he deliberately brought together libertarians, traditionalists, people who were predominantly anti-communist and less interested in the domestic scene he brought all these people together, and his only -- his only exclusionary principal was that they could not be kooks or anti-semites. those were the only excuse their principles. he wanted a big tent with then, to be sure, one segment of the political spectrum. the sow since building conservatism in the first place was his mandate, his self-imposed mandate, asking what his legacy can do now to turbocharge conservatism is, i

think, a very good question indeed. we have three people who have -- who are doing this in their own ways and who i trust will have good ideas on how others can help them do it. richard lowry is the editor of national review, as everyone knows. only the third editor in national review's nearly 56 year history. how he came to national review is very much in line with, again, all we have heard about bill this afternoon. always concerned about young people. he saw himself as an evangelist to young people for the conservative faithful as well as for the faith. and how rich first came to us

was by taking part in a young writer's contest. by now 20 years ago this year, was in this? twenty years ago this year. the very next year in the opening fell. a position fell open on the editorial staff, and we hired rich. before long he was our national political reporter. in 1997 when john o'sullivan was stepping down, bill after extensively looking around the pool of available talent decided that rich was the one, and that is when he became editor in chief of national view. and he has been running the magazine with excellence ever since. we are changing the order a little. the second panelist will be william kristol, the only one of the four of us who has never exactly worked for bill, though

he reminds me he was on the board of directors of national review for a couple of years. he describes himself as a fugitive from academia. he did teach it the university level for several years. then he went into -- it was the first budget ministration. and then became the founding -- became the founding editor of the weekly standard ever since. neal freeman, yale 1962, has probably served -- he has not -- he has not worked for bill as steadily as some of the rest of us. he has gone in and out and done other things. now with his own advisory firm, which he has run for a very long time, but he has probably served more capacities for bill then

the rest of us having been the initial publisher -- not publisher, director of the founding director of firing line . having syndicated bills column, having written for the magazine and served as a contributing editor. and being the basically, a man on the front lines in bills mayoral campaign. senator judge buckley was the official campaign manager, but neal was the guy who made the appointments and got bill to then. [laughter] right. right. and neil writes and speaks in does all of those other good things, but his -- what he did for bill will always remain

terribly important to those of us in this circle. so, i will ask @booktv to begin. >> thank you. thank you, everyone. linda mentioned that a young writer's contest i entered. i tied for second, which is a rich friend told me means that i was third. at least was in the top three, but it is a pleasure to be here. think the folks at yale for putting this on. a pleasure to be here with linda who literally wrote the book on bill buckley with neal freeman, and my esteemed colleague, bill kristol. those of you who are disappointed with the republican presidential field, please blame bill kristol. he did not try hard enough to get another candidate into the race. he never tried walking around the streets of washington with a stack -- sandwich board on.

it was through national review that i was introduced to conservatism in the world of ideas. i discovered when i was in high school and literally sneaked issues of national review into class and read them between my textbook. playboy was the national review -- national review was the playboy to me. that was back when we had vcrs. i would tape episodes of farming and sat there alone and replace parts of it over and over again to make sure that i was following the argument. so i was not a very well adjusted or popular adolescent, but it is really a thrill and blessing for me to be associated at all with bill buckley and national review, although we have already chased part of his legacy because right now if you

went in there and examined our junior level editors you would find that we have to from harvard and one from yale. there would be investigating what policies, this disparate impact. reefer ourselves to the it eeoc to see what was wrong. let me talk a little bit about bill and just make to stipulations upfront. one, i just got married four months ago, so i am just getting used to being wrong about everything. as a pun then you spend all of your life telling yourself you're right about everything. this is a very useful corrective , so i am open to being criticized by any of you are my fellow panelists. two, mark twain right at the beginning of huckleberry finn has a little note saying anyone who finds a motive in this book

should be prosecuted. anyone finding a moral should be banished, and anyone sitting on a plot should be shot. that is a little bit how i feel about people who speak a little to come -- confidently about what bill buckley would think, feel, or do about anything because u.s.s. at the original and for now mind, but we can obviously sector a few things out. what i would like to talk about briefly is what i think his attitude toward the tea party would be. this is the most interesting and important phenomenon on the right. end you among the elite media and others the anti populists are trashing conservatism, and i don't think that is the way bill would you then.

one of which is he was the original elitist. this year cosmopolitanism. of a joke, he realized he was growing up in an american family at age 12. i hope you were not going to use that line tonight democrats. on the other hand, there is no one who was more fiercely anti elitist than bill buckley. a lot of us tend to have an image of him from later years when he was his beloved figure going on charlie rose, and isn't the kind of cute. when he was at yale and coming out of yale he was utterly outrageous and a radical. a lot of ann coulter in that era he suspended joe mccarthy.

when khrushchev was coming to visit new york city he talked about dying the hudson river read so that when he crossed the hudson he would be reminded of the rivers of blood in the soviet union. the national review was designed to be anti-establishment. it is a savage, the eisenhower administration, and supported, of course, the goldwater insurgency. one of the points of his mayoral run was to take down a few notches this golden boy of the liberal establishment, john lindsay. that mayoral campaign earned the contempt of elite opinion. bill said it at one point that if you want he hoped there would be near its outside the offices to get see editor's throwing themselves from the windows. that campaign did not thrive in the tony or precincts of

manhattan but electorally among cops and the firefighters and in the ethnic enclaves. it was really a populist in denver, and this is why i think bill buckley, there is very little about the tea party that he would not recognize and identify with, especially his love of the constitution and its broad streak of libertarianism. it is very difficult to exaggerate the anti-semitism of bill buckley. he said this socialized state is the justice order, what markey decided to love. right at the end he self titled one of his books, referred to him in the subtitle as a libertarian journalist. he goes back and looks set his agenda as a mayoral candidate, and it involves loosening drug laws and legalizing gambling.

so there is a lot about a rant paul type figure that bill buckley led this fight with. so i think that is -- those are all very important points, but also important to enter a cautionary note. after is mayoral campaign and a rather despairing passage on the making of the mayor, the book that he wrote about the campaign , he wrote about how there is no future for the republican party and we will see this system break up into various factions that would be adamantly insufficient lead thoughtful and angry and self-defeating the sectarian. i think any political movement, especially one as highly aroused as conservatives are now is going to be tempted in those directions. i think also when it comes to that we can look to bill buckley for some lessons and directives. it is important to realize the standing and how much she cared

about principle, he was an intensely practical man, and in the early years of national review he saw this trouble working up in his own mind between the ideal and the real and realize that he had to strike a balance between the two if you're going to be most effective. whitaker chambers and james burnham influence ten, so he is practical, also a coalition builder. it was not just about tending to the faithful. it was about winning new converts and new allies. he saw this in the initial composition of the editors of the national review who represented all sorts of strands of different thoughts on the right. he cited in his welcoming the of the neil conservatives into the movement. you are welcome, bill kristol. and even his mayoral campaign when he helped discover the reagan democrats. i keep going back to the narrow

campaign. i think it illustrates the main aspect of the bill. also extremely solution oriented this was not just about going out there in stating conservative axioms. it as a campaign soaked with policy. bill intensely believe that we had better solutions to the problems of the day, and he very consciously addressed the problems of the day and adopted policies that were quite prescient and would go on later to help save new york. finally he was a joyful figure. he really loved our fallen world and communicated that in everything that he did, not just his writing and editing in debate, but in his failing and in his skiing. he never communicated a sense of being perpetually angry. that was a key part of his

appeal. so those are just a few thoughts, but it does not take long grappling with bill buckley with his life and legacy to really realize the ultimate take away, which is that some losses are just irreplaceable. [applause] >> yes. >> it's good to be here. great to be with you and linda. a very much like the last few months. national review, the last few issues have been particularly strong. how could i resist. good to come to yale to see how the other half lives. enough of all that. i have been married 35 years.

i'm used to being telam wrong. and the positive reinforcement. i read it as soon as a starter. there remember it as early as 63, 64. i spent the entire summer or fall of 1964 believing what i was reading in national review, which was that there was this hidden majority that was going to like barry goldwater. i should not believe those killed poles being run by the mainstream media. this is sort of a major theme. >> it had a big influence on me. the conservatives. i have to say, i was much more

interested. i personally, national review is the conservative magazine. the evidence of that, my high-school yearbook in 1970 my fellow has me wearing a lapel, one of those buttons that you use to wear in the early 60's and 70's. -said don't let them immediate ties the as to size. not the major national review. a play off of a political philosopher. when my kids came across this decades later they were amazingly -- they could not believe what a de guerre was. i tried to explain to them why this is actually cool and hip. they did not buy it. i did still prefer playboy to national review. [laughter]

but, hey. i also like the title of this. the patron saint turbocharge the service. adding a patron saint. it is the same sentence, but it captures both elements, two elements of conservatives. it works for the past. and sort of eagerness to move ahead toward the future. i would say this thinking about i don't know what bill would say . i think it is a huge mistake. the figure of bills stature and magnitude and imagination to a think we would know what he would say about things. he was a practical man as well as a man of principle and a deep thinker in a way. he actually concealed the death of his thoughts sometimes, and

he also is someone who has a deeper understanding of principles and is in a way more relaxed about the application of those principles to practical politics. the key is to steer the ship in a certain direction to try to get to a certain ports. that is going to mean basically keeping in the same direction and not permitting certain things that are simply contrary to the principles. but being willing, at times to be engaging and educating people . other third parties. a lot in 1970's. today's a volunteer work. graduated from high school. i ended up at times, he could be what he called very hard hit is the pragmatic. look.

choose between the available alternatives or even modify the message for now, at least, to make sure that we can make progress. he was a complicated thinker, and i think some of the complexity and subtleties in a way masked by the incredible grace and ease with which he wrote and spoke obviously had his cheerful willingness to engage in all sorts of dissertations in conversation. and remember looking back. it his own work. with regard to others. many forms. but i am struck almost more by his ability as an editor to be a circus master for the national review and to carl all these different tinkers and temperaments and to let them express themselves. i think that was very important to this customer. i thought a little bit about this.

rich tries to do it at the national review, but it is a different age. in a way you don't know when the time. american populist conservatives, american lincolnian conservatives. there are libertarians who want to get rid of the whole thing. it is hard to know. none of those is probably exactly correct. which aspect of the conservative agenda is going to pick up a popular support. very wise. conservatives talk about the ability to predict and other things. we put the conservatives in terms in charge and it becomes the total opposite. micromanage her and tries to figure out exactly.

even though we are not supposed to believe in those things. as think bill render national review. much more than was appropriate. a certain humility about exactly who is right in some of these inter conservative reviews, some of the disputes of how radical versus pragmatic. he had a hard-headed realist defending the opaque china whereas most of the few was denouncing this murderous regime in 1971 and 72. phil himself, i can still see it on tv denouncing. the trips to china. whenever you think of the substance, the kind of sycophantic treatment of this powerful mass murder.

it reminds henry of that tonight. henry is so relaxed. it will be a problem. [laughter] but bill was able to publish both of these things, and i think entertain the thought that one was mostly right. i think there are still a lot of different issues, but that the philosophical level and the practical, political level in terms of his. even in terms of his general shepherding of the conservative movement, i think that is a very important lesson in this moment which is a very hopeful moment for conservatism, but hard to know exactly what if a lot of us would have been wrong if we predicted in 2004 how things look in 2008 or be convicted in 2009, which elements would be most research and, what themes of the tea party would come into

existence, what seems it would pick off. i still think it is hard to forget that kind of modesty that the bill at and humility, the fantastic -- what is the right word? not so humble. the great confidence. it was part of his great charm. i think underneath that was a kind of intellectual political modesty which combined with a turbocharged excellence to enable the conservatives to do something really amazing. we do not appreciate -- very hard to appreciate. of course it happened. bill buckley, national review. the cold war ended satisfaction elite. reagan was a successful president. reed guliani was able to do some of the things the way that bill

buckley had talked about in 1965. various conservative principles. other areas made progress. none of that was inevitable -- inevitable or likely. the ten or 20 years later. the degree of boldness, the degree of vision, the willingness to gamble. we underestimate today, and i think that is also a key legacy and lesson. we should not, on the one hand, be utopian about what might happen to, but we should not underestimate the chances for radical in a good direction either. we should not be too practical and think that we know ahead of time about the progress in certain conservative libertarians. so i think in that respect bill is kind of latitudinarian this

about conservatism within certain limits and his willingness to adjust and to change and to take guidance, to some degree, from the political market, public opinion, which may not be wise in its entirety but is often thought sensible. that is an impressive and important lesson. [applause] >> thank you, linda, bill, rich. i donated my knees to the yale lacrosse team the half century ago, so i will stand here. i am also acutely aware that i stand between you and the bark, so let me take a few brief comments. three things about bill, and then i will plunge recklessly into the territory both these

wiser men refused to travel. that is what bill would think today. three things about bill. one, an extraordinary personal courage in both the moral and physical forms of courage. as one example, one measure of the correlation of ideological forces, i think back to my class at yale, maybe somebody, late 50's, early 60's. we approached graduation that glorious june day when john kennedy got off the great line, i know have the best of both worlds, of harvard education and a yale degree. we sought to show support for our emerging champion, barry goldwater. for my class of 1,000 young men we had five supporters, not

included in our number, i would note, for the historical was our hard-working classmate dick cheney. a 160 pounds step back on the football team, not included in our number was a quiet begun major named arthur laugher. as gurney is our ranks were in the undergraduate college they dwarfed our support among the faculty. [laughter] the faculty, 700 strong approximately in those days yielded to supporters. one was of feisty lecturer in the yale law school. the other was in azine sheller named dave brown who contributed articles to the journal that

rich now edits. we would have had 50 percent more support but for the recent defenestration of will more kindle after a long and difficult battle with tenure. the second thing that i would say about bill, a critical, a critical ingredient is joy. every buckley into breast was aimed at high purpose but pursued in high spirits. the laughter, on the phone with the delicious story, on the bulk . to give you one example this is years after the event, and that

a -- obtained excerpts of bills interview with the fbi, investigating for a federal appointment. at the end of the field investigation the agent asks this omnibus question, would i, candidate for them, be likely to embarrass the administration. ..

instead what he perceived to be instead of the widespread presumption that romney can fix our broken economy with an economic plan that is unlike governor huntsman manifestly inadequate to the challenge. bill might have asked his guest how do you reconcile that which is the irreconcilable? romney squirmed through the evening. bill would have barely survived. he hated to drink alone. [laughter]

rick perry is a visit would that triggered the full bulkeley charm offensive, tells of the original nwfp and his days in mexico would have spiced up the evening. bill would have taken upon himself as a kind of party favor to support for the single most indefensible action as governor. toward the end of a long article bill would have recast his initiative allows only defensible but in some ways lolland will in the desert bill probe more deeply a boon to the nation quite possibly to the world. he would have responded with a impenetrable aphorism somehow involving parched land and poisonous snakes. [laughter] bill would have segued into a discourse and contemporary international fares call for a foreign policy somewhat less

parochial. then the governor is heretofore advanced. when sarah palin cantelon she would be on his best behavior. his wife might have persuaded him not to eat the salad with his fingers. after an hour and a half bill would have concluded reluctantly under the unbending terms of the bulkeley rule sufficiently right word but insufficiently viable. as they parted that afternoon, bill would have accepted an invitation to go spear hunting for large mammals deep inside the arctic circle. [laughter] the commitment that neither his sarah or patsy would never let them forget. the session with new gingrich would have caused him to remarks the x-ray vision his broad range of reference and illusion might

cause the altar remember who said some people learn by reading through the eye of burst through the year by listening. i learned through the mouth by talking. the meeting with herman cain would have had high anticipation bill would have relished the prospect of the bulkeley alliance if only for the sheer theatricality. during their time together bill would have spent his time much as he had with palin in a quiet inventory of the intellectual warehouse. what does he know, what has he read? is it possible that he could be? beyond the political arena he would have had a vice for his core constituencies with a band

of right-wing scholars and the american academy he would have said to be brave and until you have secured tenure be no more brave and conscience demands. [laughter] reject and reverse the local council st. augustine lord make me chaste but not yet. by all means concentrate your energy on the edge of an evolving scholarship besso lubber flout lee and redundant lee the core values of the western tannin. to those two words of the movement public diplomacy the evin riss fortuitous the six editors, publishers, producers, bloggers, he would say keep the metrics of the fusion and appreciate the vital contribution to our coalition made by each major strain of conservatism. avoid secretarianism come ed here strictly to principled

leader without pause to clean up the fresh formulations for the timeless proposition. along the way remember to have some fun. try to be a little less constipated. let me close by saying why i have chosen to support the program. there are two reasons. the first is to keep alive the longstanding but free fragile tradition. a decade after decade yale has done almost nothing to encourage but just enough to permit a culture of conservative dissent. i like to think of it as the grudging but honorable acquiescence to the spirit of academic freedom. the second reason to support this program is that bill would have loved. a bill had the most complicated

relationship with yale of any student since nathan hale. [laughter] he starts off as a golden boy student very much in the line of potter student, george h. w. bush and the like. but bill quickly became in the publication not a loving son of our sweet mother of the university's designated apostate. the memories of the book bill once described them to me were long and censorious. they cared deeply about this place. not only where he had formed his political view but where he formed the friendship that sustained him for a lifetime. for its part, yale i think possibly been launched by the

alumni fund realized that there was no upside and a long-term feud with america's most gifted controversial list. the ice began to melt. the door opened wide and bilateral talks began in the 90's between the probable student in the for giving university. what is she was not the treaty of vienna but the historic document nonetheless. an invitation to join the faculty here in new haven. the course in english composition which debuted in the fall of 1997 became popular with both the students and their instructor. i can testify that the firm has the professorial term took deep satisfaction. the process of reconciliation was completed in the spring of 2000 when the award of the bill in honoring dr. at.

how pleased was he? when word began to spread of the award by called to congratulate him. he picked up the phone saying dr. bulkeley here. [laughter] and he metaphysical problems like can help you with? [laughter] to which the answer is yes actually there are and the program here i hope he will agree is one way to address them. thank you. [applause] >> i've been reminded by a

couple of remarks made this afternoon of a small incident that happened by now i guess it's about nearly 30 years ago. but it ties in with all these things about liberals and the jeal concert and bill's wyden greatest wide embrace. john had been at one point not long before a president, president or chairman, i forget which for democratic action that extremely liberal institutions founded in 1945 arthur schlesinger jr. and several other people mentioned today. i can't remember who all was in it but was really liberal and john roche had been the president of it. gradually as the world changed at least on foreign policy, he found himself much more in tune

with the "national review" and many of his former allies in the john asked if he did write a column for the "national review" in the bill said a delighted, please, start any time. so john wrote this column on the foreign policy and it was always brilliant. but i assumed we were far apart on domestic policy. and then one day i forget what subject came up with something to do with poverty or whatever and he gave an answer that let me to say you sound like an israeli conservative. he said know a catholic cenacle list. [laughter] these labels can be interpreted in very different ways. do you have any comments for each other or shall we invite

the audience? let us invite the audience with any questions, comments. yes. >> first i would like to say it's been a tremendous pleasure to listen to these distinguished speakers and to hear more personal as well as political information about the buckley's life. i would say one thing i would like to to have heard more about this bill buckley's legacy to things which were musical and non-political. i knew mr. buckley for 37 years as both a mentor and a personal friend. at the core of his personality was always his deep concern for

moral volumes values. it was a tremendous part of his personality and make up. he became interested in supporting me and the american composer's music because i is interested in moral value he made a tribute to wall faldo emmerson, spoke about the importance of one's remembering of one's eternal soul. i was the only woman in the world who ended up by recording the complete solo piano music for box records and william f. buckley supported me as a concert pianist for his entire life. i met him in 1970.

i was in the infamous class of women at yale in 1970, but i was very privileged to be in that class, very privileged to have no william f. buckley as with a mentor and friend, and i am sure the reason that i became world famous as because of his help and guidance. so thank you very much. my name is nina and i would be very happy to talk with you about what a wonderful person bill buckley was and what a kind and compassionate and brilliant person he was. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> questions.

anyone want to tell what is wrong? [laughter] don't tell bill that he was wrong. he doesn't need to hear. >> which she was right in the bill as well. i had dinner with my bride a couple of years ago with somebody who had been very high and the administration but of course won't -- the bulkeley forces in 1965. he did in keeping score over the years to giuliani to bloomberg and all the rest, and in the campaign of 65 bill had recommended 22 specific proposals, all of them branded extremist by "the new york times" quote literally every single one of them. they had all been adopted in the subsequent years and i was

talking to find out which one it was. maybe it was the elevated -- [inaudible] [laughter] even though we got to the 14.8%, we won and that is a message for all conservatives especially you young people i know that you feel like you were chasing fell army. but they are going to run out of food. think about it that way. [laughter]

>> [inaudible] >> well, they were from polite companies. the john birch society thought that he was a communist when he was a golfer. [laughter] this is quite controversial within the "national review," and it goes to when jeal was referring to the moral courage reading about this recently and a senior editors of postage and all my high level colleagues to say they would hurt the future of the magazine, don't do it it's hard pressed to do it as the camp relation is correct.

>> i don't want to tell ritchie is wrong but i do have to ask about attention in one of the things he said one of you could address. he said the the entire state is the most difficult to overstate and he would have supported and that is probably true. on the ever hand the society showed that he had a history of purging people whose antistate is some was proportional to their obituary from ends with the line and they believe in freedom the same way they believe in god and clearly had a low view but not necessarily of rand paul with his father's interview. what antibodies did he have that prevented him from sliding into that school of conservative thought and how do you spread them?

>> i didn't mean to suggest he would support rand paul it was the dispute with libertarian's throughout the cold war he said they were wrong and needed a strong state in order to combat the soviet union and that took priority over shrinking the stayed at home if you had to choose you would have communism because any limited government whatsoever you had to save the west first. the progress of as a liberal welfare state would make one more libertarian or more inclined toward a kind of

absolutism would be the case today when in fact the progressivism damaged the confidence that have been there in the original statement of the "national review" where he talks about the suffocating complacency and conformity of the liberals and i have to say some of the attraction is a complicated thinker and a libertarian and some of the policies sought out in the book are not simply libertarian are small government interested in the energetic but i do think the attraction -- i've never discussed at the attraction to the shocking individualism there

is a lot of that reaction to just the incredible complacency which everyone dismissed in the political life and philosophy back then. when you actually intervene in the public's in the 50's, 60's, 70's he was inclined as the government and towards the policies and encourage them to govern themselves but not to seek the first principle they've been on the list or it's no state at all. >> i think there's another factor here and rich touched on it in reference to the soviet union. bill talked about ordered liberty throughout his public life which started here at yale.

he talked about the western tradition and about america as a particularly stunning example of that tradition. so even though he hated the fight himself as libertarian, and even though as someone else mentioned he didn't -- he wouldn't have said but still the western tradition was a very big part of the intellectual and personal makeup, so he was inoculated by those things i believe. >> one thing, we all act in hindsight as if this was a doctrinal exercise of surgical precision. when i was there in the early 60's no one knew what a

conservative was. we were making it up week by week. i remember the first time frank came in as the father and laid out the folding with graphs and reading lists and here's how we are going to put together the traditionalist and libertarians and the national security types and this was a one type bond the would march forward into the bright future i sure wasn't the only one in the room who felt it was preposterous. somebody, jim burnham always accused me. i always tried to accuse somebody else but someone came up with a lion which kind of stopped even frank meyer for a second she couldn't easily have been stopped and someone said you mean you're going to make the wholley rulers lie down with a high rollers? [laughter]

the princeton background author of severin books and said -- >> the glue that held the idea of modern conservatism together was communism. the religious people, the economic people, the security people, they all knew who the enemy was. the trick for these gentlemen is to find the glue going forward. we've kind of zigzagged and maybe it will to triumph, hope so. >> he is the high roller and each side can pick their kind of role. the question, bill wasn't a

heater at all and i think rather disliked hitters and disliked discriminatory, and i think that aspect was a kind of libertarianism and to some of you ron paul for that matter would really have pushed them off. i don't even like this. it's not quite right not just personal i don't agree with saying they can't be part of the conservative movement but that is because they were crazy. you know. [laughter] they thought some of the policies, defense policies couldn't agree with the actual analytical claimed to like it eisenhower is not and bill buckley thought you don't want to have a political movement that is friendly to people saying things and that is not in

the harmless. a cranky view of the economic policy but saying people would serve their country impressively and honestly. >> and was written by harmless nuts. >> that really offended bill and was posted on the web site the 1963 denunciation, and it's quite a detailed and substantive and it shows this is an unattainable argument that transforms the difference of opinion and strategy and tactics and values into a kind of evil when that was not the case. so that part of i think bill

always had a distaste for those aspects there's the temptation to transform into the other side were to turn people are consciously pursuing in order to do damage there are such people in the with the agents of the communist conspiracy and using that kind of rhetoric. >> we published that editorial. we really meant it. [laughter] >> this may be a logical

following but on that subject i would like your thoughts since this panel was about energizing and reenergize in the conservative movement the role of conservative talk radio if you criticize your twitter print journalists on the themes if you like values bill buckley presented it is the talk radio does not suffer a little dose doesn't seem to be as you can be very much very doctrinaire and attacking the deviation and sort of a narrow line. but more generally in the context are there things that you would do differently or do you see this as a valuable role? >> aco pretty clear file of the

views he reached out to many of them and became friendly with half a dozen of them and thought they were a critical element but felt that it put an even greater burden on the giant prescott pick function by the print guide and if there is an imbalance in the public conversation and the totality of the conservative expression is blaring from that megaphone i don't think it serves us well. the view was they were tactical allies but not a great strategic assets. and of course he was a great taxonomist. i remember one of the last times i saw him he was going through from hannity to rush limbaugh to the rest of them and he had a really crisp and focused view of

each one. i don't know how he did that for most of his life he worked 18 hours a day. that is one we he would have done it but in those days i am not sure how he got so informed about talk radio, but he knew it well. .. [laughter] >> well he knew ron paul, had

him on firing line. if you are youtube savvy you can see a really interesting exchange between the two of them. the reason i think he never sidled up to ron paul is for the reason that bill mentioned, that absolutism of any kind was offputting to him. he was always laying down the predicate. he sighed as his duty to sort of define the conservative paradigm, but he always was flexible within it, and people who were in flexible on whatever the issue, i mean i had to be the tip of the spear in the ayn rand campaign and i confess i went into battle for bill and slay the dragon, but i did not read "atlas shrugged" until last winter. [laughter]

i hereby apologize to the late ms. rand. the book has some merit. [laughter] but i always thought his principle was right with ayn rand, her atheism and it triggered a response that had been bred in bill from the time he was baptized. he just went after it. but also, she was an absolutist and that was -- >> i am a history professor here at yale and i teach american politics, and i want you to know that i assign a lot of bill buckley in my classes, particularly early buckley, "god and man at yale." we have been reading mccarthy and his enemies and they frequently send students to the manuscript and archives division to review the buckley papers end

the semester the mayoral campaign, writing about the john birch society controversy. one student is writing about buckley and catholicism, his relationship with whittaker chambers so anyway, the legacy is here. [inaudible] [laughter] i guess one thing, i have two things one of which is something that comes up in class often about early buckley and then one that is sort of a self-interested question. so the first is, students are often quite interested in this idea of this outsider identity, kind of the alienation from what buckley articulated in the kind of establishment and sort of the question of where exactly that comes from. is a partly being a catholic at a place like yale? is a just temperamental? well because you know yelp was liberal in certain ways in the 1950's but yale in the 1940s,

goes from wendell willkie so i think we can overstate this sort of liberal socialistic nature of yale during the 40s and fifties so i'm curious if you have thoughts about sort of where an very early years that sense of the alienation and the outsiderness comes from which become become so important his projects later on. the second more self-interested question is that i happen to be writing it biography of j. edgar hoover and trying to think about the role of the figure like hooper in conservative politics in the conservative movement so i've been spending time reading the fbi file which is pretty interesting although there's nothing too exciting in there. but i'm just wondering if any of you have any good anecdotes or anything interesting to say about it? >> about the fbi files? >> exactly. i want to know what you thought of hoover, not these very polite letters that are in his f. a. i filed. he did have something of a

relationship there, but i'm just curious if you can tell me what he really thought of j. edgar hoover of you have anything interesting to say on that? >> i will say one thing. bill was never so energized as when going after large authority. one of his great battles he being a loyal son of rome was to attack popes. i mean he just loved to get into a scrape with the vatican. when he went after the john birch society, in history, it looks like well he was cleansing the movement of this irritant. at the time the john birch society was a major player. at a cabana would know this. they had strings on advertising contracts. they had strings on distributor

deals for the magazine. they contributed, their members actually wrote checks, beyond the subscription fee but bill, while he was fearless, he was also a lover of danger. do you have a story here? >> what is the story when he flew the plane in the dark? >> well, as far as i'm aware -- >> a highly conservative movement. >> it think he was still here at yale. >> you is still here and he didn't intend to flight in the dark. >> he was surprised at nightfall came. [laughter] there he was aloft. >> and however, instead of trying to put down at newport or someplace, he had flown up to

boston and instead of putting down at providence or someplace when knight started to fall, he decided he could safely follow the new york, new haven and hartford rover tracks back to new day haven which he did successfully do and did put the plane down, but yeah, he had a job to do so he did it. >> this is classic bill. 60s where pretty sad time, people who are on the edge of political consensus, not jesse's getting criticized but getting shot. politicians were getting shot and we have a first briefing of a security detail then as the nypd. every cop in new york was from the buckley, black, white

hispanic and they tried out this horrific profile of threats. bill, could tell he was losing patience. he begins doing this and he sits there it for a while, and all of a sudden you hear something very important to attend to. and tea leaves, and he gives me to direct -- directives. first, he is never attending a meeting of that kind again. i can attend them. [laughter] you know the reports that he might be shot in the morning did not concentrate his mind. they board him. and the other was, you have to take steps to be sure passive never hears about any of this. this was early in the campaign. bill was still hoping that passy would support him in the campaign. [laughter]

>> our time has come. we thank you all for being here. >> the most brilliant remark of the entire panel. [laughter] [applause]

the group nuclear threat initiative graded the 32 countries that possess nuclear material and australia as having the safest arsenal. the co-chairman of the organization, former senator sam nunn, talked about the report of the national press club. this is just over an hour. >> i want to just thank everyone for coming today and for your interest in the release of our nuclear threat initiative's nuclear material security index. the nti indexes the a country by country assessments of the status of nuclear material security conditions around the world. this type of in-depth index has not been produced before. it takes a broad approach in defining nuclear material security, it's comprehensive and today it will be public. this is the publication.

all of you of course would get copies and our distinguished panel here will be going into some at least broad outlines of it and then we will take your questions and answers. we hope that the nti index will help spur debate, dialogue, and deliberation that together help beginning to define the long-term path toward a more in depth comprehensive security around the world which we think will lead to a safer and more secure world. over the past year are nti team has been working in close cooperation with the economist intelligence unit. leo is representing the intelligence unit. you will hear from him later. in addition, to ensure the project has maintained an

international thai type perspective during this entire analysis and survey and results, we have sought the guidance and leadership from experts around the world which includes an international panel of highly respected nuclear experts from countries with and without materials and from developed as well as developing nations. so we tried to make the expert panel really representative of the world but we certainly wanted to get experts. that was the number one requirement, and we did. why do we need the index? we must start with the very real threat of nuclear terrorism. today it is clear that the elements of a perfect storm are gathering. there is a large supply of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, what we call weapons usable nuclear materials and that is a term you will see and hear referenced many times. that material is spread across hundreds of sites around 32

countries and some of it in fact, too much of it, is poorly secured. there is also greater know-how today to build a bomb widely available and there are terrorist organizations determined to get the material and to build a weapon if they can. it's not a piece of cake for terrorists and we don't want to pretend that it is but it's far from impossible and nuclear material security is the number one defense we have to prevent nuclear terrorism. we know that to get weapons usable nuclear materials that terrorists must have in order to build a weapon, their long pole in the tent so to speak. they will go where the material is most vulnerable. we have a global challenge and we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. it is pretty revealing the comment native couple of years ago by mohamad elbaradei, former director of atomic energy

agency or co-lessee noted, quoting him, large percentage of the materials reported as lost or stolen or never recovered and perhaps even more alarming he added, quoting again, large percentage of materials which are recovered have not been previously reported as missing and quote. so if terror succeeded in blowing up a large city somewhere in the world the results would be catastrophic and the human toll of hundreds of thousands dead and injured and disruptions to global commerce and global confidence, long-term environmental and public health consequence, and am probable limits on civil liberties worldwide. so what can we do to prevent it? we believe that we are giving an important part of that answer here today. we hope that this index will help individual countries as well as the international community to set rarities and to determine what steps must be

taken to better secure the materials that could be used to build a bomb. we start by taking a broad view of security, working with the independent group of international experts that i have alluded to. we identify key factors which fundamentally affect the state's nuclear material security conditions. then we assess the relative importance. these factors in broad terms, and there are a number of details under each one of them, but in broad terms, we ask the questions how much weapons usable material does a state have and in how many locations? what kind of requirements for protection are in place? what international commitments related to material security has the state made? what is the ability of that state to fulfill these international commitments? finally, could a given country societal factors, for instance

corruption and governmental instability, undermining its undermine its security commitments and its practices? certainly we do not expect every country for every expert to agree with all of the assessment that is in this index, and we don't expect everyone to agree with our set of priorities. we welcome debate on these essential questions. we also welcome constructive suggestions for improvements and certainly we all acknowledge that improvements can be made. here are some of the highlights of what we found in very general, brief terms. first the good news. we see clear signs that governments are becoming more engaged on this issue. there are a number of international initiatives and most of them are set forth herein index, initiatives that can be credited for galvanizing actions by governments around the globe. as an example, to date 19 countries plus taiwan have completely eliminated their

stocks of weapons usable nuclear material. i also want to give president obama and his team credit for elevating this issue to the heads of state level through the 2010 nuclear security summit and to all of the people who have been working hard to make these achievements possible. there'll be a follow-up meeting in south korea in march, again with the heads of state level. so i want to start by noting that progress is being made and certainly many of you follow progress in in the former soviet union where cooperative activity has taken place with the unitedd states and russia and other countries that have been helping in this effort for some 20 years. however we are concerned that there is not a shared consensus about what security measures matter most. the lack of shared priorities undercuts the ability of governments to take urgent and

effective action, and even basically is a disincentive to governments taking action, where there is no sharing of priorities. most importantly, to build a framework for assurance, accountability and action, that is what we are calling for here, assurance, accountability and action throughout the world. government leaders should determine and must determine robust ways of doing the following. one, create a consensus on a new security framework for the protection of nuclear materials that are weapons usable. two, hold states accountable for their progress and three, build eight transparency that includes declarations in clear reviews. i want to make it clear that we understand that some information must be protected, like specific security practices at individual sites. we do not go into that in depth

nor should we in a public dialogue but there is a lot of information that should be shared with the public and certainly other governments have to have confidence and only by sharing information while that confidence be possible. also, we think they sharing information can help inspire actions by other countries. when we brief governments about the index, we believe a number of those will be talked about by our fellow panelists here, some questions consistently come up. first we have been asked, governments cooperating with you? the answer is a qualified yes. in developing the index we offer briefings to 32 countries with weapon usable nuclear materials or got 28 took us up on it. more than half of those countries also validated the data collected by leo and his intelligence unit to ensure that it was accurate. we also have kept south korea

informed, fully informed as a host of the summit in march and in the future we hope all governments will be engaged more fully in this process. the second question we are asked frequently, why did you write the 144 countries that don't have weapons usable terry earls, and we did. the answer is even countries without weapons usable nuclear materials must avoid becoming safe havens, staging grounds or transit points for illicit nuclear activities. every country can and must do more to help detect these materials. third, do you expect or can the index help the nuclear security summit in march? in terms of their process and relations bexley hopefully i'm our point of view the answer is yes. hopefully be in in the ndi index will shake the discussions at the summit and more important to guide the international community and individual

countries as they work to set up priorities beyond the summit. it is important for -- is even more important. this of course is up to the governments of the world and they will make that decision. let me have one more thought before i move onto either percentages. i want to be clear that this index is not, although we do a countries, no doubt about that is not about greg congratulating some countries and chastising others. instead it should be used as a tool for initiating discussion, analysis and debate as well as beginning to help build a consensus as i mentioned on the priorities and the imperatives. bottom line, if the world is to succeed in preventing catastrophic nuclear terrorism, all countries can and must do more to strengthen security around the world's most dangerous material. we believe this is a tool, very powerful tool and is set it's up to the government to decide that

and its a setback on it. the ndi index challenges governments worldwide to respond to the threat by taking appropriate steps to strengthen security conditions. as citizens and his leaders, we need to ask ourselves this question. if we had a cast of -- catastrophic nuclear terrorist attack were there be in moscow or new york or tel aviv or chicago or any city in the world come to the day after, what steps would be wish we had taken to prevent it? securing weapons usable nuclear material is the most critical step and we hope the ndi index can make a significant contribution towards this imperative goal. in closing i would like to thank the funders who supported this project and the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation and carnegie carnegie corporation of new york and the peter g. peterson foundation and of course i must thank warren buffett who makes it antiair and there were possible. is like to introduce leo

abruzzese from the intelligence unit to give you more background on how they constructed the index. vice president in nti's nuclear material security program will then give you more information about our approach and the index results and then he will be followed by deepti choubey. deepti will talk about our findings and recommendations. it thank you for your interest and we look forward to your questions. leo. >> thank you very much. my name is leo abruzzese with economists -- reconnaissance intelligence unit. i thought it would take a moment to explain what we do and how we came to participate in the project. we are the research arm of the economist group which is the publisher of the economist magazine. i'm sure most of you are

familiar with the magazine. so we are a sister organization to the magazine but we do a much different kind of work. we are research-based and we mostly work on behalf of governments, corporations or non-governmental organizations. mostly doing public policy research and other economic projects. also in fields like environmental science and security. we have done quite a bit of work with indices and that made this especially of hours. we have done projects like this for the world bank, for the gates foundation and quite a number of fortune five hundreds. so with that background, nti approached us a little over a year ago and told us of their plans to put together nuclear material security index and asked us if we would essentially advise on the project, if we would be technical consultants to help them build an index that was credible. we were very happy to do that. one important point we like to mention on these projects, this

being washington there are a lot of places doing studies in washington and more than a few of them have a certain bias to them. ideological biases and preordained conclusions. when we work on projects like this we have three goals in mind which we insist on and that is they are independent, transparent and credible. if there are any results that are established ahead of time we don't participate so we were very happy to find out that nti wanted us to gather the data as objectively as we could but the conclusions fall where they may which is what we have been doing for the past year. this is an interesting project in a number of ways. with nti we built an index here. it's not obvious you would want to build an index to measure nuclear material security. but we do that for a couple of reasons. one is this provides the framework for looking at the subject. you can look at anything in a number of different ways and we try to be as objective as possible by building an index, by looking at indicators and

categories in a very structured way that allows you to have the systems you can repeat over time so we have done this now with nti for the first time in 2012. should we want to do this year from now, two years and now five years and now we have a way of going about this that we can repeat so there's a structure in the level of organization to this in a good element of objectivity. secondly it makes it easy for countries to see where they have done well and where they haven't. we are attaching scores of ratings to the so it is very easy for a country, for example to see his progress over time. when they built these indices in the past we have seen countries that perhaps didn't do well in one particular area, naturally change laws or regulations so they were scored better the second time around. so that is another element of an index that ways very well on this process. how do you go about producing an index like this? especially on a topic like nuclear material security, this

is a subject that almost like -- i definition as to how late -- have the element of secrecy to it. we don't want to go into areas of security of specific facilities. that would actually move against the whole goal of trying to provide security but at the same time countries can be transparent. they can do things to reassure the international community that they are least playing by the rules. so so in building an index we gather indicators, indicators are basically questions that we try to answer and answer them in an organized fashion. we look at dozens of indicators. wields molly chose 18 of them in order to make sure that we chose the ones that were credible we used our judgment, nti's of course but also assembled an international panel, people forked in this field for decades. this panel came from a wide group of countries. this was not us-based by any means. we had u.s. members of the panel but we had members have members from russia, china, kazakhstan

and a number of other countries of this process was informed by people around the world and it does have as a senator suggested a strong international flavor to it. gathering this data is not easy. again a lot of this data is, shall we say, less than transparent. a colleague of mine, hillary ewing, spend six months with a large team of researchers poring through thousands of documents looking for whatever information we could find on how much nuclear materials these countries have. that is not obvious by the way. you cannot easily put a number to the quantity that most of these countries have. a kind of regulations to they have in place? sometimes the regulations are easy to find. often they are almost impossible to find. nonetheless we put together a system for doing this. as the senator pointed out because so much of this information is difficult to find we gave countries an opportunity to look at but we have gathered and to tell us whether they

thought it was good or whether it was a bit off. in some cases countries were quite generous with their time. they would tweak some of the findings that we had. will give you one example. we had a source that said canada had less than 50 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. it was true but when we checked with canopy found in fact it was less than 500 kilograms which is actually quite a bit less so this was a way of making sure that we had information that is as accurate as it could possibly be. finally, on this process, we put this into what we call a model, an index tool. as the senator pointed out, this is something that you can test. you can actually change assumptions in this model. for those of you who have a technical bent if you are a stakeholder at your university this is something you can actually use and play with. you can change ways. you can change assumptions. so it has overall conclusions as

something to use as a drill down feature. so we hope you'll find this interesting. we certainly found it a challenging project. we are very happy with the results. where most of certainly open for feedback. we hope we will do this again and each time they be do these they get better the second or third time rants over that i'm going to turn it over to page stoutland and he will tell you about the history of the project. >> thank you, leo. i would like to discuss very briefly the project's overall approach and then to provide the index results themselves. let me begin by reiterating that despite progress, important gaps remain in our ability to set ironies and to measure progress on nuclear material security. and so to address this, we developed the first-ever comprehensive framework for nuclear material security.

it does two things, provides a basis for dialogue and priorities and is a framework against which progress can be measured. let me quickly summarize the five categories, including some of the indicators in the categories as well as why they are important. the first category of indicators includes the quantity, the number of quantities in that number of sites with weapons usable material. includes a quantities themselves, the number of sites and whether not the quantities are increasing or decreasing in a particular country. this is important because it affects the overall potential in a particular country. the second category are the security and control measures. this includes the specific physical protection measures, accounting practices and whether not security personnel are screened. these actions directly affect the security of materials on any given site. the third category is what we

call global norms and includes the relevant international legal agreements, voluntary commitments in the level of transparency shown by a country on both materials quantities and security practices. all of these measures affect the international confidence in a countries, and the way the country takes the security obligations. the fourth category is domestic capacity. this is about the national level implementation of actions. for example whether not a country has an independent regulatory agency that oversees the security practices in this area. national area implementation is required for effective security program. the fifth and final category or what we call societal factors, includes a level of corruption in the country as well as its political stability among other things. these measures provide an important backdrop to the specific security practices that may be in place. taken together, these five

categories provide the nuclear security conditions. a brief word about the scope of this project. the scope of this and not girl indexes weapons usable nuclear materials specifically highly enriched uranium separated plutonium and including mixed outside feel. it does not include uranium in the nuclear power industry or radiological material such as used in hospitals or industry. finally countries with less than one kilogram of weapons usable materials or even no weapons usable nuclear materials were evaluated against the subset of the categories in order to assess their contribution to the global nuclear material security agenda. key actions would include joining relevant treaties and taking action such as criminalizing solicit material so as not to become a transit.or staging ground for the these

activities. i know this chart may be a bit difficult to read but shown here as well as pages 14 and 15 of the written report are the overall scores and rankings for the 32 countries with greater than one kilogram of weapons usable nuclear materials. on pages 16 to 18 are shown the scores and rankings for countries with less than one kilogram or no weapons usable nuclear materials. let me briefly review these six columns. on the far left is a column that shows the overall rankings and scores for these countries. the five columns on the right show the scores and rankings in the individual categories, starting with quantities of sites, then global norms, sorry, global sense ice in the security and control measures, global modems, domestic commitment capacity in the fifth and final column is the societal factors.

recall that these five categories on the right contributed the overall score based on the relative rarities as determined by ntia, it i.e. you in conjunction with the international panel of experts. we will not take the time here to comment on the individual rankings. rather what we would like to do is call your attention to a couple of examples to help you better understand the index. australia is the top-ranked country, ranked six or higher in every category, benefiting from small quantities of nuclear materials, strong societal factors and high scores in the other categories as well. for the other top-ranked countries as well, consistently high scores in all categories was the key theme. for comparison, the united kingdom also scores well across the board but it's overall rank is lower to tenth overall by the large quantities of weapons usable nuclear materials and the

fact that the quantities of these materials are increasing particularly in the civilian sector. if the quantities of nuclear materials in the number of sites were not included as an example, the united kingdom would rank fourth overall. there is a similar situation for the united states. the united states ranked 13th overall, but if quantities and sites were not considered it would rank second overall, negating that is as high scores in all the other categories. a distinction between begin a and the united kingdom as an example is primarily due to the scores in the lowball norms category where the united states has yet to ratify two important treaties. for countries have particularly low levels of transparency. specifically israel, north korea, india and china on materials and material security. this mostly directs -- most

radically affects the scores what we call the global norms category. for example if india were as transparent as the united kingdom, its rank in the global norms category would move from 26 to six overall. appropriate levels of transparency are critical because independent of the specific security posture on the ground, to fix the international confidence in the country's nuclear material security conditions. finally, for the lowest ranking, the index showed that these countries with the exception of the materials and sites categories generally have low scores in most if not all of the indicator categories and providing these countries many opportunities for improvement on their material security conditions. at this point let me transition to my colleague, deepti choubey who will present the findings and recommendations of the index.

>> thank you, page. let me share with you today a selection of our key findings and recommendations from the server. encouragingly, one of our key findings that governments have become far more aware of the threat and the need for urgent action to combat it. there are however far more troubling findings. for instance, for their disagreement about the importance of nuclear material security, there is no global consensus about rep rarities should read for achieving security. furthermore, there is no agreed international system or globally accepted practices for regulating the production of, the use of and security requirements for weapons usable materials. you might think that this is a job party down by the international atomic energy agency but the iaea only has the authority to oversee materials in civilian programs and not the materials used for military purposes. as such, the iaea does not have a mandate or the resources to

oversee a comprehensive system covering all weapons usable nuclear materials. so instead today, we only have part of a system that we actually need to tackle this problem. another finding is that it delivered lack of transparency makes it very difficult to hold states accountable for their security responsibilities. many details around site security and several of us have already said, should be protected so that they do not become a roadmap for terrorists. but other information could and should be made public to build international confidence and i will just exactly what we are recommending later on. also worrying is that several states are particular vulnerable to insider threats such as a corrupt or disgruntled worker accessing materials without authorization. nearly a quarter of the states with weapons usable nuclear materials score quarterly on societal factors because a very high levels of corruption. of those countries, several also

scored poorly on the prospect of political instability over the next two years. the combination of those two factors significantly increases the risk that nuclear materials might he stole in in the midst of government distraction or political chaos. finally the index also reveals that the stocks of weapons usable materials continues to increase in certain countries. japan and the united kingdom are increasing because of civilian use whereas -- although there are no legal barriers to the production of new highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the production of these materials or weapons purposes is certainly against the global norm where all other states are abiding by a moratorium. there are however, a few other states that produce plutonium but is it it has a view so that plutonium as fuel in civilian

reactors their current material inventories are largely static. despite some positive developments, these findings underscore the need for urgent action. because no state can address this threat alone, all states have a responsibility to work individually and corporately. specifically governments must work together to build and create the conditions for a system, for tracking, protecting and managing these deadly materials. if done right such a system can assure all of us that each status fulfilling a security obligations. imperil and peril of their steps the countries must take by themselves and without delay so we'll let us first turned to how to create the foundation of a global nuclear material security system. how would we go about doing that? foremost we must begin a dialogue at lease to a much-needed global consensus on priority. the nuclear security summit process has the potential for being the right and possibly only for him for this discussion

and our hope is that leaders at the next on the summit commit to an ongoing process to come to agreement about what actions matter most. additionally there should be a sustainable and effective way for benchmarking progress and holding states accountable to their obligations. our hope is that the nti indexes a starting point in framing the breadth of the problem and it can be built on an improved as governments provide assurances through more information. to that in states must enact greater transparency practices which would then in turn foster greater international confidence and we are recommending three specific actions for governments. first, they should publish and provide access to the nuclear materials regulations. currently, 13 out of the 32 states with weapons usable material published regulations in an annual report. governments can and should do far better than this. second, they should declare the

nuclear material inventories. again there is no legal requirement for states to declare how much material they have for civilian or military purpose however nine states all interiorly declare their plutonium holdings and the plutonium and production history for the u.k. and u.s. military programs have been made public. more nuclear weapons state should do the same. and then finally they should invite regular peer reviews which is a service provided by the iaea of facilities that actually contain weapons usable materials. in parallel with these collective efforts there are also several actions that states can take individually to improve their stewardship of weapons usable materials. for instance, all stages stop increasing their stock of materials particularly for military purposes. overtime, though stock should be reduced to the lowest possible level commensurate with civilian energy or scientific needs. but one of the best ways to

objectively measure progress is to eliminate completely weapons usable nuclear materials and as many states as possible. for the past two decades 19 countries plus taiwan have eliminated their materials and currently 14 of the 32 states with weapons usable materials have less than 100 kilograms and many but not all of those could be good candidates for eliminating their stocks in the next few years. we should all look to the outcome of the 2012 new clear security summit to see which of of these states commit to accelerating the cleanup of their materials. we also know that two of the most important steps government should take to strengthen their defenses against insider threats is to decrease levels of corruption and ensure political stability. those prescriptions for these issues are beyond the scope of this project but we do emphasize steps for strengthening security and control measures including protection, control and personnel measures for direct transport of nuclear materials.

the steps are the first against the insider threat. but today, there is no baseline defining minimum-security and control measures which should be in place at all sites with plutonium. state should routinely test their security arrangements particularly if there are challenging societal factors that can undermine security. in the interest of time i will not review each of our recommendations which are spelled out in more detail in the report by focus on one last one and that is to target assistance to states that need help. the good news is that the indexes helped easily identify 18 states that have provided financial regulatory or security assistance on a bilateral or multilateral basis in the past two years. the index also identify states that may be in need of assistance. our hope is that the index can be used as a resource to match those who need help with those who can provide assistance and

vice versa. because no matter whether a state is ranked at the top or at the bottom of the list, all states can do more to improve. thank you and i will now hand it back to page will briefly walk you through what our web site offers. >> thank you deepti. very briefly let me highlight a few features on the web site. the web site is www.nti index.or. on the web site, you will find electronic versions of the entire report. you will find downloadable versions of the model, the excel spreadsheet that has the complete functionality. in addition though you will find all of the most frequently used features on the web site itself. there are the overall ranking scores as shown on the projector. the next slide will show the example of a country profile. there are specific gauges that

detail how each country did on all of the indicators themselves and then finally, there is a function where the user can change the relative rarities to let the user engage with the index to see how the scores and rankings change as a function of their relative priorities of the specific rarities and indicator so please explored the web site for access to all of these features. at this point i think we are going to take questions and answers. >> thank you leo and page and deepti and now we will have questions and answers in the lead to have questions for the media. back in the back, left. if you want to directed to a particular individual do so and if not we will deal it among ourselves here. perhaps you can say why you think the -- why do they lie there and your analysis?

>> why are the countries at the bottom? >> i know from the objective standards why they're they are there but i mean what are the common characteristics which need repair? maybe you could talk about that a little bit and that i'm curious to know whether any of the countries that lie at the bottom of the list are among those countries that sought to get reefs by you or whether they have ignored the results of your work or the fact that the work was in progress? thanks very much. >> if you wrote down your specific -- suspicious i've would guess they would probably be correct and certainly there is a relationship between those at the bottom and generally speaking those did not accept the briefings or have anywhere near full cooperation. i would say and i will do to differ to my colleagues, corruption hasn't been mentioned, instability. those are two factors and lack of transparency. if i had to say with the three

factors are and depending on which country, they vary, but those would be the three that would be the most prominent. page do you want to comment on that? >> yeah, let me briefly feel there could final question first. in terms of countries that agreed to meet with us, actually 28 of the 32 did including some that were ranked quite near the bottom so we were innocent pleas to see so many were willing to meet with us but i will just second what senator nunn said. there are a number of crosscutting themes, certainly low transparency, not participating in a full range of what we call global norms be they legal agreements or political agreements and that has been coupled with sometimes very challenging levels of corruption and low political stability. so those things came together where those countries, and resulted in being ranked at the bottom of the index.

>> yes. >> thank you. looking at all the data that you have collected, there've been scattered for torts of course over the years that terrorists do have some type of access or could be holding material, not using it yet. is there anything that you found that this research that does help to clarify that, whether any terrorist organization does have something that could be very serious? >> there have been a series of recent articles talking about what happened in terms of the last 20 years, and there's a lot that has been done that is prevented weapons of mass destruction from spreading. we have had teams of u.s. and russian experts working together, military-to-military, lap to lap. we have had coordination between a number of countries and helping the former soviet union get control of their nuclear materials. that is where the largest

stockpile was in the world. >> kazakhstan is taken a lead in this regard in ukraine has taken a leap rico kazakhstan in ukraine and belarus give up all of their nuclear weapons which most people in the world don't know about. most people don't know that 10% of theocracy in the country, one out of 10 lightbulbs comes from nuclear material that was formerly in weapons pointed at us from russian, ukrainian and others. that was part of the dismantling, so a lot has been done. what is missing and whether there is material out there that no one knows about, it's always possible. i certainly would not discount it. i would say that i've always operated under the, probably, the questionable but nevertheless assumption that terrorist that had nuclear materials that they had it, they would try to use it and they

would try to use it as soon as they could build a weapon. and of course building a weapon is not a piece of cake but the longest poll in the tent is getting the material so our operating premise that nti has always been and still is protect the material as the number one way to prevent catastrophic terrorism. it is possible. could we somehow -- some way that we don't know about. there are certainly missing materials and they are certainly in the tory but this index will help establish hopefully a dialogue that will lead to some baseline about how much nuclear material there is because it there is no inventory, there is no baseline is hard to know when something is missing so that is part of this whole process. do you want to add to that or deepti? david? >> senator, i had a couple of questions i guess. one is, a big pitcher question which is president obama has

promised a global clean out in four years and i realize he is using a different criteria. he has promised to lock down vulnerable materials in four years but does the work on this index give any of you any insight into, is a getting close to that, to going to make that goal? and the second question, the larger question i guess which is securing the bomb which nti produced for nine years was very valuable because of the way it was very specific and pointed out quantities and locations and events in south africa for example. have you seen them, different kind of announces which doesn't have that kind of data in it and i just wondered why you feel that this is a different, why you should to do this of analysis? >> my answer in the second question, why we shifted this

analysis, matt bond bond to help this doing a securing the bomb report was very much a part of our expert panel so there is continuity in that sense. we felt we needed a deeper dialogue and let countries that what they could do to improve specifically country by country more than generically which was their general approach. also, that effort started with a focus primarily on the former soviet union. still problems as you well no, but i think it's now much more of a global approach. third, i would say that it's important for the u.s. and russia to work together for 15 or 20 years under the nunn-lugar program. >> the question was that relationship was wearing thin and i have felt for the last five or six years that we needed to move much more to a partnership with u.s. rush as well as countries all over the globe in trying to address this problem so this is really trying to take them as roger harner

ship type approach and also i would say that we were inspired to start this index by the security summit that president obama had with 40 heads of state and that of course will be followed up on with their friends in south korea and are enormously important meeting in march and we felt this type of index would be a better tool for those countries attending that summit. finally i would say we aren't addressing radioactive material in here. dirty bombs and so forth, we are using the index to look at weapons usable material but the radioactive material needs to be protected. there are a lot of crossovers here. the steps that would be taken here to protect against weapons usable would also help on radioactive. that is not the focus of this index but it needs to be part of what they talk about in south korea. so all of those reasons are reasons. at me ask page to add to it. speeches briefly and the senator

said, i think this report the index builds nicely on the great work that -- and i think when you see the full report in particular the web site you will see all the specific details for all these countries that will actually i think in fact be a lot of interest so there are a lot of specifics but we didn't have time to cover them here. >> what about obama schools? >> i applaud the goals. i wouldn't bet money that it will be completed in four years, but we have made progress. two or three countries we have been working on for a long time that after the last summit were willing and gave up their highly enriched uranium and moved it over to low-enriched uranium saguaros roberts has been made in the area. without a goal you are not going to get very far and i applaud the goal, but i would not have a whole lot of money we will complete it. for one thing you have countries that don't cooperate as we have seen in this index and if you are setting the gold secure all nuclear material, that would

include north korea, it would include iran, it would include pakistan. it would include other countries that at this stage are not cooperating. i believe that this index, this may be hope, but it is not hope that this index will allow countries that have not corporate in the international community in terms of sharing and protecting material and best practice and so forth, will understand they have threats themselves, that this is not simply doing a favor to the world. this is protecting your own security because countries that don't have good practices are also probably the most likely victims of material that could get into the hands of terrorists whether it is a dirty bomb or whether it is weapon usable material. so i'm hoping that kind of, those lightbulbs will go off but i wouldn't bet money on that in the near term but the long-term, i think there is hope here. back row, yes maam.

>> please forgive my voice. firstly can you discuss a little bit about how you give waiting to different things like societal stability, corruption versus the national treaties? did you decide that one thing was better and with the on the ground securities was likely to be? the second question you urged -- rarities. third way, can you share whether pakistan, india and iran for reefs on the index and them but their reactions were? >> okay, let me start with leo on that and maybe want to shove off a couple of those other questions. >> let me address the weightings question. to the one. there are a number of ways you can wait it. against over the exemption -- assumption for example every indicator has an equal weight.

we consider that approach but decided at the end of the day that probably some of them were more important than others but rather than us making that decision we mentioned earlier that we had an international panel so we can be in that panel about five or six months after he began the project. we showed them some of the initial results and we essentially had a long, full day brainstorming session where we talked to the panel members. we really pushed people and what you have seen here is essentially the collective wisdom of about 15 or 20 people at ntia, said especially from among the peer panel and also di you, really asking people to judge from their experience. if you look at our panel members some of them have experience on physical protection. others have worked in government's at nonprofit organizations. there are all experts on this so essentially rather than taking a mathematical approach rather than simply saying they are all equal, we essentially put a

large group of very bright people in the room and we just went around and around until we reached a rough consensus on this so we are happy that is good approach. have or if you would like to try another one as we mentioned, this model is a tool. you can actually go into this if you would like and change the weightings. it doesn't change what our conclusions are. our conclusions are what you have seen here but for those of you who are so disposed to have a go at this and the other ratings have changed, you can do that. ..

it was a panel of global people who are involved in nuclear security, that were appointed by director albert day from the iaea for a couple of years ago. we worked a long time on that and issued a report.

this is one of those jobs that eventually should be done by an international group. there are to be international norms. there ought to be international standards. we will have to move towards international i think approach to the whole question of the fuel cycle. we started that with the fuel bank now which has been authorized under iaea moving forward on that. the iaea and there's a lot about this in the report and every for you to that for the details but it is enormously important. the iaea or some other organization like the iaea is going to have to be put in charge in this and has been given a mandate the legal authority and the resources. they don't have it now. this is not their mandate. safeguarding means we have explained this in reporting is very important, people assume the word safeguarding means security. it doesn't necessarily mean security. the example i've used before, and this is actually alluded to,

the safeguard inspector from iaea goes into building and they are basically doing an accounting and they have cameras, their job is to make sure it's not diverted to weapons and has not been diverted weapons. is not to say whether there are locks on the doors are holes in the ceiling, whether they are perimeter guards and whether people are secured, so there would only be after-the-fact kind of action there. the iaea is doing with their mandate says, but their mandate is not broad enough. their resources are not significant enough and at some point the international community has to come together and decide who is going to be responsible for this. this is an ngo operation now. and we are doing it because governments are not doing it, but that doesn't mean that government shouldn't do it in the future and perhaps that kind of discussion can be held in seoul south korea because that could be a beginning.of deciding

what authority the iaea i ought to have but i know the iaea does not have the kind of resources they need to do a job on the security side. safeguarding is different from security. >> i will just add a little bit to your question. you know i think we do need a global standard eventually. what we have right now i think our states who are looking for some guidance. again on what matters most and i think if we had a global standard we would be able to do a far better job of holding states accountable. we would also be able to track progress so again what we have done with this index of it as we are putting forward a framework that helps is really get our minds and our arms around this problem. the other thing i would just say is we included in our index to relevant treaties, and one of them is the convention on the fiscal reduction of nuclear material and its 2005 amendment. that amendment isn't enforced.

if it was that would actually require states to enact standards on protecting materials while they are in use, or in storage and not just when they are being transported. we still need over 40 states to actually ratify that so currently, states aren't obligated to enact the standards and we clearly need to do a far better job of getting us there and i think that is one clear step we can take. >> okay we will take a couple more questions. charlie. >> if i can just comment. charlie curtis. charlie has charlie has been part of nti and ran our organization. i asked for the mic ecocide chair of the nuclear security, which is i think relevant to this last question, not to detract in any way from the need for a minimum standards. nti has not waited for that.

it has catalyze the creation of a world institute of nuclear security to share best practices for the physical protection of security of nuclear materials worldwide. it has concluded now its third year of operation and it has over 700 members from 53 countries, and so they are trying to improve the practices of physical protection security while we await this more important international standard, but you can't wait it's because they physical protection concerns are so great. >> there is a large vacuum here and ngos are trying to fill it. we are not the only ones, but the winds organization is in vienna. it has an international ward as charlie said, over 600 members.

roger housley used to head up deal securities in charge of it. roger was one of the members of our panel. that is a voluntary organization. is certainly not mandatory but we are hoping that it will row and we are also looking at being able to help develop best practices. okay, think we have got one more question here. >> for leo, you mentioned countries were given the opportunity to as you said, tweak some of the numbers. to what extent in your examples for canada were you able to verify the fact that they only had 50 or 150 kilograms, that kind of material, that kind of thing? >> for some of these it's difficult to verify precisely. was important to understand is we mainly went to regulators within the country so we are not necessarily going to people and political positions. you don't really no, and it's

almost impossible to know exactly what the quantities are. again we took them initially from central sources and the central sources in some cases were fairly good and in other cases they gave ranges so we went to the individual countries to try to say, would you be willing for example to offer us more information one-on-one that you are normally providing to other people collecting the information and a number of cases they were able to do that. now were we able to verify in every case? not in every instance but we asked them to justify it. we push them on the points as well. we made the ultimate judgment on this. we felt by and large you had very good levels of cooperation. ..

at least we ought to start to get the discussion going about sharing that kind of information with an international organization, like an iaea or even share on a regional basis, so there can be a regional conference building. because if there's not confidence in the middle east is a good example of that you've got to see more and more pressures of political consideration and as you get more and more proliferation you have more countries going into enrichment and more dangerous and terrorist groups being able

to buy material and then the odds are international disaster go up, up, up. so we have to make that spiral the other way around. i don't see any of your hands of we think the jury much for coming. we appreciate it and will be glad to answer questions we'll have our staff available for any follow-up questions with the media. thank you very much.

new legislation would create strict reporting measures for members of congress who buy or sell stock. this comes after cbs 60 minutes garrard segment last fall alleging some members of congress are benefiting financially from information they learn about on capitol hill. the house financial services committee is chaired by congressman spencer bachus of alabama. this hearing is three and half hours. >> of the hearing will come to order. the committee on financial services has been convened. today we will examine an issue that it's received a significant amount of attention in recent weeks. the american people deserve an answer to questions that have been raised about whether insider-trading law is applied to the members of the congress or their staff. they also have an absolute right to demand that people they elect to represent them in congress

conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards and do not seek to profit from their positions. during this hearing we will address this concern. we will seek to learn whether a member of congress or any citizen is exempt from all and we will discuss a chart 1148, the stock trading on congressional knowledge act. accordingly, we would hear from several witnesses today including the sponsors of a chart 1148, our colleagues, the director of enforcement at the securities and exchange commission and other experts on the subject. i thank all the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing their testimony. i especially want to thank representative jones and thank them for joining us to talk about the building sponsored. i will now recognize democratic

member for an opening statement. >> i'm sorry, ms. maloney for one minute. >> thank you. the chairman is on his way. and i am very pleased to welcome our witnesses today. mr. jones, ms. slaughter, i look forward to your testimony. i'm particularly proud of my colleague louise slaughter who was the first person to introduce this bill when she discovered a staffer was making trades from his office on inside information and i am proud to be a sponsor of h.r. 1148 as i have been in the last congress, and i am pleased to see that we are moving with great speed to address this issue and hopefully passage into law. elected officials really should be like caesar's wife and avoiding the appearance of impropriety and the potential for trading on inside information within the halls is

undeniable, and we need to move to address it. while the sec has said recently that existing insider trading law is applied to members, i can't remember the last prosecution under any existing law. in addition the house ethics committee guided has been that house rules prohibit members and their staff from entering into personal transaction, the trade on confidential information coming and we need to ban this. it remains clear to me that the need to expressly prohibit this activity in the statute cannot be overstated. this bill is needed and action on it is long overdue. i have a series of editorials from across the country but i would like to place in the record all of whom support this bill and say we should have passed it yesterday. i think my colleagues and look forward to your testimony yelled back. >> thank you.

>> thank you mr. sherman for calling this hearing and i think my colleagues on the panel for their leadership on this a real. before we debate in a given policy might think it is critical that we first get right the principle and i would suggest the two principles apply. number one with the exception of statutory compensation the american people have to have confidence that members of congress will not profit from their office. second with the exception of the speech and debate clause enshrined within our constitution, our constituents deserve to know that members of congress are going to be living under the same laws that apply to them. and people need to know that these principles are in violent. now it's clear that 60 minutes still enjoy is pretty good ratings since i heard about this issue over the weekend at least on several occasions. but our constituents also deserve the facts.

let me quote from one of our witnesses from the congressional research service. quote, i think it is now fairly clear to everyone following this issue that congress did not exempt itself from inside trading laws, end of quote. i also note under the rules members are expressly prohibited from using, quote, their official positions from personal gain. the subject matter of today's hearing is very, very important. but before we prescribe a remedy let's ensure we have identified the right problem. the challenge may be lax enforcement. the problem may be inadequate disclosure. it may apply in this fishery definition. if it does not appear to lie with the congressional extension but wherever it lies, the american people rightfully demand accountability, and we owe it to them to provide it. i yield back the balance of my time.

>> mr. lynch. he's not here? all right. mr. scott. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to just comment our fellow members of congress who've taken the bold leadership on this legislation. mr. jones, ms. slaughter and mr. walz. you are certainly to be commended. at i want to thank u. come mr. chairman for holding this hearing on the stock trading on congressional knowledge act. it is very important that we honor the trust of the american people that it place in the members of congress and the act would bar members of congress and federal employees from profiting from information that is not publicly available. that day of the team by means of their elected positions. the stock act would also direct the commodities of the future trading commission to prohibit someone from buying or selling a

commodity from future delivery or swap while in possession of material information that is not public. a very important and should be the case. currently, as a matter of fact inside trading is not forbidden by the law. however, they're have been reports to members of congress and their staff have been engaging in the trading of securities. and i find this very, very trolling. and i believe that my house colleagues and by as well as staff should be subject to the very same rules as those that are not directly associated with members of congress. although there seems to be a consensus on this fact, some have questioned the legislation's narrow scope, and i think this deserves a particular mention the and this is namely its application to only material that nonpublic information relating to pending legislation and the omission of

tipping by congress or employees of the executive branch so i would be very interested in finding out today from our witnesses on how our witnesses viewed the legislation and the discussion to today and then what should be done to increase this focus with the effectiveness if we feel it is necessary. so i look forward to this hearing. thank you very much mr. sherman and again, the american people are depending upon us to do the right thing and play by the same rules that all the american people are playing by when it comes to the trading on the exchanges. thank you. >> thank you. i want to see us strengthen the laws applied to the insider-trading as it can be practiced by members of congress. i think that many people will get the government today and see that it's entered into every

facet of the economy. we have massive federal spending now. we have taxation policy that is not uniform. we of the government intervening of the economy on some forms and not others. and with that increased size and increased influence, there is a heightened sense that political poll did in sight now which are enriching a select few. it is that crony capitalism that is in our system and republicans that perception that we have to address here in congress. washington must be held in prehire standard. whether this is achieved through the stock at or mr. duffy's legislation which i am a co-sponsor, i believe that the end of the day now is time to act. after this hearing we should mark up legislation and i look forward to hearing the witnesses with their testimony here this morning. thank you. i yield back mr. chairman.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i want to express my admiration for the efforts of my colleagues. i will now like knowledge it was during that period a think i did of see it incorrectly unconceivable that members of congress would be doing that. but by now accept the fact it has been happening and it is both a matter of right and a matter of what we owe the country to correct it. sallai thank my colleague for persevering. i think the best thing for members of congress to do is to be very cautious. to some extent will be elements of knowledge we have for that we've had to capture under the law. our prediction about how we vote may go if you don't have all the commitments signed in your

pocket probably wouldn't be inside information but is this something that ought not be there. this had occurred to me some time ago with potential issue and i think -- almost all of my investments are massachusetts municipal bonds, which also are pretty good because the agencies underestimate the commitment of the state and in fact if anything i've acted against interest because i've been urging the rating agencies to reduce the risk component to the bonds which would make the interest rate go down. i acknowledge the fact i am getting an unduly high return because of the long existing possibility of the default. but i also thought that only the bonds of the state i am enjoying to represent would minimize any argument of the conflict of interest to the extent of a oppose anything that would undermine the fiscal soundness

of the state i represent i assume that would be considered to be okay. but to go back there is an area i think it is important that we pass this legislation and by thank my colleague for doing it. i am skeptical of the trust we've got to get very last minute entry into this to talk about the mandatory trust i think there are problems with trust being more or less supervising the trustee is. i believe the approach my colleagues are taking is a very thoughtful one and i will be working to shore of legislation. for those that might argue it's not necessary, i will look at my most legislative principle. redundancy is clearly preferable to a ambiguity when you are passing laws. especially between those, some of those that are unnecessary if

hired to represent one of us would argue that it was too and give us. let's clear this up. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffey for two minutes. >> there is a quota for congress and the trades they make. whether there is really wrong doing i don't know but i would commend ms. slaughter and mr. walz for introducing this bill. it is a first step in the right direction. but i think we have to go a step further we can't take half a step. we should take a full step and lead no gray area with what members of the house, members of the senate, the president or the judicial branch dewitt regards to the trade and that's why i introduced the restricted house bill 3550 and what we do is mandate that each member has a

trust and if they opt out of the trust they can opt for the disclosure of trade. and i think if we do that it will shed light on any trade that goes on with members of the senior staff and if there was a meeting with a high-ranking business official and three days or two days later we would be able to see that and i think that kind of transparency, the immediate transparency is imperative we of our going to introduce legislation. my fear is if you only take half a step it will still be too much gray held their for members of the public to see members could skirt around the new rule. i think my bill goes the distance and makes sure there will be no doubt the exit of bridge of the did judiciary is going to use that information. i yield back.

stomachs before mr. duffy. mr. lynch for one minutes. specs before mr. chairman. and i want to thank our distinguished panel and sponsor of the legislation for coming forward. i certainly think that recent revelations have created doubt and the integrity of the whole process here whether or not members or capitalizing on inside information they get through the legislative process. i am a co-sponsor of mr. walz's bill. i think it needs to be addressed and i think we need to do it quick and in a fashion that i think restores america's confidence that we are operating above and not taking advantage of our positions. with that i want to congratulate sponsors of this bill.

thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. >> while this hearing focuses on a specific piece of legislation the greater discussion revolves around the public perception of washington and the current lack of trust of the voters across the country have in their elected leaders. i think it is pretty clear if a member of congress trade-off of material nonpublic information as it is defined for private citizens to trade off of such information there should be penalties and there should be accountability. we also must keep in mind that innuendo and that research to not make for the justifiable level legations against members of congress. to this and i think the stock act offers a completely unworkable solution to these allegations. the bill would likely lead to the political witch hunt and

judging by the language of section 3 can allow a member of congress from ever getting in front of a camera again to discuss pending legislation. this would have the perverse effect of decreasing transparency and further eroding the public trust in washington. i feel there are better ways to address this issue and that is why i introduced house legislation for 80 which would amend the house rules and require that every member of congress either place their assets in a blind trust or disclose all of their trading activity on a monthly basis for the public to see. the resolution bars inside trading by members of congress and grants enforcement power to the house committee on ethics, thereby avoiding the constitutional problem of having an executive agency investigating the legislative branch. i feel this could be an important step towards washington regaining some of the trust of the american people. i look forward to discussing

these important issues at today's hearing and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i will follow one minute. all right. let's get started and see how it goes. thank you mr. chairman. in the 1960's when americans were asked if they believed government officials, their government officials could be counted on to do the right thing or try to do the right thing the overwhelmingly said yes. they might not agree with the decisions but they didn't question the motives. they thought the people that held responsible positions in their democracy can from the people and wanted to do the right thing by their country. the patriotic americans just like other americans. that has now been gone. in the polling now overwhelmingly americans do not think that the people who hold their position hold positions of

government. that is toxic for our democracy. we cannot survive the democracy unless there is more confidence in our elected officials than there is down. part of that is the conscious effort to discredit the government to discredit everything the government does. part of that is the result of the financial crisis and what happened most americans think everything done in the financial crisis was done to help specific institutions and the specific people not to help the economy. and there is too much truth to that. part of it is the result of another story on 60 minutes although it's been widely reported is the area to prosecute in the face of what appears to be clear evidence of criminal misconduct certainly in a democracy no one can be too big to prosecute. and then finally this, they're has to be an understanding people have to believe and it has to be true, it has to be true that people in responsible positions are not using their

positions to enrich themselves. we have got to restore the trust of the american people in their democracy and the first step to restore the trust is to be trustworthy. i yield back the time i don't have. >> we have completed opening statements. we have three of our colleagues here to testify. mr. walker jones, representative lewis, luis slaughter and representative tim walz. you are free to make opening statements at this time. walter, we will start with you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. we are living in a time when the american people do not trust congress. since the bailout of wall street, the verney madoff scandal and other indiscretions, the american people have been frustrated and disappointed in

its elected officials concerning financial issues. 60 minutes recently escalated speculation and raised more questions about those in power not playing by the same rules as the american people. according to many experts those of the top of the financial world manipulated information to the detriment of the american tax payoff and investors began small. as members of congress it is our job to follow a strong honor code and hold those accountable and the positions of power. the american people should never, ever have the slightest perception that we are using our office for otas pocket. that is why i believe and i support the start act. it's a proper first step in maintaining the integrity of congress. the introduction of h.r. 1148 states its purpose and i quote,

to prohibit commodities and securities trading based on non-public information relating to congress to require additional reporting by members and employees of congress of securities transactions and for other purposes. while there may be some technicalities to the legislation that need to be addressed, i believe that a chart 1148 is a great starting point for this congress. mr. truman, too many people today think that financial markets are a casino in which regular investors cannot win and we're insiders cannot lose. why shouldn't they think that, mr. sherman? here are three headlines from the last two weeks, and i quote, the secret fed loans based banks $13 billion. the second, bloomberg report, and i quote, henry paulson gave

hedge fund in advance fannie mae rescued. mr. tremendous is why the american people are so disenchanted with congress, and i quote the third. the economic times, and i quote, in the mnf global proves accounting lives on. three years after the financial crisis with the too big to fail banks or even bigger the accounting is still being used by the bailouts and financial institutions still continue. just yesterday i was asked by a constituent why the banks that received a bailout continued to give millions of dollars of bonuses to their employees it simply makes no sense, mr. speaker. that is why a chart 1148 is so important. this legislation proves to the american people that if there is

a problem, those of us in congress will fix it. it is of the utmost importance that members of congress maintain the integrity of this institution. we are given a privilege and an opportunity to serve the american people. they deserve to trust those they elect to represent them in washington. and mr. chairman, i hope this committee will use this bill as a vehicle to expand and build the american people's confidence in this institution which they have to lost. with that, mr. chairman, i am pleased and honored to be with my colleagues. she has been fighting for this call last five years. tim walz has picked up the volume is running. let's score a touchdown for the american people. thank you. i yield back. >> ms. slaughter, chairman slaughter. >> what ever, louise is okay. [laughter]

think you, trent bachus and ranking member frank for holding this hearing this morning to the ranking member i want to thank you for acknowledging the lead for the legislation. your leadership will certainly be missed when you retire in this term, but look forward to working with you and german bachus to get this bill passed and of historic financial reform would be added to the committee is legacy. i thank the committee in fact after taking the stock act has been around for five years, never gained more than 14 co-sponsors or anybody then noticed. i introduced to the after increasing reports that members of congress and staff were abusing the officials tavis of the gain in the rise of the political intelligence firms which to me is one of the most important parts of the bill that never gets mentioned, but i want to talk about that later, using the congressional nonpublic information to gain an advantage in the stock market.

in addition to the academic field developed a study where the members of congress performed better than average on the stock market in the 80's and 90's. the bill was reintroduced in the 110th and again in the 111th, chris. i testified in 2009 before this committee's oversight investigation subcommittee and hearing on the topic with the bill never advanced at all. the bill supported by a broad base of groups, public citizen scum citizens for a responsibility in washington, the common cause, democracy 2010, the league of women voters, government oversight, the foundation and leading up to the 60 minutes report we've only had as i said nine co-sponsors. although we did have walter jones from the times extremely grateful and i think him for the support he's given in this legislation. we now have 170 co-sponsors and counting. everyday we have four or five

more it is truly a bipartisan bill. not one but two senate counterparts in the senate have already held their hearing. to make up for lost time the senate held a hearing and committed to the mark above the bill before the end of the year. i encourage the members of the committee to work in concert of the other five committees of the jurisdiction. the congressional approval as we all know is that 6%. and it is hinted that these are only 6% of the people who know and love less personally. thousands of people across the country have been peacefully protesting of the intimate relationship between wall street and washington. and the stock act will prove that congress is capable of reforming its internal operations and will help ensure that members at least help in the same standards as everyone else when it comes to insider-trading.

i'm sure it will send a clear signal to the american people that we have no interest in naming a or approval or reforming a broken system. members of congress to the stuff and federal employees it is a unique opportunity, and we need to make profound changes in our economy and in the country but the problems are a great obligation that we do not be trey for public gain. i should simply believe that some members of congress and the staff of interests of their constituents that the public and they do not come here to line their property. the spell list of about potential. it is as a whole. inhibiting property is essential and information would be taking an enormous step in providing transparency while preserving and strengthening the public safety in the government and space process. i understand some people don't

believe it is necessary. they might argue that if there is a current toole and the fcc rules can be applied using some congressional material and nonpublic information. however in practice they have never seen these applied to converse. this is late in the rules we have today and that is why the stock act has an effort to address the congressional inside training and to remove the current and the issue. the stock act requires the fcc and the future trading commission and has an explosive rally band trading and provides the two new enforcement reforms. bill requires financial disclosure similar to what is being required of wall street insiders and i cannot emphasize this pc enough. it requires the registration of political intelligence firms similar to what is required by

lobbyists. as the author of this bill and the part of this legislation has been totally ignored. let me tell you about the importance of this bill. this is a whole group of people who survived on political intelligence. throughout this current economic crisis and indeed since the creation in the 70's the so-called political intelligence firms have operated quietly in the background without any regulation were oversight. recently the size of this industry has grown considerably bringing an estimated $100 million a year. these firms are not in congress but rather using the congressional information to example, quote, this is terribly important for me to give a second on this one. open up your years.

quote, providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported in the lobbying disclosure act thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients. how can we possibly allow that to continue? when we passed the act we will be requiring all such lobbying firms to sign up with votes in the house and the senate and for the first time since the 1970's we will have some idea of what it is that they are up to. the stock act does not ban the political intelligence firms but requires it is as transparent as the rest of the lobbying industry. i deeply regretted that part of the bill is gotten so little attention because to me it is a major part of what we need to pass.

so again, german bachus and ranking member frank, thank you again for holding this hearing. it's a very important step forward. look forward to working with you and all people in this wonderful committee. and any of their parties to enact this critical legislation in a timely fashion thank you for your time. >> thank you, congressman walz. -- thank you chairman and ranking member and members of the committee for having us on this important issue especial congresswoman slaughter and jones. its prior to coming to congress i was a studies teacher and a soldier in the national guard and i can to converse with the same reason all of you did, to make a difference, try to serve our country and make things better. coming to talk about the issues the american people was frustrating not just policy that how can this work and the rampant cynicism all of us face, the idea of a 9% approval rating in a disgrace that have worked

so hard to build a democracy and restore faith, as i got there and started talking about things like disclosing your marks the beginning, and practice, those types of things. i was approached by louise slaughter and brian baird and they said to have something you might be interested to read to started talking about the idea of the trade on the knowledge. like most americans i couldn't believe it. there would be impossible there will be a loophole. that anyone else would do it with the fact that studies are done she seem to blow to the commercial the stock market by six to 10% on a regular basis. that may be due to the infinite wisdom that resides or it may be something different. look, smart, savvy, trading or the possibility of there was inside knowledge. i don't know, my point was the idea of serving in congress is the single greatest arbor your neighbors get imposed upon you

and it's not to have them agree with every political decision we make but to have them do it in their best interest everything we do. we could be 100% wrong in their opinion that if they believe we are doing it for the right system and the system isn't game. so i got on to this bill and spent countless hours with the sec, professors of law with laws and a our esteemed colleague talking about ways to make this work. i do it with pleasure because this is about restoring faith. it's not about individuals or singling out i don't know if it is being done before. the perception is this strong. all of those at thanksgiving tell me that conversation at the dinner table and i can tell you they were talking about this because their faith in the system is not there. so i think trying to restore this and get it right, any suggestions are welcome but i agree with my colleague ms. slaughter we need to move something and i can tell you if

you think the approval rating is bad, don't pass anything like this. drag it out and don't do anything and what happens. and that is not about political reelection. it's not about ideology. it's about the american people becoming so cynical and the greatest system of governance in the world that it's putting things at risk. with that i encourage you to a ticket with the act. this is the bear minimum but for those that said take another step i'm with you. i agree. the problem was the first step took six years to get that half a step with seven co-sponsors. we need to get something done. we need a mechanism and i agree with laws the problem of the tip and the tepees has to be addressed for those who say this is already there that may hold true in a vehicle american argument but in the perception it is not there. something must be done to destroy instruments young leave the stock act is the most thoughtful and unintended consequence in the greater

matriculate this is from former fcc chairman john leavitt. they are precisely because the rules highest level of confidence. investors put their capital work and fortunes of risk because they trust the marketplace is honest than the security's laws require free and open transactions. i would substitute this for the american public aware market is a success, our democracy is a success because people believe they are open, fair and transparent and that is what we are asking to do. i can tell you newspapers in my district the mankato free press is a no-brainer. this is smart politics and policy and is a dose of what is needed to start reversing the ransome as is some. that is what this is about. it's not a witch hunt or getting involved deeply in the fcc responsibility. it's trying to clarify for the public that their servants are held not just at the same law. i would argue need to hold ourselves to a higher standard and make it perfectly clear so when they hear the debates they

differ with us on the substance of the debate not the motive so i'm thankful that you are taking this and i look forward to working with each and every member of improving a perfect in the bill but i can't stress enough we have a counterpart and i want to thank senators gillibrand, tester and brown. they've promised a marked and i think it is one of those rare occurrences whereas congresswoman slaughter said we are approaching that magic number of to 18 and we should be of there soon the we have the momentum to do this so i think you with that and look forward to any questions you might have to resubmit the was a very articulate and effective statement. thank you. i think it expresses a lot of our own views. i think it is absolutely essentials the week to restore the public's trust. there's been very serious allegations. i think we all are aware of

that. i'm personally aware of them and if this is the answer so be it. i can't speak for the committee with after this hearing i'm perfectly willing to schedule a markup to estimate mr. chairman when you yield briefly? when it comes to the market, yes you can speak for the committee. i usually have to consult the ranking member. we will have a markup. i have no questions. i'm going to yield. you have questions? >> i have a couple first i want to say i wasn't looking

sufficiently of the political intelligence and that is a very important thing. >> for me in writing this bill -- >> one of the questions i know the bill will be multiply referred because for example the changes we have no jurisdiction over the rules and vice versa. it's important because there are first amendment considerations. for people who are going to automatically say there's a first amendment in the political intelligence you don't get stronger than the first amendment of the lobbying in the constitution the right to petition for the address of grievances and regulation has been upheld but information has been upheld so i would think

that doctrinal already there to allow appropriate publicity regulation because it is less. i also want to know to we differ with some of what is done in the past but i would point out as a result of this committee's actions going forward first of all the power which under the federal reserve made some of the loans has been abolished. the federal reserve act no longer exists. i will say i believe the fed acted appropriately and that in fact the federal government will make money on those and i kings a were helpful. but going forward they will have to be done under more constraints and reported and secondly, as a result of the legislation that was signed, no transaction, no transaction whatsoever between the federal reserve and any private entity will go ultimately unreported. there will be a time delay in

some cases so you don't have an impact, but i think that what happened was on the structure. we have severely changed. as a matter of fact you mentioned to big to fail. the expert opinion as we went too far in the legislation, not total but the complaint does not become too hard in the crisis and indicative of the fat from the standpoint we are never able to go right. we either go too much or too little. we've gone from being accused of the too big to fail being too stingy. that is the economist stimulation upset to find out that we can't build people out any more. we believed that in fact we do that and that is appropriate and will affect the behavior. let me just ask the one i guess and i appreciate the chance to make these because i heard references i was coming in from texas to talk of the full faith

and credit and i want to make a bipartisan criticism of the congressional leadership coming back as far as i can remember. they are inclined to overuse the full faith and credit clause to shoulder us including their of the arguments made by the council supported by the leadership of both parties that even taking can be sheltered from criminal prosecution if the act for which it was taken could be put under the full faith. i tell members now might have arguments about this i will be asking -- i will put our leadership on noticed so now i think we ought to have a full discussion of how much. the full faith and credit had a very important purpose in the late 1500's and early 1600's. was to prevent queen elizabeth and king james from prs