and i think that was in recognition and sensitivity of that relationship. but we discussed freely. i asked for his advice, which he gave freely. but you never tried to convince me. i do not think it was rebellion on my part, but an assertion of independence. it worked very well. >> how does this contrast with lyndon johnson in the 1950's? kind of larger-than-life figure. >> all the things about johnson were true. it is interesting to me that dirksen and johnson were not only majority and minority leader but very close friends. and i think that facilitated the

operations of congress and the senate, the fact that they could talk freely. and i'm sure agree and disagree freely. but what did i learn from dirksen? i will choose one thing to tell you. i remember i was grumpy about some foreign policy. i have forgotten what it was. i also remember i was traveling with -- who was it? a river golf -- abe rivikoff. we were in the middle east. left in egypt. and we get on the plane. approach the plane. and i made some smart remark about some item of administration policy.

and we got on the plane. rivikoff said, howard, i have discovered over the years if i have a criticism of the administration that i save until i get home, both i and the country are better off. [laughter] >> i always thought of that. dirksen said the same thing. he said the president is arriving at andrews. i would like you to go with me to greet him. i said really, senator? i do not want to do that. >> he said, you should. and i did. he said the president is the embodiment of national sovereignty. he is returning from overseas. and we should be there to express our support. not of his issues, necessarily

or his positions, but his role as president. or as turks would say, chief magistrate. >> let me ask you. the whole relationship between dole and richard nixon, which is clearly typical, which mystified a lot of people, given the way dole was treated after that in 1972. i have often wondered, if there wasn't an element in their background that was common nixon, this scrappy kid who was not a natural, but through sheer work and effort made himself to be what he wasn't, obviously overcame economically, great odds, there was some kind of

cultural identification that he had with nixon. >> i'm sure he did. i never discussed that with dole. but i agree with every word you just said. honestly, dole and nixon had that and other things in common. they are both and were, in nixon's case, great patriots. i must tell you that i am thought of as being instrumental in the downfall of nixon does of my role on the watergate committee. but i continually had an admiration for nixon as president. in so many ways, he was a great center of the road, even moderate, president. but he made one fatal error. it is my private. -- theory that he did not know about the break-in before it

occurred, but he found out about it after it occurred. he was in california. his fatal error was that he he came back and instead of lining up those oaks and firing them on television, he decided to contain it. and that case, and i think in most cases, proves to be fatal. i do not know if nixon thought those thoughts or not, but i bet he did. it was a great loss. a great trauma to the country. also a great talent in nixon but it was the right result because he made a fatal political mistake. >> as this unfolded, did you and your colleagues have a sense of astonishment at these revelations? >> daily. dole and i talked about.

dole is thought of as closer to nixon than i ever was. but i remember cloakroom conversations between us about that. and the amazement of the things that came out. >> your both amazed? >> i am sure he was. i know i was. but they just called out one after the other. did never ended. terrible time. >> the tapes -- were you astonished when you heard tapes existed? >> honestly, i think every president before him had had some sort of taping system. kennedy did. johnson i was not outraged at that. no. no, i wasn't. but it proved to be the ultimate

downfall of richard nixon. i was interested to see now that ronald reagan diaries are being released, have been released but i am astonished ronald reagan kept that diary daily. i saw those diaries. he never let me read them except one case, but those diaries were written in longhand in leather bound books. they weren't loose-leaf books they were leather bound books and there were rows and rows and dozens of them. some day, they'll all be published. it must be the most important important and thorough contemporaneous record of a presidency that's ever existed. >> among other things, it does give the lie to the notion reagan was either lazy or undisciplined because he clearly , was the opposite of both. >> he was the most disciplined person i ever knew, he really was. he would show up every morning at 9:00 on the button in the oval office.

when i was chief of staff, i used to be with him at 9:00. we would have a meeting that lasted no more than 30 minutes. he would start each meeting with a funny little story. and it was a meeting or two before i realized when he finished, he expected me to have a funny little story. that was his stock and trade. i treasured that. dole also had that same talent. he can put things in perspective, with humor, more effectively than most philosophers can do it with a serious dissertation and i admire that. >> do you think that's a real weapon in making the senate work. >> a tool, not a weapon, but a tool. it's extraordinarily valuable. and sometimes dole may be criticized as an rapier-like wit. i don't think of it like that but a quick mind that was able to put things in perspective.

not everybody appreciated it. if you think back on it, most of the "rapier thrusts" require right on the mark. he still has that sense of humor. >> i always sensed, it sounds like a cliche. i think it's true of dole more than most people, he really never forgot where he came from. he is still at heart, he's still russell, kansas. >> that's right. >> there's an element of the populist in dole, there's a real disdain for pomposity and stuffed shirts bipartisan, the guchi and loafers and the lobbyists. the relationship with reagan, i would be interested to know, you

were thinking about running in 1988 yourself. >> that's right. >> obviously, you put those plans on the shelf to become chief of staff. then you had this very unusual situation where the vice president is clearly running and your senate leader is running. how did the president handle that somewhat awkward thing? >> my recollection, richard, is that he didn't handle it at all. [laughter] he just let the chips fall where they would. he showed no preference. he showed no priority between them. i admired that. it was a delicate situation and unusual one. i don't think he ever did anything about it. certainly never talked to me about it. >> your sense is he had a very good relationship with dole? >> oh, yeah, had a great relationship with dole. i do remember the first time dole came to a leadership meeting. before it started, i went down a little early, he invited no do he asked about dole, he did.

i don't remember what i said except it was favorable. he was curious about dole. as i recall, he's the only one he asked about. >> really? that's doubly interesting because the story in 1976, was that one of the reasons dole wound up being on the ticket was the people around florida, at least, had been led to believe he had reagan's -- whether that was in fact true or not. >> i have an old friend in tennessee, who has a philosophical statement that i've come to admire. he called me the other day and said, howard, we've reached the age, where most of the things we remember never happened. [laughter] it is more often true than not. >> it's been said -- i've heard it said that in some ways it's more fun to be minority leader than majority leader? >> don't you believe it.

i've been both. majority is better. minority leader is interesting it's challenging. it may have fit dole's personality better than majority leader. >> how so? >> well, it did, because he was able to crystalize an issue and formulate a position that would go right to the heart of the issue. as majority leader, he had to take a lot of different opinions of different people and try to set aside the point of view. i must tell you, majority leader is the second best job in washington. i said that to ronald reagan once. he said, no, howard, it's the second best in washington. i said, mr. president, i'm sure that's so in terms of historical standing, but look around. i got a nice office, i have a big staff, i have a car, i have access to an airplane and i don't have secret service and i still have a life of my own. he thought for a minute, says, well, maybe so.

[laughter] >> the -- i want to get back into the first reagan term. which was a revolutionary period in this country. almost a u-turn in a lot of ways policy, in the whole relationship of government and economy and an individual. dole was a good soldier. apparently a very effective soldier but he couldn't have , agreed with everything he was being asked to implement, did he? i mean, balanced budgets are almost spiritual things. i assume that's the result of where he came from and what he went through? >> right, right. that's right. no, i'm sure that's true, but the first thing you said that dole was a good soldier is the

most important part of the conversation because he was. i cannot tell you that's where he acted against his own native instinct, but i'm sure there were. i can tell you, i never went -- when i was leader, i never went to bob dole and asked him something i felt he didn't want to do and he would respond in the affirmative. he had a heavy understanding of the importance of his role as a senator. he had a clear understanding of the relationship between the senate and the president. he did not confuse the two. he knew of the separation of powers and special responsibilities each had. it's as if he had studied at length and perhaps he had, how these relationships existed in the past, imperfect as they were. he was determined to create a new relationship that would best serve the country. i think he did that in large

measure. i think he served as a model for all of us. i know he served as a model for me. >> how so? >> in establishing a willingness to talk to the white house but without feeling it's -- you were in a subordinate role. dole was never in a subordinate role. dole was dole, and nobody doubted that. >> the implication is that the >> the implication is that the dole operating in 1982, 1981 1983 is different from the freshman senator of 1969, 1968 1970? >> it was absolutely different. but that difference is something that happens to all, i think conscientious members of the

senate. different after a month or a year, or your first term. as you begin to understand the relationships and responsibilities. and when you're no longer overwhelmed by your own importance. i remember a senator from new hampshire, it may have been my first day in the senate, i was going -- did go into the senate chamber and he was there to greet me, as were others, and he said, howard, can you smell the marble? >> i said, senator, i don't think so, i don't think marble has a smell. he said, yes, it does. once you smell it, you'll be ruined for life. i thought about that a lot. i don't think i ever smelled marble and certainly bob dole never smelled marble. >> conservatives don't like to hear the word "grow" because you know, he grew in office, that means he moved left. can you explain what real growth is and why it does tend to terrify the right?

>> no, i cannot. it varies from time-to-time. it's that old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i don't think you necessarily grow to the right. in my own case, forgive me for bringing up my own experience, in my own case, i think i grew to the left. not by design, but by force of circumstance. the panama canal was a good example in my life career. i started out in the mainstream, republican opposition to the panama canal treaty. the more i thought about it and studied it, the more i was convinced i was wrong and i should support it, and i did. for those who care to see, i'll show them the scars and bruises about my head and shoulders. there's some who say -- some in

tennessee think i'm a bolshevik. i'm someone who grew to -- >> that's what i mean, growth is almost assumed to be kind of a coopting by the left. >> that's right. dole is certainly regard eded certainly regarded that way by some in the party. what does that say about where the party is going in the last 25 years? >> yeah. well, i don't know. but i think the party is permanent. i think it is not about to collapse. i think its center of gravity will shift and change. i think it's an essential part of our governing mechanism and must endure. >> for example, you both came into this position, dole strikes me, like gerald ford, as a kind of midwest conservative, whose conservativism in many ways is grounded in economics, who had a kind of healthy, you know, healthy skepticism about what

government could do particularly overnight, particularly to bring about the millennium. at the same time, a healthy, leave me alone, not a libertarian but basically, , government should probably stay out of the classroom, out of the board room and out of the bedroom. that's not for the public discourse. yet clearly, in your political career, that line has been crossed and conservativism was redefined. how uncomfortable, if at all was that process of having the social issues increasingly come to define conservetism. >> it certainly was important to me and bob dole. the party and country has moved. we owe a responsibility to understand that and respond to it. not necessarily agree to it but to understand that.

>> you mention how it has moved. my dad was at the house for many years, and he was adamantly opposed to any sort of federal aid to education either directly or implication. now, it's an article of faith, if you're in the house or senate, you better get our share. it's a big share anymore. it's changed. change, once again, is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant economy and democracy. it will continue to change. i don't know how it will change, it may go forward or backward or sideways. change is not a bad word. and it is inevitable in my view. in terms of parties themselves you hear republicans or are conservative and democrats

are liberal. they're neither in my view. their center of gravity will vary from time-to-time, new -- and be conservatives and moderates in one party or the other. those things will change. but the great center still runs america. i don't think it's a mathematical center. i think bob dole understood this more than anybody, it's not a mathematical center, but rather a consensus view that certain things are at the center of our political system. that's what should drive our determination of other more complex issues. >> i remember dole telling me about you and jesse helms. it was a vote -- literally jesse's was the vote, i don't know whether -- but what of

those post 1981 tax -- >> i remember. i guess in 'february of '81, the i guess in february of 1981, the first serious challenge i had as the new majority leader, the first republican leader since bill noland of california, the first challenge i had was when we had to vote on a debt limit increase. i assumed that would all go ok i began to count heads, i think howard green came to me and said, i don't believe you will win this. i got a bunch of freshmen senators in the office around my conference table and we talked and carried on. it was clear i hadn't convinced anybody and we were going to lose that thing. as i went out i saw jesse helms. i said jesse, i have a big problem. i don't think i am going to get these new freshmen senators to vote for the debt limit

increase. after we voted. he said howard can i talk to them. i said of course. so he came back in, jesse did. jesse helms. they were all gathered there. and he said, gentlemen. i understand you are not going to vote for this debt limit increase the and they said i understand that many of you ran against it. i want you to know i never voted for a debt limit increase. beforehand, ronald reagan is my president and i am going to do it and so are you. and i got all but one. [laughter] but that was strom thurmond did the same thing. your earlier question -- what affected senior service have on the new members. in that case, the one with experience had a profound effect on the outcome of that vote. and without success at that vote, i don't know what our leadership would have been like.

>> i remember asking george mitchell if he could describe what it is, whatever quality or qualities, dole had that made him succeed. in the leadership position. he said it was a combination of things but almost a sixth sense about what combination of personalities and legislation change. what mix would work. it's not something you can quantify. it is not something you can learn in a textbook. >> not only that it is not really an intellectual exercise. it is more a personality arrangement. you sort of sense these things rather than hear them or understand them. you sort of guess. but if you guess right, you usually win. >> psychological gift.

in some ways. >> not based on a check. it's based on how you evaluate the person's basic views, beliefs, prejudice and his oppositions. but that is the quality of leadership. i think dole had it in spades. >> but that suggests that you get to know all of your colleagues? inside-out? >> you got to know them. it is more than that. it's hard for me to tell you what i think about this. i don't think it is just knowing them. in some strange way you have got to understand. you have got to be able to anticipate what they're going to say on a particular issue. maybe that's too ethereal for this circumstance, but that's what i think. >> that's not something you can teach in a classroom? >> no, it is not something you can emulate. either you have got it and do it or you don't. >> do you sense he was impatient?

>> dole? >> dole. >> oh, yeah. he was impatient. ambitious, and sometimes criticized for being over ambitious. i never thought that. >> dan rostenkowski told his story, that oh, gosh, before the budget talks, before the government shutdown. >> the first government shutdown. >> yeah. bill clinton called him. and he said, ok, tell me something about dole. he said, give me a leg up. you know, what are we negotiating. he went on about what a great guy dole was. he is the most impatient man on the planet. he said there will come a time when he -- when he will be so desperate to get out of the room he will just give you whatever you want. that may be an exaggeration. and yet, that's the fascinating thing. that impatience that i saw and yet what you are talking about and what senator mitchell talked about requires an extraordinary amount of patience.

to know people. to wait all night. if that's what it takes to bring these things together. >> impatience is a tool. dole was not arbitrary or capricious in his opposition. is grounded in deep conviction on a variety of issues. he is a man who will listen, that is what i would have said. he was a tough adversary. i was surprised that he was elected as my successor. >> when did you decide you were

going to run? >> about a year and a half before i -- >> why? >> always felt that being in congress was not a lifetime job. my wife had terminal cancer then. i had to take care of her. so i left. i had no regrets about that. i will always be grateful for the 18 years i served in the senate. but i had no difficulty in leaving. but the question of my successor came to be very interesting. i thought, i think most people felt that ted stevens would succeed. some thought no it will be pete diminicci. others thought this, that, and the other. i don't felt that most anybody felt that bob dole was going to

be elected majority leader. >> and why? >> no. i don't know why. that's what i think. and i also remember, you know, i didn't vote. i was not going to be back, but i was there. my role as sitting majority leader. i remember the chairman of the policy committee and thus responsible for the election. i remember when they announced the vote. i think, one vote, two votes. they elected. and he leaned over john green and he said burn the ballots so nobody would ask for a recount. bob dole was a fortunate choice. i congratulated him then. and i congratulate him now. he served with distinction. >> a couple of quick things. is the key job of the majority leader persuasion? >> it is a combination of things. certainly persuasion is part of

it, but not the only part of it. it is too complex to define in this brief time, but it is not just persuasion. >> that has great power. the younger members want to get on the agenda or get a particular point across, the majority leader has almost unchallenged authority to deal with that. i cannot remember a single time when i was majority leader that i set a schedule and anybody successfully challenged it. that is a powerful thing. and that may be persuasion, may be intimidation. it is powerful and more than just persuasion. but i would say, yeah, the majority leader is ill-defined not constitutional or statutory, but the second best job in washington.

>> when dole was running for president, 1988, and in 1996 decided wrenchingly to leave the senate. it was harder for him to go than you to go? >> i think so, probably. yeah. >> did he ask for advice? >> did he ask me for advice? >> yes. >> >> no. nor would i have volunteered advice. everybody has to make that decision. that is a very personal decision. nobody advised me. i would not have advised dole if he asked. >> how do you think, say, ten, 20 years from now. a generation that for whom bob dole is a name in a history book, how do you think dole should be remembered? what is his -- >> that is a very good question, richard. i have given a little thought to that not because i want to write the history book just because it is a natural thing to think about.

i think dole will be remembered first as emblematic of world war ii. and that he shed credit on those who survived the war and those who then went on to be of service in the country. that's no small achievement that is something to be remembered for. as i drive by the new world war ii memorial, i thought about that the other day. he will be remembered not just for the stones and pillars which were originally richly deserved but , he will be remembered as a legacy of that tradition. that's what he will be remembered for. and that the generation that fought world war ii came back and continued their service to the coun

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> wow. you've grown since i've been away. good morning everyone. anyone that knows me knows i love vermont. vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. it was the first state to outlaw slavery in its constitution. it proudly elected matthew lie i don't know to congress not withstanning his flouting of the is he digs act. it sacrificed the higher share of his sons in the civil war than perhaps any other states in the union. and i recall vermont senator ralph flanders' dramatic statement 50 years ago helping to bring to close on the mccarthy hearing a story chapter in our history.

today's chapter is of much smaller consequence but i think it appropriate that i share my thoughts with my fellow vermonters. for the past several weeks i have been struggling with a very difficult decision. it is difficult on a personal level but even more difficult because the larger impact in the senate and also the nation. i've been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not i should remain a republican. i do not approach this question lightly. i have spent a lifetime in the republican party. and served 12 years in what i believe is the longest continuous held republican seat in the history. i ran for reelection as a republican just this past fall. and had no thoughts whatsoever then about changing parties.

the party i grew up in was the party of george aiken, ernest gibson reaflflanders, and others. these names may not mean much today outside vermont but each served vermont as a republican senator in the 20th century. i became a republican not because i was born into the party but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many republicans stood for moderation, tolerance, fiscal responsibility. their party, our party, was the party of lincoln. to be sure we had our differences in the vermont republican party. but even our more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive. our former governor dean davis championed act 250 which preserved our environmental heritage.

and in vermont, calvin coolage our nation's 30th president, could point with pride to his state's willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. aiken and gibson and flanders, proudy and bob stafford were all republicans. but they were vermonters first. they spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders. and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in. for 26 years in washington first in the house of representatives and now in the senate i have tried to do the same. but i can no longer do so as a republican. increasingly, i find myself in disagreement with my party. i understand that many people are more conservative than i am. and they form the republican

party. given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them. indeed, the parties' electoral success has underscored the dilemma that i face within the party. in the past without the presidency the various wings of the republican party in congress have had some freedom to argue and influence, and ultimately to shape the parties' agenda. the election of president bush changed that dramatically. we don't live in a parliamentary system but it is only natural to expect that people like myself who have been honored with positions of leadership will largely support the president's agenda. and yet more and more i find i cannot. those who don't know me may have thought i took pleasure in resisting the president's

budget or that i enjoyed the limelight. nothing could be further from the truth. i had serious substantive reservations about that budget as you all know. and the decisions it set in place for the future. looking ahead, i can see more and more instances where i will disagree with the president on very fundamental issues, the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions missile defense, energy, and the environment, and a host of other issues large and small. the largest for me is education. i come from the state of justin smith moral, u.s. the senator from vermont who gave america its land grant college system. his republican party stood for opportunity for all. for opening the doors of public

school education to every american child. now, for some success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of the public schools. in order to misrepresent of my state of vermont my own conscience and principles i stood for my whole life, i will leave the republican party and become an independent. control of the senate -- [cheers and applause] sorry for that. control of the senate will be changed by my decision.

[cheers and applause] i'm sorry for that interruption but i understood it. i will make this change and will caucus with the democrats for organizational purposes. once the conference report on a tax bill is sent to the president. i gave my word to the president that i will not enter that or try to intervene in the signing of that bill. my colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to befriend me any longer. many of my supporters will be disappointed and some of my staffers will see their lives upended. i regret this very much. having made my decision and the weight has been lifted from my shoulders, now hangs heavy on my heart. but i was not elected to this office to be something that i am not. this comes as no surprise to

vermonters because independence is the vermont way. my friends back home -- [cheers and applause] my friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. i appreciate the support they have shown when they have agreed with me and their patience when they have not. i will ask for support and patience again which i understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends. i have informed president bush vice president cheney, and senator lot of my decision. they are good people with whom i disagree. they have been fair and decent to me. and i have informed senator daschle also of my decision. three of these four men disagree with my decision. but i hope