about the mainstream media versus people on twitter and so on, i think that they definitely live in the same world now, but t also very important for these media companies to keep an eye on the things that are happening and, for example, facebook privacy. and to really report on these things and "the new york "the n" i think, is one of the best places to do that. >> host: if people want to read you, what's the best way to find you? >> guest: well, every, all my stories i share online, um, on twitter or face wook or anything -- facebook, and it's just nick bilton pretty much on the internet. and i'm also the bits blog which is ny times.com/bits, and um, that's pretty much it. >> host: and you have your own web site, nickbilton.com as well. >> guest: yeah. >> host: and if you go to nickbilton.com, and you pick up a copy of his book, "i live in the future and here's how it works," there's qr codes at

every chapter for more content, and there's a copy, there's a picture of the book on your screen right now. nick bilton has been our guest on "the communicators." mr. bilton, thank you for your time. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> here's a look at what's ahead today. next, an official with the u.s. agency for international development talks about the economic impact of u.s. aid to china. then, weekly standard founding editor william kristol is part of a panel that examines the legacy of yale alumnus william f. buckley and his influence on the conservative movement. >> the british parliament is back in session as lawmakers return from their holiday break last week for their first question time of the year. you can see more coverage this week as british prime minister david cameron takes questions from members of the house of commons. live coverage wednesday morning at 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span2.

>> i believe that it is important to emphasize that while it's great to have this memorial to his memory and it's great to have a national holiday and it's great to have streets and schools and hospitals named in his honor all over our nation and world, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king, the idol, but not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king jr. >> take a look at the life and legacy of dr. martin luther king jr., the civil rights movement and race relations in america today online at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share. it's what you want when you want. >> now, a house subcommittee examining the economic implications of u.s. aid to china. an administrator with the u.s. agency for international development testified that u.s. funding does not go directly to the chinese government.

the subcommittee chairman, donald manzullo, starts off this 80-minute hearing. [inaudible conversations] >> on september 15, 2011, the united states agency for international development notified congress of its intent to obligate $3.95 million in development assistance funds to engage china, quote, engage china as a partner in addressing climate change. the subcommittee on asian pacific will now come to order. this particular notification while small in the grand scheme of things is emblematic of the dysfunction in america's foreign aid spending priorities. what has been proposed here, essentially s that we borrow

money from china to give back to china to help it fix it own domestic problems, many of which were created in the breakneck rush to develop. at the same time, these programs help boost the competitiveness of chinese manufacturers at the expense of u.s. manufacturers and u.s. jobs. in my opinion, this is a fool's errand, and the u.s. government needs to clean up its own fiscal trail before helping china clean up its environmental mess. we have enough challenges here in the united states without having to worry about u.s. taxpayer monies funding a chinese government regime notorious for disregarding international norms of trade, human rights and the environment. china's poor record speaks for it. none of the organizations, universities and entities that usaid funds in china are completely independent of chinese government control. each year the united states spends over $39 billion in

taxpayer funds to support america's foreign policy objectives abroad. in the asian region alone, the president's request for fiscal year 2012 amounts to more than $800 million. it's up to all of us to insure that not a penny of taxpayer money is wasted on these programs. china's behavior on multiple levels demonstrate a concerted effort to advance economic growth regardless of the consequences. indeed, chinese leaders count on economic growth to offset the lack of political and religious freedoms in that country. as a result, american manufacturers face unprecedented challenges with chinese government subsidies, an artificially low exchange rate and rampant theft of intellectual property. none of this is new information. the american people are sick and tired of china's unfair trade practices. to drive home this point, the

u.s. intelligence community released a report just last month detailing the depth and breadth of china's organized industrial espionage efforts. the findings are truly frightening. no amount of u.s. government assistance will change china's intentions to steal our secrets, take our manufacturing jobs and advance it own agenda. our generosity as a nation in helping others is without question what makes us great. in fact, the organization for economic cooperation and development, oecd, noted that the is the largest provider of government and civil society programming among major bilateral foreign aid donors in terms of real funding. we need to make sure that these funds are effectively being use today the benefit of the american people. providing training, technical assistance and capacity building for china's manufacturing and commercial real estate sectors

is unjustifiable in a time when china continues to steal our intellectual property and drive u.s. competitors out of business. i'm amazed that it takes 22 contractors in china to implement just one part of the environmental program con contained in usaid's notification. furthermore, the fact that usaid conducts oversight of this program from its regional headquarters in bangkok, thailand, is even more surprising. and to make matters worse, the u.s. trade representative office at the urging of the united steelworkers of america has launched a section 301 investigation into alleged dumping of solar panels and wind energy goods into the usr. i'm sorry, into the united states. the ustr also filed a formal complaint against china at the world trade organization over the country's failure to declare over 200 government subsidy programs in the clean tech sector.

in many cases these subsidy programs are the same programs, initiatives and incentives that climate activists and the administration claim as tremendous breakthroughs and efforts that china's making to combat climate change. this view could not be more optimistic from our end and more misguided from theirs. given the state of the u.s. economy and with government debt approaching a record $15 trillion, it is absurd to think that any u.s. government entity would spend a single dollar trying to encourage china to do the right thing. china's america's strategic competitor in many areas, and i've seen no evidence to show that american foreign assistance, that's the american taxpayers' dollars, to china is paying dividends in the relationship. in fact, it is arguable that china has enough resources to spend on its own, and u.s. assistance to china should not be at any cost the taxpayer. china's economy has been growing

far faster than the u.s. and other pacific powers. china's complete disregard for intellectual property rights, abysmal human rights record and lack of religious tolerance run counter to american values. china's poor record on accountability and its unwillingness to share accurate environmental and human rights data with its own citizens and with the u.s. creates uncertainty over the effective utilization of american tag payer -- taxpayer monies. is the prc lacks the political will to clean up its own backyard, no amount of u.s. funds will change that reality. the 16th congressional district of illinois, which i have the ohioan of representing -- honor of representing, depends heavily on manufacturing for its livelihood. manufacturing accounts for approximately 25% of the local economy or double the national average. we need to be supporting the u.s. manufacturers in illinois and nationwide to compete with china, not throwing money away to help china compete with us.

the american people deserve more from their tax dollars and work beyond spending it on programs into fueling a clean energy revolution, and in china at the expense of job growth back home. ranking member vega is on his way back from american samoa. mr. sherman, did you have an opening statement? >> [inaudible] >> you're recognized. >> i want to welcome the witness back to this room in this which she spent such a long time. you're here testifying about a giant mistake of theory, a giant mistake of thinking at usaid. the idea that we would give foreign aid to china is an insult to the american taxpayer and shows an incredible lack of

unking of the new -- understanding of the new world by anyone who would suggest it. now, there are only two exceptions to that. one would be money that we give to democracy organizations designed to undercut or at least change the government of china, and the second would be co-equal contributions to projects that are equally beneficial. um, that is not what's at stake here. now, i want to stress that an atom of carbon that goes into our atmosphere is equally important to the entire world. we don't have enough money in this country to reduce our carbon emission toss the degree that the world expects of us. for us to then go spend money on the theory that we're reducing carbon emissions in china makes no sense. and there is no way that the world will give america credit

for a reduction of chinese carbon emissions. we are borrowing money from china to give it to china to do stuff that the chinese don't think is important enough to pay for. and if anything, they've got more money. so if it was a good project in their eyes, they could ease hi afford to fund it -- easily afford to fund it. i realize that the amounts of money involved are relatively small, a particular notice was sent to congress talking about $3.95 million. i don't worry so much about the $3.95 million. i worry about a mindset in our foreign policy establishment that thinks us mailing checks to beijing is a good idea. um, i should bring to the attention of this committee that outside of our jurisdiction the department of energy is spending

from the reports i've seen far more than usaid. also to give foreign aid to china. i would invite anyone at usaid to come to a town hall and stand in front of american taxpayers and say giving foreign aid to china is a good idea. um, there is a tremendous disconnect between a foreign policy establishment that runs our foreign policy and the american people who pay for it. um, i will be circulating a letter addressed to the administrator of usaid, dr. shaw or mr. shaw, urging that he not provide foreign aid to china. now, i should point out that in this very room we had to discuss

the idea of providing foreign aid to libya. this was money to be given to entities under the control of gadhafi's kids. this was about four years ago. there is, there's just a disconnect between those who are in the executive branch who make our executive branch decisions on foreign aid and common sense. and i realize that usaid deals with a lot larger amounts than 3.95 million, but this is an example of what congress needs to stop. i thank the chairman for holding these hearings, and i do not -- i hope that the witness is treated well by the state department for the -- do you get has -- well, i'll find out in your opening statement whether you get hazard pay for today. but you deserve it, and i yield

back. >> congressman johnson, do you have an opening statement? i can assure you that as the chairman of this subcommittee, um, that you will get all the respect possible under every circumstances, and the members here realize that you are doing your job, and we appreciate that. and we appreciate your ability to come here and your willingness to do so. mr. johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciated my colleague's comments about the fact that usaid deals in much larger issues. you're exactly right. over the last ten years, we've given china some $275 million. the 3.9 that we're talking about this year is a drop in the bucket compare today what we've already given -- compared to what we've already given to our world's largest competitor. so i commend you for those comments. i find the topic of today's hearing particularly troubling in light of our country's

current fiscal situation. nationwide unemployment stands at 9%, and many parts of my district in eastern and southeastern ohio consistently have seen double-digit unemployment for far too long. even more troubling, our national debt is dangerously high at over $14.9 trillion, threatening our nation's ability to recover from its economic woes, turn our economy around, get people back to work and continue to fulfill our role as a worldwide advocate of freedom and democracy. so the news that we're giving aid to china for certain unnecessary programs and projects hits home especially hard. particularly for americans struggling to get back on their feet. why can't china, a nation with the world's second largest economy and the fastest growing economy after our own, use its own funds to implement green energy programs to address climate change? surely, china can find the funds somewhere within its $10

trillion economy. usaid tries to legitimize this by arguing that china is behind on environmental governance and that strategically working with china to address environmental threats will change their way of thinking and insure that the two nations are on the same page. apparently, this aid is also seen as a way to level the playing field for u.s. industries that must comply with environmental responsibility standards. this is just absolutely misguided thinking. first, china is in no way behind when it comes to environmental knowledge or technology. the u.s./china economic and security review commission's 2010 report to congress noted that china's continued economic growth and stability is dependent on its energy supply and, therefore, is looking to improve domestic energy production and energy efficiency. chinese leaders have been, have even pointed specifically to green energy as a means of

strengthening energy security. in september 2009 chinese president hu jintao gave a speech to the u.n. general assembly which focused on china's adoption and implementation of a national climate change program. and china's 12th five-year program mentions climate change at the top of the section. it also promotes greater industrial efficiency and a major push to also increase the initiate si of new and existing buildings. seems to me like china is perfectly aware of the global climate issue. let's face the facts here. it makes no difference whether or not china is abiding by priorities it has outlined in speeches and plans, no amount of u.s. assistance will convince china to implement policies that harm its bottom line. china's position at the top of the world's production and

manufacturing is its focus and will remain so. no matter how hard anyone tries to convince it otherwise. and let's discuss leveling the playing field for a moment. abiding by the same environmental standards will not put u.s. and chinese manufacturers on par. china's artificially low currency, illegal subsidies for industry and disrespect for intellectual property rights will continue to put american businesses at a disadvantage. it is ridiculous to think that the value of this funding is worth the return. at the same time, another arm of the u.s. government, the u.s. trade representative, has brought a case against china at the world trade organization regarding illegal green technology subsidies. so we're borrowing money from china to give to china for a sector of their economy that is already well developed and now enjoying illegal subsidies. someone, please, explain how this makes sense because i don't get it. my home state of ohio is a leader in many forms of energy

production from coal to natural gas and now even alternative energy. with the manufacturing sector that has suffered greatly due to jobs moving overseas, ohio is looking to alternative energy production as a way to revitalize this important sector. china is already creating conditions for its green technology companies to flourish at home and abroad. i've got, i've got some more of my opening statement, but i'm running out of time, mr. chairman. it's my strong opinion that the committee's hold on this funding should remain in place. there are better uses of taxpayer dollars, particularly at this time in our nation's economic history. i am looking forward to hearing the justification for these projects, but it's going to take some convincing for me to understand the logic here. i yield back. >> thank you. congressman cha bot, you're recognized. >> i'll be relatively brief here.

i want to thank my friend, the chairman from illinois, for arranging this hearing. it's no secret that i've long been a critic of u.s./china policy on many levels. and my criticism is not limited to this administration. aye been just as critical of republican administrations, particularly on human rights issues and especially on u.s./taiwan policy. while our current federal budget deficit is over $1.3 trillion, our national debt approaching $15 trillion with china holding much of that debt and with every american taxpayer responsible for about $133,000 of that debt, we are discussing today an administration proposal to obligate an additional $4 million in american tax dollars to engage the people's republic of china on climate change. i'll be interested to hear the testimony this morning that will, hopefully, shed a hitting

light on how we think this commitment of tax dollars will benefit us, the united states of america. aside from the obvious questions about why the united states should be providing what is essentially foreign aid to china, the chairman has raised some serious questions about oversight, and i look forward to hearing what can be done about this waste of u.s. tax dollars. particularly in light of the prc's dismal record on environmental issues and the blatant lack of transparency in their government. um, i, again, want to commend the chairman for calling this hearing. um, you know, it's no wonder the confidence by the american people in this administration are so low and the confidence in the united states congress are even more dismal when you see things like this. u.s. foreign aid to china when we owe them almost a trillion

dollars for money that we've already borrowed from them. it's just almost unthinkable. but here we are. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to welcome nisha desai biswal back to the committee on foreign affairs where she once served as a member of the staff. good to see you again. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. biswal was sworn in as usaid's assistant administrator for asia in 2010. prior to her appointment she served as the majority clerk for the state department the foreign operations subcommittee and the committee of appropriations under representative lowy. mr. biswal previously -- ms. biswal previously serb -- served at interaction, the largest humanitarian and development nongovernmental organizations. thank you for appearing before the subcommittee. your written statement will be entered into the record, and also we're going to leave the

record open for at least 14 days to accommodate any statement that the ranking member wants to insert into the record. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. johnson and mr. chabot and mr. sherman for your remarks as well. it is an honor for me to appear before this committee today and be here to discuss with you the important topic of our bilateral assistance programs in china. i appreciate that we face a difficult economic and budgetary environment, and it is important for us to analyze the impact of our programs and to insure that taxpayer dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent. mr. chairman, usaid's bilateral programs in china focus in four areas; assisting tibetan communities, addressing the threat of hiv/aids and other pandemic decides, advancing the rule of law and human rights and supporting environmental protection/climate change mitigation efforts. these programs have been and

continue to be congressionally directed programs. i believe, however, that they advance the values and the interests of the united states, they address critical development challenges that have regional and transboundary reverberations, and let me assure you that none of the funds that usaid manages in china go to the government of china. congress began appropriating funds for assistance to tibetan communities as early as fiscal year 2000. in fiscal year 2006, that program expanded to address governance, environment and rule of law programs through u.s. educational and nongovernmental institutions as directed by congress. for fiscal year 2010, mr. chairman, aid's assistance in china was $23.4 million including four million for health and hiv/aids, 7.4 million for tibetan communities, 12 million to support environment and rule of law activities.

in 2011 our total country allocation for china for usaid is projected to be $12 million, a 48% decrease from the prior fiscal year. with that backdrop, let me spend just a couple of minutes on the specific areas that you have highlighted, um, which is the environment programs. mr. chairman, 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in china, and the pollution from chinese factories and plants has a substantial negative impact directly on the united states. almost one-third of the particulate pollution in california and 30% of the mercury found in north american lakes comes from chinese coal-fired power plants. usaid programs work to reduce these harmful emissions which are having an impact on our own shores. we have proposed, as you noted, a $3.95 million program budget

to continue environment programs in china. these programs focus on three major areas; the u.s./china partnership for environmental law strengthens the application of environmental laws and regulations through partnerships between the united states and chinese universities, government agencies and ngos to provide training in environmental regulation and law to lawyers and lawmakers, the u.s./china partnership for climate action is a public/private partnership with ge, honeywell, walmart, sc johnson and company and the citi foundation to promote reduction in energy use through bringing together of leading u.s. and chinese practitioners in greenhouse gas management and environmental innovation. this program is expanding market opportunities for u.s. businesses and technologies by featuring them prominently in our training and workshops. and finally, the third component is a regional program to combat trafficking in endangered species to address the illegal

wildlife trade across the asian continent. seeking to improve law enforcement, reduce consumer demand and strengthen cross-border regional networks. mr. chairman, let me just conclude to say that usaid's work in china is important to our national and our economic interests and that it addresses critical global development challenges. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today before you, and i welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. the, let me do this.

does either of you gentlemen, do either of you gentlemen have another hearing that you have to go to? you're right on time? mr. chabot, then we'll take you first. >> i have a couple questions. i appreciate that. first of all, um, thank you for your testimony here this morning. um, we're broke. the united states is broke. we spend more money than we take in, we've got almost a $15 trillion national debt hanging over our heads, 1.3 trillion this year alone. unfortunately, it's heading in the wrong direction. we don't know what the so-called supercommittee's going to do, what they're going to recommend. there's some speculation that, god forbid, their -- they're going to suggest that we raise taxes and, therefore, burden the american people even more. we don't know if that's going to happen or not, but we're all trying to figure out what kind of proposals are going to be made and whether they're going

to be able to come to some agreement. and if they can't, then we know that sequestration of funds was built into the bill which means automatic cuts, $600 billion in cuts from defense which concerns everybody, probably republicans are a little more concerned about it. $600 billion in domestic cuts which most people would argue maybe the democrats care a little bit more about that. that's what you hear. i don't know if that's accurate or not, but you to hear that. but it's a lot of money. and we're talking about cutting that. now, i know $4 million in washington to some people may not sound like much. i can guarantee you for the hard working, tax-paying folk back in my district, a lot of money, more money than most see in an entire lifetime of work, and so it's, i think we ought to take this amount very seriously. but my point is, is that we're spending far more money than we

take in which means that any additional expenditures that are made, and this, this is an additional expenditure that's being proposed here, correct? .. >> what is less important than giving foreign aid to china? >> thank you for the question. mr. chabot -- >> you're welcome. >> let me reassure you first of all that we are experiencing and

prioritizing our programs, our foreign assistance programs but as i mentioned in my brief oral statement, we have seen our china program over all sides go down by 48% from the prior year in what we're spending in fiscal year 2011. the amount of assistance that we program in china, none of which he goes to the government of china, but is administered through nongovernmental institutions and american education institutions, but the program we administer in china leveraged significant contributions from the american private sector, and from chinese -- >> that's all well and good, i don't have another minute. i don't mean to cut you off but at what this point just as do this. so you're saying in essence what you said is with other programs and other things in china and other places around the world where we spend money, but we're going to spend less on something else for this money, isn't that correct? >> mr. chabot --

>> the money has to come from somewhere and less the presidency doesn't want to do that, congress doesn't want to do that. >> it's a difficult and time and tough choices are being made across government and within usaid in terms of what we'll be able to fund and where our priorities are. >> let me ask you to speak with a trade deficit with china right now. correct? nor did we are importing a whole lot more from them come all your to do is go to wal-mart, awful high percentage of what is labeled there if you pick it up and look under it was a made in china. a lot less than we export to them. we have ge aircraft engines and other things that go on planes that we sell to them. so it's not that we don't sell them anything but a lot more chinese products come into the united states and u.s. products that go there, isn't that after? >> you are correct. it's also our largest export growth market. >> we have a huge surplus to the extent that we are borrowing from them, correct? it's not like they are borrowing

from us, and it's to the tune of almost a trillion dollars at this point that we owe them come is that correct? >> i have no reason to doubt that. i'm not the expert on the amount. >> i'm almost out of time but there's an argument that they are manipulating the value of their money in order to continue this huge, continuing u.s. importing chinese products. that's costing american jobs, a lot of people would argue, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> all that being given, it just seems to me you're going to have a hard sell explaining to the american people why we ought to be using u.s. tax dollars to fund something like this. why can't chinese their own money? i will yield back, mr. chairman. >> may i respond briefly? >> yes. >> mr. chabot, my only response to the point that you raised, which i agree, are all important points for consideration, is that our program, particularly

our environmental programs in china are fundamentally advancing our interests. and those interests are associated with the amount of pollution in the united states that is traced back to chinese sources. and the fact that if we do not engage in addressing that pollution, in light of the explosive growth that china is experiencing, the harmful affects here in the united states are going to become increasingly costly, both in terms of the health impacts and economic impacts. >> mr. johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, ms. biswal, for your testimony. so, let me get this straight. we are borrowing money from china to get back to china, to improve industrial energy efficiency, which will then drive down production costs to

chinese firms, making it harder for u.s. firms to compete. why are we paying to modernize china? please enlighten me as to usaid's thinking that if this is an effective use of hard-working americans tax dollars. which should really stay in the pockets of small businesses right here at home, to help create jobs for unemployed americans. can you enlighten me, why are we paying to modernize china? >> mr. johnson, i would simply respond by saying that this program leverages significant resources from american companies like ge, which is put in $2.8 million in matching contributions towards the training, programs that we have

to improve environmental health and safety standards in china, by improving, by improving -- >> hold on, hold on. did i understand that right? in addition to the 4 million that we are giving for these programs, free of charge, no interest payment to the chinese, we've also got american companies that are giving additional and above that? >> so, if i may finish -- >> is that just? >> we have leveraged significant resources from the american private sector. because they see the value of wine, green their supply chain, too, having the same compliance requirements of chinese companies on and finds health and safety standards, to which they are subjected. that does actually have the effect of increasing perhaps the

cost of manufacturing in china, and improving the environmental impact speak is a usaid going to hold china accountable for enforcing the standards that we trained them on? >> our programs work to improve the domestic demand in china for environmental compliance, through supporting advocacy organization -- >> i have a number of questions so i would like, i apologize. so, let's assume that we can solve the pollution problem in china. how does that create jobs here in america? draw the line back for me. >> first of all, many of the energy efficiency technologies, products and services, which we are bringing to the attention of chinese officials and industry -- >> that we are giving them.

>> we are not providing any technology or service. we are helping to make them aware of, but then chinese companies, individually, contact and contract with american companies for those products and services. we do not provide technology transfer, and we do not -- >> but we do not have to provide technology transfer. the chinese take the technology. that's another part of the problem. in your description of usaid's rule of law programs, you state that the goal, one of the goals is to level the playing field for u.s. corporations to operate within china's legal framework. you stated that this includes training chinese supreme court justices on how intellectual property cases are prosecuted within the u.s. i don't know if you're aware of not or have read the office of the counterintelligence executive report on foreign economic collection and international espionage, but china is one of the most

aggressive collectors of u.s. economic information in technology. china's intelligence services frequently seek to exploit chinese citizens or persons with family ties in china to use their insider access to corporate networks to steal trade secrets. so i don't buy that we are giving them anything. they are taking whatever they want. that's one of their predispositions in doing business in china. how does usaid know whether these judges and officials that you are training are using your valuable training opportunities to take back to their lawyers? and then find loopholes and the strategies to compete against american companies? >> so, i do agree that intellectual property rights is an area of significant efficiency, in terms of china's

compliance. china has adhered to the same international standards. however, they have been extraordinarily weak in compliance. our programs seek to improve the record of compliance. it's a difficult task, providing technical tools through american based organizations like the asia foundation, to develop the knowledge and the capacity in the court system, in the law schools, in the legal profession in china to improve compliance is one way -- >> my time is up, and i apologize. it seems to me that getting the chinese government american aid at the expense of the american taxpayer to try and force compliance is an ill-advised strategy, given the fact that over the last 10 years we've given the chinese nearly 275,

around 275-$300 million. and we are not seeing any progress on compliance. and so, i would say that the program is failing, and i stand by, mr. chairman, by my assertion i hope we keep these funds on hold. >> thank you. ms. biswal, is there in the budget money to give to the u.s.-china partnership for environmental law? >> the president's budget request did not contain funding for these programs. >> for all the program's? >> was that your question? >> no. of the $12 million that's in the budget, was anybody, allocated for the u.s.-china partnership for environmental law?

>> in the 3.95 million, congressional notification that was sent to the committee, about 1 million of that is to continue the u.s.-china partnership for environmental law. >> on page two of your testimony, at the bottom, you state that that program quote, is now fully self-sustaining and no longer requires additional usaid funds. >> sorry, that reference is to another component program that was not for the environmental partnership law program. if i mischaracterize in how i joined those two together, and that was part of the long dong environment a partnership program, which has become fully sustaining and does not -- >> wait a second. so there's a program within the program? >> i think in referencing that program, i was also connecting

to other programs that support those outcomes which have become fully self-sustaining. i apologize if that was confusing. >> ms. biswal, it's not self-sustaining when you're asking the taxpayers to pony up $1 million. i mean, the general electric, honeywell, wal-mart, alcoa, pfizer have contributed how much money? do you have any idea? ge contributed 2.8. >> right. so i believe for the institute for sustainable communities programs in china, which include the climate action partnership, and the partnership, the environmental partnership which we are no longer funding, those two programs leveraged over -- >> i'm not saying leverage. these companies can put up all the money. is to make a lot of money over time and don't need taxpayers

dollars leverage. would you agree. i think the intent behind the public-private partnership is to create that initial platform for private sector investment around a policy index, so we're trying to move towards graduate programs be make you don't have to graduate honeywell, wal-mart, alcoa, pfizer and general electric. they have company, they make tremendous profits, wouldn't you agree? >> i believe they are making profits in the are making a lot of profits and yet you're still asking the taxpayers to put more money into the program that already has a generous support by the private sector. that doesn't make sense. how can you defend that? >> i would only posit that the president's budget request did not request funding for these programs, but because congress appropriated funds for the specific environmental and rule of law activities, being a good

congressional staffer in my past life, we do strive to make sure that we follow congressional intent in and gain our programs. >> let me see if i can get this straight. the president's budget did not request anybody from the u.s.-china partnership over environmental law, is that great? >> that is correct. >> what programs are targeted for funding under the president's request? >> the president's budget request included funding for programs into debt, which was $5 million. >> let me back up their can you go to your testimony, on pages two and three, and point in particular where the president, programs that the president wanted funded? starting with u.s.-china partnership for environmental law. you are saying the president requested zero funding for that? >> that is correct.

>> anything involving the program are subprograms our programs through the program's? >> that is correct. >> and that was included in the program's? >> there was zero funding requested for environmental and rule of law programs in the president's budget request. >> the u.s.-china partnership for climate action, did the president request any funding for that? >> he did not. >> so i have zero, zero. the asia regional response endangered species trafficking, did he request any money for that? >> no, not for the china programs. >> the usaid rule of law program, rule of law program in china, to the president request any money for that? >> he did not. >> well then, why have you given us for programs for which he has requested no money? i've not that you would have at least a programs that are getting the money. what other programs besides

these? am i missing something? >> so, the president's budget request asked for $5 million to continue assistance to tibetan communities. >> okay. what else the? >> and i believe $7 million for hiv/aids assistance through the path for program, through cdc and usaid combined. >> okay. that was a total of $12 million that was requested in the president's budget request. >> these four programs here with the ones that ended up being funded by the time the continuing resolution was signed, would that be correct? >> so, dating back to 2006, congress has included funding and directives to maintain rule of law and environment programs in china.

and we have complied. >> so that would be -- all right, i'm just time to figure out who's on first here. i think i'm understanding that the four programs here that you have listed in this testimony were not of the president request, correct? >> that is correct. >> the programs ended up getting funded because congress decide to throw that in, so that money in for these programs? >> that is correct, for the sectors. the programs were competitively awarded, but the sectors of environment and rule of law we're determined and directed by congress in the appropriation. >> okay. the president's request is for 12 million. as for tibet and hiv/aids, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> but not withstanding the fact

that congress directed usaid to spend this money, then you anticipate my next question, how do you, how did vermont did this toward? >> a number of different u.s. institutions have partnered with usaid over the years in carrying out both the environment and rule of law programs. these programs, usaid would put forward a request for proposals, different institutions within submit proposals, and then they would be competitively awarded by a technical selection committee based on variety of criteria, including technical expertise, country experience, cost effectiveness. >> do those people said under your purview or your jurisdiction? >> i do not have any direct lands into the awarding of these

grants or contracts. and for the programs that we're discussing today, most of them had been awarded under either the previous administration or before i went to usaid. but have continued certainly since i have been there. >> then do you, this question would not anticipate you to answer, but if you know the answer, appreciate it. do you have any idea how many colleges or universities actually were in the application process for some of these programs? >> i do not. i can take that question for the record. >> okay, okay. mr. johnson, do you have some more questions? >> ms. biswal, explain to usaid is going to effectively expand the market potential for clean energy technologies and services from american companies in china when china has hundreds of

subsidy policies and practices in place, affecting trade and investment in green technology, of which u.s., tr, just filed an investigative report to the world trade organization about. how are you going to get chinese companies to buy u.s. manufacture products over its own heavily -- utah's lead early when asked about creating a break-in charges the companies here we be creating products that within be sold to the chinese in those green energy initiatives. but they are heavily subsidized in china. how are you going to get past all of that? >> what our programs seek to do, sir, are to create a platform for u.s. technologies, u.s. companies, that provide services

that we think are relevant to improving the energy efficiency, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. we provide a platform for those products and services to be -- >> cap-and-trade by legislation, i'm advised by regulation, i got that part. >> to introduce american products and services into the chinese market. so american companies participate in these training workshops. ustr and the foreign commercial service of the department of commerce actually advertise our programs as a good way for american companies are seeking trade to be able to introduce. >> how you going to get the chinese to buy when the chinese are subsidizing the prices of those products domestically? how are you going to compete? how are american companies going to compete in that market? >> i would leave it to others to answer that more effectively than myself, but i would say that many of our partners, ge,

honeywell, have reported increases in their sales in china. i don't know what the correlation is to their participation at our programs, but i certainly -- >> that the probably have, ms. biswal, with so much of our job killing policies coming out of this administration is they don't know. you don't know what the implications are to the american companies until after you've implemented these policies. and then the american businesses, small businesses here in america wind up paying the price for that. china has also shown increasing tendency to use international language to depend its poor environment of record and falsely tout its achievements. of course, the chinese government welcomes increase u.s. government funding to help them build capacity, train their people, and take greater market share and jobs away from american. why aren't we using the money that we're giving to china to help spur the u.s. economy, and

job growth at home, rather than investing it in china which has the technology, the budget, the resources, and the manpower to do all of this on their own? we are borrowing money from them, and yet we are giving them money to do like some and i heard earlier say, we are giving them money to do what they don't think is important enough to spend their money on. why are we doing that? >> as i noted earlier, while these programs are maintained not at the behest of the administration, but in compliance with congressional directives, that we do believe that these programs are advancing our american economic interests and to serve as a platform for american companies and american institutions to be able to gain entrée into the

chinese market in i appreciate your retort about its congressional direction, not the administration. first of all, i disagree with that, but i can assure you, i knew, this is my first term, but if that is true, then i'm going to work hard to change the direction because we're spinning american tax payer dollars the responsibly on this program. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. royce? >> thank you, mr. chairman. hello, how you? >> pleasure to see you, mr. royce. >> nice to see. i have some of the same concerns. basically i think we are borrowing about 37 cents on every dollar right now in the u.s. come and we are a lot of that from china. so, from the standpoint of people here, we're spending money we don't have. and i think we can do better

than borrowing money from china, only to get it back to them. and from the standpoint of many of us here, that looks like what we are doing here. china already has a competitive advantage over the united states right now with this keystone project this weekend. chinese head of state is out meeting with prime mr. harper trying to convince him to send that oil to china, rather than allow to come into the market and deny states. and so i would just ask, you know, we get down to the technology transfer issue here as well. section see, its description of the u.s.-china clean energy and climate partnership says, usaid does not necessarily intend to promote technology transfer or technology deployment focused activities. the phrase does not necessarily intend, is somewhat troubling. because from hearings i've held

on china's indigenous innovation policies, basically story after story is told about how u.s. companies are forced to hand over sensitive technology in order to gain market share there. so not necessary intent to do this when your competitor, when china is fully intent on doing exactly this, leads me to worry that the same policies will be implemented by china in our efforts to promote clean energy there. and i wonder if you could clarify what usaid means with this language does not intend to? >> so, the programs, mr. royce, the programs that usaid is managing in china on an environment don't actually involve a transfer of technologies. they basically provide information on best practices, on energy efficiency that are commonly adopted in the united

states. however, they do seek to engage american companies as service providers, as experts on the addressing of some of these challenges. and in the process allow opportunities for those companies to pursue any commercial opportunities that may result. >> i understand that argued. but is, if that were the case then why wouldn't the language mean there will be no technology transfer rather than a language i see here, which implies -- >> as i look through the language of the rfa's involved in these programs, i will say that you written a number of years ago, and i think our policies have evolved since then, particularly because of the operating climate has also evolves. and so, we are not providing through these programs any transfer of any cutting edge

innovative technologies on any patent protected technologies. we are basically looking at best practices. >> i understand. i understand but i think there's a certain naivety here, and looking at usaid, the way they state this on china's will of our program assistance, for example, usaid's says china is making efforts to develop more robust administrative procedures and laws, judicial review, notification and, transparent administrative procedures, and gaining redress. policy as possible outcomes. go into the issue of the naïveée of us working with china in this relationship china first of all i don't think they are too concerned at all about green energy, other than the bottom line for the. but in terms of practice itself, they seem quite intimate tour, unfortunately. second, in terms of our

experience, i probably hear this more because i'm a californian, from people of invested in china, then most of the members, but there is no understanding, there's no respect to the rule of law. and u.s. businesses in at own risk, and yet the verb is the link to his commerce department or usaid, gives our company's the sense that there's some progress being made whereas in fact in working with the embassy on a number of these questions, constituents are having their entire business is ceased, and this is ignored by the chinese legal system. and i just asked if giving rosy descriptions of this program, if inclined, it's implying that china is cooperate on this, i just asked if usaid understands the level of impunity that still exists in the chinese legal system and in their resistance to any of these things that you

and i worry about? >> i think that's a very fair point, mr. royce, and i think oftentimes in our description of programs perhaps the aspirational language of what we are trying to achieve might appear overly optimistic. and as you said, paint a rosy scenario, so i take your point. >> my final point is i don't think china intends to buy into the system. i the rule of law or on the environmental front. they will take money from us, they will take things that they think they can use them protect technology transfer and so forth, anti-two can be with us on the world market, but in terms of domestic concern about these issues i just haven't seen in my trips there or discussions. thank you very much for your testimony. >> appreciate your questions. >> ms. biswal, on page five of your testimony you talk about the asia regional response to endangered species trafficking

program. the arrest program. prior to this year, the president, to the present seek funding for the program? >> so, overall funding for addressing -- >> i know it went down, but prior to this year to the present seek funding for that particular program? >> this particular program is a new regional program that has not yet commenced. it builds upon prior regional programs in the asean region that did not address the -- >> so it's a new program. >> it's a new program that i have in front of me a letter from usaid data april 1, 2011, signed by thomas stevens, regional agreement officer, giving $7,995,000 to the freeman foundation. are you aware of that? >> yes. >> in the application, and

approved by usaid before the programs, on page 13 of that, under that particular program, it says 1.3 drugs rock 'n roll and wildlife, targeted officials in juice, multimedia campaigns, motivate all sectors of society, including border officials to help stop illegal wildlife trade. wildlife trafficking stops or. come on. can you justify $8 million going to an organization to have a media campaign entitled sex, drugs, rock 'n roll? >> i perhaps would not have titled it that way. i do believe what they are trying to do -- >> just a second, just a second. if usaid had an objection to the

title of that they could've corrected that title before they get the money, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. but yet not within the usaid agreed that having a program, spending u.s. taxpayers dollars entitled sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and wildlife, i mean, that's -- can't you see why congress is angry over the way you're spending the money? if you think that members are justified in asking these questions? >> i think congress is always justified in asking the questions in conducting the oversight that you're conducting. i truly appreciate hearing your having. >> i understand that pic you don't need us to tell you that spending tax payers money on oh grams called sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and wildlife, that's outrageous. >> so, that ill named approach is to speak ill named? these other programs. these people are getting $8 million of government funds, and with the permission and

consent and authority at usaid, they allowed taxpayers money to be spent on a program called sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and wildlife. that's got to come to an end. would you agree the? >> i would not agree, mr. chairman. >> you can defend the program? >> i can defend a program that seeks to stop the trafficking of endangered species. >> what does have to do with that? >> so, that media campaign speed what does sex have to do with stopping the illegal trafficking of animals, of endangered species? >> well, to be specific i would say that there is a correlation between human trafficking, narcotics trafficking, and trafficking in endangered species that is occurring throughout asia, and the criminal network -- >> that's -- >> it is a fact.

so i agree with you, sir, that perhaps the title was glib and ill advised, but i believe what they were seeking to do was make the correlation. >> this is the whole point. taxpayers money supports usaid programs, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> taxpayer dollars are used to employ people to go over applications, isn't that correct, for money? >> that is correct. >> and would you agree also that the people make these awards, including apparently thomas stevens, regional agreement officer in bangkok thailand that apparently agreed with this application, isn't that correct? >> i believe he agreed with the intent of what -- >> just a second or not talking about the intent i talk about the little words in this application. >> yes, i'm sure that it does pass through his approval bit iffy about what the name of this program he could've said don't use that name, isn't that

correct? >> i believe that is true. >> additionally as far as the sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and wildlife program, it says are targeting, quote, flexible and modern, flexible and modular campaigns will be upgraded based on impact surveys and rolled out in vietnam, laos, thailand, malaysia and indonesia. you're going to take a survey on people who are involved in illegal trafficking of endangered species and see whether or not these particular ads are impacting their behavior? >> the idea is to reduce consumer demands for endangered species that are often found on menus in restaurants throughout asia, and to increase awareness in the general population of the impact of trafficking in these endangered species.

so yes, we would want to do surveys of that population to see if our programs to reduce demand -- >> soldier involved in the illegal trafficking of endangered species, yes or no, you are impacted by these tv or radio ads or posters with money spent by the u.s. taxpayer to determine whether or not this impacts your behavior? are you really going to get some kind of a valid response on that? >> mr. chairman, for illegal trafficking in wildlife to be sustained, there needs to be a popular consumer demand that is being met through this -- >> then why is the u.s. taxpayer paying for the? >> a u.s. taxpayer pays for this because these programs address our core interest. the trafficking in endangered species and the illegal trafficking of wildlife, one, has correlations to humans and

narcotic trafficking, as was some links to terrorist financing. too, that it has adverse health impacts and economic impact in the united states, including through the production of invasive species into the united states. so we believe that this is an appropriate use of use tax funds because we are advancing for u.s. interests. >> that's probably the best reason to end. mr. rohrabacher? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me just note, i don't believe that spending by the united states government, especially when it is, when the money is going to a nondemocratic country, a country that is controlled by an oppressive government, that we can make up a bunch of our spending, what comes about because of bad policy on the part of that government, or lack of spending on the government to achieve the same end.

for us to be pouring money into the goals that used just suggested is pouring u.s. taxpayer dollars down the toilet. because it will accomplish nothing if you have a group of gangsters who could care less about, you know, these are people who take their own women and put them into forced abortions. these are the same people who murder religious followers come and we expect that we will help them save endangered species by giving some, putting our taxpayer dollars at work in china? talk about naïve. we also have a problem, a program here, $4 million that is provided through aig and part of the aid program, the rdna, $4 million to help them decrease their carbon footprint in china.

now, you tell me that at a time when we're spending a trillion and a half dollars, and went to borrow that money from china in the first place, that giving them $4 million is a good deal for the people of the united states. >> thank you, mr. rohrabacher. it's a pleasure to see you. let me -- [laughter] thank you. >> let me answer your question. first of all, the environment programs that usaid is managing in china, none of the funds go to the chinese government or chinese institutions. second of all, as i noted earlier, 30% of the particular pollution in california and 30% of the mercury pollution in north america leaks emanates from chinese coal fired power plants. so they should be giving us money for that, not as giving them money. >> our program speak indeed you are right, that they're having

policies that affect our people's health, we shouldn't be giving them money and say we will pay for it. they are the ones who should be paying for it. >> and we don't give them money. our programs -- >> 3,995,000 -- $3,950,000 given as part of the rdma program. does that go through foreign aid or doesn't it? doesn't go to the state department or doesn't get? >> that money is programmed by usaid to american institutions. >> so it's american taxpayer dollar, program by our aig program, and you think it's a good thing? >> i do believe that it is addressing core u.s. interests. >> one of the reasons why i believe that our country, and many americans believe our country is in such economic straits is we've been treating china as if it was a democratic country. we have been treating come and we been willing to turn our head

at violations of human rights, but also violations of the rights of our own people to have at least an equal treatment of americans in their marketplace as they have in our marketplace. we have basically provided is, in turn our heads to the massive flow of technology that has been stolen from american businesses. yet, we continue to have programs that give them $5 million here, $4 million here, $7 million for sex, drugs, rock 'n roll. the american people have serious region -- serious reason to believe that our basic policy is insane. is insane. it's incomprehensible that we would permit the massive transfer of wealth that has taken place between the united states of america and china over

the last 20 years after tiananmen square, the leadership of that government that controls china made sure that the world know that they're going to rule their country with an iron fist and there was going to be no democracy. to continue treating them the way we are and agree to programs like this trying to explain them away, no wonder they think we're a bunch of fools, because we're acting like fools. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. johnson? >> thanks again, mr. chairman. i want to go back to how we think we can effectively convince the chinese to reduce their harmful emissions but i want you to remind me again, how do your programs work to reduce harmful emissions win at the national level the chinese government is only paying lipservice to environmental compliance? >> so, china has reduced in the

past four years the energy intensity of its economy by 19%. the overall amount of emissions have continued to increase as there have been, i believe, a 40% growth in its manufacturing sector. so, certainly we are not keeping pace with the overall growth to have a net reduction in emissions, but i would say that, that the percentage trend has been positive, and i do want to -- >> where do you get those figures from? >> i would be happy to provide, after the fact, the data of, it's a 19.1% reduction in energy intensity, is through

international nongovernmental organizations that monitor compliance against greenhouse gases. produced by the chinese government? >> no, they are not. >> okay. let me go to something else here. the chinese government does not encourage public participation or civil society participation in climate change policy processes. aren't we being naïve in thinking that, that ngos will have to work with local or central government authorities can somehow create this change needed to really clean up china's environmental mess? your staff has stated that results have been incremental. you just acknowledged that. so how many years do we plan on funding climate change in china until we see real results, or until china wakes up and takes these initiatives on their own? i mean, what's the endgame here in?

>> well, sir, as i noted these funds were not requested and the president's budget request. usaid will continue to run programs for environmental protection and climate change mitigation in china, as long as congress directs us to do so. >> while. we can fix that, okay, good. we can fix that. thank you very much. china has a poor record of accountability we talked about only making progress incrementally. what mechanisms are in place to monitor the use's -- the use of usaid's fund? are the metrics, and if so, how are we monitoring the funds and the effectiveness of such rule of law and climate change programs? >> so, we have a monitoring and evaluation build in to every grant proposal that we fund. we also do external audits of

programs when they are completed, and certainly our staff who are based out of bangkok travel periodically to the program sites to ensure that they are going as proposed. >> just for the record, i was just reminded that the funds requested for this program, last congress, came from the senate, not from the house. so i want to make that assertion. i think with that, mr. chairman, that's fine. >> mr. rohrabacher? >> just one note on the sister states that you offer us. i don't know passionate let me just put it this way. i'm not doubting your integrity, but i would doubt the integrity of those figures and i would suggest that any vicious dictatorship, as china has, that they did not permit these ngos that you're talking about, the free and that is necessary to come up with those statistics.

there is no freedom of press in china. there's no freedom to complain. does no freedom to criticize and is no freedom to gather honest statistics. that's what happens under these type of dictators. because you can imagine the local people and one other provinces just allowing people to understand that things are actually getting worse and getting better, or that the money that is being spent right americans here, supposedly to bring down the carbon footprint, is actually going to the home of one of the communist party bosses? no, no. that would never be known to you. and as you start getting as well, they have increase by this much and that. that may be good when working with a democratic government that has a free press to check those figures. it is totally unreliable for us to base policy on that type of information. so it's like trying to get, during the cold war, us going to the soviet government and

expecting them to be honest about their environmental or industrial problems, which, of course, they were not. so thank you, mr. chairman, for giving me passionate would you like to comment on that? >> only that i would be happy to try to provide for the record with the sourcing of where the sister states came from and how the information was collected. >> realizing that the basics, the source, whoever that person or group is faces the same restrictions as anybody else who tries to do business in china, that should give us cause not to just give them the benefit of the doubt when we hear some good sense to stick. so, mr. chairman, i think that gives us, makes our job a lot more difficult and your job a lot more difficult to determine just what is real about this monstrous dictatorship thank you. >> well, this has been interesting, hasn't had?

>> indeed. >> what i would like to do is to send you a letter, because we're trying to track down where everything is going, but if you know, this program, the everest program -- >> yes, sir. >> the information that we have and maybe i don't have all of the does not show china as being a player in this. would that be incorrect? >> you know, the china component of this program is very tiny. it's about $250,000, for trying to engage china in the broader compliance network. and so, it's of the overall program scope, it is one, new, and number two, very small. >> win an award is made by usaid for one of these programs, how

does usaid check out the ngo? any, do they look at the salaries of the officers to see if their disproportionate? do they look to see if there's been any problems going on with the organization fiscally, or politically? >> we do have a fairly extensive system of analyzing all of the data relevant. i don't want to speak out of turn because i'm not familiar with all the contractual steps, but i'd be happy to get that process for you, for the record. >> okay. well, we appreciate your coming here and taking the time to share with us this intriguing item called foreign aid, which most americans have a very difficult time, especially in my district understand because the largest city, the unemployment is still way over 14%.

and i appreciate your taking the time, and thank you for being our guest today. >> thank you, senator. >> the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> c-span throw to the widest coverage continues this week as with all gop candidates around south carolina. >> the south carolina primary is saturday, january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee.

c-span throw to the white house coverage takes you to the candidate events. >> i think you have to say this has been a failed presidency. i don't think he has tried to make a bet. he just didn't want to do. use over his head. we have a message that can appeal not just a south carolina but across this nation, and in particular in the states that are necessary for us to win this election. >> as candidates get their message out to another war where we don't know what we are come rushing. we don't know why we are there. we just leave and it's a bigger mass. >> we're going to use our national security assets. out elements of power. we need to make sure that it's in our national spirit interest and that we are not spread so thin and do it right. >> do you want to hold him? no? >> okay. take a picture. >> perfect. >> find more resources at c-span's campaign website with more video from the campaign

trail, and read the latest on the candidates, political reporters and people like you from social media sites at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> in 1951 william f. buckley, jr. wrote god and william f. buckley, jr. wrote god and man at yale can which is a critique of yale university. on the 60th anniversary of the books publishing, the universe goes in a conference looking at buckley's legacy and his influence on the conservative movement. panelists included "national review" magazine editor richard lowry and weekly standard founding editor are you mcchrystal and moderating the forum is "national review"'s former managing editor linda bridges. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> it's a very apt question to be asking about bill, because bills concern from the beginning of his career was oh, it had to do with his own performances. it had to do with his own writing, but much, much war importantly it had to do with helping to shape the direction

of the country. as various people have remarked so far, he didn't use the word conservative of himself as a young man, terms like radical and individualist with the terms he favored. but that soon changed when he started, when he and billy start think about this new magazine of theirs. it wasn't meant to be another "time" magazine like henry's. this was going to be a magazine that would shape a movement, the conservative movement. he started using that word, conservative. and he specifically did not want to gather only people of his own particular, his own particular way of looking at the world and politics. 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 comment is only exclusionary principle was that they couldn't be cooks. they couldn't the anti-semite. those with the own exclusionary principles. he wanted a big tent within, to be sure, one segment of the political spectrum. so since building conservatism in the first part, in the first place was his mandate from his self-imposed mandate, asking what, what his legacy can do now to turbocharge conservatism i think is a very good question indeed. and we have three people who have, who are doing this in

their own ways, and who i trust left good ideas on how others can help, help them do it. rich lowry is the editor of "national review," as everyone knows. he's only the third editor in "national review"'s, by now, nearly 56 year history. and how he came to "national review" is very much in line with icann, with what we've heard about bill this afternoon, that he was always concerned about young people. he saw himself as an evangelist to young people for the conservative, for the conservative faith, as well as, and how rich first came to was by taking part in a young writers contest. by now, 20 years ago this year, wasn't it?

20 years ago this year. and the very next year and opening fell, position fell open on the editorial staff, and we hired rich. and before long he was our national political reporter there and then in 1997 when john sullivan was stepping down, bill after extensively looking around the pool of available talent decided that rich was the one, and that's when he became editor in chief of "national review." and has been running the magazine with excellence ever since. our second we're changing the order although. the second panelist will be bill kristol, who is the only one of the four of us who is never exactly worked for bill, although he reminds me that he was on the board of directors of "national review" for a couple of years. ..

>> neil freeman, yale, '62, has probably served -- he hasn't, hasn't, um, he hasn't worked for bill as steadily as some of the rest of us. he's gone in and out, he's done other things. he's now with his own advisory firm which he's run for a very long time now. but he probably has served bill in more capacities than any of the rest of us having been the initial publisher, the -- not publisher, director, the

founding director of firing line. having syndicated bill's column, having written for the magazine and served as a contributing editor on the magazine, um, and being the, basically, you know, man on the front lines in bill's mayoral campaign. senator judge buckley was the official campaign manager, but neil was the guy who made the appointments and got bill to them. and he -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, right. [laughter] and neil writes and speaks and does all those other good things. but, um, his, what he did for bill will always remain terribly important to those of us in his circle. so i will ask, um, rich lowry to

begin. >> thank you. and thank you, everyone. linda mentioned that young writers contest i entered, and i actually, i finished tied for second which a very rude friend once told me really means i was third. [laughter] but at least i was this the top three. but it's a real, a pleasure to be here. thank you, folks at yale, for putting this on. it's a pleasure to be here with linda who literally wrote the book on bill buckley with neil freeman who was integral to so much of this we're talking about today, and with my esteemed colleague, bill kristol. those of you disappointed with the republican presidential field, please, blame bill kristol because he just didn't try hard enough to get another candidate in the race. [laughter] he never tried walking around the streets of washington with a sandwich board on or anything like that. [laughter] it was through national review that i was introduced to conservativism and to, really, the world of ideas. and i discovered when i was in

high school, and i would literally sneak issues of national review into class and read them between my textbook. what playboy was to normal teenagers, national review was to me. [laughter] and fascinated as so many of us were with bill buckley. i would, that's back when we had vcrs, and i would tape episodes of firing line and sit this alone and replay parts of it, um, over and over again just to make sure i was following the argument. so as you can see, i wasn't a very well adjusted or popular adolescent. [laughter] but it's really been a thrill and a blessing for me to be associated at all with bill buckley and with national review. although i do have to say we have already shamed part of bill buckley's legacy because right now at the offices of national review if you went in there and you examined our junior-level editors, you would find that at

the moment we have two from harvard and just one from yale. so if national review had a human resources department, they'd be investigating what the policies were leading to this disparate impact, probably refer ourselves to the eeoc to see what was wrong there. [laughter] so let me talk a little bit about bill and just make two stipulations up front. one, i just got married four months ago, so i'm just getting used to being wrong about everything. [laughter] you know, as a pundit you spend all your life telling yourself you're right about everything. identify done that for 20 years -- i've done this for 20 years, so i'm opened to being criticized by any of you or my fellow panelists. and, 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 seeking out a plot should be shot.

and that's a little bit how i feel about people who speak a little too confidently about what bill buckley would think, feel or do about anything. because he was such an original and fertile mind. but i do think we can, obviously, get a few things out, and what i'd like to talk about briefly is just what i think bill's attitude towards the tea party would be because this is, obviously, the most interesting and important phenomenon and controversial phenomenon among some people on the right at the moment. and there's this view, um, among the elite media and others that the tea parties are these clamorous, anti-establishment pop list who are trashing conservativism. and i don't think that's the way bill would view them. he was a fascinating figure for many reasons, one of which is that he is really in a lot of ways the original elitist, right? um, you know, whether it was the

vocabulary or the accent or just the sheer cos no polltism, i've heard chris buckley joke, i believe, it wasn't until about age 12 that he realized he was growing up in an american family. [laughter] i hope you weren't going to use that line tonight, chris. i hope i didn't steal that. on the other hand, there was no one who was more fearfully anti-elitist than bill buckley. a lot of us tend to have an image of him from the later years when he was this beloved figure going on charlie rose and isn't he she gaishes and kind of cute, and when he was at yale and coming out of yale in his early career, he was utterly outrageous. and a radical. there was a lot of ann caughter in bill buckley in that -- coulter in bill buckley in that era. he defended joe mccarthy when khrushchev was coming to visit new york city, he talked about dyeing the hudson live red so

when khrushchev crossed the hudson, he'd be reminded of the rivers of blood in the soviet union. and national review was designed to be anti-establishment, savage the eisenhower administration and supported, of course, the goldwater insurgency. and one of the points, neil knows much more about this than i do, but one of the points of bill mace may i don't recall run was to take down a few notches this golden boy of the liberal establishment, um, john lindsay. and that mayoral campaign earned the contempt of elite opinion, bill said at one point in the campaign that if he won, he hoped there'd be nets outside the offices of "the new york times" to catch the editors throws themselves from the windows. [laughter] and that campaign did not thrive in the tonier precincts of manhattan. it thrived electorally among the cops and fire fighters and in

the ethnic enclaves. so it was really a, um, a populist endeavor. and this is why i think, um, bill buckley, there's very little about the tea party that bill buckley wouldn't recognize and identify with, especially its love of the constitution and its broad streak of libertarianism. because it's very difficult to exaggerate the anti-statism of bill buckley. i think at national review's fifth anniversary dipper, he said the socialized state is to justice, order and freedom what with march key desad is to love. [laughter] right at the end of he self-titleed one of his books as a libertarian journalist. you go back and look at his agenda as a mayor allocate, and it involved loosening the drug laws and legalizing gambling. so there's a lot about a rand paul-type figure that bill buckley would identify with. so i think that's, those are all

very important points. but it's also important to enter a cautionary note, after his mayoral campaign and a rather despairing passage in the unmaking of a mayor, the book he wrote about the campaign, he wrote about how there was no future for the republican party, and we're going to see the party system break up into various factions that would be adamantly doctrinaire, insufficiently thoughtful, improvidently angry and self-defeatingly sectarian. and i think any political movement, especially one as highly aroused as conservatives are now, is going to be tempted in those directions. and i think, also, when it comes to that we can look to bill buckley for some lessons and correctives. it's important to realize, um, that standing up for history and all that and how much he cared about principle, bill buckley was also an intensely practical man.

and in the early years of national review, you saw this strug l working out in his own mind between the ideal and the real. and he realized you have to strike a balance between the two if you're going to be most effective. and whisker chambers and especially james vernon influenced him in this direction. so he was practical, he was also a coalition builder. it wasn't just about tending to the faithful, it was about winning new converts and new allies. and you saw this in the initial composition of the editors of national review who represented all sorts of strands of different thought on the right. you saw it in his welcoming of the neoconservatives into the movement, you're welcome, bill kristol. and even in his mayoral campaign when he really helped discover the reagan democrats. and you also, i keep on going back to the mayoral campaign because i think it illustrates so many aspects of bill, it was also an extremely

solution-oriented campaign. this wasn't just about going out there and stating conservative axioms, it was a campaign soaked with policy. and bill intensely believed 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, actually, later on to help save new york. and finally, bill was a joyful figure. he really loved our fallen world and communicated that in everything he did, not just his writing and his editing and his debate, but in his failing and in his skiing. and he never communicated a sense of being perpetually angry and aggrieved. and that was a key part of his appeal. so those are just a few thoughts, um, but it doesn't take long grappling with bill

buckley, with his life and with his legacy to realize, um, the ultimate takeaway which is that some losses are just irreplaceable. [applause] >> yeah. it's good to be here, good to be with neil and linda, i very much liked the last few months, i always liked national review, but the last few issues have been particularly strong, and now i realize it's to the influx of harvard. [laughter] how could i resist, you know? it's good to come to yale to see how the other half lives, you know? [laughter] enough of all that. unlike rich, i've been married 35 years, so i'm used to being told i'm wrong, so i don't really need to have that in public, you know? [laughter] need a little positive

reinforcement, you know? i also was a huge fan of national review as a kid, my parents got it at home, so i read it as soon as i started really reading magazines, i remember reading it as early as '63, '64, i once told bill that i spent the entire summer and fall of 1964 believing what i was reading in national review. some of what i was reading, actually, which was that there was this hidden majority that was going to elect barry goldwater, and i shouldn't believe those gallup polls being run by the mainstream media. [laughter] do you remember this? >> i wrote some of it. >> yeah. [laughter] and i love national review. it had a really big influence on me. i'm a neoconservative in many ways and i've got to say i personally, actually, was much -- public interest didn't exist until '65, i still, national review was the conservative magazine that i read as a kid. and the evidence of that is in

my high school yearbook in 1970, you know, there's a half a page devoted to each graduating senior, and you had your photo taken, and my photo has me wearing a lapel buttons people use today wear in the late '60s, early '70s, and mine said don't met them emanytize the -- [inaudible] [laughter] which was another major national review theme, a play off eric berg lund, i guess, the political philosopher. my kids came across this yearbook, obviously, decades later, they were just amazed, they couldn't believe what a geek i was. [laughter] i tried to explain to them how this was actually kind of cool and hip. [laughter] they didn't quite buy that. i did still prefer playboy to national review. [laughter] the, i also like the title of this panel, i think it's

somewhat -- how would the patron saint turbocharge conservativism, having a patron saint and turbocharge anything the same sentence. but it does capture two elements of conservativism, a certain reverence for the past and a sort of eagerness to move ahead towards the future. um, i guess i would say this in thinking about i don't know what bill would say, and i'm not even going to pretend. i knew him less well than everyone else on the panel, and i think it's a huge mistake to pretend we would know what he would say about things. and as rich suggested, he was a practical man as well as a man of principle and a deep thinker in a way like many deep thinkers he actually concealed, i'd say, the depth of his thoughts sometimes in his fantastic journalistic facility. and he also has a deep understanding of principles, is in a way more relaxed sometimes about the application of those

principles to practical politics. i mean, he had this view i think that the key is to steer the ship in a certain direction or try to get to a certain port. that's going to mean, basically, keeping in the same direction and not permitting certain things because they're simply contrary to the principles of keeping a ship afloat and keeping it in the right direction. the being willing at times to be an outray jos insurgent, to educate people even though obviously he wasn't going to win and support other third parties. of course, his brother won in 1970 in a race i did two days of volunteer work in when i graduated from high school. that was a very exciting victory. and at other times he could be what he thought was necessary to be very prague mattic and sort of saying, look, this is a moment where we need to choose between the available alternatives or even modify the message for now at least to make sure that we can make progress in the here and now.

so he was a complicated thinker, and i think it's some of the complexity and subtleties in a way masked by the incredible grace and ease with which he wrote and spoke, obviously, and his cheerful willingness to engage in all kinds of disputations and confrontations. i was most struck, looking back at bill and having edited a magazine myself for a while, obviously would have to be struck by his own work, there are others you can read it in many forms, but, um, i'm struck almost more by his ability as an editor to be a sort of circus master for national review and to cull all these different thinkers and temperaments and let them express themselves. and i thought a little bit about this, and i would try a little bit to do this at a different age, and rich tries to do it, it's not quite the same, but in a way you don't know ahead of

time. they're traditionalists, european conservatives, american conservatives, american populist conservatives, american lincoln yang conservatives, neoconservatives who are okay with some of the welfare state, there are libertarians that want to get rid of the whole thing. a, it's hard to know none of those probably is exactly correct, and the truth is some complicated -- combination of those things, and it's difficult to know which aspect of the conservative agenda is going to pick up populist support. and i think it's very wise, and conservatives talk a lot about hayek and the limits of one's ability to predict things, and, of course, when you put any conservative in charge of an actual organization, he becomes the total opposite, an insane micromanager -- [laughter] tries to figure out exactly what should be done for his five-year plan even though we're not supposed to believe in those things. i don't think bill actually ran

national review, my sense from being there a few times and certainly reading it over the years. much more in the spirit that was appropriate to a magazine which was a certain humility about who's right in some of these disputes, who ease right about what radical should be versus pragmatic. he had james burnham defending the opening to china whereas most of national review was vehemently, and i think movingly really, denouncing the opening to the barb rouse, murderous regime in 1971 and '72. i think bill himself, i remember the still, seeing him on tv, denouncing kissinger and nixon for the trip to china and the -- it was pretty, whatever you think of the substance of the outreach, really the kind of sycophantic treatment of this powerful mass murderer, mao tse-tung. i have to remind henry of that tonight. [laughter] henry's so relaxed and such a

good sense of humor about these things. [laughter] won't be a problem. [laughter] the, but bill was able to publish both these things and, i think, to entertain the thought that, you know, maybe one was mostly right but in other circumstances the other could be somewhat right, and i think that's true of a lot of different issue both at sort of philosophical levels and at the practical, political level in terms of his editorship of national review and the conservative -- we're at a hopeful moment for conservativism, but i think a very hard to know exactly what certainly a lot of us would have been wrong if we had predicted in 2004 how things would look in 2008, or if we had predicted in 2009 which elements of conservativism would be most resurgent, what themes, the tea party would come into existence at all, and i still think it's hard to, it's hard to predict in

that kind of modesty that bill had, actually, i think and humility really beneath the fantastic, somewhat -- what's the right word, but, you know, not so humble exterior sometimes. [laughter] the great confidence he -- [laughter] he gave that was part of his great charm. i think underneath that confidence was a kind of intellectual and political modesty which combine with the a real turbocharged energy and intelligence, obviously, i think to enable the conservative movement to do something that's really, really amazing. we do not, i'll just close with this thought. it's very hard to appreciate now, it all looks like, of course, it happened bill buckley founded national review and 25 years later ronald reagan was president, and reagan was a successful president and then giuliani was able in new york to do some of the things that, in a way, bill buckley had talked a little bit about in 1965 and various conservative principles would be vindicate inside

practice and other areas we'd make at least some progress. none of that was inevitable or likely when bill buckley founded national review or even 10 or 20 years later. and the degree of boldnd, the degree of vision, the willingness to gamble we underestimate today, and i think that's also a key legacy and a key lesson of bill buckley. we shouldn't on the one hand we shouldn't be utopian about what might happen in the next year or two or three, but we shouldn't underestimate the chances for radical reform in a good direction either. we shouldn't be too practical and think we know ahead of time necessarily what the progress in certain conservative or libertarian or neoconservative, whatever we want, sensible pro-american directions are. so in that respect bill's kind of latitudinarianism about conservativism within certain limits and his willingness to

adjust and to change and to take his guidance to some degree from the market, from the political market, from public opinion which may not be wise as individuals but in it entirety often is sensible, that's a very impressive and, i think, important lesson from bill buckley. [applause] >> thank you, linda, thank you, bill, thank you, rich. i donated my knees to the yale lacrosse team a half century ago, so i'm going to stand here. i'm also acutely aware that i stand between you and the bar, so let me make a few brief comments. [laughter] three things about bill, and then i'm going to plunge recklessly into the territory both these wiser men refused to travel. and that's what bill would think today about various things. three things about bill lt one,

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 here late '50s, early '60s. we approached graduation that glorious june day when john kennedy got off the great line, i now have the best of all worlds; a harvard education and a yale degree, we sought to show support for our emerging champion, barry goldwater. and from a class of 1,000 young men -- all men in those days -- we had five supporters. [laughter] not included in our number, i would note for the historical record, was our hard-drinking

class mate richard b. cheney. as god is my witness, dick cheney was a 160-pound scatback on the football team, not included in our number was a quiet econ major named arthur laffer. as scrawny as our ranks were in the undergraduate college, they dwarfed our support among the faculty. [laughter] the faculty, 700 strong approximately in those days, yielded two supporters. one was a feisty lecturer in the yale law school named robert bork -- [laughter] the other was an asian scholar named dave row who contributed articles to the journal rich now edits. we would have had 50% more support but for the recent defin straight of will more kendall

after a long and difficult battle with tenure. the second thing i'd say about bill is, um, what rich mentioned, and a critical, critical ingredient is joy. every buckley enterprise was aimed at high purpose but pursued in high spirit. the sound that rings in memory is bill's laughter, bill in the office with a colleague, bill on the phone with a delicious story, bill on the boat with many of his best friends. give you just one example here. this is years after the event, and i obtained excerpts of bill's interview with the fbi. they're investigating me for a federal appointment as these fellas know. at the end of the field

investigation, the agent asked this omnibus, fanny-covering question; would i, candidate freeman, be likely to embarrass the administration in. [laughter] witness buckly under oath is recorded as saying, i should think that the reverse is much more likely. [laughter] but let me give you, again, proceeding recklessly, this is how i think bill might proceed. he might march through the following agenda. first, he would summon all the republican stalwarts, and my projection is that it would go like this: mitt romney, invited to dinner at 73rd street, would have been given a pass on gun control, abortion, universal health care. bill believed that every human

being is endowed by his creator for the right to flip-flop. [laughter] bill would have bored him, instead, on what he perceived to be a la kind that. instead the lacuna, namely the widespread presumption that romney can fix our broken economy with an economic plan that is unlike, say, governor huntsman's manifestly inadequate to the challenge. bill might have asked his guest, how do you reconcile, mitt, that which is irreconcilable, hmm? [laughter] romney would have squirmed through the evening. bill would have barely survived it. he hated to drink alone. [laughter] rick perry's visit would have triggered the full buckley charm fencive.

offensive. tales of the original wfb and his wildcatting days in mexico would have spiced the evening. bill would have taken it upon himself as a kind of party favor to support perry's single most indefensible action as governor. toward the end of a long article, bill would have recasper ri's initiative that's not only defensible, but in some ways laudable. indeed, as bill probed more deeply, a boon to the nation, quite possibly to the world. perry would have responded with a dan rather-sized texasism, an inpenetrable after rich somehow involving paf. ed land and poisonous snakes. [laughter] bill would have segwayed into a discourse on why contemporary international affairs call for a foreign policy somewhat less parochial than the governor has heretofore advanced.

when sarah palin came to lunch, bill would have been on his best behavior. patsy, his wife, might even 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 buckley rule, that palin was sufficiently rightward 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] a commitment that neither sarah, nor patsy would ever let him forget. [laughter] the session with newt gingrich would have caused bill to remark the speaker's x-ray vision. his barbed wit. his broad range of reference and allusion. he might also have caused bill to remember an observation by the late herman khan who said some people learn by reading through the eye.

others, through the ear, by listening. i learn through the mouth, by talking. [laughter] the summit meeting with herman cain would have excited high anticipation. bill would have relished the prospect of a cain/buckley alliance if only for it sheer theatricality. [laughter] during their time together, bill would have spent his time much as he had with palin n a quiet inventory of the intellectual warehouse. what does cain know? what has he read? is it just possible that cain could be bill's guy? beyond the political arena, bill would have had advice for his core constituencies. to the heart band of right-leaning scholars and the american academy including here, he would have said be brave, but until you have secured tenure,

be no more brave than conscious demands. [laughter] reject and reverse the pro to liberal counsel of st. augustin when he famously said, o lord, make me chased, but not yet. [laughter] by all means, concentrate your energy on the edge of evolving scholarship but celebrate loudly and redundantly the core values of the western canon. to the stewards of his movements, public diplomacy, the editors and publishers, writers and producers, bill would say keep handy the metrics of fusionism and appreciate the vital contribution to our coalition made by each major strain of conservativism. avoid sectarianism, adhere strictly to principle but labor without pause to coin the fresh formulations for a timeless propose decision. proposition.

and along the way remember to have some fun. try to be a little less, uh, constipated. [laughter] let me close by saying why i have chosen to support the buckley program. there are two reasons really. the first is to keep alive the longstanding but very fragile tradition here at yale. 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 yale's grudging but honorable acquiescence to the spirit of academic freedom. the second reason to support this program is that bill would have loved it. 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 stewart, sergeant shriver, george h.w. bush and the like, but bill quickly became with the publication of "god and man" not a loving son of our sweet mother yale, but the university's designated apostate. yale's memories of the books, bill once described them to me were, quote, long and sensor crouse. but he cared deeply about this place not only where he had formed his political views, but where he'd formed the friendships that sustained him for a lifetime. for its part yale, i think, possibly nudged by the alumni fund realized that there was no upside in a long-term feud with america's most gifted controversialist.

the ice began to melt. the door opened wide and bilateral talks began in the '90s -- [laughter] between the prodigal student and the forgiving university. what issued was not quite the treaty of vienna, but an historic document nonetheless. an invitation to bill to join the faculty here in new haven. his course in english comp sis decision which -- composition which debuted in the fall of 1997, became popular with both the students and their instructor. i can testify that from his prof sore y'all turn here, bill took deep satisfaction. the process of reconciliation was completed in the spring of 2000 when yale awarded bill an honorary doctorate. how pleased was he? when word began to spread of the award, i called to congratulate him. he picked up the phone saying,

dr. buckley here, and he -- [laughter] and he, any metaphysical problems i can help you with? [laughter] to which the answer is, well, yes, actually, there are. and the buckley program here at yale, i hope you will agree, is one way to address them. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i've been reminded by a couple of remarks made this afternoon of, um, a small incident that happened, oh, by now i guess it's about nearly 30

years ago. but it ties in with all these things about liberals and neo-cons and, um, and bill's wide embrace. john p. roach had been at one point not too long before a president -- president or chairman, i forget which -- of americans for democratic action, that extremely liberal institution founded in 1948 by arthur schlesinger jr. and several other people mentioned today. i can't remember who all was in it. but anyway, it was really liberal. and john roach had been the president of it. and gradually as the world changed, at least on foreign policy, he found himself much more in tune with national review than with many of his former allies. and he and bill were talking

somewhere, and john asked if he could write a column for national review. and bill said, delighted, please, start any time. so john, um, john wrote this column on foreign policy, and it was always brilliant. but i assumed that we were far part on domestic policy. and then one day i forget what subject came up, but something to do with poverty or whatever, and he gave an answer that led me to say why, john, you sound like a disrailly conservative. and he said, no, a catholic cynicallist. [laughter] so, you see, these labels can be interpreted in have different ways. well, do you have any comments for each other, or shall we invite the, invite the audience? let us invite the audience with any questions, comments, summings up.

yes. nina. >> first, i'd 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 bill buckley's life. i would athat the one thing i would have liked to hear more about which i know about is bill's, bill buckley's legacy to things which were musical and nonpolitical. 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 values. that was a tremendous parking -- tremendous part of his

personality and makeup. he became interested in supporting me in charles eyes, the american composers music because ice was interested in moral values. he made a tribute to ralph waldo emerson. spoke about the importance of one's remembrance, one's eternal soul. i was the only woman in the word who ended up by recording ives' complete solo piano music for vox records and william f. buckley supported me as a concert pianist for his entire life. i met him in 1970, '71. i was in that infamous class of women at yale. [laughter] in 1970. but i was very privileged to be

in that class, very privileged to have known william f. buckley as both a mentor and a friend. and i am sure the reason that i became world famous is because of his help and his guidance. so i thank you very much. my name is nina doidge, i'll 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, nina. [applause] questions? anyone want to tell rich he was wrong? [laughter] don't tell bill that he was wrong, he doesn't need to hear it -- >> i'll tell rich he was right,

and bill as well. i had dinner with my long-suffering bride a couple of years ago with somebody who had been very high in the lindsay administration. but, of course, swamped the buckley forces in 1965. and he had been keeping score over the years as the mayor turned over from dinkins to giuliani to bloom pirg and all the rest -- 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," quite literally, every single one of them in serial flag. fashion. they had all been adopted in the subsequent years, but won. and i was dying to find out which one it was. maybe it was -- >> it was the buckley bikeway,

yes. [inaudible conversations] >> so even though we got 13.8% of whatever it was, we won. and that is a message for all conservatives, especially you young people at yale. i know you feel like you're facing the chinese army -- [laughter] but they're going to run out of food. think of it that way. [laughter] >> yes. >> short question. [inaudible] early life in cincinnati when it was very pig, -- big, the john burch society and where did bill buckley stand on that from his -- [inaudible] and his writing? >> well, you know, he famously -- burch expelled them

from polite company. whose line was it, the john burch society thought eisenhower was a communist when he was really just a golfer? [laughter] this was quite controversial within national review, and it goes to what neil was referring to, bill's moral courage. i was just reading about this recently, and bill rusher opposed it, a number of of senior editors opposed it. and i was thinking if i was in that situation and all my high-level colleagues were saying this is a disastrous mistake, don't do it, i'd be really hard pressed to do it. but bill was bill, and he did i. and national review paid a short-term price, i think up to 10% of -- >> [inaudible] >> cancellation. but he had the long view that this was important to the health of the movement. and, of course, he was correct. >> lead in quite nicely. i don't want to tell rich he's

wrong, and i couldn't anyway because he's my former boss, but i do have to ask about a tension in one of things he said you could probably all address. rich said that buckley's anti-statism was difficult to overstate and that he would have supported rand paul, and that's probably true. on the other hand, the john burch society shows us he had a history of purging people. his obituary end with the line, yes, murray believe inside freedom the same way david coremember believe inside god. and he clearly had a low view of not rand paul, but his father, given on interview. what prevented hem from sliding into that school of conservative thought, and how do we spread them? >> well, briefly, i'll let neil and bill take that on too. i didn't mean to suggest he would support 100% rand paul because although bill often times self-identified as a libertarian and a key dispute

with libertarians throughout the cold war he, um, said they were wrong and that we needed a strong state in order to combat the soviet union. and that took priority over, um, shrinking the state at home. if you had to choose, he would defeat communism because it was just, um, if you were going to have any limited goth whatsoever whatsoever -- government whatsoever, you actually had to save the west first. >> i think important growing up or come of age when bill did the complacency of progressivism and of sort of liberal welfare statism was so great that it would make one, would have made me i would say, more libertarian or more inclined towards the libertarian almost absolutism than perhaps would be the case today when, in fact, progressivism -- though it's done a lot of damage -- isn't nearly as confident able to to

capture that nicely in the original mission statement of national review where he goes, talks about the almost suffocating complacency and, um, conformity of liberal opinion. i've got to think some to have attraction for bill, i mean, he was a complicated thinker, and he was a mix of libertarian and traditionalist, and, you know, in some of his books and some of the policies he actually thought out the most both the mayoral campaign and the book "gratitude" are not simply libertarian or small government conservative. he was interested in limited but energetic government, i think in the spirit of the founders. but in any case, i think the attraction -- i wonder, i don't know, obviously, don't know then at all and never really discussed it with him, the attraction to the real kind of albert j. nothing, you know, shocking individual. a lot of that came as just a reaction to the incredible complacency which everyone dismissed that strain of

american political life and political philosophy back then. insofar as when he actually intervened in real politic in the '60s, '70s and '8 0s, he was obviously inclined towards policies which would free up people and encourage in the and allow them to govern themselves but not a kind of -- he wasn't a dogmatic libertarian in the sense that ce deucing from first principles an incredibly minimalist state or almost no state at all. >> i think there's another, another factor here, and rich touched on it in reference to the soviet union. bill always talked about ordered liberty and throughout his, throughout his public life which started here at yale. um, he talked about the western tradition and about america as a particularly stunning example of

that tradition. so he, even though he identified himself as a libertarian and even though as someone else mentioned he didn't strictly, he wouldn't have said -- [inaudible] but till the tradition, the western tradition was a very big part of his intellectual and personal makeup. so he would, he would have been, he was inoculated by those things, i believe. >> one thing, we all act in hindsight as if this was a dock tribal exercise of surgical precision. when i was there -- >> live, now, to south carolina, the state holding a republican presidential primary on saturday in myrtle beach today, jon huntsman is announcing that he's

ending his presidential campaign. you can see that announcement live on c-span coming up very shortly. and now here on c-span2, texas governor rick perry also in myrtle beach. he and his wife anita arens -- are answering questions from a group moderated by frank luntz. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> can you guys hear me? cheer me up. who is that guy? he's got to be union. [laughter] [applause] okay. i want to welcome you all to the second of these cafémom moms' town hall events. i love this. when i do focus groups and these town hall meetings, you are the

best participants of all. so i'm glad that you agreed to come, and i want to learn a little bit about you before we get started. we've got one great grandmother here, there's no way you're a grandmother. it's -- well, then something really good happened in your genes, that's all i can say. [laughter] and we just filled the front row with three people that do not look like moms. [laughter] >> there's one mom coming. >> there's a mom coming, so your mom is coming. how many children have you birthed? >> zero. >> zero. [laughter] see, now, if i actually controlled it, these guys would be in the back of the room because what you do is incredible. i think you've got the most important job in america, i think that our future is less dependent upon what we hear from the politicians and more dependent on what you do. and so i appreciate it very much. and i wish my mom could -- my mother's still alive, but she suffers from alzheimer's. and so she can't, i knew that

there was a problem when she couldn't even turn the channel when i was on, and it wasn't -- [laughter] and it wasn't that she didn't want to watch, it's because you know what a great thing about a mom is? she'll tell you that you did well no matter how badly you did. [laughter] except in my mom's case she told me i was fat no matter how much i weighed. [laughter] so i want to get from you a show of hands, and i don't know if cameras can pick this up, but i want to understand from you how many of you overall have a better quality of life than your parents when they were your age? how many say it's better. keep your hands up and look around the room. t almost every hand. now i want you to tell me the truth. how many of you truly believe that your children's quality of life will be better than yours -- not that you want it to be, you believe it to be, will be better than yours when they get to be your age? raise your hands. look around you. keep your hands up. look at how few hands.

we've got one optimistic mom right here, and she's dressed in yellow. now i understand why. [laughter] so before we begin, would a few of you just shout out why in this third row here why are you afraid about the direction of your kids? somebody. go ahead. >> obama. >> you blame barack obama. >> yes, i do. loss of freedom. >> what do you mean by that? >> [inaudible] >> economic opportunity. >> okay, but what do you mean by that? >> when my husband and i started out, we had nothing, and we worked, and we've become successful, now we're vilified. and we're told we're not paying our fair share. and i feel like if you don't have the carrot of being able to enjoy your success, then where's the motivation? i've live inside communist countries before, i've seen how that works. >> you say you've live inside communist countries? you've live inside berkeley, california? [laughter] i'm sorry, san francisco.

[laughter] but you used a very strong word, and be it concerns me, some of the language that we use. you used the word vilified. do you feel vilified? >> yes. >> how many of you? do you understand the power of that word? why do you feel vilified? >> we've worked hard. i mean, my husband's an electrical engineer. he has lost his job. he is now working temporary. i have a son sitting back there who's now in college -- >> who's your son? >> paul. >> how you doing? is your mom, is she cool? is she a good cook? [laughter] correct answer. [laughter] but you used the language, "vilified." someone explain to me how you feel vilified. >> they hold it against us because we want to do well, and we get out there and work and support things and, you know, try to have something for what

we do. and we feel like we do get held against that, you know? >> why do you feel vilified? >> i, for one, feel vilified because the harder i work, the more everyone says it was handed to me. [laughter] and the more i should give what i worked for to someone that hasn't tried any effort at all. i'm not for helping folk because aye received help. but, you know, you've worked for it, you ought to be able to keep it. >> do you guys agree with that? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> i appreciate being penalized because i'm trying to be independent. i am, as you can see, a gray-haired warrior, and i'm trying to still be as independent as i can, but i'm getting penalized every time i try to be forthright with the federal government. >> is this just about politics, or is there something else going on? [inaudible conversations] who's got an issue with the morality in this country?

so then what's driving that issue? hollywood. why do you say hollywood? >> well, all you have to do is look at the movies being produced today and the television shows, um, christianity has even become a dirty word. and it's -- [inaudible] >> one more. >> i think that the way -- somebody thinks the way to destroy our country is to take god away from us, and i agree with that. that's done, we're not going to be -- [inaudible] >> okay. i'm going to wrap this up. this is your town hall. this is your opportunity to talk to one of the great governors in one of the great candidates for president. i want you to take every opportunity. i want you to engage them. we're going to be listening to your questions throughout the next hour, and this could not happen without cafémom. so with that i want to introduce lindsay to explain this whole format, and welcome. [applause]

>> of course, i hate following you, frank. he's such a tough act to follow, as you guys can imagine. >> i'm such a wide act to follow. [laughter] >> my name is lindsay fairier, and i am cafémom's election correspondent. it's the number one mom site on the internet, we launched back in 2006, and we now have about nine million unique monthly visitor. these are moms who come for community, they come for content, but mostly -- as you can probably imagine -- they come to talk. and one of their favorite subjects to talk about is politics. they've got all kinds of different opinions, but we have noticed that they all seem to have one thing in common. they feel like their politicians in washington aren't listening to them, and they want their voices to be heard. ..

[applause] >> we always have a look at frank's shoes to see what he is wearing. he has the greatest shoe collection in the world. my bride is right back there. been in a few minutes will we will bring her out in a perfect. you want me to secure? >> yet, take a seat. >> how is everybody?

awesome. >> howdy. >> you know what that means in south carolina? [inaudible] >> if you can turn your cell phones off, please. not just on the. turn it off. also if you turn off all your flashes. we don't mind if you take embers but if you please turn off all your flashes we would really appreciate it. [inaudible] >> here we go. [inaudible conversations] >> let's get started. are you ready to go? a little see changing going on here.

>> we are on the air. >> right now. is everybody settle? we have a lot of question for you the next hour. moms here in the audience and from frank and me. i'm going to get right down -- [inaudible] [laughter] [no audio]

[no audio] [laughter] >> started the story about seven minutes ago. ♪ >> governor perry, again, thank you for joining us. so let's talk about south carolina. how are you doing here? what's the response you're getting? >> is great, hospitality is just

fabulous. we've enjoyed getting to know the people of south carolina and going to the different communities. we were in georgetown the day before yesterday, one of the most beautiful cities, third oldest city in south carolina. so the history that you get to learn as you go to these states and the people, you know, if there wasn't a south carolina there wouldn't be a taxes. so the whole connection between travis and james butler bottom, from south carolina, and some great stories in history that you get to share with people. short answer is, we've had a wonderful time, a media and i. and it has probably been of more than i have over the course of the campaign. she's come and made lots of stops she was in georgetown back i don't know, a couple months ago. every time i go to somewhere, they say we love your wife. [laughter] >> they may not be so sure about him. [laughter] >> i told them, my wife, my son

and and maybe me. kind of the way it's been. griffin has been on the stage of, i can't say how many times, a speaker with rick santorum back when y'all were on the b. team as i would say. now rick is back up at the top of the list as well. but we've had a wonderful time. this whole process, it's stressful, it can be rough and tumble, but look, we're asking for your support and for the most important job in the world. this is a job interview and you need to know everything there is to know about us. you know, what we did 30 years ago or what we've done over the last 11 years as the governor of the 13th largest economy in the world. you need to know about what my vision is for this country, as you do all the other individuals that are standing up and saying, i want to give you a vision to make you feel better about the future of this country, and why our children and our grandchildren are going to have

a better life than what we appear and i know, if you're like my wife, she's got great concerned about the future of this country. but talk about this thing, you have the super pack, the negative ads, debate after debate. it's all rough-and-tumble. you can't feel the same way about the political process now as you did six months ago when you got involved. is this process really working when you more negatively than we've ever asked? >> were have you been when we did our -- you think texas is worth -- were sent an american? >> i'm not saying that all. >> if politics is rough and tumble, go back 150 years ago and look and see the ads that were run and what have you. this is tough business. there are people that say things, you know, they might wish they had said, real the making and what have you. but i mean, this is rough-and-tumble work. the world is a dangerous place.

we need a tough individual who has a very powerful core, that knows what they believe in, that is willing to go stand up face-to-face with the leader of china or the leader of russia, or for that matter, that madman in iran and say here is what the united states is going to do, not with a k., not have them -- i want our allies to be very, very comfortable that america we stand with him, and i want our enemies very nervous. [applause] >> are you prepared to look them straight in the eye and say to them that you might send their children into battle over iran? >> it's their children. >> as an individual worn the uniform come as a the medevac a i the only person on that stage

who volunteered to serve the country and for the last 11 years i've been a commander-in-chief -- [applause] last 11 years i've been the commander in chief of over 20,000 national guard troops, that i've seen deployed multiple times, into theaters. the absolute last thing that i want to do as your commander-in-chief, as the next commander in chief, is put our most precious resources at risk. and we will use every tool that we got. it's one of the reasons i'm really concerned about this administration and their lukewarm approach to what's going on in the middle east. whether it's we want to negotiate, rather than using every tool in oni. but to every tool i'm talking about civic, overt, covert sanctions. we should have been sanctioning the iranian central bank years ago, frankly, rather than -- and we are not even sanctioning them now with the power which we could be sanctioning them.

bring them to their knees. if that's what's required. but at that point in time where america's interest is truly impacted and the only way, the only way that we have to protect american interests at that particular point in time is military force is needed, then it will be used. but let me share with you this. again, having one that uniform and having great knowledge about our power and our ability, we will go strike, we will go strike are. we will use everything, forget about political correctness from my standpoint. it's about winning. [applause] >> it's about bringing us home as soon as again. [applause] >> i'd like to get back to something now that you mentioned a few minutes ago. candidates say things they later regret. a few days ago use the term ultra cap wasn't to refer to me robbed. it upset some republicans.

i'm wondering now if you like you might've gone too far using that term, if you regret saying it or if you still stand by your words. >> actually it's a term that's been used before. as a matter fact, ms. campaign consultant used it in a campaign against whitman. but the fact is this. i'm about creating jobs, and my record on job creation as the governor the 13th largest economy in the world is pretty impeccable. a million jobs that created in texas because we'll create a climate in that state where people know that they can risk their capital. they know they can have a return under fester. they get to keep more than what they work for. that's what the president of the trend is to be focused on. and again, this is a job interview. and you need to know everything about us, and you know, you need to know what my tax returns look like. and that's an issue that my taxes, i laid out, anita and i put our taxes out every year

since back in the '80s. and every candidate up there, they should put their taxes out, including mitt, you know. november -- excuse me, september and october is not the time for us to be finding out that poops, there's something out there that is a problem. we need to know it now. so as i talk about georgetown, talk what would have with a steel mill, i think that is there for us to say, is that the right type of mentality that american people want to see in the leader of this country that swooping in, they put a lot of debt on the country, they strip it of its assets, a lot of people lost their job. that was the point i was making with it. but the bigger issue is americans have lost confidence in washington, and they have lost confidence in wall street. we've seen this huge transfer of wealth from main street to wall street bankers, and congress was

the facilitators in that. and they want a president, you want a president that has a record that has been vetted and a record of job creation, and that has a vision for our children. so that my son knows that he's going to be able to go risk capital and have a chance, and that's tax policy, the reason i put a 20% flat tax concept out there. it's the reason i want to go back every regulation that's been put in place since '08, tested, does it kill jobs or create jobs. and have that philosophy instilled into this country. and do it every day, and not just talk about it. i mean, people are so fed up with folks that just talk about we're going to do x. and we're going to do why, then they go to washington, d.c. and nothing changes. my question is this. to you think we changed a democrat insider with a republican insider we'll get a

big change in washington, d.c.? i'll suggest to you, i am the outsider who will go to washington, d.c. with 11 year record of making a difference in a big, big economy, and do it in washington, d.c. and our children and our grandchildren will be better off for it. [applause] >> we have a mom was waiting to ask you a question. >> hi, mom. >> our children will be a future of america. their education is a very important thing for us. >> yes, ma'am. >> i just needed to, what role do you think the auspices of the president of the united states of america should play in americans educational policy policy? >> great question. i mean, anita and i, our two children grew up in a city, they're out of college now, but they were public school children all the way through, a little town of haskell where we started

our lives together, right up through, one of them went to a private college and one of them went to a public institutions. and their education, we paid a lot of attention to. anita was on the school board in haskell. so we really have this love affair in our case, public schools and how those public schools impacted our children's ability to be prepared to be successful adults. here's what i don't like. here's what i don't agree with, that washington, d.c. should be making education policy decisions back in the states. i would do away with the department of education. [applause] and let me share with you why, because i think that governors,

legislators, the school boards, the administrator, the parents, the teachers in the states have a substantially better idea how to educate, and have the better concepts, one size fits all even with waivers and all these that they would say they do in washington. you know, i was not in favor of knowledge -- no child left behind. i was sorting out in favor of race to of race to the top what he wanted to install national standards, national tests. leave education to our children, to the states. and i will guarantee it, not only will we get more money into the classroom where the dollars need to be spent, but decisions will be made that are in our children's best interest. so doing away with the department of education would be a rather simple and i think i rather live think for us to do in this country. >> so often before you go to a question, so often we talk about the role of mom in helping to educate her children.

what's the role of dad in helping to educate their children? >> i don't think it's any different, further. i think they ought to be, there ought to be a partnership there. it's the reason that policies that we should put in place in this country should be where people get to keep more of their money, where moms are not in some cases kind of forced to have to go work, or dads are forced have to go work. two jobs to be able to pay for the cost of living in this country, and we can do that. but government has just gotten so big, government uses up so much of our money. and i think this is more of, this is more of an economic issue than it is a whose role is it to play in the education process. because we are pulled farther and farther away from our

families because we are required to work longer and longer and longer, and pay the cost of government. so my whole issue, when i came to charlotte, i mean, excuse me, came to charleston in august and announced for the presidency, one of the things that i said it was resonated with people was it was my goal to make washington as inconsequential in your lives as i can. and particularly on the tax burden side. so that parents at that particular point in time, they have more time to spend with her children in the pursuit of the children's education. >> let's take another question. >> although i am not a mom, she is in the room but my parents and i are both small and we business owners. we are one generation away from losing their freedom and opportunity that we have today. what we do as president to keep entrepreneurship alive in this country? >> ronald reagan, i think one of ronald reagan's quotes that i love the best is freedom and the

loss of freedom is only one generation away. and that is our responsibility as americans. and to me, freedom comes in a lot of different descriptions. there's economic freedom. there's obviously our freedoms that the constitution talked about, but the economic freedom is really pretty simple. it's about tax policy, about regulations, about the legal system. and i'm really proud of what we've done in my home state. i tell people, you want to know how a person is going to perform in the future? look at their past. a very good indicator. and in 2003 we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation that protected our doctors and our medical professionals and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits. texas now has more than 20,000 physicians that are practicing medicine in texas.

it was an access to good health care in our state dealing with that issue. but we also have kept the tax policy as light on the job creators as we can come and a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable. there is a reason on the average 1300 people a day move into the state of texas. it's not because with great weather in august. [laughter] is because the perception and reality that there's a land of opportunity in this country, and it happened because, not because government created jobs but because it was government created an environment where entrepreneurs felt comfortable they could rest the capital and have a return on their investment. and that is what america needs, a president that every day gets up and understands that their most important job, other than making sure that america is protected from those that would do harm to this country, is to

have those economic freedoms, protected and expanded. tax wise, and again, 20% flat tax, go to rick perry.org if you want to see the whole plan, i me, so we don't burn of the time you're talking about it. and the regulatory side and, obviously, some legal reforms as well. our best days are ahead of us in this country. there is no reason in the world for us to be pessimistic about the future, a we've got to change presidents and we've got to change washington. [applause] >> hi, i'm sally. i would like to know if a mother and a grandmother, what would you do to make america a place where they will want to live and also thrive? >> well, i'm not going to go over my economic policy again, because i think you all

understand that that's really what, i, i am such a believer in free enterprise system and capitalism, and again, getting that confidence back that washington and wall street, that there's not, i mean, what happened over the last two years where you had, where you had t.a.r.p. and $800 billion worth of our mainstream money basically that went over to bail out businesses that were too big to fail? you know, my policy is if you're too big to fail, you might be too big. and then the president came in with stimulus and we've been in this experiment of keynesian politics, if you can just been enough money the economy will turn around. i've got to ask you, are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? >> no. >> is anyone? >> no. >> getting this country back to

have confidence, that the men and women in washington, d.c. really understand what's going on in your life, and that's why i have called for this part-time congress. i happen to think it makes ultimate good sense, as our founding fathers did, that members of congress, it should be a full-time job. they go into washington for a set period of time. they need to work and get the work done. i even consider doing budgeting on to your cycles and having balanced budget i meant to the united states constitution where you can spend more money than what you have coming in, but have those members live back in the ditches, have a real job like everyone else does, and live under the laws that they pass. that's what we do in texas. and it works really well. 140 days every other year is all our legislature meets. we paid him $600 a month. they do the work done and then they get back home and take care

of their real jobs. [applause] >> before we go on, it is a privilege to introduce your better half, have her come. here please welcome anita perry. [applause] >> actually, this guy wants to get on television. [laughter] >> so everyone -- and he wants a worker's compensation filing. [laughter] everyone asks what life would be like, how their spouse has added to them. governor, could you tell me how your life would have been different if anita had not been

your wife? >> well, what you have to understand is she's the first girl i ever had a date with. >> you met in elementary school, right speak with action either that in the country, she lived in town. her dad was a family practitioner. he was actually my physician, and so i knew who she was, but 16 years we dated. yeah, she was a hard sell. [laughter] i tell you, she thought i was pretty cool when i was a pilot and air force force, and then when i came back home and started farming again, i lost a lot of cool. [laughter] so it took me another five years of begging and pleading and whining, but anyway. you know, i can imagine my life without her. -- i can't imagine my life without her.

>> what do you talk about policy, do you talk about the challenges that you have faced? >> sure. she's got incredible instincts. she has that proverbial sixth sense about people, about issues. you know, when i foul up, which i do on a more regular basis than i would like to admit, she's always there to share with me -- [laughter] how i could have done it differently. [laughter] and if i'd asked her first, it wouldn't have happened in. [laughter] but we have got, we told you have a partnership from the standpoint, i mean, she has run for office. i mean, she ran for office for the school board against either the people, and one without a

runoff. i mean, she's been in the arena and she understands the trials and tribulations. she knows the scrutiny that the children have, and that we have. so, i consider her to be, you know, she's my best friend. she's the person, i mean, if i just had to walk away from all this, if she was walking with me, it would all be okay. [applause] >> i'm curious because of all of the media portrayals of your husband that i'm sure you're watching and reading every day, what do you think is out there that is an accurate regarding her husband? [laughter]

>> i know it's hard for you to sit silently by and watch all of these things being said about in. >> actually i don't. you know, i've almost stopped reading the internet, you know, and watching the news. you know, you can't do that. unit, it doesn't just happen to us but it happens to all the candidates. so it's really, really unfair because, you know, he is smart, intelligent. he's a leader. he said this economy for, you know, this climate in texas to create jobs. and so i'm very proud of them. we put ourselves out here as every candidate does, and you expect to be, every level be criticized and that's what we've had. so i don't. and right now it's particularly hard, you know. the closer we get to saturday. >> for one more. is it you, because i watched you both grabbed each other when you sat down. is it you who grabbed his hand, or is it you who grabbed her hand?

>> depends on the issue. [laughter] you know, if there's a big bump on the airplane, it's her grabbing me. [laughter] if it's something to do with health care, it's me grabbing her. i mean, we kind of have, you know, i know she's a professional at. she knows what i'm a professional at. >> take another question. >> good morning, governor perry and mrs. perry. thank you for being here. and also, texas and south carolina have another connection because you are on the moderate is in the sec now. [laughter] we will be playing texas a&m. but my concern as a mother and a grandmother is the curriculu curriculum/liberal indoctrination that our children are subjected to in school.

and i know taxes has a big influence on what goes into textbooks, and i don't think it is the textbooks. .. >> the challenge is for you as citizens of your state to be actively engaged in that and i know each state has maybe some different ways of setting up that board of education or

whatever it might be called but it's your responsibility to be engaged in the public arena so that your values are reflected in what those textbooks are going to have in them. our state board of education is actively engaged in the content and so, you know -- i put it on you. if we're going to be a country of we the people and hopefully, you know, the tea party, the conservatives really understand that our country is in jeopardy, and the way a life in country is in jeopardy, not just economically, but, you know, i will tell you -- when i see the department of justice -- this administration's department of justice coming in to south carolina and stewing to stop

this state's immigration law that it passed, suing to stop a voter identification bill that you passed and then the national labor relations board coming in and trying to leverage boeing to not come in to this state unless the unions had their way, that in my opinion, is irresponsible activity out of washington, dc, and to sovereign states rights. mra[applause] >> we have a cafemom member online who had a question for you. he asks of all the disagreements you've had in your marriage, which one sticks out in your mind? >> oh, my gosh. [laughter] >> one that sticks out in my mind, gosh -- >> we don't have that many. we really don't. who apologizes first? >> oh, he does.

l[laughter] >> there is really no great tumultuous decision or argument that we had. >> thermostat wars or anything like that? >> no, no, nothing like that. >> life is too short to be -- >> i think you realize that life gets shorter. >> we were together for 16 years and it wasn't like i didn't know her too well. 45 years i've known her so, you know -- i mean, even things like -- i'm not interested in watching that on the tv. okay, me neither. you know, i love her and she loves me. we -- we really don't have any -- we just don't have those kind of arguments. i tell people on a regular basis, how blessed i am to be married to her. i mean, there's some folks who

have these knock-down drag-outs, we just don't. >> and you said the word "blessed" and i know religion is very important to you and i'll say to you publicly. you and i have run into the campaign trail and she says i pray for you and i believe her. and it's a very special thing for me when you say that. what does fate mean for both of you this -- faith mean for both of you. >> i don't think you can get without faith and prayer. and the more we're in it that the faith and prayer. rick can address that if he wants to. it's really uncanny, the people, the friends that will send you a message, and it's a biblical version. it's a version or a devotional. a friend in georgia sent me a book one day and said something

that you need for the day. for me my strength, my prayer has been much stronger, just even in august even. >> that's true. i tell people -- i said, god didn't say, i want you running. but there were -- i tell people, i said there were certainly things that i tested god on before i made a decision about this, about these things need to happen and i need to feel comfortable in my heart that i'm making the right decision. he sure didn't tell me i was going to win. [laughter] >> but i know i'm doing god's will for my life. and i agree with nita that my life and particularly my spiritual life has been substantially strengthened. i've matured as a christian in the last six months as i've gone through this process and i think

about, you know, joshua 1:9, what's your favorite scripture, well, right now my favorite scripture 1:9 where he commanded us to be brave, and to be courageous and not be afraid because he will always be with us. >> amen. >> and as we go through this process and as you look around and every now and then, you know, you look behind you and the parade you thought you were leading -- [laughter] >> it might have thinned out a little bit. that's okay because the one person you need to have in the parade with you is always there. [applause] >> another question? >> my name is grace hails. i have a question -- when you had said in the past about the illegal aliens getting in-state tuition, my question is, why do you let them get in-state tuition for our schools for, you

know, the texas schools, especially, when there are other kids that are great kids in another state that might want to come to a texas school that has to pay out of state tuition prices? >> right. >> i have a heart and i understand it's good for them to go to school. >> right. >> but, you know, that's a big money issue. >> the bigger issue and i'm going to directly address what you asked but the bigger issue is what the federal government has just failed at securing the border and that's the reason the south carolina passed a immigration law, south carolina passed one, alabama passed one that we had to do the things in the state of texas we were forced to the because of the federal government's absolute failure. we spend $400 million on border security in texas to date. just last month i deployed two

gun boats to the border with mexico on the major bodies of water. i mean, and these are 30-foot kevlar impregnated hull boats. i mean, this is what you would expect to see in a war zone but there's places on that border is a war zone. the president pulled back the national guard troops that we had and made the comment that the border is safer than it's ever been. he's so out of touch for reality. for 11 years i've had to deal with this. my point is, i know how to secure the borders. when i'm the president of the united states, there will be thousands of national guard troops on that border, there will be strategic fencing in the air, and we'll have air looking down so when the activity occurred on that border whether it's drugs, weapons or illegal individuals crossing, we can send faster teams and stop those activities and we can shut that border down.

it just takes a president with a commitment to do that. let me address directly why texas decided to do what they did on the immigration -- or excuse me, with the education issue because the federal government demands and by law that you have to take care of individuals who are in your state regardless of their immigration status. so texans who are faced with this, you're either going to have a group of people that are tax wasters or taxpayers. and they're there. and they're either going to be on your welfare rolls or in your prisons or engaged in activities that are going to cost the state. or you're going to say you're going to get in line and work towards getting your united states citizenship. and if you go to a texas college, you are going to pay full in-state tuition. 181 members of our legislature,

when that bill went through, there were only four dissenting votes. this was a straight-up economic issue for texans. and look, i would never say that this is what you ought to do in south carolina. i would never say that any other state, you should make that decision on your own and i would never support it at the federal level. i'm not for amnesty in any form or fashion. the deal with that issue, the way we did, i think made economic sense. and texans still agree by and large that was the best way to deal with it. and if you've lived in the state of texas for three years, you pay that in-state tuition rate, too. >> we've got a young man who wants to ask a question. how old are you? how old are you? >> i'm 10. >> 10, go ahead. >> hi, my name is john. i'm 10 years old. and i've been following this race pretty closely.

[laughter] >> now, describe what life will be like if you become president in 25 years for me and my kids? l[laughter] >> that's a great question. [applause] >> be careful because he's not smiling. [laughter] >> john, you'll be 35 years old. and i hope you will be smiling. when you're 35 years old because there was the generation before you that had the courage to make decisions that were hard decisions to reduce the size of federal government so that you could have more freedom. and i'm talking about freedom from overtaxation, freedom from overregulation, freedom from over litigation and that we kept the freedoms that people who hate us would try to take away.

and i refer to making sure that we keep a strong military to defend this country from those who hate us for whatever reason. and to do that, we must first have a strong economy. and our whole existence goes back to making sure that we have tax policy and regulatory policy in place, that allow for the entrepreneurs to know that they can rest their capital and have a return on our investment. if we don't do that, then we cannot have the resources to keep up with the research and the development, so that we can maintain a superior edge against countries like china. we didn't have the morn navy that we're going to need or the modern forces that we're going to need to keep us free. so it all goes back to the economy. and, john, my pledge to you is this, i'm not going to tell you

that america is going to look like my home state. but those basic blueprint of economic prosperity that we put in place there -- that inarguably from my opinion, i believe this with all my heart, "wall street journal," forbes magazine, ceo magazine all picked texas as the best economic climate in america. and it didn't happen by accident. we made hard decisions on tax policy, regulations that allowed that state to flourish and it still flourishes today. we can do that in america. but we have to have the citizens really rise up and to say, we no longer are going to accept washington, dc, not listening to us about the taxes are too high, the regulations are too onerous and we need a president who's an

outsider who has the courage to walk in there. and if an earmark bill comes to my desk, that little veto pin will come out and you stop spending money that you don't have so your generation can have the freedoms that you deserve. [applause] >> john, john, if i may i just want to follow up a little bit on that on why the governor and i decided to get into this race because we looked around and we have two children also. and so many of us grew up in the '50s and the '60s and remember those glorious days when you rode your bicycle and the worst thing that could happen if you took the wrong turn and your neighbor was on the phone calling your mother saying, john took the wrong turn on his bicycle coming home. i just want you to know. so, you know, that's what we want when we looked around we wanted. and as a mother, i want every young person that when we become your age at 35, to have the same

opportunity that we had growing up. that we live safe, as a mother, a future grandmother, no pressure, griffin. >> the pressure's on. [laughter] >> i want our world to be safe. and i'm not -- i'm not convinced that -- well, it's not safe now. i know why my husband can do to keep us safe. so what i want for you is the safety and the jobs and the wonderful future and a safe environment and the healthiest environment that you can have to raise your children in. [applause] >> it's so rare -- how old are you? >> 28. >> 28. what do you want for your son 20 years from now? >> i want him to be happy. and he's already that.

he's found the most, smart capable lady to be his wife. you know, i don't know, four, five children. [laughter] >> but, you know, -- and happiness comes in so many forms and fashions. but and i realize that, you know, money and the access is not going to -- [inaudible] >> but we live in a world where government continues to get bigger and bigger and our liberties become smaller and smaller. that wasn't the vision of our founding fathers. i want -- i want to go back -- some people may think that's old-fashioned. but i want to go back to a reflection of those limited

powers that our founding fathers had for the federal government. that the state and that tenth amendment where we talk about the powers not delegated to the united states constitution or permitted reserved to the states respectively to the people, the simplicity of that tenth amendment and really let the state -- and then people can kind of pick and choose, you know, if you want to live in a state with taxes or a heavy regulatory burden or individual mandated insurance that you got to buy, then you can live in massachusetts. [applause] >> or, you know, you can go live where the environment is more to your liking. and that's the beauty of our founding fathers. and that's the happiness, frankly, that i want --

[inaudible] >> and i've been -- i've been in labor and delivery -- naud na [inaudible] >> so that they don't have -- [inaudible] >> the lord gave them to us to

raise and with that being said, i wonder where you stand with the line between parental rights and the government telling us what to do. and what would you do to protect our right and such decisions like schooling, discipline, religious freedom, nutrition and those sorts of things. >> the government's rights stop at your front door when it comes to dealing with your children. i'm a very strong proponent of home-schooling. tim lambert who is the head of the texas home-schooling coalition, we get -- we get pointed out on a regular basis as being a state that has some of the best home-schooling environment. we protect the rights of the parents. we've gone to court to do that before. we pass laws that -- in the state of texas. and as a president, i would -- i

would be promoting that same type of protection for whether you're home-schoolers or private schoolers or whatever it might be because, you know, parental rights are paramount. and unless there is clear evidence of abuse, then it's not the government's business what you and your children are doing, frankly. >> you've talked about -- [applause] >> and you're very clear what you won't want government to do. when you hear the pledge of allegiance, when you hear the "star-spangled banner" or god bless america, what goes through you personally? >> yeah. >> what do you think? >> i think it goes back to the way i was raised and the values that i learned in that little community where i come from. my father was a b-17 tail gunner in 1944 and flew missions and

her father was a p-38 pilot in the pacific and threw and i can't tell you how many hundreds of missions. and the love of america was instill in us by our parents. going off -- well, my school board president was also my sunday school superintendent and he was also my scout master. [laughter] >> there was a lot of multitasking that went on in that little community. [laughter] >> my football coach was my track coach and my basketball coach and my civics teacher. [laughter] >> and the principal of the high school and drove the school bus. but he was also a marine. and so loving america, loving the values of this country were instill in us at home and at school and at church and at boy scouts and then when i went off to texas a&m and volunteered to

fly in the air force, i had the opportunity to live all over the world, and i never really left texas but maybe a handful of times my whole life. i had truly lived in a little bubble. and i didn't really know how other people lived. i didn't know how other governments treated their people until i lived in saudi arabia, until i lived in iran, until i lived in all these european countries and saw monarchies and theocracies and at that particular time as a young 25, 26-year-old young man, it became so clear to me what an incredible country we live in, and the freedoms and what those people had taught me was so powerful. so when -- that flag goes up at

a ball game, when we sing the words, they're really special. they're a powerful thing. when i'm standing on that stage getting ready to debate, i'm standing at attention. and i'm standing with my hand over my heart to reflect my belief in what a great and incredible country we live and those symbols of this country should never, ever be used in any other way than to hold up america for the great freedoms and the hope for this world that it reflects. [applause]

>> your faith and your commitment to traditional family values have been a big part of this program and america is filled with people many beliefs and what do you say to them, those who don't live like you and who have different belief systems. >> right. >> how can you be a good president to them. what message do you have to say to them? >> i love them and the fact is my faith teaches me to love them regardless of what their -- their lifestyles are. it also teaches me to hate their sin. and that's -- and that goes to the issue of traditional marriage. you know, there are some very good things that come out of individuals who have that lifestyle. but my faith teaches me very clearly that that act is an act of sin. so but i love them.

i would never not love them. that's the powerful message of my faith, but our founding fathers were wise and freedom of religion not freedom of religion. no matter what your religion be, in america know that you'll be free to practice it, but this country was founded upon the judeo-christian values. >> amen. >> and people can -- [applause] >> people can argue that, you know, jefferson was a deist and that's a fine argument but the fact is, this country was based upon the judeo-christian values. and as we allow, whether it's political correctness or whether it's activists in robes that are

in the supreme court to chip away at those values, i think it hurts america's foundation. and as the president of the united states, you will see me put men and women on that court that are strict constructionists, but you'll also see me being very open to individuals who are different from me but i'll always love them but i will not compromise my principles from the standpoint of saying i have to accept something that you think is okay but my values and, frankly, the voters in the state have said we're not going to accept as an act that goes against 3,000 years of tradition in this country and this world for that matter. >> all right. we have another question. >> hi, my name is tara haines and i'm from conway, south carolina, and i'm also a scott

leader. i have a 17-year-old son who's an eagle scout and i know you are also and i wanted to find out -- i know that in the future coming up he's going to hit a number of obstacles that he's going to come across just growing up in general. what obstacles did you come across after you've received your eagle rank? and as president, how will you remove them? >> here's a message for every young boy as they're working their way through scouting. i tell them -- this is the only thing you're going to do as a young person that will be on your resume when you're 15 years old. and think about this. it's a really serious -- i tell them, this is serious stuff. and it's the reason you need to really work to get your eagle because when a resume comes to my desk and being the governor of my home state, i see lots of resumes. and when it says eagle scout i

know something about them without having never met them. i don't have to read the rest of the resume even. i know something about them as a young person, somewhere between the age of 12 and 17. they went through a long and laborious process. they followed a rule book. they followed map, roadmap, to the completion of a long project. and that their mother probably spent a lot of time -- [laughter] >> prodding them and poking them -- isn't that right, griffin. [laughter] >> to finish this because they understand something, as an employer is making a decision about who they want to be on their team and they see eagle scout, they know that young person has some characteristics that were embedded in them as a young person. and if they had it between the ages of 12 and 17, chances are, they still will have those characteristics at 35 or 45 or in my case, 61.

[laughter] >> i know we're coming close to the end of this, and i want to give you an opportunity and i don't know what direction you're going to take it, there's a frontrunner now and one candidate less. if there's a message that you'd like to send to the moms and as you can see behind you, there's a row of tv cameras around here so a lot more people are watching, that compares you and governor romney and however you want to do it, what would you say to these people here and the people watching? >> governor romney is a good man. we have gotten to know each other over the course of this campaign. we knew each other when we were governors. but americans have a decision to make. and we're applying to work for you. we're applying to be the chief executive officer of this country. and i do -- i disagree with rick santorum. it i