not as long as i'm alive. [laughter] so that was another side of this. i think we have run to the end of our time. all i can say is you can see why jim burns is one of the great founding fathers not only a roosevelt scholarship that of american political science and historical writing in this country and all i can say is thank god for williams college for bringing us all together. thank you all for being here. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you overcoming and let's give one more hand to our

if i will elementary school in getting the overtime for the lowest achieving kids come from scores from the national assessment of education and progress in this picture where you can see from 1971-2008 test scores are going up for ninth

graders in reading and math and going up more in american kids than for white kids. if this is what is going done it embraces the hypothesis that one of the best ways to lock in head start benefits is to expand access to the head start program. >> i will get myself in a little trouble here. it is important to know that the bush administration was intent on reforming head start as well and it resulted in what i would describe as warfare between head start's series of programs and the national head start association and the bush administration. now the obama administration is doing reforms that are equally as pervasive and important as the ones that bush tried to do and the national head start association appears to be cooperating. this is an amazing story that the administration and head stars are working hand in glove

to achieve the program and part of it must be do to the next speaker, yasmina vinci. >> thank you for having us all here for this conversation. i have one more thanks. earlier this year when head start was in danger of having a number of children cut out of it, 300 prominent researchers signed this letter urging congress to maintain the current levels of head start. you were in sync with the nobel laureate dr. hagman who wrote to the commission earlier. early head start programs, the will not to cut. i came two years ago and every day i am with the brightest in

early childhood education in classrooms where i see head start's power and the possibilities. i hear from head start alumni all the time with teachers, doctors and lawyers. hockey team trainers from texas training the u.s. olympic team ice hockey team. prizewinning poets, public servants. the treasurer of the united states. this year's grammy winner, ask for and the sprawling --esper z --esperanza spaulding. instead of sharing the story that will focus on two points about reforming early childhood education. first of all research really

matters. it matters because it shows over and over again ways that head start works plus ways that head start can work even better. the 2002 impact study or this stack of studies. i don't know if you can see it in the back. research matters to head start. let me cite to use some of the things that those 300 researchers to congress. head start makes it less likely children will decrease the need for special education services in elementary schools. for those of you in montgomery county i want to point one of the studies where they found the public school -- $10,100 per child per year in special education costs for children who had been in full day head start.

head start graduates will be more likely to graduate high school and college plus a head start child as much as 25% less likely to smoke as an adult. there are many more benefits of head start. my second point is head start in 2011 is not your father or mother's head start. much change has taken place. the 2007 reauthorization. the administration roadmap to excellence and all the reforms we support strongly and natural progress that is happening. the natural shift in the field. what i see and this is my experience is i see head stock collaborating like never before with schools in the communities. last week i was in montana and 30 head start programs told me

1300 community partners would quit. head start programs are getting between teachers and you know that in rural areas in vibrant head start, american indian and alaskan natives, that is not easy task. they're using dentists to improve teacher child education and individualized instruction and transforming parent engagement. i see enormous creativity and innovation on the ground. most of these reforms have not begun when the impact study was underway. early head start study was done when the program was brand new. sometimes it seems this study began at a very different time with all the concerns about the

crossovers and no shows is being used to make sweeping generalizations and recommendations for even budget decisions which brings me to my third point. this is a tricky time for head start and all early childhood education. most of us were working toward once in a generation reform. this administration, educator's, researchers, all in line around a reform agenda. because our agenda is about improving outcomes for the most vulnerable youth head start is a cornerstone of that agenda. to be more effective we need bachelor's degree level features, smaller classroom sizes, better support for a

special lead families, better connections with schools. here is the tricky part. we must work very carefully to get to that reform. otherwise we won't have the resources. we must honor our differences but we must have some of them aside to get to the larger reforms like better system court nation, efforts to cut red tape and inspire innovation. we want better research also. reforms require investments. no matter what delivery system, at the moment we're staring down the barrel of a cannon loaded with programs. what to do? my proposal is very modest.

unlike to invite everybody to come and visit the new head start and see for yourself. practices that helps improve and reform and important conversations that can help us all through this time and finally let us be aware of what headlines we could prompt or what we might inadvertently supplied in this shoot first and came later political environment. we all want the window of opportunity open for future jazz greats and poets like matthew him who grew up in a very violent neighborhood in portland, oregon and wrote my experience in head start gave me tools to say no to the violent contract, neighborhood offered to its young voice. at that early age help to guide

me into the adult have become. i believe this is the red line between my creative life, sense of self-worth and early success as a poet and my experience in a head start. i can unimagined my life without the dynamic experience of head start. thank you. [applause] >> the couple questions to the panel and then your opportunity to do the same. i want to say something yvette mentioned. the way this review will work is in the next three years, 1/3 of a head start programs will be reviewed every year. that review will result in a minimum of 20% of the review programs failing. that is not something that came from the redefinition commission. we never could have gotten agreement on the read designation commission with something like that.

for me that sent an enormous signal to the country and head start centers that this is real and 25% of you have to compete for your money. i want you to talk about this, the internal discussion in administration and i would like to hear you respond to help head start centers deal with it. >> that 25% is part of a proposal. we are moving into releasing a final proposal by the end of the year. there is a three year transition period and based on the proposal within that three year transition period we will be looking at data coming after june 9th, 2000, -- 2009. then we collect data on all our

programs. with that, most of you probably know we monitor about 525 programs a year. it takes those 5 funded 25 programs in the first year, all of them based on the proposal that will be compared to seven conditions. within those seven conditions if you don't get to the 25% in the proposal we would have to kick in an eighth condition. the proposal tops a little bit about we suggested two things which we got some comments on. the two things would be using non compliances. for those who don't know when we are monitoring reviews we make decisions around whether programs are in compliance or not with the performance standards. the second possible option would be another instrument. to be very honest of the 16,000

comments we received we save the majority on the 25%. this is not the right thing to do but believe it or not the head start community also realizes it is time to hold our programs more accountable. many of the comments we did receive were in a positive light. programs would like more information on how this works and i want to clarify that that is just a proposal. some mechanism to get to that but those are the pieces that you will see in the final regulation. >> what the programs think? >> we talked of programs. we had consultation daily. that inform their national response. the sense of the arbitrariness

of 25%, take 40 or 50 or however many you find that don't work, that 25 -- we have a quota if someone has to go in and you are going 30-1/2 mile. the major objection was the arbitrariness of that and we are as good as our programs are and people were judged by the lowest usually. so they were very aware of the competition was going to be a fact of life. they did not say it is not 10% or less. it was get them all and move

forward. >> thank you for that. one other thing that is important to emphasize leads to a logical question. the difference between this system you have invented and i have seen this in operations of this is an important point. it is going to be based in part on actual observation in the classroom with this instrument that enjoys good reputation from the university of virginia actually going into the classroom and seeing what happens. >> randomly selected class room. >> the point is the judgment is based on what transpires between teachers and students in the classroom. everybody could recognize that without that any evaluation is flawed. you have to know what happens in the classroom.

how did you select a class war confident that that is a good instrument? are you satisfied -- a lot are using it so that they can practice and make sure they're doing the right thing. are you confident? >> we absolutely are. class was part of the last reauthorization of head start with regards -- as we continue to get a lot of feedback and talk with developers and researchers we feel confident in the data we get out of class. it is research based, validated. you can give programs their scores in the information right away and make decisions about how they will use that information in order to design professional development or change what is happening in the classroom or make decisions about your curriculum. how are you doing with these limitations? >> what does the head start program think?

>> i want to remind that the impact studies showed head start environment to be already higher than in other settings. this is the teacher child interaction improving the overall experience. >> the ones i was reading over, monitoring and accountability proposal is -- stems from the fundamental challenge that we have no idea what these skills are carrying these long-term benefits that we see for head start for kids in the 60s, 70s and 80s and the tennessee class size experiment. for the studies for whom we now have data when they are adults we have reading and math scores

when they were young and data on their adult outcomes and we see that outcomes persist. most people assume the same is generating long-term benefits is some sort of early childhood impact on social, emotional or behavioral skill. we have no direct measures what they are so right now we assume they matter through process of elimination like social policies. it has to be that because it is not the other stuff that we see. >> there is a lot of that. >> i am sympathetic to the administration. we don't know exactly what the target is we should be focusing on. it is hard to see what a good head start program is if you don't know what the skills that is that generate long-term

benefits. >> if the developer of the class were hear what would he say? >> i don't know but i know what i would say. these studies jens ludwig talks about, it is a little like magic. >> dark matter is magic. >> a beautiful madonna in every log and these of very skilled woodcarvers working on these studies. i don't necessarily think this is a false positive. we know a lot from other studies about the things that carry long term benefits and part of it is the cognitive effects, language effect and part of it is self regulation. and other social, emotional

skills. you don't have to just look at the u.s. literature. there is literature worldwide establishing links between early impact and later impact on things like crime for example. i think we have a pretty good idea. it is not one of these domains or all of these domains. i think you need measures of those. cognitive measures, measures on the things that are on achievement tests but i think there's a need for the federal government to support the development, to go back to the drawing board on measures. right now each state is faced with the job of creating measures each program is faced with creating measures. i don't think that is a great way for that to happen.

it is an opportunity for a lot of people to fail. everybody would be happy using the same measures and some federal effort to develop those for told field would be hugely productive to measure not just the cognitive stuff which we are pretty good at but social skills, self regulation and other things so programs can adopt these with some confidence that they really measure what they're supposed to. >> the focus of the so-called drop-off in elementary years is based on cognitive achievement which data shows lead to half of the equation for success. i am in consumer research, not a producer so you know what he is referring to when he says the data shows cognitive achievement is less than half of the

equation for success. >> we do need more research around the social emotional piece to measure a child's progress. you need something we can use. i am not surprised we don't have those assessments because at the heart of much of that our cultural issues. what does a particular social behavior mean? generally speaking i am thinking what does a child use literacy for? what do they use language for? to maneuver their way through the world.

to negotiate. to tried to intercede with their peers. they use it to get what they need out of adults in a school environment and another environment. while it is this hazy box because we don't have the measures, we do see the result of a child with good sulfur dilatory skills who mastered the literacy area and put it down the road. we do need some more measures. we need something here. my caution would be just as it really matters when you talk about assessment on who the assessment was validated, so you

can't just pick anything out of a box and put it out here. this is careful work that has to be done in a systematic way. but i would hope that as we pursue this work we don't go back to the mentality we had for a number of years as relates to head start. it is sort of up or down. it shouldn't be this either/or dichotomy. what do we need to be doing to make all of early childhood reap the needs of children and families in a high-quality way? that is what this conversation not to be about. >> the congress and president focus their attention on one of the smallest parts of the federal budget to get all the savings so far. appropriated money.

that is where head start is. appears there are about to do it again especially if the committee is not successful. there will be automatic cuts. what you doing to make sure head start doesn't get a big cut of the type they organized the letter about? >> turn it over to the advocate. >> part of our assessment is if people knew enough about it there's a big graduate campaign about impact in the community in montana where chairman rayburg was visiting early head start and he was impressive. if he was not impressed with

that, are don't know. those are the kinds of things that are part of the strategy. to really allow members of congress to see not only the research that comes across or those that don't get head started in trouble but to see in reality. he talked to the parents and held the kids and played in the sandbox and listened to community people. an elementary school principals that i see the difference. those are the kinds of people the community board members were talking about the accountability of head start.

we're trying to change minds one at a time. >> many people would say it remains one of the flaws of members of congress and other elected officials that they are five times more impressed by one experience like that than ten random assignment studies. you are on the right path. raise your hand, tell us your name and asked a question. it does not last long. 45 seconds or so. right here in the back on your right. >> a couple of direct questions. >> tell us your name. >> my name is frank bell, educational consultant. i worked in the field of preschool education and early childhood education for many years with unicef promoting all of this in the middle east with some success. amazes me there's still a struggle here when most of the rest of the world has accepted

the linkage between healthy productivity, healthy education and achievement and early childhood education. first of all, we are talking about numbers here. somebody mentioned the million beneficiaries. what does that represent in terms of real need and what are we only getting to a million when in fact actually collapse in families and collapsing economies would suggest there are many millions of children so where are we on this? and by increasing the numbers somehow or making a case for larger numbers we might win a political case of bringing this to the attention of the people who make decisions about budgets? you talk about 360 assessments. i am researcher as well. the 360 assessment if it really is involved everybody. to what extent our parents

involved in 36 the assessments? that brings us directly to a number of issues raised that are measurable or difficult to measure indicators like cultural indicators, behavioral indicators and so on? if we don't get to the families or that did that reinforces anything in that small gap we call education in schools or an environment where children are getting special attention nothing really will stick and one of the reasons it is not sticking is we are not involving parents. >> let's do the first one. about 900,000 kids in head start every year. >> currently there are 960,000 children in head start. we have head start and early head start. what we know based on census data for are head stock kids

we're serving 40% of the eligible population. in early head start, we are serving less than 5% of the eligible population. a lot of that is based on money. on average hour head start kids are $8,000 a year. early head start is $11,000. >> in addition we have state creek a programs -- pre k programs. >> eligible population is the finding characteristics at a moment in time. children below the poverty level. children don't stay below the poverty level many times. people are moving in and out of poverty. it is hard to target at any given time characteristics of the kids in head start change,

the target population changes. i actually think the number of kids we have to serve to get the target population is much larger. we are not serving to the target population. >> if you add state preschool you up to half. >> that leads a lot of kids. >> half of kids who are poor at that time or will be for later. >> the one thing unwanted to add to the discussion of access, i talk about head start and i hear people saying things like we should be focused on improving teacher pay and reducing class size in head start and increasing the fraction of head start teachers with the aids all

of which will cost money but it is not true what you asked, that we only have a subset of the kids we wanted roldan the program. in a world in which the administration said we are going to spend $50 billion more on head start per year this panel would have no trouble agreeing on how we would like that and have no trouble agreeing how to allocate the extra $50 billion but in a world of constrained resources there are questions whether the marginal billion dollars should focus on increasing program quality for a given number of kids or expanding access. debra phillips and i wrote a paper -- >> the one we mentioned earlier. >> we argue there is evidence to suggest there is diminishing marginal returns to program quality and in a world of

constrained resources the height of banks in result pushing on the access dimension rather than improve program quality recognizing both would generate benefits -- great things to do if we have the money but if we only had the money to do one i would prioritize access over -- >> indy 36 the assessment parents are involved. >> monitoring 360 is an internal peace within the federal government. it is our effort to manage the information we collect. what i want to add is what is required for parent involvement in local programs, parents have a lot of leverage in terms of what kind of curriculum being used for the people being hired and how is the money being spent. at the local level parents have to be very involved in the

design of the program. we have performance standards in head start. very specific standard about the participation of parents on policy councils and committees as well as all the programs for relationships with parents in order to help parents achieve individual bowls. it is that the individual level and the program level where parents can get involved. >> next question? >> all away in the back. >> tom schulz with the school officers. two questions for steve. the core of your presentation is comparing effect sizes from impact study of head start with several other types of studies. i'm interested in whether those studies are capturing information on disadvantaged kids that are similar in their background characteristics to the kids in head start. a week comparing apples to

apples? second question would be what is your point of view on the reform strategy that the administration is following? would you recommend anything different other than your call for more effective practice? >> thank you. we are comparing apples to apples. to the extent there are differents and the population they're biased against studies that serve broader population because effect are bigger than more disadvantaged kids are. lets only look at the kids who could get in to head start. the differences are bigger if you do that. i applaud what the administration is doing but it is a classic management problem

here. there is a natural reaction in any administration of any program when there is bad news to increase regulation. i think head start need the opposite. head start and early head start have philosophical models that are not the most effective. what i don't see is a reconsideration of that and the willingness to take off a lot of the constraints to move in the direction of deregulating, allowing innovation and moving away from this model. the health and development program is a different model which has impacts for english language learners, an order of magnitude larger than early head start.

at multiple sites around the country. when you have that kind of evidence you have to allow fundamental reconsideration of the basic model and allow people to try different approaches constrained by producing results in the classroom for kids. >> an important part of the science paper large-scale 3 k programs doing much better than head start. that is part of the argument that suggests head started underperforming. i want to open the door to research food fight. sample direction in a continuity design. i want to say i am not convinced these free k programs are better. >> i want to read this state is

in favor of innovation but one of the things we have to keep in mind is head start is a local program. it is federal to local. we haven't added any additional regulation accept what is coming through competition. also want to be clear that the pieces in competition and things that programs should have been doing for many years. now we are just revamping our efforts to monitor and increase professional development to ensure these things are happening so that we see progress for kids and families in the program. >> let's go to this side. come on up here. >> i am the director of the nonprofit education and advocacy group young families. i have a research related

question related to the randomized controlled group. it is two closely related questions. at understand it to have a randomized control group effectively you have to multiply this by thousands of times. you have two similarly situated children and give one child the services in head start nt and give the child knows service and you compare which child is better and by how much over period of time. two closely related question the, first of all given the fact that families tend to be involved with different service agencies and you have a gate keeper with concerns about both do you really have a situation where one kid gets head started

the other does not? or do you have the other child sent to other services which are not as clearly set out or do you have someone saying we need to put the neediest kids into the head start program? either of which dilutes your comparison. if not you have one kit with the head start service and one gets none don't we have an ethical problem? >> next question. in the back. we will answer both. right on the aisle. >> the voices of d.c.. i have a question about head start and special needs. dhs is doing more analysis? some programs are not meeting basic requirements. >> where do the control kids come from? >> the relevant question is what happens to the kids without head

start? the fact that they get child care and other things is a good thing for the control group but that is the comparison of nothing. the real world is getting these other things. kids manage their way into head stock anyway. close to state of the art, that is taken care of. the ethical issue was dealt with by enrolling kid in programs where the capacity was not to take these kids. they couldn't take all of them if they wanted to. what is the fairest way of deciding? wiring is one option. special needs kids. >> a lot requires 10% of

children involved in head start programs with identified disabilities and the dilemma is in the authorization of head start requiring that a child be identified by a local education agency. one of the things we are working with is helping to build that relationship. this could happen on a quicker basis. >> local education agencies do not do the evaluations. >> it depends on where you are. some of them are very good. son take much longer than others. summer is a tough month because many are shutdown. it can vary from community to community. the majority of programs, they figure out ways to provide services. we cannot count that.

>> figuring out how to have a stronger, better relationship between head start and public schools is important. public schools don't always refer them to head start. they may not want them there. that is the problem. >> two more questions. all the way over -- let's start with the lady right by you. thank you. >> i am a kindergarten teacher the last 7 years at boston public schools. talk a little bit about the administration's efforts in strengthening the relationship between public schools and local head start? >> all the way over on the outside. >> i am with georgetown university law center. in the k-12 world leader about economic integration because it produces substantively better

outcomes and is politically powerful -- not something we talked about today. the question is is this disgusted academic literature or early education or something the advocacy group talk about and if not why not? >> which questioner you talking about? >> let me say for a revised system we're establishing six national centers with huge universities and other research groups. we will focus more on working with local programs to help them better establish relationships with the public schools. we have some really good examples we are working through. one of them is a different model around head start. we also have the city of chicago and other models we will be

looking get to disseminate information. >> second question? >> are we having conversations about mixing population, low or middle-income and so forth? that is what i thought i heard you say. one of the dilemmas we face because of expanded service for increase quality. steve is saying don't put more rules but then how do people know what quality is and how to move in that direction? things like universal free k. there was trepidation -- trying to think of the right word. less money was available for low income children. i think somehow we need to

balance between meeting the needs of the most vulnerable children but also doing what we know is good practice for all the children. i would point out this is going back a ways. when we were looking at segregated schools many years ago, one important decision was when you had the schools segregated, the more disadvantaged population wasn't getting of the quality of education that they needed so the law said put folks together. so how do we make sure when we put people together that everybody is getting what they need? i would suggest it is a combination of the strategies we have sitting out here with us. a framework like the monitoring system head start put into place

in getting programs to adhere to. you need something for people to work with to reach for. and also the collaboration among schools and community based programs. it is the point we realize we're in this together and did is not the rates and so forth. we have a sense that we're a community and we will be at the best advantage but we haven't figured out how to do that without an either/or mentality. >> in the current head start program what 10% of kids in any given program are involved, there's a provision for some integration. i don't know the extent to which that happens but it is allowed by the current schools.

last question. behind you. >> i am margaret, a psychologist at the university of maryland in baltimore and i had the fortunate experience before getting my ph.d. of being an educational consultant so i had some experience in head start. i am working on helping trade baltimore city head start to access social emotional skills for the social and the emotional foundation. one thing that was talked about today is how to access and measure this impact. it is happening heavily in maryland but i was wondering if someone wanted to comment on those efforts and the kinds of programs nationwide. >> it is a national program funded jointly through the office of head start and

child-care. folks are really out and about and worked with several states to develop several models. we see that moving forward and will be a huge part of the system. >> please join me in thanking members of the panel. [applause] >> i want to announce that three years from this date we will have an event on how this worked out and if you are willing to sit next to the national head star director, on september 13th we will release poverty and income numbers for 2010 and we will have an interesting event in this room and our hope is many of you as possible can come.

thank you for coming this morning. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments part of our coverage of the red state gathering hosted by red states, a conservative political blogger. in a little more than an hour in a town hall meeting in atlanta hosted by the congressional black caucus. a couple live events to tell you about. the federal deposit insurance

corporation announces its quarterly report on the health of banks on c-span3 at 10:30. on c-span2 the heritage foundation hosts a forum on state and local government preparedness for terrorist attacks. that is at 11:00 eastern. >> the memorial to martin luther king jr. officially dedicated this sunday morning. you can see live coverage on c-span. the memorial is on the tidal basin about halfway between the monument for thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln and not far from the washington monument. it will be opened this week through thursday closing friday and saturday to prepare for sunday's ceremony. the dedication will take place on the 40 eighth anniversary of dr. king's i have a dream

speech. [inaudible conversations] [silence]

[silence] >> watch more video and candidates. here with political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy-to-use it helps navigate the political landscape with twitter feet and facebook that dates, candidate bios and the latest polling data and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus stage at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> the annual red state gathering of conservative blotters recently heard from several gop candidates from around the country including nebraska state treasurer at u.s. and it -- senate candidate don stenberg. this is 20 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i am don stenberg. next year i will replace ben nelson in the united states senate. [cheers and applause] then nebraska will be represented by a genuine lifelong conservative in the united states senate. as nebraska's next united states senator i will vote to repeal obamacare. [applause] i will vote to secure our voters -- borders. [applause] i will cut federal spending and balance the federal budget. [applause] i will vote to defend life, the second amendment and religious

freedom. [applause] i am honored to have been endorsed by red stain and marc levin and honored to have the support of many tea party as in nebraska and i am honored to be here today. you are the salvation of our nation and god bless you for all you do for our country. [applause] america today is going in the wrong direction. we have a president who apologizes for a nation instead of leading it. we have a president of the united states who bows to foreign dictators instead of standing up to them. we need a new direction. we need a new president and we need to restore america. [applause] restoring america must begin

with defending our freedom. our founding fathers understood the government threatens our freedom. the source of our freedom is not a benevolent government. our freedom is not a gift from the government. as thomas jefferson said the god who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. our declaration of independence tells us that the source of our freedom is our creator. the declaration of independence says this -- we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. to secure the blessings governments are instituted a yacht -- among men arriving their powers from the consent of the governed. when any government becomes

destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. ladies and gentlemen -- [applause] -- ladies and gentlemen, our government has become destructive of our liberties so the time has come to do what the declaration of independence tells us to do. we must alter that government. [cheers and applause] we can do that at the elections next year. and we will do that the elections next year. [applause] next year we can throw out washington politicians like ben nelson who voted for a federal takeover of our health care. next year we can throw out the washington politicians who want to impose socialism on the united states of america. next year we can throw out the

washington politicians who are leading our nation on a path to national bankruptcy. next year we will alter the government of the united states. [applause] there are two competing ideas about the american people. the idea of the police -- elites are the majority of people must be controlled by the central government and are incapable of making good decisions for themselves or their if families. because of this belief they impose national health care on us and tell us it is for our own good. they want to be able to tell you what car you can drive, what food you must eat and even what lightbulbs you must use. and they will decide who gets medical care and who does not

and they will tell you this is all for your own good. my friends, this is not freedom. this is tyranny. [applause] let the word go forth from this time in this place that as of free people we will decide what is good for us, not the elites in washington. [applause] the other view of the american people is they're intelligent, capable people who want the freedom to live and work and raise their families without government interference. for those of us who see the american people in this light we believe in less government, lower taxes and more personal

freedom. or as thomas jefferson said it, wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another which shall lead them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of waiver what it has turned. this is the sum of good government. that is the way thomas jefferson described good government. that is the government we want for ourselves and our children and our children's children. like you today i believe in the people. i believe in the goodness of our people and the greatness of our nation and that the united states of america is a nation that all americans could be proud of. in 1936 the olympic games were held in nazi germany. at of hitler--adolf hitler was in power and attended the

opening ceremony. the olympic teams of each nation were told as they marched past hitler's viewing stand they should get their national flag as a sign of respect to the fuehrer. one by one the nation's of the world marched past adolf hitler each one dipping their national flag. then came the american team and the american flag. the american team believed america and the american flag should never bowed to a foreign dictator. open [applause]..

[cheers and applause] >> and never again should a president of the united states apologize for our great country. [cheers and applause] we need leaders who will defend be our nation, not apologize for it. and what do we need to do to restore america's greatness? i believe that it begins with faith. the bible tells us what is needed to restore a nation. it's written in second chronicles 7:14, that if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray

and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then i will hear from heaven, and i will forgive their sin and heal their land. [cheers and applause] so restoring our nation must begin with earnest prayer. and when you go home tonight, i would urge you to pray for our nation. pray that god will heal our land. but it is not enough to pray. every story in the bible except creation involved men and women inspired by god who did what they were called to do. so what else in addition to prayer do we need to do to restore america? number one, it's very simple, go vote. and number two, talk to your friends and neighbors and get

them to vote. and number three, help those candidates who are courageous and who share your values, your hopes and your dreams for america's future. and what policies should we demand of our politicians to restore america? let's start with cutting the budget and adding a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. [cheers and applause] we must repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause] wen nelson -- ben nelson of nebraska was the 60th vote to impose obamacare on our nation, and i will be very happy and proud to cast the 60th vote to repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause] there should be no more

bailouts, no more earmarks and is no new taxes. we must develop our domestic energy resources. we cannot continue to allow the radical environmentalists to block energy development in the united states of america. [applause] we must firmly reject socialism in the united states of america -- [applause] we must maintain a strong national defense, and we must stand firm in defense of the second amendment, in defense of life and in defense of religious freedom. [applause] do these things and more, and we will restore america. i'm running for the united states senate because our country is going in the wrong direction. and senate ben nelson of nebraska is a big part of the

reason why. we must defeat him. we will defeat him if we can get the financial help that we need for our campaign. now, ben nelson was the deciding vote to impose obamacare on our nation. he made that vote in exchange for the cornhusker kickback. he voted to waste $787 billion on president obama's wasteful stimulus. he voted to table cut, cap and balance. ben nelson went to washington claiming to be a moderate, but he is clearly a big government democrat right now. the good news is that i'm leading him in the polls 46% to 40% be. [cheers and applause] the bad news -- [laughter] is that he's leading us by $3

million in campaign funds. thanks to his big government friends. we need some financial help to balance the scales. will you help us? and just in case you want to know, our web site is stenbergforsenate.com, and we can make it as easy as possible for you to help our campaign. and we would appreciate that help. restoring america will require courage on the part of our elected officials. t.a.r.p. was passed because of threats of an economic depression if it didn't pass, but then most of the t.a.r.p. money wasn't even used for what they said it would be used for. the debt ceiling was raised as part of a bad and insufficient budget deal because of overblown threats of immediate economic collapse if debt ceiling wasn't raised by august 2nd. we need senators and mens of

congress -- members of congress who are not afraid to vote against bad deals. we need men and women of courage. i stand in awe of the courage of the signers of the declaration of independence. the declaration of independence was, in effect, a declaration of war against the military superpower of that day. a military expert of that time would have told you that the ragtag revolutionary army would be quickly defeated by overwhelming british force. signing the declaration of independence was an act of treason against the british crown. the penalty for treason was death. despite the enormous risks, their love of freedom was greater than any fear they must have felt, and so they courageously signed their names below these words. and for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance

on the protection of define providence -- divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. because of their enormous courage, we are free today, and i thank god that they had that courage. if our founding fathers had that much courage, surely we can find men and women today who aren't afraid to insist on the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. [applause] if congress had listened to the tea party, the credit rating of the united states would not have been cut last week. [applause] but it's not too late. we can restore america eat aaa -- america's aaa credit rating right now. we don't need to wait for the

supercommittee. congress, go back to washington and pass cut, cap and balance right now! [cheers and applause] if we believe in freedom and if we believe in america -- and i know that you do -- then let us go forward boldly with courage asking god's help, loving freedom, remembering those who gave their lives for our freedom, loving our country and changing our government so that our posterity will say of us when the challenge came, we had the courage to defend our nation and -- excuse me, to defend our freedom and restore our nation. thank you. may god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause]

i'd be happy to. >> folks, i've got to tell you, you know, normally when i endorse a candidate at redstate, i've gotten to know them somewhat. um, i endorsed don sight unseen on his record. [applause] it is that good of a record in nebraska. yeah, we've got to support a guy like this to get rid of a guy like nelson. now, we'll open it up to questions. anybody want to -- right here. >> look at the senate, and we have a lot of great young lions in the senate now. how do we get rid of the, dare i say, mcconnells and old boy system? >> vote 'em out. >> yeah. the question is we elect some young lions, and i appreciate being put in that category. [laughter] you know, how do we overcome some of the good old boys?

and i had a conversation with senator demint about, about that. and his view, which i share, is that we need to send reinforcements to the rand paul/jim demint/toomey/group. and it's amazing how much, what, five new seriously committed conservative republicans could do in the united states senate. if we send them another five or ten, if we can get that many, it's going to make a huge difference, and pretty soon the good old boys are going to have to be following what the new, young lions want to do and that's to restore our nation, cut our spending and increase our freedom. [applause] >> yes, ma'am. >> now that you're headed to washington, what's your feel of term limits? >> i'm a supporter of term limits, and i acted on that.

the attorney general of the state of nebraska is not term limited by law or constitutionment i served as the attorney general for the state of nebraska for 12 years. i was reelected twice with 68% of the vote pote times, and i feldt 12 years was enough, so i did not seek re-election and returned to the private sector for eight years and was just elected with 73% of the vote as nebraska's state treasurer last fall. i would support a constitutional amendment to the constitution of the united states to require term limits, and i want to point out as attorney general of the state of nebraska, our state passed term limits for our senators and congressmen. the arkansas case went to the supreme court. as the attorney general of nebraska, i wrote the friend of the court brief in support to have right of the states to limit the terms of their senators in congress.

we were not successful in that effort, but we were there leading the effort as a friend of the court, and be i would support a constitutional amendment to the constitution of the united states to impose term limits. [applause] >> redstate is a conservative political blog. its annual redstate gathering also heard from florida senate candidate adam hasser in. >> thank you, eric, and it is great to be here with so many like-minded friends. i do have to tell you that charleston has a very special place in my heart. this is where i proposed to my wife, gillian, who i'm proud is here with us today. [applause] eric, i just want to, i want to thank you for everything that you do, and i want to thank everyone who's here today and who's taken the time out of their summer schedule in order to be a part of this incredible event. redstate has truly become a central pillar of the

conservative movement, and i am just proud to be a part of it. now, being from palm beach county, florida, i am all always asked how it is possible that i turned out to be a conservative, let alone a republican. well, i can tell you it certainly wasn't my upbringing. i wasn't raised in a privileged, conservative or even a remin household -- republican household. far from it. my parents were liberal jewish democrats who were public school teachers from brooklyn, new york. [laughter] and when i was born, they had $31 to their name, and they saved and they sacrificed so that we could move to florida. i got my passion from my mom and my love of baseball from my dad. but i got my politics from someone else. [laughter] that someone was ronald reagan. [cheers and applause]

and despite, and despite being born in brooklyn and despite growing up in the palm beach county and despite being the son of two jewish democrats, i came of age when it was morning in america. and when i turned 18, i registered as a republican. [applause] now, i'm sure, i'm sure you can imagine that conversation. [laughter] but after the malaise of the carter years, ronald reagan didn't just tell us that there was a shining city on a hill, he led us there. he had a profound influence on my life, and i was inspired by his can-do spirit, his unapologetic embrace of america's greatness, his moral clarity and his common sense main street wisdom. and for all of that sunny optimism, ronald reagan was the original tea party insurgent.

[applause] when he disagreed with the direction of the republican party, he didn't abandon it, he changed it permanently and for the better. and his example still inspires me to this day. and it's a lesson the all of us that are determined to make the reforms needed in washington in order to save our country. now, ronald reagan didn't do anything halfway. he didn't manage america's decline, he reversed it. he didn't campaign on making inflation just a little bit less painful, he stopped it. and he didn't just slow down the soviets, he defeated them. [applause] ronald reagan came on the scene and swept away what passed for the conventional wisdom of the day. think about reagan's four-word

vision for the cold war: we win, they lose. it sounds so simple, doesn't it? it brings to mind a great reagan quote. they say the world is too complex for simple answers. they are wrong. and that is even more true today. the experts and the establishment are once again telling us that we have to give more of our freedom, our money and our decisions to people in washington d.c. we hear all this talk about changing the debate in washington and how the policies that we know are right aren't realisticment -- realistic. our job isn't just to slow down obamacare or simply manage the national debt or just accept 9% unemployment. our job is to provide a clear alternative the policies in washington and be offer real

solutions to turn america around. [applause] because, because the nature of the challenges that we face simply demand that we put be principle first and our country ahead of politics. and that's why i believe so strongly in cut, cap and balance. i was the first candidate in the country to sign on to it, i did so because it was the only proposal that actually attacked the real problem. it's the only proposal that actually may have given us a fighting chance to stop the endless borrowing and spending, to stop the mountains of foreign debt and to start us down the path of reigniting america's economy. now, it was so simple that even the experts in washington declared it impossible. it defied the conventional

wisdom, and it turned washington on its head. but isn't that exactly what we need to be doing right now? the recent debt deal is a perfect example of what is the wrong in washington today. too much gamesmanship ask -- and not enough leadership. [applause] now, now i've heard all the arguments, and some good friends defend it. that's their call. but it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad deal. the downgrade and common sense proves it. now, the whole process was a dysfunctional mess, only in washington could they make this kind of stuff up. they tossed cut, cap and balance aside, and for what? a deal that adds $10 trillion more to our national debt? a deal that cuts spending less in the next two years than government will borrow this month?

a deal that opens the door for higher taxes and threatens our national security, all courtesy of a not so super committee. if debt limit fight doesn't prove that we need more principleed conservatives in washington, then i don't know what does. and this isn't just about cutting. it's also about growing. growing our economy to provide the jobs and opportunities that our nation is capable of. we need leaders who will speak out for pro-growth policies, that will build our economy and create jobses. we need to be aguessive on -- aggressive on sweeping tax reform the flatten and simplify the tax code, and we should push to eliminate loopholes, subsidies and special interest carveouts and lower the rates for individuals and businesses. [applause] you see, democrats see tax

reform as an excuse to raise taxes, punish job creators and redistribute wealth. we see tax reform as a matter of fairness and a way of stimulating economic growth in our country. but getting government out of the way doesn't just mean reforming taxes, it means reversing job-killing regulations. president obama wants 4200 new regulations on businesses. the epa alone wants to implement 330 on everything from farms to construction sites. let's freeze every new regulation that would have an economic immarket pact, and -- impact, and we should be pursuing more energy exploration. [cheers and applause] and while, and while we're at it let's shake up the agencies that

are killing jobs, and let's begin with the national labor relations board. [cheers and applause] we must, we must stop them from advancing big labor's agenda through the back door. and what they are doing to companies like boeing is economic extortion, and it is anti-american. [cheers and applause] and lastly, if we are going to solve our nation's debt crisis and jobs crisis, we must repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause] obamacare, obamacare is a trillion dollar nightmare that will make our health care system worse, not better. it will lead to the rationing of care, tax increases on small businesses and increases on dependency on government. and once it's implemented, it will be impossible to get rid

of. the fall of great societies begins when freedom gives way to dependency. but if we act boldly, we can reverse the course that president obama and washington politicians have placed us on. because it's not too late. america's decline is not inevitable. if we place our trust in the power of individuals and not the power of the state, then we will usher in a new era of economic prosperity and security. if we hold president obama accountable and provide a clear alternative to his failed policies, we can and will take back the white house and the united states senate and achieve the vital reforms necessary to turn america around. [applause]

but we've got to be willing to fight, to stand firm, to not blink, to do the hard work to insure victory, to knock on doors and walk precincts, to blog and tweet and work on phone banks. and it's not easy. as eric says, it takes a lot of money, sweat and prayer. but i know it works because it's how i ended up here. you see, in 2002 when i decided to run for the florida house, a lot of people said that i didn't have a chance. they said that i was too young and too conservative. the party establishment told me to wait my turn. but i knocked on over 10,000 doors and won a four-way primary. [cheers and applause] then people, then people said it wouldn't last, that i could never get reelected in my district with an a rating from

the nra. they attacked me for being pro-life and for standing up against the unions. my local newspapers beat me up for being too ideological and too rigid. and despite it all, i won re-election three times. [applause] the eight years that i served as a part-time legislator was a tremendous honor. we were proud foot soldiers in jeb bush's key revolution. we cut taxes, we reformed education, we balanced every budget, and we grew florida's economy. and then in 2007 i was picked by the speaker of the house to serve as the republican majority leader. that speaker was my friend, marco rubio. [cheers and applause] marco, marco once described me as the most partisan republican in tallahassee.

[laughter] now, he meant it as a compliment. the mainstream media tried to use it as an insult, and i wore it as a badge of honor. [applause] now, it was, it was also that same year when charlie crist became governor. now, crist had campaigned as a jeb bush conservative, but the day he was sworn in to office he began governing as a barack obama liberal. now, people have short memories in politics, they forget that before obama, before the tea party and before the great american awakening the establishment in our party was telling conservatives that the way to beat the democrats was to be more like them. but like you, i stood by marco's side while the party establishment stood with charlie crist. when crist's poll numbers were through the roof, when he was on

the cover of every magazine and was being referred to as the future of the republican party, we stood up to him, we ignored the polls, ignored the establishment and ignored those who declared that conservativism was dead. our beliefs never changed, and our principles never wavered. we proved the media and the experts wrong then, and we can do it again today. [applause] we can't back down now because if we don't stand and fight, nobody else will. the work of people like you in this room and in rooms like it all across this country began this revolution in 2010, and we must work even harder now. we must send more people to washington who will do what is right, not just what is popular or easy. we need conservatives who will stand up to the democrats and to

the republicans who act like them. [applause] you see, this is even, this is even more important now than ever because after the message we sent last year, every politician is trying to reinvent themself as a conservative, and it is getting so silly right now in florida where charlie crist's chief of staff, former chief of staff, the guy that charlie crist called his maestro, the same guy who just two years ago described himself as a charlie crist remin and was attacking -- republican and was attacking marco rubio is now trying to run as a true blue conservative. now, think about that. that is like rahm emanuel trying to run away from barack obama. [laughter] now is not the time for reinventions, now is the time

for reinforcements! [cheers and applause] republicans, republicans who will stand alongside jim demint and marco rubio and mike lee and the new generation of limited government leaders. and i would be proud and honored to be one of those lead exercise that you -- leaders that you send to washington next year. please, join our movement. visit adam hasner.com. connect with us on facebook and twitter because this is a battle for the heart and soul of our country, and we must rise to this generational challenge like those before us rose to theirs. because when we look back at this moment in our nation's history, i want us all to be able to say that we answered the call. join me to fight the status quo in washington, and together we will save the united states of america! thank you all. god bless you and god bless the united states.

[cheers and applause] >> so, say, you know, we put 'em on the spot here at the redstate gathering. not only do they have to pay their own way, but they've got to take questions too. i was just saying they can stop the whole marco rubio person because he gives a heck of a speech himself. okay, questions. ma'am, right back here, second row? >> [inaudible] you know, i hear people of my generation say, well, we paid into it -- [inaudible] >> yes, ma'am. and let me just share with you that i was one of the first in

the country as a candidate to embrace the paul ryan plan to save medicare. and i recognize many of the challenges that we also have and decisions we have to make in order to preserve social security. you see, in florida we have 3.3 million floridians who are currently on medicare. and every one of us in this room knows the medicare trustees have said that medicare is going bankrupt in the next ten years. if we do not make the tough decisions now and transform the system from one which currently does not work with health care inflation what it is and 10,000 baby boomers coming onto the rolls every single day, if we don't make those tough decision now for future generations, these programs are going to collapse on current beneficiaries, and they are going to burden future generations with crushing taxes, a lower standard of living and an infringement on their personal freedoms. and so people ask me all the time, you're rubbing for -- running for the united states

senate in the state of florida where the senior population is so high. i remind them, florida's seniors have the most to lose if we don't have this conversation. so what we need to do is go out, arm people with the facts. we need to be on offense. republicans are far too off too passive. we need to be aggressive, we need to have the facts and the information and the charts and the numbers and the statistics, and we need to go out and persuade the american people that the way we are going to be able to preserve our greatness is not by increasing taxes and continuing to build on these programs, but by making them work for future general rations -- generations unlike the way that they currently are headed in term t of their current path and be direction. >> [inaudible] >> i believe that the reforms start with a, the ryan plan is a great first step. i fully embrace it in terms of providing individuals with the,

with the payment so that they can go out and purchase their own health insurance. put the decisions back into individuals' hands. we trust in the individual, not into goth. that's the beginning of being able to reform medicare, and then when it comes to social security, we need to be more specific about raising the retirement age, we need to be more specific about how we calculate benefits. we need to be more specific about giving people the opportunity to have their own accounts and, ultimately, be able to opt out. that's what's going to preserve that social safety net for future generations. >> yes. senator -- [laughter] >> we haven't gotten there yet, but thank you for your on the mitch. optimism. [laughter] >> [inaudible] says that 82% of the crimes is due to drugs, drug related. so it's obvious that we are not

losing the war on drugs, we've already lost it. i wonder could you give me a thought as to how we proceed with this problem considering that we could probably close -- [inaudible] prisons if -- [inaudible] >> i love imperial polk county, and we were just in haines city the other day for the political barbecue. and i will tell you that while i recognize that so much of the crime in florida and elsewhere in the country is drug-related, that i don't support efforts for legalization. i'm watching what's going on right now along our southern border. we have a full-fledged war taking place right along our mexican border, and what we're seeing with the drug cartels and what we're seeing with kidnapping and murdering and the human rights abuses, legalizing drugs is not going to make that situation better. we need to be more vigilant to preserve our values and our

culture. [applause] >> i have a petition to -- [inaudible] the size of government -- [inaudible] energy, agriculture, epa and education. what are you going to do -- >> that is, that is the beginning, but it can only be the beginning. and restoring -- >> [inaudible] >> oh, the question was domestic discretionary spending and the elimination of certain agencies in order to return -- beginning to dismantle government. and it starts with education, energy, it starts with housing and urban development, department of transportation -- >> how are you -- >> we have to go in, and we have of to win the battle of ideas. this is an ideological battle. we need to be able to demonstrate that job growth and economic prosperity does not come with more, with higher

taxes and the growth in government. what we've seen in washington over the past few years and even before that i don't just blame the democrats, republicans share in the blame for growing the size of the federal government. but we also have to recognize, we also have to recognize the size of or the portion of the budget that's over 60% is on the social security, many ed care and medicaid -- medicare and medicaid side. so while we are working to restore constitutional, principled spending which means devolving power back to the states in areas of education and elsewhere, we also need to remember that we're not even going to come close to our fiscal responsibility promises if we don't address the tougher issues of medicare, social security and be medicaid. and medicaid's a great example of how to block grant funding back to the states and give states more power. >> higher unemployment in washington. [laughter] >> adam, it is absolutely a

pleasure to have you here. >> thank you all so much. thank you all so much again. [cheers and applause] >> other speakers at the annual redstate bathering of conservative political bloggers included u.s. house candidate michael williams from texas. this is half an hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. eric, thank you. thank you. thank you for the introduction, thank you for your friendship, and thank you, my friend, for your support in this particular race. you gave me an opportunity very special today, to be in this room as my friend and my colleague for the last 12 years announced his candidacy to be the president of the united states. my friends, this is already one of the best day i've had. you know, i wanted to come here and do something very, very special. somebody once asked the great american novelist alex haley

what gave him the i said separation to write "roots. "and he said when you go about your business each and every day, you should find and praise it. so, my friends, i came to praise some good. the good of redstate, the good of patriots like you sitting in this room, folks who understand that we're created in the image and likeness of god, and it's from him that right come, who understand that rights don't come from government, that the simple role of government is to preserve, protect and defend individual liberty. i came here to praise some folks who are getting ready the fight for the american dream and who want to celebrate american exceptionalism, who recognize unlike our president that america's exceptional not simply because of our per capita income or not simply because of how many of youngsters go to college. we're exceptional because we're the only nation on the planet that said our rights came from a heavenly father. but, my friends, i came here

just to see if i could get somebody stirred up for the next couple months and get you ready for the campaign. [laughter] [applause] my friends, you know, t interesting, fighting for american liberty, we understand that the linchpin of that is this notion of individual liberty and personal responsibility. and so we are fighting in a war that is a conflict of different visions, a vision of some folks who believe that the only way that we can prosper is for government to grow, and for those of us who know that we prosper by the engines of personkind, each and every single one of us. folks who understand that, quite frankly, on the one hand you have a government that says, that can force you to buy certain products, sort of like health care. which means that one day they may want to force me to buy chock late, and i don't eat chocolate. they may want to tell you that, wait a minute, they're going to control your business and family through an epa that's following the fancy of global warming

rather than letting american producers produce american energy. somebody who's going to sit there and tell me that, wait a minute, he's going to not recognize that i have an inherent right that came from me from someone above to possess and bear and carry my arms. and, my friends, i'm a texan so, of course, i have a concealed handgun license. i'm going to carry it. [cheers and applause] i'm just not going to tell you what i'm carrying or what i'm packing. my friends, we've got work to do in the moments i have today, i just want to spend some time. everybody in this room knows you've heard folks come to this podium before me to talk about how we've got to be about the business of cutting spending and ending the earmarks and stopping this slide to ear peen- european-style socialism. my friends, we just saw an exercise in washington where raised the debt ceiling, i've got to anytime, i don't know why we keep calling it ceiling,

we're raising the roof. now we're looking at $16.5 trillion debt. 200,000 per capita. so the new child is born today and be every five minutes we get about 67 new children born in this country. what do their parents get? they get a birth certificate in one hand and a federal debt bill in the other because we're spending money we don't have, we're borrowing money that we cannot pay back. my friends, we know that we have to cut. and don't let any of us come to you and say that -- they don't answer two questions: have you ever done it before, and what are you willing to cut. when i became a member of the railroad commission of texas, put my left hand on that bible and my right hand in the air and ended that grade with so help me god, the railroad commission of texas had 853 employees. when i resigned on april 2nd, we had less than, authorized at less than 705.

and we had less than 670 on the payroll. i'm actually a politician who's actually cut the size of government. my friends, in addition to that i have to tell you it occurred at no small risk or sacrifice. back in 2005 the texas legislature gave the eight of us statewide office holders in the executive branch a $45,000 per-year pay raise. and i never took a penny of it. shot in '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10 or '11 before i left. [cheers and applause] i want to let you know i know how to put the words public and servant in the same phrase. but i do have to admit one other thing. i am married to a talented and even absolutely gorgeous raise. and even if i had taken the pay raise, i would not have been the breadwinner in my family.

i had the occasion for two and a half years to be an assistant secretary at the u.s. department of education under president george h.w. bush. this country did not have a u.s. department of education in 1979, it will not need one in 20113. [applause] for the last 12 years, for the last 12 years, it was my daily obligation to try to make sure that america had abundant supplies of affordable, reliable and safe energy. we did not have a department of energy in 1973, and you won't need one in 2013. [applause] my friends, we can defund npr and be defund planned parenthood, but i've got another one for you. president george bush appointed my wife, donna, to something called the corporation for national and community service.

she left and went to washington for her first board meeting. after she had flown through senate confirmation much faster than i ever did for anything i was appointed to and she got there and said, what do we do? do you know what the corporation does? it spends $957 million of your dollars every year getting people to volunteer in their local community. help a brother to understand. has anybody here ever volunteered for anything? did the national government have to come here and get you to volunteer? my friends, there's going to have to be a whole lot of cuts in activity just like that. but we've got to be more than just an austerity program. we've got to go about the business of creating wealth and prosperity and jobs in this country. and it seems to me one of the first places we have the look at is our tax code. my dad was a retired texas high school football coach. and that old football coach

would say if your team isn't winning and other teams are, you might want to sort of do what they're doing. we can look around the world, look at some of those former soviet bloc countries. one of the things many of them have done is move to a low, simple flat tax. i recognize there's another option, and that's a national fair tax. but as long as we have a constitutional amendment to eliminate the 16th amendment, we can get there. because if we don't, somebody in washington will try to take money out of both our pockets. my friends, we can also do something else. in creating jobs let's take one of the resources that was given to us to use as a platform to create jobs in america. we should be explored for every molecule of energy in america, every place with a molecule of american energy. we should be exploring off the east coast, the west coast, the

gulf of mexico and in the an war. [applause] my friends, in order to keep the lights on we're going to have to rely upon american natural gas. you're looking at some estimates that say we've got 100-year supply or other estimates that say we've got a 300-year supply, we're going to turn the lights on. my friends, think about nuclear power. you know the stats, the french, 75 percent of their power is nuclear power. my goodness, if french can figure it out, surely we can. [laughter] in order to move our cars, trucks and buses, i don't know what some entrepreneur and technologist is going to develop for tomorrow, but i have an idea that the way we get from today where we spend $40 billion a month on foreign crude, much of it going to people who don't like us, causing us to pay both sides of that war. the way we get from there to

there is american natural gas. my friends -- [applause] we've got other things we have to do. as a prospective congressman from a southern state, we've got to recognize that we've got to control that border. you know, t interesting -- it's interesting, pope john paul ii said america's the con innocent of hope. we were created under a divine idea, the idea that all men are created equal, and we want people to come to america. part of what makes this country as great as she is is the confluence of all of those juices of different kind of folk. that came from different kind of places. but there's a way to come to america. and it's consistent with the rule of law. and, my friends, because some folks, they haven't got the message, we've got to control that border. and i think you control it with a wide variety of tools. some places where physical fence works, you use it. other places where you might use

a technology fence. and in still others you're going to need boot on the ground. and because that's an international border, some of those boots are going to be military boots. my friends -- [cheers and applause] we've got to also say, we've got to also say, quite frankly, that we've got to provide disincentives for folks to break our laws. and so we say no to amnesty, and we say no to sanctuary cities, no to benefits for folks who came over here legally, and we revisit the question of birthright citizenship. i go back and think about -- [cheers and applause] i go back and be think about what was the purpose of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, and this, my friends, we need to be clear about that. we also have to say to employers we're going to give you tools. you've got to fix e-verify, but we ought not force 'em to use it. we give them tools to make the determination who's here legally and who's not. but if one persists in hiring

folks that are not here legally, i'm an old prosecutor. they should get their day in court. my friends -- [applause] you know, there are any number of things that we can and ought to be doing. i want to just leave you with about why i think if we go to conversation with all of us, we would say this notion about the american dream and fighting for the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility are part of our family's story. and i want to share with you some parts of the williams family. my grandfather was a unique man. one of the few men of his generation who earned a high school degree. particularly as a black man. became an entrepreneur, business owner, the patriarch of the black community in midland, texas, where i was born and raised. he wanted his daughter, my mother, to have a similar life with similar opportunities. but the midland colored school only went to the eighth grade. so my grandfather put my mother on a train and sent my mother to

san antonio, texas, 200-plus miles away, where she attended a catholic girls' school, st. peter. graduated from high school, went on to college, went to graduate school, became a teacher, taught for 40 years. when i came along, my parents wanted the same thing for me. i went to catholic school from k-8. there was no catholic high school. i'm old enough to have gone to school during segregation. but i didn't go to segregated schools even though my parents taught in one. so what did my parents do? they found a catholic boys' school in canyon city, colorado 602 miles away. when it came time the go to school, dad was coaching, mom was teaching, so they put me on a bus. they pulled out a map. they took a marks a lot and drew the route of the map. they put circles by the cities where the bus would stop.

they put xs by some of the other cities. they gave me some rolls of coins. they said, when you get to the xs, call your grandmother to let her know that you're all right. my friends, i will tell you, you cannot send a 13-year-old child on a bus 602 miles away from home to a community where there's nobody who looks like him other than the people in the state prison and not have embedded in his dna the notion of individual liberty and personal responsibility. and it's played out in unique ways. as i go around this, our state, this country, people are telling me that what you're looking for in this cycle, the job description, if you will, for people you want to send to washington or people who have records, proven records of consistent constitutional conservatives who have the courage to go to washington and will not wilt under the washington heat, will stand up to obama, reid, pelosi and even

the republican establishment if that's necessary. [cheers and applause] who will not be seduced, who will not be seduced by "the washington post" and the new york times and who can rally americans around the next generation of conservative solutions and ideas. my friends, you know, in 1986 i was a 33-year-old prosecutor at the united states department of justice. in the reagan justice department. i was the lawyer assigned the case the united states versus five members of the klein ya knights of the kkk. i had indicted those individuals for conspiring to obtain weapons from military installations across the south. if you go to the records of the united states senate, they will tell you that i prosecuted those cases under no small risk to myself. individuals who had done harm to others put a death warrant out against me. i put three of my witnesses in

the federal witness protection program, i tried two of the cases under the heavy protection of federal agents. and at the end of the day those five individuals got a taxpayer-paid trip to a federal institution of higher learning. [laughter] [applause] four years later, four years later i was an assistant secretary at the u.s. department of education under president george h.w. bush, and i announced a policy statement that said that colleges and universities should discontinue assigning seats in their class rooms and providing financial aid dollars to their students based upon one's bloodline. "the new york times," "the washington post," the "dallas morning news", the boston herald, other major newspapers across the south said it was a frontal assault on race-based affirmative action. why do i tell you that story?

i tell you those two stories for a reason. we're in significant times at the moment. you're getting ready to hire some folks. i think you've told me what that job description is. i have to think that the courage that was shown by that 33-year-old kid still rests in this 58-year-old man as he stands here. [laughter] [applause] i have to think, i have to think that the fidelity to the notion of individual liberty, the prospect of giving to all american youngsters the opportunity to sit in those seats, the responsibility we have to educate them all and get them all exciting and willing and prepared to be our next leaders, i have to believe that the fidelity to that notion of individual liberty rests here as well. and so, my friends from texas, my friends from congressional district 25, and my friends from across the country, if you're

looking for somebody to send who's got a record of achievement and a vision for a brighter american future, i ask for your support and your help. [applause] [cheers and applause] may the peace of the lord be with you, may god bless you, may god bless america. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to ask you the first question because our friend, the governor, is not here. and i just, i need somebody's response from texas for this. while the governor of texas was announcing he was -- and there's just a profound metaphor to this image -- while the governor of texas was standing here saying he's running for president, the president of the united states was playing golf in a rainstorm by himself.

[laughter] at andrews air force base. >> you know, we have a working governor, and after january 20 and, we're going to have a working president. and you know what? as a matter of fact, governor perry doesn't play golf. [laughter] [cheers and applause] who's got a question? some way over there. >> tell us about your district where you're running and the demographics of it and your chances. >> well, the district, you remember, texas because of our growth we're getting four new seats. this is not one of those. [applause] this is a seat that has been drawn in a way that is now projected to be governor perry took 56% of the vote in his last election, senator mccain got 56% of the vote in his presidential bid, so it is a republican seat. and i look at it, it's a takeaway seat because it is currently held by one of the more liberal members of the

texas delegation, lloyd docket, and won't it be ironic to replace lloyd docket with me? [laughter] [applause] the difference is he's got hair and i don't, but that's all right. the district is a fairly long, it's about 200-plus miles length. it goes from terrant county, and it's shaped like a banana on the west side of i-35 if you know texas. it runs all the way down through a large part of travis county, and then the end of it, the southern part of it is hayes county. so it's 13 counties, it's anchored in travis county. travis county eat about 249,000 of the 698,000 votes or people -- i'm, people in the district. because that's people. it's like 515,000 voting age population, but number of people is 698,000. yes, ma'am. >> conservative in your thinking

and what you have done, but could you describe and tell us exactly what your -- how do you form your -- [inaudible] >> i think there are a couple of different ways. she asked me, she said -- i'm not going to make it, she said you sound to be conservative, and you have a conservative record, how in the heck did you get there? [laughter] well, my parents were not political when i was younger. they have become more political as i've gotten older. my parents were quite conservative. obviously, they were conservative in terms of you can see it in terms of our faith upbringing, you can also tell it in terms of the way they ran their lives. you know, my parents probably even only got a new car even though they could have afforded one every seven, eight years. my parent were very, very huge sticklers about saving and preparing for the future. in addition to that, i say i'm blessed with three things that sort of helped shape who i am today. number one, i have a heavenly father.

but number two, i was born in america. and i was also born in bun of the most conservative cities of that time, midland, texas. so that was part of it. i also grew up at a time, however, i have to admit i was not a conservative as a college student. i grew up at a time, obviously, i went to college in the early '70s, and be, um, when i returned home to midland in the '78 to begin after i got out of law school, i had to start sort of analyzing myself and thinking how do you create wealth? how is it that we go about the business of advancing the african-american community? and i said one team has one plan, and we've seen that one. doesn't work. and then there's another plan. and i started investigating that other plan. you know? and back in 1982 i went up to a cabin that my parents own in new mexico, and i took with me