MR. SEA: I want to say something about my friend, Dr. Egilman, first. I want to say something about my friend, Dr. Egilman. There seems to be some allegation that we have a conspiracy, here.

I met David, 12 years ago, about, approximately. Maybe a little longer than that, ago. Something that most of you don=t know, about David, and he does not like it to be advertised, he does not advertise it, himself. David=s father was at Buchenwald. David lost his older brother, whom he never knew, of course, in the concentration camps. I was with David, when we found the memo, that said, that some of the human radiation experiments, if done, would have a little touch of Buchenwald. And David ­­ though he is a very objective guy, I am sure you realize ­­ he took that, personally.

Now, I hope that, I say that, just to explain, a little bit, about why you may be seeing some of the emotional, from our side, that you are seeing. We do not have an agenda, in the sense that, we have talked about it. We have joked, amongst ourselves, because we have been accused of this, before.

We have an agenda. The agenda is, the truth, and we want to see justice done. That is our agenda. It really is.

I am an experiment survivor, too. I was born, in 1958. That was the year of the highest fallout, from nuclear testing. Five years, before, they discovered high levels of radioactive strontium and iodine in human breast milk, especially in the Northeast, in New York and Connecticut, where I was born. And the response to that, was a top level discussion, about whether it was more important, which was more important to national security: breast feeding, or nuclear testing. And the result of that secret deliberation, was that nuclear was more important, to national security.

And so, the AEC secretly funded a U.S. Public Health Service program, to stop breast feeding, and transfer babies to bottle feeding. I was one of those babies. My mother never breast fed me. Not once. Although she was healthy.

So, if I have an insecurity complex, or an oral fixation, you can blame it on the AEC.

But we do have personal connection to this. It is not a political agenda, although we do have, like all the rest of us, a very impassioned belief in truth and justice. And I just hope that that is respected.

And I also want to say that, when we attack the perpetrators of these experiments, and the institutions of government that allowed them, we are not attacking you, personally, unless you choose to interpret that as a personal attack. In which case, the problem is not coming from us. Thank you.

COL. BAILEY: Thank you. Ooh­ah!

MS. GORDON: I am Janet Gordon. When you start talking about bullshit, why, you are talking my native tongue! I grew up, on a ranch. And I have to say, that, the intimidation, and the implied threats, that many people have felt, the threats to your integrity, I want you to turn that around, and guess how it feels, when we are told, we don=t know nothing! What our evidence is, is hearsay! Because our hair fell out, it was not radiation, it was some other cause, and we could not possibly have gotten enough radiation!

So they make the data, how much radiation they wanted us to have had. They don=t bother to look at the reality. Hundreds, thousands, of people, had their hair fall out. That means we got hundreds of rads of radiation, not one rad of radiation, which we officially were designated with.

Instead of looking at the data, and determining what the data told them, what they did, was look at what they wanted the data to say, and then, fit us into it, and told us there was not a problem, except in our heads.

The problem is not in our heads. The problem is in our lack of numbers, of being able to confront this problem, and make honest information come out.

When we first discovered this problem, we asked for information, to go back to the last workshop, and a panel was set up, to review all of the documents. The Off­site Radiation Exposure Review Project. And that group of people took those documents, they even had an oversight committee ­­ the ORAP, for the ORAP, which was the dose assessment advisory group ­­ and what happened, was, these documents were laundered, and, every time we would see documents show up, in the ORAP meetings, and in the dose assessment advisory group meetings, then the next time we saw them, it was used against us, in the courts of law, against us, in the lawsuits. It gave the government additional personnel, to collect the files, to use against us, and the Justice Department was the primary perpetrator, against the people.

They spent more money, keeping us from having any compensation, than they have begun to spend, on compensation for my people. If they would have taken the money they spent, fighting us, from getting the truth, they could have compensated everybody there, and set up public health programs for us, too. And we would not be suffering, the way we are continuing to suffer. And we would not be so angry. And we would not feel personally abused, like we now feel, when you say, AYou are lying, because your hair did not fall out!@

I know my brother=s hair fell out! I saw it! I know he had burns on his skin! I saw it! And I know we buried him, at the age of 26, in his uniform! And I know that his horse died, and the sheep died! And they told us, it was hearsay! Now, that, is an insult! You have, none of you, have been exposed to an insult, in these meetings! That, is an insult! That is an insult, to citizenry! And we don=t deserve it! We are entitled, to not be put through that, any more.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. I got you. Okay, Janet. Thank you, Janet.

Would you like to say something, before we get into the next, the last, phase of this discussion?

MR. KOONUK: Yes. My name is Ray Koonuk. I am from Alaska. Nobody has been picking on the Air Force or the Navy, so I am going to pick on them.

I would like to request, from the Air Force, on this argonne 131 experiment, to release the names of the eight people that were being experimented on, in Point Hope. We have been after those names, for almost three years, and trying to find out who was being experimented on. So I am requesting ­­ I am not going to request ­­ I am demanding these names.

Then, with the Navy, you guys had set up Navy arctic research labs, in my village, and a couple of other villages, in the north. I would like to request for those documents, and why you were stationed on there, doing some research. So I would like to request that. Thank you.

MR. SILVERMAN: Maury Silverman, Silver Spring, Maryland. There is an old saying, you know, that, if we don=t learn from history, and our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat it. And I just wanted to make a brief statement why I believe it is in the government=s interests, it is in the people=s interests, and the taxpayers= interest, and the president=s interest, and the DOE=s interest, the DOJ=s interest, and everybody=s interest, just to let the people come out, about the health ill effects of nuclear radiation.

Several thoughts, about that, is, one, I personally don=t fault that the bomb was dropped ­­ it might, whether it was where it should have been dropped ­­ but, that it was dropped. My father served in the European theater, in World War II, saw the whole thing. The last place he wanted to go was the Pacific theater. He wanted to go home, and I am glad he did get home, because I was born. And I might not have been, more likely than not, if the bomb had not been dropped.

I remember comments, like my buddy, Oscar, here, Oscar sailed out of Pearl Harbor, on December 5, 1941, on the destroyer. He just missed it. And he told me, himself, that it did not bother him that the bomb was dropped.

What does bother me, is, they did not tell the truth, about the health ill effects of radiation, which they knew about. The reason I knew about, to give you a current example, the EPA, or the FDA, they will not let any substance go out in the marketplace, or the environment, or out in society, unless there is safety testing. And the Manhattan Project knew about the ill effects of radiation, because they had all the toxicology studies worked out, all the pathology studies, on an organ system level, in animal experiments. Several years ago, I found volumes of this, in a used book shop, up in Frederick, Maryland. It was all on the shelf, there. They knew, before they ever dropped the bomb, how toxic this stuff was.

Another observation, just reading the newspapers, or reading newspapers, every day, and I see world problems, that our society, and president, the administration, any administration that is there, has to deal with nuclear proliferation. We went to war, in 1990, and Gulf War. The main reason, was not just oil. It was because the Iraqis had a nuclear program, that was close to developing a bomb, according to our intelligence. We could not let that happen. We had the same worries about North Korea, maybe about places like South Africa, Pakistan, wherever.

And I asked the question, would this ever have happened, if they had simply dropped the bomb, and then told the truth, about what was dropped? Okay. Could it have prevented everything that happened, through the Cold War? There was a study that was published, last year, that, in 50 years, some just short of $4 trillion was spent, in taxpayer money, on the bomb, and the way to deliver it. And I ask the question, was that, in retrospect? You know, I would agree with everybody here, hindsight is 20/20. Foresight never really is that. Would that money have been better spent, in the cause of peace, if it had been spent by civilization around the world, to build the infrastructure, to have a happy society ­­ you know, the schools, roads, bridges, health care, everything ­­ what a better world we might have had, if they had simply told the truth, about the toxicity of this stuff.

Government policy, now, you have got a DOE, that probably is better directed, to develop renewable, nontoxic sources of energy. If you all would just let the truth out, about what happened, to all these people=s health, no sane person would want to keep manufacturing this toxic trash. No, in the history of the Cold War, no sane government, not even the Communists ­­ they knew about health and disease, and living and dying, more than our. My father used to say, AThe Russians took it, worse than anybody, in World War II. They lost more people.@ They would not have developed the atomic bomb, if the walls of secrecy had not been building.

So I just say, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes, in history, if we don=t learn from it. And it is really in all our interests. Let the truth out. They are under budget constraints, and, probably, part of that, they don=t want to compensate these people, because of the deficit, and all that. But, hell, that would be a small investment, in terms of, what could be saved, if the truth had been out, and it reorders public policy and needs, and the direction the world is going, because the world has become smaller, with this mass communication, and we need to learn from all this.

And we just need to let the truth out. It will not hurt anybody. We don=t need to blame everything. Let=s just look at it, for what it is, and what it was, and learn from it.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. And this, you know, sometimes ­­ and you will talk, Doctor ­­ sometimes, we have to disagree, Brother C., to agree. Janet, sometimes we have to.

VOICE: Agree to disagree.

COL. BAILEY: No. Yes. Right. But, we are ­­

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

VOICE: You cannot disagree to agree.

COL. BAILEY: No.

VOICE: Agree to disagree.

COL. BAILEY: No. To agree to agree. To agree to agree. That is what this is all about. We are trying to, that is right, we are trying to reach common ground. That is right. And I know that we should, from time to time, there should be some vitriol, and we want to hear, of course, your stories. That is why you came here. And I want to, as a part of the government, of course, to be responsive. So I am a very emotional guy, as well, as you can see that.

We are going to, we are at a point, now, where we have got to address, unfortunately, very quickly, where do we go? What is the next step? All of our concerns, we have heard those concerns, very eloquently presented, very poignant stories, of what has happened to people.

VOICE: Why don=t you tell us the next step? You are in control.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. I will. Good start. Okay. Good start.

It is obvious to me, that the government and its people need to establish some kind of dialogue. I mean, meaningful. Is that profound? Meaningful dialogue. We have got to get beyond the acrimony.

And so, the question is, how does one go about doing that? How does the government, and the people it serves, get beyond the acrimony, the trust? We have got to have trust, et cetera.

And you all, I think, have kind of, en masse, recommended that you have more citizen involvement. I want to write that down. You have that, already, right?

So we have got to find, we may not be able to solve it, right now, but we have got to find better ways, and I think Brother, Dr. Hamm, recommended that we have a group set up, as a way to do that.

VOICE: Not just citizen involvement, but people who are from those areas ­­

COL. BAILEY: Got you. Right.

VOICE: Independent scientific input, in support ­­

COL. BAILEY: Independent scientific input. We are going to write those down. Because of the time, what we will do, we will write those things down. We will make them a part of the official record. You will get a chance to look at those, and then, we will come up with the most doable.

Janet?

MS. GORDON: Yes. When you say, Aindependent,@ they said that the scientists on the Advisory Committee were independent.

Janet. They said that the scientists who were going to be put on the Advisory Committee would be independent, but it turned out most of them had a vested interest. We don=t want the scientists who caused the problem, or who have had the contracts, being the scientists who are interpreting, or supposedly representing us. They don=t represent us. They are the ones who caused the problem for us.

COL. BAILEY: So you are recommending a citizen identify?

VOICE: That we get some approval ­­

COL. BAILEY: Okay.

VOICE: ­­ of who is independent, and who is not.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. Citizens involvement, in approving who is on those panels?

Yes.

MR. BROWN: Cooper Brown. Would it be in order, for the Task Force to have a ten­minute caucus?

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MR. BROWN: No. I, see, this is getting, I mean, I am sitting here, watching what is happening, here, and Colonel Bailey started to throw out some very good ideas, and, immediately, we are interrupting, and throwing out ideas. And I don=t see that as constructive. And I think the Task Force needs to have a five­minute caucus.

VOICE: But the reporter, the court reporter, has to leave, at 4:30.

COL. BAILEY: Oh, in the interest of time, I think, and, some other, we will have to take this, this mode.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

COL. BAILEY: You have got to talk. As a matter of fact, I would like, I need to introduce somebody. Mr. Caplan? We have Phil Caplan, from the White House, who close it out. So we have got time constraints. We can still identify your recommendations, get the ideas up, and, at some later time, we can share those with you, and.

VOICE: Five more minutes of brainstorming.

COL. BAILEY: Yes. Go ahead.

MR. FARBER: In terms of commenting on the independent scientific input, I have had some recent experiences ­­ hi, Stuart Farber, radium assessment project ­­ in terms of independent scientific input, I want to give one concrete example, of how important this is, and how it is not being done, even as we go forward, into the future. And it relates, again, to the issue I have been involved in: the nasal radium issue.

There was a conference, at Yale University, in September, 27^th, 28^th, at the same time the final report was being issued. The title of my talk, as submitted, AWhat is wrong with the process by which radiation risks are assessed?@, was changed, by the conference organizers, to, AThe process for evaluation.@

When I called the conference organizers, I was told ­­ AWhy was my title changed, without my input?@ ­­ and I was told, ADon=t worry. We did not anything that smacked of controversy.@ And this was a CDC/VA-sponsored workshop.

When I asked why the panel, as constituted, the official panel, or the, quote, Aexperts,@ that were going to ask, bring back recommendations, to CDC, initially did not include any representatives of the public, they finally put on, no one with any scientific background, in terms of independent scientific background. When I asked why I was not included, as a scientist who brought the issue forward, over the last two years, I was told, quite directly, by Dr. Ian Stolick, ADon=t worry about it, Mr. Farber. You will have your 15 minutes on your soapbox.@

I submitted my handouts, for the workshop, as a certified medical workshop, sponsored by the VA, to Durham, North Carolina. All my handouts were failed to be reproduced and distributed at the workshop.

In questioning this, afterwards, of the VA, I was told, in 20 years of their organizing certified medical workshops, they could not recall an example, where an invited speaker ­­ and I was, finally, an invited speaker, on the agenda ­­ handouts were failed to be reproduced, in their entirety, on an issue.

Those handouts included my Senate testimony before Senator Lieberman=s subcommittee hearing on the issue, my letter to Senator Chaffee documenting false testimony by the Navy before his committee, as far as the initial use of radium on submariners being a human radiation experiments, which the Navy had memos attesting to, and other matters.

When I called Yale, about it, as to why those handouts were not reproduced, they said, AThey were just political, and irrelevant to the subject of the workshop.@

I think, you know, we can talk in generalities, but these are examples of recent events, that show, on the most important issue, in terms of health effects, noted in the Advisory Committee report, the scientists who are involved in follow­up are blatantly displaying animus towards the data, towards the issues, and towards the facts of the matter. And if we don=t get away from this, in future reviews, of health effects, the whole process will be tainted.

COL. BAILEY: How can we fix it? What is your recommendation to fix that?

MR. FARBER: The recommendation is, that there be some mechanism for independent scientific input, that people who have demonstrated credentials, or involvement, in issues, be on these expert panels, so the issues don=t get swept under the rug. So that, in syntheses of this Yale workshop, you don=t have representatives of government saying, AOh, if there are any excess health effects, they are small, on brain cancer, and nasal radium.@ The study that exists shows a 5.3­fold excess of brain cancer.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MR. FARBER: I know, but I am just saying, these are important, these are concrete examples, not generalities.

COL. BAILEY: Well, you made the recommendation. We will ­­ that ­­

Okay.

MR. RUDNER: Bob Rudner. I am a researcher with the Alliance of Atomic Veterans. And, if you put down, Aeducating the media,@ it is very important.

I have been writing on the subject, for 15 years. The last paying article I had was with the Chicago Reader, in 1986, after the crossroads anniversary. And they told me, from that point on, I was too emotionally involved, to be objective. AEducate another writer.@

And I have been doing that, with others, one, from New City. His article looked very much like mine, after seven months.

And, so, basically, they are putting us out of business, with what they call Athe cult of objectivity,@ because you cannot have a point of view, on this thing.

As for the rest of the media, we are dealing with companies owned by Westinghouse, and General Electric, which are reactor-makers. So everything is sieved out, and that is what we have to deal with. Also, we need to have some credibility, too, and we would like to try to get a better Internet system going, so we can put our works up, so people can read them, and know what we have to say, and look at the facts, that may actually not be presented, or have been burned, or destroyed, in the government, because a lot of the people that have been doing this research have come up with amazing things, on their own. So I think we should have that kind of input.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MR. FARBER: Better Internet connections, to get things up, from citizens.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you.

Dr. O=Toole?

MR. O=TOOLE: Add to that, Afree.@ Free Internet connections.

I think the notion of doing an oral history, of the subjects= experiment, is a good one, that we ought to explore. Doing an oral history, of the radiation subjects= experience, as was done, for the history of the science behind the experiments, themselves.

COL. BAILEY: Dr. Egilman, my brother! Ooh­ah!

MR. ALLINGHAM: I am sorry, Dave. You have dominated. I think the professionals ought to stand down, for a couple of minutes, and let the victims that are here make these suggestions. I think you are losing track of the point of Reverend Hamm=s.

I am sorry. This is Fred Allingham. I think, I think, this barrage of stuff is losing track of what I heard Reverend Hamm say. He said, ALet the victims form a committee, come up with a position, meet with a government committee, without the professionals, without the lawyers, but with arbitrators, to try to resolve the problem.@

I am hearing what the requirements should be, for the experts. I am hearing stuff about media. That is not the intent of what Reverend Hamm said, and I would like all the professionals ­­ and I mean you, David! I mean you, Sandra!

MS. MARLOW: I am a victim!

MR. FARBER: No. You are a professional, all right?

MS. MARLOW: No!

MR. FARBER: And see if any of these people want to talk.

MS. MARLOW: Fred! Fred!

COL. BAILEY: I hear what you are saying, Mr. Allingham, but for the government to get a wide view of these good ideas, we need to capture all the ideas, get the ideas of professionals as well, you guys, Mr. ­­ I know, I got you ­­ and Mr. Hamm=s idea, we have already captured, which was a great idea. But we need to get everybody involved in this. Good ideas.

MS. MARLOW: I have got a good idea.

I don=t want to be a professional victim, Fred. My dad served, all his life.

I would like to nominate people in the humanities, such as, Elie Weisel, and if Mr. Weisel is not able to come, I would really respect someone that he would like to nominate, to serve.

I also think it might be very worthwhile, to work with the departments, in us, and develop sensitivity, towards one another. And that is why I think the humanities are very important.

COL. BAILEY: Okay.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MR. BYRD: I know you are planning to have the White House representatives here, but one of the things I wanted to point out, for the record, is that, the executive committee of the Task Force has been trying, for some time, now, to meet with him, or some other representative in the White House. And since we have met with a number of other agencies, we want to specifically request, here on record, to meet with the White House. We have written letters to the president. We have gotten calls back from the president, I mean, letters back from the president.

COL. BAILEY: Any other? Any other recommendations, for the next step, where we ought to go?

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MR. STEINBACH: Well, Colonel Bailey, you know that I am very brief. John Steinbach, Visual Information Project.

Just on the issue of research, and access to information, I will tell you that your agencies are not exactly user­friendly. I mean, you have information rooms, you have libraries, and so on, you have librarians, but they are not librarians that will sit down, and will actually help you formulate searches, and so on and so forth, and you can literally spend hours and hours and hours. For example, I tried to get a list of the contractees, contractors, for the Department of Energy, last year, and I was told, for three hours, no such list existed, until someone accidentally put down a book, about that thick, that said, ADOE Awardee List.@

And I said, AWhat is this?@

And that is what it was. And it was absurd. And I wasted three hours.

So, what you need is, somebody, each of the agencies, in their office, whose sole assignment is to help researchers formulate their request, formulate their researches, and so on.

COL. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma=am?

MS. REID: I would just recommend that we have balance, in everything, on any of these committees. Equal representation. I think it has been well-written, in the past.

Sorry. Sandra Reid.

COL. BAILEY: She wants balance, on the committees.

Dr. Egilman?

DR. EGILMAN: Yes. I want to second that. I think that that includes the Interagency Working Group. My understanding of the agreement that was made, as that, the stakeholder, the victims ­­ my preferred term ­­ were going to be allowed to participate in the decisionmaking process. I think this is a beginning, for that, but I think that there need to be victims, on the other side of the table, with a vote, or however you are going to make it, as part of the consensus group. I do not think it is enough, to just hear from people. I think they must be part of the group that makes the decision. And I understand that that is anethma to the history of how things have done, gone on, in the past, but think of the credit you can get, for setting precedents. NIOSH did that, with their notification program.

So I think that, just because it has not been done, before, does not mean it cannot be done, now, and it may not be 50/50, but there still must be people at the table.

COL. BAILEY: Somebody else?

MS. AZIM: Dr. Rosen? Dr. Rosen has something, Claud.

COL. BAILEY: Dr. Rosen. Right here. How are you doing, Doctor?

DR. ROSEN: I have been waiting, patiently. I am the invisible man. I want to make a correction.

Oscar Rosen, National Association of Atomic Veterans. I want to make a comment, and a correction. I know it is not very important, but, the ship I left Pearl Harbor on, on December the 5^th, was a heavy cruiser, not a destroyer. And, to this day, I am happy as can be, that I never had to serve on a destroyer, because I saw what happened to them, in heavy seas.

The other is, the comment is about, openness and secrecy in government. As Maury has said, and most of us know, the scientists who designed the nuclear weapons, and so forth, they knew, all along, what the medical and biological effects of the radiation released by the bombs would do, to human beings. After the bombs were dropped on Japan, in August, of 1945 ­­ I learned this, years later ­­ a team of, a military medical team, was sent to Japan, by General Leslie Groves, you all know who he was, and its assignment was to determine that there was no radiation left over, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the bombs, so it would be safe for the occupation forces to go in.

And, not long after that, General MacArthur ­­ you know, he was the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Japan ­­ he issued a directive, prohibiting the Japanese media from publishing any articles, at all, about the effects of the radiation, from the bombs. And this information was suppressed, for a very, very long time, in Japan. So the troops that went into Japan, for occupation purposes, and cleanup purposes, and other, military visitors, and so forth. They did not know about the radiation. They only found out, years later, when they were getting sick, and began to hear things about the radiation.

And, just one more thing. When Maury said that I was glad that the bomb was dropped, I was very happy that the bombs were dropped, because that meant the end of the war, but I did know, then, about the radiation from the bombs, and I doubt that any other enlisted personnel knew about the radiation from the bombs. But I still will not change my mind about, how happy I was, when the bombs were dropped, because they ended the war.

That is it.

COL. BAILEY: Cooper?

MR. HONICKER: My hand has been up, all day!

I have got a stopwatch. I am going to make a 30­second comment. I was very saddened.

Cliff Honicker, Cliff, all you agency guys, just drop on over, sometime, and we can finish this discussion! I am sorry. It is a bad joke. It took five seconds.

I am a little sad about the last 30 minutes of this discussion. It seemed like, from Monday afternoon, to Tuesday, 3:00, we were doing real well. And I hope, at some point, we can do what Reverend Hamm suggested, and pull together our mediators, and you pull together your mediators, and let=s take the stumbling blocks out of the loop, and let=s just play a AWhat if?@ game.

They do that, at Hewlett Packard. They do that, in the military. Why don=t we do a AWhat if?@ game? What is the best possible solution that we can do, to resolve this, quickly, effectively, economically? And let this be a victory, not only for President Clinton, not only for Colonel Bailey, not only for the radiation victims, but for democracy. Let=s give our kids, let=s give my fourteen-, and ten-, and four­year­old kids, something to have hope about.

That is all.

MR. BROWN: Cooper Brown. What I am hearing, is, the strong desire to continue dialogue. What troubles me, about that, is that, I think, if we have paid any attention to what has been said, the last two days, the message should be very clear to the Interagency Working Group, that this community is not happy with the ­­ not happy, by far, with the ­­ government=s proposed implementation plan, and, quite frankly, I think the ball is in the Interagency Working Group=s court, at this point, because, unless the Interagency Working Group is willing to come much, is to move way beyond their proposed implementation plan, then, personally, I cannot see much reason in continuing the dialogue.

COL. BAILEY: I need to comment on, again, eternal optimist, Cooper Brown. If there is any glimmer of hope, that we can get, derive, anything out of this, whether, again, whether we like the Advisory Committee=s report, or not, I think we ought to proceed, in trying to exact that, I call it, the goodness. There are some good things, that the Advisory Committee has recommended, and Colonel Bailey has been charged in working one aspect of that. That is public openness. It does not give a remuneration, but it is about Colonel Bailey=s daughter, your daughter, the future of this great country.

So, I think, for us to say, AFait accompli! We ought to stop, if we don=t get what we want,@ is the wrong approach.

We have got to, somehow or another ­­ and Janet and I are going to cry, again, before this thing is over ­­ we have got to get to the point, where we reach common ground, we recognize that it takes just a little piece of the elephant at a time, to get where we want to go. We have got to be cooperative. We cannot stop talking. When you stop talking, to the people that can make a difference, nothing happens. And so, the people that we are trying to support, the ones that we are talking about, the ones in the past, and the ones in the future, are going to suffer.

So we have an opportunity, you have an opportunity, to give input. We are going to consider that input. We cannot guarantee that everything you recommend, and you all understand that.

Just as Dr. O=Toole said, this morning, this is was a first step, and some people disagree with that. But it is, if you look at it. Just think about it. Until this administration came into being, there was no effort to open the books. I worked this project, for two years, looked in documents, double­checked, had the Advisory Committee to go out, when they did not believe that Colonel Bailey was doing the right thing, I said, ACome on, and go with me.@

I took eight of them out to Suitland, Maryland. They spent two weeks with me. They said, AThis guy is all right!@ They were double-checking.

So we have got to, it is a waste of our times, and our energies, if we say this is for naught. I believe, with all my heart, that we have a chance ­­ I don=t care if it is a small difference ­­ we have a chance to make a difference. Brother C.

MS. MELAMED: The meeting is now officially closed, because the transcriber has to leave. It is past 4:30.

You can make a comment. Go ahead. But the meeting is now closed, over, officially.

VOICE: I want to hear from the White House, on the record, please, if you have to pay overtime.

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the panel discussion concluded.)