rds dash to our ideas and passion but in so doing reform the voluntary associations that form the bedrock of american civil society. a government that is big enough and willing to put a chill on these kinds of mutations is a very dangerous thing for the health of a nation. please join me in welcoming matt salmon to the podium to talk about how to address this problem. [applause] >> well, it's really wonderful to be here today. a wise man named benjamin franklin once said, those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. that saying is so important to me that i have my wife and she is on my wall in my congressional office. this man was at the core of a generation that learned firsthand the cost of unchecked power. this experience gained the hard

way, offered our founding fathers critical insight into how a government for and by the people ought to be held accountable. in their wisdom gained by experience, our founders specifically guaranteed the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unwarranted search and seizures. our founding fathers were not simple man and they were certainly not ignorant or naïve. and they understood that the challenges that we would have to face as a free nation, as a free state. they understood well though that without security there is no liberty, and without liberty there is no security. to strike the delicate balance between liberty and security they instituted the constitution and bill of rights as the foundation for this new experiment in self-governance with a maximum liberty being held to the highest ideals.

.. highest ideals. today we find ourselves in a fight of epic proportions as it relates to our individual liberties and their preservation. day after day we see news story after news story chronicling the damaging effects of out-of-control surveillance states. in fact last summer edward snowden released a series of exposes revealing a series of surveillance programs such as yeah there were a series of surveillance programs released by edwards noted come as well as the interception of u.s. and european metadata. these revelations are for you questions about what we, the american people, or willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and particularly the fourth amendment to the constitution, were accused of being naïve. we were accused of being

ignorance. by those advocates, they say will after all, if what is the height two now they do not protect us from the christmas day bomber or the marathon palmar. and the shooting at fort hood or in arkansas. general james cole asked how many criminal cases have resulted from the use of the surveillance dragnet and he said that there may be one. but america's time of financial crisis, with billions of dollars being spent to support this gigantic snooping operation, with the triple cost benefit analysis would determine that it was effective in that to one massive amounts of funding. on the night of september 11 i can think that we might've been able to use some of those

resources. in a free country, it is a strong case to be made a clandestine operations to help ensure the safety of the citizenry. a lot of covert surveillance programs provide critical, life-saving information to our servicemen and servicewomen defending at home and also abroad. as american citizens we understand that these operations , just with any other military offensive must be targeted and well-thought-out with our troops and others. the case can be made that secure operations may be necessary in order to save lives from the case for the lack of congressional oversight cannot. transparency and privacy are the core of the republic. the republic demands transparency for the government and privacy for its citizens. today we reverse that. the government demanding transparency from us, but insisting on secrecy for it's

self. one of my favorite philosophers in his musings about the law said the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free. how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? they also belong to the human race is agents, or do they believe that they themselves are made of finer clay than the rest of mankind? of course, there is a role for secrecy. but there must be a role for transparency as well. when you have secret courts and secret judges giving secret interpretations of the law to the point where its author can't believe how it has been misconstrued, and they lied to the american people about it, we have a problem. this problem could not have been more obvious to me as i sat on a classified congressional briefing that was being held in the wake of edwards noted lisa bell information about secret

spying program. in this briefing members of congress asked specific questions about the size and the scope of the secret programs. time and time again, the answers given by the nsa went something like, we are not going to disclose that. don't worry, we have it covered. needless to say, our own government does not seem to think that it's important to tell the american all the truth. lester senator ron wyden asked james clapper whether the nsa collected any kind of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans. clapper, who was under oath responded by saying no, sir. we now know that this was a blatant lie. furthermore it cannot be ignored that the author of the patriot act represented jim sensenbrenner, has been set on multiple occasions that congress would never have a passport twice reauthorize the patriot act hadn't known the full

breadth of the nsa snooping operation. when you give the government an inch, they take a mile. we simply cannot afford to play around with our most basic fundamental human rights. back in may before the revelations of edwards noted came to life, i introduced legislation to restore transparency and accountability to our national security apparatus. electronic medication privacy act designed to increase protections for electronic communications, including personal e-mails of u.s. citizens and addresses the privacy concerns raised from the recent position that the irs took the fourth amendment does not apply and does not protect the privacy of personal and unopened e-mails because internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.

there is a need to ensure the privacy of e-mails in the ever-changing world of our technologies. our laws must be updated to ensure our congressional constitutional rights that are protected regardless of the mode of communication that we used. my bill has the government obtain a warrant e-mails and text messages or any form of private electronic messaging. we have a duty to uphold the freedom of rights in this with is one way to achieve that responsibility. i'm proud to sponsor the house version of the privacy amendments act of 2013 because it will properly update the current version of the electronic communications privacy act and affirm the fundamental right of every american in regards to their privacy. at times we feel most betrayed by our own government and it could be all too easy to focus

solely on it and label it as a problem. and ignore the many other real threats to our liberty that confront us on a daily basis. to maintain a proper perspective at home and abroad, it can be difficult. on one hand it is imperative that we remain the joint and focused and willing to confront our enemies wherever they may be. and on the other hand we must be careful not to forfeit the freedoms that we set out to defend the first place in the name of temporary security. but i believe that is this works, it is america's challenge for you requires us to be educated and not intimidated and reasonable. and it will require us to act proactively with precision rather than with emotional responses. my friends, never before has it been more important to be counted among those that are

natural rights are god-given. not given to us by any government. but we have to stand together unintimidated in defense of natural rights and make sure that the founding ideals will survive this is not born out of ignorance, but rather a deeper understanding of history and human nature and by the virtue of understanding that we have self-reliant americans and we maintain a healthy distrust of centralized power. we understand at the end of the day that we are free men and free women under god and that our rights are not our secure way. thank you. [applause]

>> congressman matt salmon is going to stay to be in our panel. we are going to spend a few minutes talking about this. the federal affairs manager at americans for tax reform and a visiting fellow here in our center for legal and judicial studies and we are excited to have them for this discussion. we will open it up for questions in a few minutes and i think i will join you all. >> good. then we can start off and i will direct a question to paul to start with. talk a little bit about the constitutional history in the subject areas we have that background. >> the congressman rightly pointed to the fourth amendment of the constitution as grounds for a discussion of the reform act. the text of that protects american people with reasonable expectations and unreasonable searches and seizures of the

people and affects. the quintessential ground for that amendment is the searching of private correspondence and the classic cases involved like james otis, who was a publisher and a public of search prior to the revolution under what was then known as orders to permit searches without any specificity were finding of a probable cause. this case and others like it were widely known and famous throughout the colonies at the time of the founding and formed the basis for the traditional historic suspicion of unchecked government authority to access your personal papers.

if you would have asked any founding father at the time of the framing, what were the two classic things that were protected against intrusions without the government and the first thing he would've said if you can't come into my house because a man's home is his castle is a classic, english, not. and it is a principle. the second thing is they can't read my private correspondence. fast-forward fast forward to 1986, which is the dawn of of the computer era and think about where you will then the power of e-mail that was really in future area you like communications privacy act was written at a time where the idea of storing e-mail wasn't possible. not with any bad intentions but simply because of a lack to

predict the future with all the chair. simply to understand that gmail and other clout based mail services would become the post office of the future and we would now communicate more in our private letters through electronic means than we do through paper and pen. the equivalent of what they are looking at today is the desk in the house where you keep your personal love letters and then you have personal mail for your daughter or mother or father. and now instead of storing them in my desk, i store them in the cloud on gmail or with microsoft or with yahoo or anyone else with this service.

the build of the commerce minister about is simply taking the traditional understanding of exactly what the founders would've thought core of their protected liberty and the protection against the warrantless examination of personal communications and translating it to eight times a day when the place and the way in the form in which i store them is different, but the nature of what is in them is exactly the same. that's the kind of transitional constitution from the constitution's 1986, that brings us to today. >> thank you. i will ask one more question. katie, you have been working on a coalition on this issue for quite some time. what struck me about this coalition is that it is strange to say the least. i think that says something

about the issue. let's talk about this in where you see this going and the chances for this and etc. >> okay, there are a few different coalitions that are very supportive of this. i am a member of due process and digital fourth. along with heritage, american civil liberties union and center for democracy and tech allergy, we are working together very actively to move this forward. the fourth amendment is something that everyone can support. we're talking about domestic law enforcement can go into your service provider with a subpoena so they can read your e-mail and without knowledge. they would have to come to you with a warrant and a service provider with a warrant. with your knowledge so that you can find out what is privileged and what is not so you can go through the process. this is something that does not,

it does not impede the law enforcement's ability to do their job, which is why we all have this for a passage and it's very simple. we are all concerned with passage and the electronic entrance electronic vacations form. but for some reason the fcc and other civil agencies say that they should be able to read your e-mails. back is what is holding us back. they came forward and they said, wait, wait, we are a double investigative agency that if you change, or can't read people's e-mails anymore and we would like you. there is really not an incident that i can do that very easily where there would be an

investigation that there was a criminal investigation going on on the side where they could not leverage a warrant. this is an outlandish thing that if it were to pass with any kind of amendment that would allow the he or other kinds of agencies, consumer financial protection bureau, the epa, and it goes on and on. they would all want a piece of the pie. we would be backtracking with any kind of amendment like. if that kind of amendment is added, what is the point? >> great. we will open it up now to questions. >> right here. >> is a firm believer in the fourth amendment, trying to understand the government

position is why they need this information, has there been any discussion about software technology that could be used by the separate service providers that could essentially end up the metadata and keep it in 20 or 30 silos rather than the government argument of having all haystacks in one location under government control. has there been any discussion about this kind of technology were keeping the metadata with the service providers and only being granted of that sliver of information one that is issued by max. >> that is in regards to the electronic content, but not to go down the rabbit hole, but it is used to build a case, the

metadata, to build a case content. if we are going to talk about metadata, there should be the talk about what it is and what should constitute it. whether it's a web address or who is running who was at what time. and seeing that. and the content is really what we're talking about here and subpoenaing the content and that is the major problem. [inaudible question] >> they don't have that with a lot of electronic mitigations privacy. when we are talking about domestic forces and how they get to that, they don't have huge stacks of data they are. >> another question over here?

>> hello, i script my notes. two points in the larger comment. people need to remember that the service providers are private companies and they were already abusing our metadata. second is the issue of aliases. it has to be brought up in any act addressing mutations and privacy. our aliases are arks witter handles -- they are our twitter candles. i'm not hearing you address this that started under this and they are funded with millions of dollars. they then steal the identities of people domestically.

will then an underground volunteer of the daisychained take the person's identity overseas. so then this is someone in wisconsin. you are discussing the electronic communications of what goes on with the and at day. the reach would benefit with what the state is doing quite actively. otherwise they are working against what you are trying to accomplish in my estimation. >> thank you. good. i think that what we can find with moving legislation here on the hill, that we do things in a step-by-step process and i am cosponsoring what i would consider to be many pieces of fourth amendment type legislation. we also have a fix on the

patriot act that we have cosponsored as well. the liberty act as well. so the more that we try to address in one bill, the less the chances of passage are. we almost have to take it step-by-step. this bill was introduced after the irs said that because of the 180 day rule, that e-mails were fair game and they didn't need to go in. my bill revokes that. the 180 day rule. also it requires that they get warrants. i think more specific, on a piece by piece approach, the more likely that we will be able to be there in time. we find that when you throw everything in the christmas tree, especially something like this, it wouldn't stand a chance at passage. >> right here.

[inaudible question] >> the technology industry is very much interested in maintaining the privacy of its consumers and it is a promise that they would like to make. they have been wounded in terms of their business model by suggestions that they are subject with a compulsion to give away the private information of their own -- of their customs. there are large numbers of the coalitions that katie was talking about and probably support the idea that government

and that should be limited to the maximum extent that is consistent with law enforcement practices. and they are not trying to sit behind the walls and say that the government has no worlds. broadly speaking it is the digital due process that has 100 technology members of every manner, shape, and form. this includes activist groups here in the district that have a more political driver type of situation, including the protections. so i think that the basic answer is that in terms of privacy, the tech companies are pretty much on board with everything that is

happening. >> the fact that they have this information and you used the example of the post office, they did not pan out. so is there something in your bill that mandates that the private company cannot share that information? you say that they are giving up of the information, but what if they want to voluntarily do so we max. >> we are proposing that information not go to a government agency without a warrant. >> they have contractual obligations, with yahoo or microsoft, just the easiest things to pick. you know, you have terms of service that you have agreed to

with your personal information and prohibit them from others. it is a completely separate issue on whether google should be able to use your information in some of the way that they do. but, you know, that is a private sector contractual obligation. what we are concerned about here is really a far more troubling possibility of government use. >> the constitution is clear when it comes to the government and that kind of information. private interchanges through contractual relationships. >> we are dealing with three different layers here. there is domestic law enforcement privacy, privacy concerns that we have in the business, and then there is also

things that have been going on. international, as well as fisa. a warrant is needed just like for your letters. and so you have to come directly to me. so that is really very important and it should be an easy commonsense reform. there was a petition that over 100,000 people signed an the president has not responded. this is something that is easy for congress and for the administration to show that they do care about privacy while dealing with complicated issues. this is an easy step and they are stalling and because agencies still want to read your e-mail about your mileage. it's crazy. that's just what it is. >> this does not apply to foreign nationals either or foreign government.

they are not protected under the fourth amendment of the constitutional bill of rights, expertly deals with american citizens. >> right down here in front, i would ask to let folks know that if you're trying to get on the wifi, the password is benjamin harrison, all one world. >> i am learning some new things. i'm glad i came today. i was unaware that there were a number of units or elements of the federal government that could actually read my e-mails. i think i heard that correctly that there are. so under what authority are they doing this or have they been doing this, and how long have they been doing this remapped. >> the authority generally for the administrative agencies, the irs, the sec, osha, every alphabet soup that you want, it has several investigative

authority to examine the violations of the osha regulations or whatever. that has been construed to authorize them to make investigative demands of your service provider for the contents of e-mail, a typical thing that the sec would say. i do not buy this, but that is their argument that we are investigating complex financial fraud in the stock market and we need to get the insider e-mails with inside trading and that is all communications and we should be able to get back. because the privacy act of electronic communications from 1986 essentially says that you have no privacy interest of mail that is stored on your server for longer than six months, and

that is a lot of mail, because congress has not carved out or has excluded that protection, the sec, using its generic authority, it can go to your service provider and say here is an administrative subpoena providing all of the e-mail. and the service provider is currently legally obliged to do that to answer that, just as they would respond to a grand jury if you are under criminal investigation in the exact same way. the virtue of the congressman's bill would be to revoke. >> so how long have they been able to do a? they were in power to do it is the 1986 electronic communications privacy act and we are trying to amend that to say that they can't do that. and they have to have it in the right way.

>> probable causes not with civil investigations but with criminal, yes. that is where the metadata comes in to build a probable cause case with the content and with civil investigations, that is a completely different track. and so will as i said what would also not be criminal. so they don't need this particular authority and also if you are dealing with a business or individual with any business and its internal e-mail, you can go to the company and request that information. so i cannot think of a situation where something that they have brought up, where they can issue a preservation order to the service providers so they can work through those issues. so there is not a case where

they need from front access your e-mail. it's just that there's too much paperwork. >> is actually a useful historical point that goes back to the late 1800s but the court said that the probable cause requirement would not apply to civil investigative demands, even if that information might eventually be passed along to the criminal investigators. so the purpose for which the demand is made at the time, assuming it's not a fraud, the court said that we will permit civil investigative authorities to act when it applies in the criminal context. so that is a very old and probably changed view, maybe incorrect view. but i can't undo everything.

>> right here and then we will go there. [inaudible question] >> thinking about this under obamacare, it's okay for outside agencies to look at your records. >> this is specifically addressed with the 1986 that allows government agencies to come in and this is very targeted, as i have mentioned earlier, there is a broad swath that i would call fourth amendment issue pieces of legislation cosponsored in many things. and there is one that i can't remember the bill number.

it has been drafted and i'm a cosponsor of that as well. >> great. >> over here? >> to the gentleman from heritage, you owe everyone to explain this or terms of service as a moving target is someone doesn't know when to go in to see if there has been a change. they are not going to know what the current terms of service is that they are bound to. people attracted the second they come to the page. if you talk to people who have gone to the page and not entered data, they are getting hit with solicitations and i think a prime example of what we need to be aware of is facebook. because facebook is an example

if someone came out after the fact and then said oh, by the way, everything you have given us is now ours to sell and they failed to disclose to people that the goal was to capture the data. i do paper trails and i'm tracking data to foreign countries. i am tracking algorithms of data in england and things like [inaudible] who are taking out information and these are french, german, austrian foreign nationals who have our data. you can go onto your own website here or internet insert your name and find out what has been disclosed of you. the conversation cannot just be focused on one area. it's a model and i tend to draw things back and i would like to hear clearly that you are looking at the model, the same one that is being used by the nsa, a model that was

established by the product entities that know everything about us and what we are doing and what our finances are an accepted. >> is the congressman said, there is no doubt that commercial services use data as well. but i think quite rightly he is -- he is going in a step-by-step way. the gentleman here asked whether or not the tech companies were supporting this legislation to which the answer is yes. if you add it in, something that started to talk about commercial issues and the business models, your points are very fair and i'm not disagreeing with your point. but in the art of what's possible, right now i don't know

how many sponsors you all have. but we can actually make that change. so i'm kind of focused on the success of that. >> it's kind of like not letting them be the enemy of the good. this legislation was not bored out of consumer protection. this is about our relationship between us and the government in enforcing the bill of rights. when you deal with private companies, i agree. there are egregious things happening in companies, private companies are overstepping the bounds. i hate the cookies. he checked the site, and you get the advertisements from different groups. that should be addressed as well. but we must remember that we are dealing with a fourth amendment issue. that is what we are trying to correct and we are trying to get

it one step at a time. politics make strange bedfellows, and there are some on this legislation. but the more you put into it the more complicated it in the more narrow the group of supporters is going to be and the less you be able to get anything done. >> this is something i did want to ask you about, congressman. you are working with a lot of folks on the libertarian side of this position and in the house of representatives who have a liberty caucus that is forming. and i know that there's a lot of focus in that group on these types of issues and i also know that you talk to the chairman of the study committee the other day who wants to put together some legislation on this commission. what are the areas going forward that we should be starting to focus on, i think you are right about this being the low hanging fruit. but where do we go after?

>> it is a no-brainer. everyone understands that technology has changed and this is the male of mail of our time. this is how communications are done. over and above the fourth amendment issues and religious liberty is going to contribute to an incredibly important issue to those of us that are libertarians. the freedom of speech issues. i think private property rights is enshrined in the fifth amendment of the constitution it will be something that we focus on. let's not forget that we will come back time and time again. the fact that all powers not delineated in the constitution are reserved to the people in the states. and i think that that is one with the general welfare clause that is over analyzed to justify

doing things that our founding fathers never would have envisioned having done here. that's not all-inclusive, but those are the things that will not only be a focus in congress but campaign issues as well. >> absolutely. it is time for a couple of more questions. >> given that your bill is a no-brainer and should pass, what is your prediction and when will it pass into are the no-brainers in the senate that would support a? >> i don't know about who is or is not supporting it yet. moving forward it will need to go to through the judiciary committee. my frustration is the same as many of you in the audience and many in america.

if we don't do anything in election years, it is a crime. we are elected to do the hard work of the american people. problems do not take a holiday. we have a responsibility this year and i'm hoping this year. not holding my breath. there's a lot of no-brainers that have been on the docket for years and years that should've been done. another one is why have we done anything about retirement reform, knowing that our nation is basically going broke and there's no way we can cover in the future obligations for those who are going to be retiring. so i wish that i could give you that answer. it is very frustrating to me and clear to the american people that it doesn't become necessarily so clear here. but i can't. >> would like to weigh in a little bit there? there are one or two things about the lot right now.

>> you know, if there are enough cosponsors for this idea to go through, then it's something they cannot be ignored and there will be a large grounds for support for electronic innovations privacy in the house. this is an idea that is very much supported. on the senate side it did pass outside of the committee and then once the hearings came up, that is when the fcc started to make their case and have meetings because they saw this passing. so it is something for people who care about this issue and privacy and those other things are very important. there are other bills in the house that address these and

there is a complicated issue that should pass on a lot of discussion that needs to go on with certain areas that has almost worked out. but this has been discussed and it has been worked out and not something that should move forward easily. i think it has the strongest chance in the house. once of clear, the senate should have no reason not to act. two i think the fact that they are profiling today on the list of 10 different issues, they are going to make it a priority nationwide. and i would like to talk about those all across the country, to let their members now. because the one thing that they actually do pay attention to his people will not vote for them based on issue and i hope that they here strongly that you have a job to do, get it done. this is one of the things that should be done this year as part

of the job. >> thank you for the plug. we are hopeful that today really will be the start of the agenda that we can wrap our arms around as conservatives. so we intend to push it with all of our muscle. one more question. anyone? right here? >> what we have, about 30? >> okay. going once and twice. >> one last one. >> hearing that so many federal agencies are getting access to information and the lady behind me saying of the service providers are possibly misusing our information for commercial

purposes, do you have a recommendation of a service provider who is the least offensive? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> no way we are going to do that one from up here. but if you talk to us off-line, i will give you a my personal view. >> thank you. please join me in thanking the panel and the congressman. [applause] >> one housekeeping note. and then we will break for 10 minutes to get ready for the next speaker and the next panel. we have had senator ted cruz, he had some slight issues this morning. we will with his speech until 1:00 o'clock, which means the health care panel will go before the health care speeches or it so it will be around noon and then congressman roe and congressman price will speak

after 12:30 p.m., and then senator ted cruz will speak out 1:00 p.m. so let's take a 10 minute break and we will bring in the next panel. >> reuters is reporting that the united states has urged the iranian government to pull back in kiev, to call a truce and hold discussions with the opposition after at least 26 people died since the former soviet republic gained independence. from the associated press this afternoon, president obama says that there will be consequences for violence in the ukraine of people step over the line. he says that that includes making sure that the military doesn't step into a situation that civilians should resolve. the president says the u.s. condemns the violence in the strongest terms and that the u.s. holds ukraine's government primarily responsible to ensure it is dealing with peaceful protesters appropriately.

the president speaking in mexico after arriving for an international summit. he says the u.s. is deeply engaged and he says the violence has captured the entire world's attention. tonight on the tv in prime time, we begin at 8:00 p.m. eastern with michael allen, crisis and compromise in american intelligence after 9/11. and author of the shadow factory, the nsa from 9/11 until the eavesdropping of america. and john rizzo, 30 years of controversy and crisis in the cia. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. >> we also teach people the difference between this and what one can observe an experiment. i believe that we are teaching people to think critically in terms about science and i believe it is a creationist that

should be talking to the kids out there because we are teaching them the right way to think. the historical science is based upon the bible and i'm just challenging evolution to be upfront about the difference here. and i encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changes. just 4000 years ago, completely. there is no record of it. there are pure myth that although not. there are human populations that are far older than i heard traditions that go back farther than that. it's not reasonable that everything changed for a thousand years ago and by this i mean the species and the surface of the earth, the stars in the sky. as well as the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it's not reasonable to me that everything just changed like

that. >> evolution versus creationism. bill nye the science guy answers and debates tonight on c-span. >> what is your take on the evolution versus creation debate? we are starting in early honor c-span facebook page. so why do people cling to the notion that has to be one or the other? and maybe because we believe it to be true, why don't you believe in hell, it is there too, they say. join us on facebook.com/c-span. the first in a series looking at the future of democracy inspired by democracy in america. the speaker is jasmine farrier and author of several books on congressional authority and the federal government. she is currently researching a new book project. this is about 50 minutes.

>> for those of you that are not familiar with his journey, he and a companion came to the united states in the early 1830s to study presents and mostly to get out of town for a variety of local reason as france was between revolutionary war times. he spent about nine months to year and traveled route united states. along the way is a very astute observer, he collected an enormous amount of information on what political and social life was like in the united states. michael tonight is to introduce you to some of these concepts by reading key parts of the text. and then to bring it up-to-date to see not where he was correct, but where he echoed in the present time both in the united states and other democracies around the world. the key to democracy is really

two parts. one is it is essential. there are several essential ingredients. i also add that there is luck and a lot of what he talks about is the luck of the united states and the geography. let's go through the essential rhythms. this must be as part of the balance for any democracy to succeed. one is the majority rule but not the majority tierney. second is equality with liberty but not sameness inequality that would take away the incentives and the innovations of liberty. also, legitimacy through consistent processes. these are the essential agreements and whether or not you have a separation of the system or a more direct democracy, this must be present. then the unique honors are when

you have to change to accommodate the political conditions. but i repeat that there is more. such is the intellectual parts. they were blessed with the distance from other countries and he also argues that the early entrants the united states brought with them was the outcome of enlightenment. they read the right place at the right time with the right ideas. energetic and diverse public spirit, acceptance of conflict, and trustworthy channels for representation. this is a little bit small and i will have to read some of this as well. and imagine hearing these words if you lived in tunisia or egypt or if you live in a rock. a great democratic revolution is taking place among us.

everyone sees it but they don't judge it in the same way. some consider it as a new and they take it in other people judge it irresistible because it seems to them the oldest and most impermanent fact known. so one important point is that democracy is on the march in 1830s. there is no going back, not easily. he continues with a political constitution of the united states seems to be one of the forces that democracy can give. but i do not consider american people -- i'm sorry, i do not consider american institutions is the only or the best that they should adopt. by making known the good things that the americans gain from the government of democracy are far from such advantages that should only be obtained with this hell. so let's look at this from the cnn website.

this website gives a timeline for the arab spring starting in 2010. if you look back, how has democracy rest? if you look recently, we can see that tunisia and egypt have had very different outcomes. tunisia is the one country during the arab spring that seems to have settled into a stable beginning of a new constitutional democracy in egypt has not. so when we look abroad, we have to remember what tocqueville is saying about us. and it's not important for us to have one size fits all as to understand why the pains of this movement are so extraordinary. going to the next light.

and so the essential ingredient number one. structures to resist tyranny. this is from the full version not the abridged version. it is composed in such a way that represents the majority without necessarily being this way the majority's passion and the executives power that has the strength of its own. we will still have a democratic government there would no longer be chances for tierney. what an ideal democracy looks like a complex institution. let's take a look at this. this comes from a standard textbook. why are the three branches made in such a complex way?

is a pro-majority or anti-majority in what he would argue is that the founders made some important judgments about not putting majority down by re-articulating them through different channels of power and inducing them into a structure. the doctor did nothing to do this, so he is right. and here is the essential ingredient. one moment. balancing liberty and equality. citizens are more or less equal it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence. since none among them are strong a to struggle alone with any advantage, it is only the combination of all that can guarantee liberty. now this combination is not always fun.

so even though we believe in majority rule and equality and liberty. so that's on the agenda for tomorrow's state of the union address. what parts will address the quality? which parts will address liberty? do these come together easily? as we think about this, quality and liberty, we repeat these over and over and we are not cognizant of the tensions between a, tensions that tocqueville took very seriously. next, this is the part that students know that i love the most. processes of making decisions. tocqueville was interested in how we make decisions because the key to legitimacy, and the key to being a good loser, is the key to democratic stability.

what is the meaning? let's find out. he says that children submit to their own rules and punish their own infractions. in the united states except for slaves and servants and the poor provided for by the town's, there is no one who is not a voter and who does not directly contribute to the law. and another one direct and powerful that in the united states each person finds a kind of personal interest in having everyone obeyed the law. for the one that is not part of the majority today will perhaps be among its ranks tomorrow. so let's take a look at at the bottom and not the top. for the sake of time. so please go down just a little bit, we have the flavor of some

presidential elections. here's my question to you. what happens if you vote for someone who does not win? a lot of people say that they will move to canada but do they do that? why do people stick around? is there something noble in being a good loser, and does that come from two very practical questions? did you lose fair and square? are the processes open and transparent and consistent? and do you have a shot at it next time? in this chart, crude as it is, it shows that people do gather themselves up in four years later one can have a different result if the process remains the staple. those are the three essential ingredients. number one is an energetic public school. there's a little bit of humor in tocqueville. you might find it refreshing at

this point. he says on page 388, there is nothing more annoying than the experience of life than this irritable patriotism of the americans. the foreigner would gladly agree to raise a good deal in the country, but he would want them to find fault with something. that is what they absolutely refuse. we don't have to go to these links, i will just describe them to you. but is america a patriotic country? yes. are we more or less patriotic than other countries? >> yes. we are in the world values surveys and they are conducted by social scientists and it does prove the fact that americans love their country and more so than other people love their countries. but where is the paradox? we trust our government? clear plunging on trust.

the president's trust numbers are very low, in the '30s, congress has numbers that are very low. so isn't this a strange paradox? love our country but we don't trust anything about it. this might be part of the american way is not necessarily part of this, but part of the secret ingredients in our version of democracy. number two is leadership and citizenship and conflict. this is the key. not every country has to do it in the same way. but in any organization that is going to survive amidst diversity, there must be mechanisms to not only represent different points of view, but put them in a system to create outcomes that may not mirror the original input but have some resemblance to the original intention of these different voices. so let us go to the three

branches, each of these. page 198 says how rare and difficult it is to link all the parts of the legislation together in a logical and a rational manner. that is a congress that talking, by the way. this comes from a congressional website, by the way. it's not a board game even though i think it could be very popular. so widely why do we accept legislative conflict that looks like this? and rightly except the low outcome and productivity of the house and senate? it must be because we are not embracing conflict but we are accepting that every member of congress and the house and the senate won an election.

maybe cohered it is overstating it. but how do we collect it can lead to an outcome. we are accepting this is how congress works. so if we look at the 2012 election, this is one of many website that we can refer to. here is the electoral college. there is a different set of

senate elections. and if you click on the house, there are 435 house elections that took place that same year. .. what's more important is the

topics. italy goes from a-z. -- into literally goes from agency. let's scroll down a little bit if you don't mind. abortion, affirmative action. crime and punishment, citizenship, elections, federal courts, search, unity, labor and so forth. the courts, de tocqueville had a lot to say about the courts. he thought americans were terrifically litigious in a way. very sensitive to the possibility of entry but he was an astute observer about the court in the we struggled this explain to students. they can do anything they think is unconstitutional. until there's a live case or controversy that comes to. he recognized that. even with that inherent passivity there's an enormous body. binder number three is going to have three supports.

the first one is party. channels for information and expression, party. here tocqueville tries to separate between parties that are fashioned in a coherent society and parties that imitate different societies that are not contained under one sovereign umbrella. he says there are countries so fast that the different populations living there have contradictory interests that give rise to a permanent opposition among them. then the various portions of the same people did not form part is strictly speaking but distinct nations and its civil war should break out, there is a conflict between rival peoples, not struggles between factions. but when citizens differ among themselves on points that interest or portions of the country equally, such as a general principles of government, for example, been what i call truly parties are deemed to arrive.

this is the dilemma for the arab spring. can there be faction in a traditional party sense that agree to the terms of conflict and obey the terms of conflict, as i said earlier whether not be when all is, the processes will be transparent, fair, open and consistent. or other countries that are liberating themselves to dictators going to form literally different nations? that is what is going to distinguish american or western style democracy the civil war. but then tocqueville goes a little bit smaller. what is a great party in the united states? how would we know if we had one? he's established that we have something that we could call parties as opposed to civil war which was around the corner but he didn't see that. he says what i call great parties are those that are attached to principles more than two the consequences.

to generalities and not to particular cases, to ideas and not to men. here particular interest always plays the crucial and political passing. heights more clearly behind the veil of public interest. do we have great parties today or not? let's look at one tiny example. do the parties have differences on budget process is? on budget outcomes? on budget inputs? yes. and the first link is the very odd website that i love to show my students of the senate budget committee. there is no of the committee in the house or senate to pass this entry. you can't enter the senate budget committee website until you have made a choice. are going to look at the democratic website or the republican website. every other website is governed by the majority, that's true commend you can always find a link to the minority but this is a little divisive. this might give us into those my

delusion that these parties are great parties with differences on the budget. but are they? let's look at the second link. this is from today's politico. attention to deficit disorder. if you look at the top of the invitation from the pictures, neither party wants to talk about the deficit anymore. republicans do not want to talk about bringing new revenue into the mix. democrats do not want to talk about reforming entitlement. the two parties, while they show some superficial differences, are not actually interested in an off year election to talk about real differences. so the greatness of those parties may be countered into

question. let's -- let's go to binder three b. if everything that took the road was updated to a newspaper's website you think he is a genius. so if i say newspapers, you think websites. ready? even if newspapers were a source of riches, they are so excessively numerous that they would not be enough talented writers to run them. so in general, journalist and the united states cannot have a very high social position. their education is only rudimentary and their ideas often vulgar. now he becomes a little more -- the spirit of the journalistic brand is to discuss a violence that elevated in an elegant way a great interest of the state. the spirit of the journalist in america is to attack in a coarse

way, unexpectedly and without art, the passions of those who he addresses. the principles behind and what to grab men, to follow men into private life and to lay bare their weaknesses and vices. he said something later about the marital bed but i ran out of space. the press still exercises and immense power in america. despite what he just said seems vaguely insulting is going to go for a great positive direction which is often what a lot of is critical points go in this book. it makes political life circulate in all parts of this vast territory, always watchful, the press constantly lays bares the secret motivating forces of politics and compels public men one by one to appear before the court of opinion. it rallies interests around certain doctrines and formulates the creed of parties. so in this link i have a very, there's a quick slideshow and we don't have to go through the whole thing. about famous political scandals,

partly unearthed by the media. and just it goes from jefferson to obama. so do you think that we live -- in other words, does the interest of the media in these types of corruptible moments means we have a corrupt society, or is it the reverse? the fact that a lot of these ventures become unearthed whether public or private in their origin, desecrate a very strong disincentive for politicians to behave poorly? let's go to binder 3-c, the last binder three. associations. is what we might call interest groups today, or special interest. he calls them associations. after the press, association is the great means that parties used to get into outlook affairs and to gain the majority. in america the freedom of association for political ends

is unlimited. the freedom of assembly in order to discuss together the use of the association is equally unlimited. so in the first case, men who profess the same opinion established a purely intellectual bond among themselves. in the second they meet in small assemblies to represent only a fraction of the party. finally, in the third, they form so to speak a separate nation within the nation, a government within a government. the next two points are equally important. in our time, freedom of association has become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority. and in america, associations can never pretend to represent the majority. the only came to convince a. how do these two final points come together? our special interest, interest. no, lobbyists and campaign contributors vilified in the united states when they represent organized interest of individuals who are exercising liberty to write a check? to say out loud what they

believe, to try to influence people in public spaces. that's what he's talking about. parties shouldn't have all of the fun of channeling ideas. voters should not have all the burden of keeping up. it's a combination of the media, the parties and these associations. but, of course, there's reason to be doubtful that this is a clean and healthy way of having interests articulated in the government. it's much more at liberty than it is quality. and it is not necessary majority rule, either. remember, when we have three ingredients, majority rule, liberty and equality, some will be sacrificed for the good of the others. when it comes to free association of special interest, liberty is the argument, not quality. let's look briefly at open secrets which is a wonderful website that gives a lot of information for anybody with a computer to look into campaign donations and organize

lobbyists. these are the top issues for lobbyists. the number of clients means the number of registered lobbyists in the interest. do you see the number? thousands on different interest. if you go onto the website on your own and you're probably for me with it already you can look at campaign contributions as well as other lobbying issues here let's get back to the present. one thing that alexis de tocqueville really deployed in america in 1830 is something that he would call today political correctness. he believed that there was a stifling of debate in a free society that he found to be perplexing and counterproductive. he argues, in america the majority draws a formidable circle around thought. within these limits the writer is free. but woe to him if he dares to go

beyond them. a political career is closely. he has defended the only power that has the ability to open it to you. he gives and finally under the daily effort. heels and returns to silence as though he felt remorse for having told the truth. you all know what a definition of a gap is in washington? telling a truth, right? and then apologizing. we will not go through the links but i was trying to think of some interesting mavericks who may not be politically correct. of course, i wanted to make sure we had a wide variety. without going into the my first is barry goldwater. my second is jon anderson. remember the 1980s? he said in 1980 that we have to replace the private automobile. and he was a republican. he said the energy crisis is based on private automobiles. are we frank, who was always known for good one-liner who was not a pariah, of course and

there's shortly major legislative acknowledgment that bears his name, dodd-frank, but he was considered to be a bit of oare limited for the way he talked about republicans, his own constituents. he said arguing with you, many one of his constituents, is like arguing with my dining room table. he was out there. and then, of course, our own rand paul who seems to get into trouble quite often. whether or not we liked any of these people personally, we have to ask ourselves why we stifle people who seem to peak outside the mainstream contours of normal political rhetoric. why do we do that? why do we continue to do it? let's talk about humanity. this is the most interesting part of democracy. this is what the founders talked about. what does it mean to be human? what does it mean to govern ourselves if we are human and, therefore, leaders are human? it means we will make mistakes. it means we'll recognize mistakes and we will distrust

the people who made them. of what the founders say in the federalist papers is that this is natural. in fact, it's so natural it might be wrapped in her interest to accommodate it and turn a vice into a virtue by anticipating it and structuring conflict and even mistakes into normal governments. so this is worth am it's long but it's worth quoting. i want you to think about forgiving yourself for being human in your political life unless of course it's the case your perfect and everybody else is off. imagine a society that nature or its constitution had organized in a way to bear the transient effects of bad laws. a society tha that without perig can't await the results of the general tendency of the laws and you'll understand that of all government, the government of democracy, despite its flaws, still the most appropriate to make society prosper. this is precisely what happens in the united states.

the great privilege of the americas is to make mistakes that can be corrected. i was a something analogous about public officials. it is easy to see that american democracy is often wrong in its choice of the men to whom it confides power. but it is not as easy to say why the state prospers in their hand. he's writing this around 1831. who's he talking about? andrew jackson. absolutely. those charged in the united states with leading public affairs are often inferior incapacity and will rally to the men whom aristocracy would bring to power. their interest merges in this identifies the status of majority of their fellow citizen. they can never impart an exclusive and dangerous direction to the governor. so there is at the heart of democratic institutions a hidden tendency that often makes men work towards the general prosperity despite their vices or errors.

how can we set up a society that accommodates mistakes? now here's the downside of this type of argument. is it too forgiving for the mistakes of the time? let's look at three different types of conflict that he cheats very differently. he argues that some complex received quickly from her mind. think about 2012 as you read this. as the election approaches, intrigue because more active, education more intense and more widespread. the citizens divide into federal camps in each taking the name of its candidate, the entire nation falls into a feverish state. election to spend the day the start of a public paper, the subject of individual conversation, the goal of all moves the object of all thought, the sole interest of the moment. in the next after the election, remember that they? it is to assist fortune has decided it is -- everything

becomes calm and the river was overflowing retreats peacefully to its bed. why do we forget elections so quickly. and candidates, we just move on. what was all that passion about? was a meaningful? what did it reflect? some complex because we are human we forgive ourselves very quickly. may be too quickly. other conflicts are rationalized or forgotten entirely. if you read this book closely there is a lot about native americans that would be offensive, disturbing, but also it shows that he is viewed may have been the dominant view. and here it is. although the vast country just described was inhabited by members of tribes of natives, and that the time of discovery it wil was still only a wildern, the indians occupied but did not possess it. the ruin of these people began the day europeans landed on their shores.

it has continued consistently since then. today it reaches completion. providence, while placing them in the midst of the riches of the new world, seems to have given them only a short usufruct. these code so well prepared for commerce initially, these rivers, the inexhaustible mississippi valley, this entire continent appeared at the time as the still into cradle of a great nation. that was a common thought. what about regional differences and how conflicts comes into society? toqueville has a lot to say about the condition of oath enslaved african-americans and free african-americans. and it's at the end of volume one in a chapter that is furlong called the three races. and he is an astute observer, in

his mind, of against social interaction and he makes generalizations that are very offensive to the modern eye. certainly you would have to take a deep breath when you read some of his observations but they are presented as observations. he's very critical of course though as an enlightenment thinker of any system that does not reward labor. here's what he says about the south. slave reduce on his work, into society it introduces idleness along with ignorance and pride, poverty and luxury. it interface the forces of the mine and puts human activity to sleep. the influence of slavery, combined with the english character, explains the mores and the social state of the south. later he talks about the characteristics of other parts of the united states including new england. in new england as early as 1650, the town is completely and definitively formed. the laws of representation is not accepted.

as in athens, matters that touch the interest of all are treated in the public square and within the general assembly of citizens. so what's interesting today is how the heritage of conflict and the methods of resolving conflict to become a part of the political culture of the region. let's wrap up. with a few final thoughts about our legacy. if he were alive today, we would congratulate him for being insightful about the tension between religion and liberty. i know this is going to be the subject of a separate talk so i will be very limited on it. he is amazed that these two forces have come together in some kind of harmony in the united states, and if this were to be exportable, then perhaps we would have something to say to new democracies. anglo-american civilization is the product of two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere are often at odds. but in america these two have been successfully blended in a

way and marvelously combined. the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty. religion sees in civil liberty a noble exercise of faculties of man. and the political world offered by the created to the efforts of intelligence. free and powerful in its there, satisfied with a place reserved for it, religion knows that its domination -- that is to many is that much better established because it rules on by its own strengths and terminates hearts. finally, liberty sees in relation to companion of its struggles, the cradle of its arbiters, the divine source of its rights. we don't have time for all this but i will go to it if we have time during questions. here's the second legacy for new democracy. room for diversity. despite the fact that only have a two party system that is vibrant, despite the fact that we may have both parties and in

by acceptable types of speech, yet political correctness is not a liberal problem, it's a problem of both mainstream parties where people go outside the orthodoxies are often shunned and punish. so if we have only two party system and within those two parties we have a lot of limits, where do we have laboratories for new ideas? the answer is the state. so these are lots of different lengths on all sorts of issues from marriage to criminality to gun ownership the voting. cigarette taxes, real estate taxes, state taxes. all sorts of differences that take place in the united states, it is the states that are often maligned for being behind the times that are often a little bit ahead of the majority and the narrowness of his maintenance. let's wrap this up, but not really. my students know, my new

students are here. i will tell you this right now. i don't ever wrap it up. it's not a finished product because it's not a finish of a product. all we need to do as good citizens is imagine how hard this is to pull off. think of it as a work in progress. think about self-government as a series of tensions, not a series of resolutions. to our tensions that are permanent, inescapable and we're only just getting started. but let's finish up with those. sorry, too much. thinking about regime creation and maintenance. for new democracies as well as our own, the founders are going to perish, and then what? the people who write the constitution will not be with you to see it through. is regime creation important? of course. you got to get a ride but what

happens when your ideas are gone, when your physical presence is gone, your supervision? will you we be as a country? how do you so when your values. through structures and processes. cultivating expectations for citizens and leaders. what are people supposed to do? how are they supposed to contribute to society? this is very unique to different societies. three, assessing temporary and permanent divisions. it's very important for any society or any organization that you're a part of to figure out what is fundamentally a burden for your organization. ..

the most important part of a democracy is the behavior of the loser. and if a person can be convinced that they will lose fair and square, that they can come back in greater numbers that they will take off the bumper sticker, they will pretend the whole thing never happened, but they move on and they are not going to canada. thank you for your wonderful attention. [applause] is there time for questions?

we have students with microphones. about ten minutes or so. somebody does have a question. >> thank you for coming to spe speak. i was wondering if you comment [inaudible] >> that is a great question. i need to figure this out anyway so i may as well the site here. one of my scholarly pet peeves is about what makes a functioning system so the founders gave us three branches which are fewer now they have overlapping powers but they are supposed to have the

institutional specialties. so, one of the most interesting trajectories in my work is what has happened to congress. why has congress fallen off the map? my previous book i did a book on budget deficits. unfortunately i wrote that in a time of surplus. so i didn't do very well. but in my first book i wondered why did congress want to give away budget power. i will go back to that. giving away power to the line-item veto to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. those might be the policy goals but the means of doing that is by taking your own constitutional authority always said that was my first book endeand thesecond book i lookede issue why does congress get covered away but then i got clever and realized maybe they regret it later. they see the results and try to scramble it back erudite look at the closing commission, trade authority and post-9/11. why give up power and then try

to take it back? now i try to give up on the congress altogether because they haven't performed exactly to my ideas. what i'm going to do now is look at the court. do the federal courts have a role in making the congress behave? not in the policy specifics but in the way that they make decisions. if members of congress stick up for their institutions, what the courts be able to read all his power for them and this is obscure but i it's happened dozs of times members of congress who the president directly. there have been eight lawsuits where members of congress and groups up to 110 at a time have sued the president for violation of the war powers act and the institution doesn't seem to be pushing back. is that the courts role to help

the congress balance power? the second bridge is even more numerous is when congress views itself. this might have gone under the radar recently but the house sues the senate over the filibuster. did anybody hear about this? it was about this big of an it item. it's now on appeal. the house decided to sue the senate saying that it's an unconstitutional barrier super majority that is outside of the constitution text. if the constitution once a super majority of tells you to override the majority, to ratify the treaty. why would the senate think that they could create on its own this permanent barrier? do you think the courts once this kind of case and told him he is engaged in a war against the constitution or the war powers resolution or tell the senate how to do its business?

he don't that's why i'm having a problem getting this book off the ground. how do we argue that the court has a place, when the court doesn't want to have a place? but this is the argument that i'd make. if the congress tenet and differential, and the president is aggressive and robust in his orientation to his office, and i mean all presidents in the modern sense, and the court is uncomfortable with these questions where does that leave us? we have a timid institution and aggressive institution. we are left with presidential government which is not necessarily the point of the separation of powers system. i feel a little bit more clear indication now. [laughter] >> i think there is another question. >> we briefly discussed the interest of the influence groups and the democracy. what do you think the opinion would be on the way our current

campaigns seem to be run by super pack? >> that is a good question. i think that he would understand theoretically and practically how people are offended by the money and politics. if the association is a form of liberty and if money isn't for a speech -- is a form of speech for the political interest they see fit isn't something that should be put down. i'm not even saying that i would agree wit with the fact that thd the last election it doesn't always win. so the question is what is the point of this if money is competitive and it doesn't always win. he would argue with perhaps even

though she wants the interest groups to push back against the majority i don't think that he would argue that they should overwhelm majorities and the danger of the interest group power and money and politics would be if the majority cannot get their vote heard and if regular people have no ability to transform an empty street into a demonstration to be heard. so i would argue that apathy would make the void by the interest groups that much stronger so while we like to complain about the private interests that are well organized sometimes we don't take the effort to engage in the few rights we do have to be heard coming and in an off year election do you think that half of the americans that were eligible for the election not in the past ones would be an indicator. if less than 40% decide to participate this year, i'm not sure they would have a lot to complain about being drowned out.

that is a good question. i apologize if that is an unsatisfying answer. >> what you arguwould you arguee emerging democracies should try to mirror what has happened in america click >> i don't think so. i think, again, going back to the essential ingredient, the most important thing that these new democracies, that the spring must decide is how to acknowledge conflict. and what is the difference between religious conflict and other types of conflict? and villages factions be treated as parties? there might be a big ask to go because the religious factions may not always anticipate that there are two sides to the truth. they might see truth to the t.. and in the united states a look of our arguments as there may be a counterpart argument and that has the right to exist. that is going to be the barrier if the arab spring comes down

that will be a very tough thing. as far as exporting our country, we have a very unusual democracy and there are scholars that know more about this than i do. most countries around the world do not have a separation of powers system. most representative democracies are parliament. one thing that is unusual and isn't necessarily x. portable is the fact we have three branches that are appointed to separate for different terms by different constituencies and different powers. that isn't the normal course of events. the event in the parliamentary system is to have two or more parties to gauge the majority or break up the majority into smaller parties and then call together the winning coalition government. in other words the most common way of looking at it as the united states and the two-party system with three different branches we make a lot of compromises before we hit the box and a lot of parliamentary systems in the multiple parties

to make their compromises after the vote if the vote is settled down and baby group into a coalition. we are not very common in the way that we look at our national structures. number two, very few governments around the world are federalist systems, meaning having a provincial or state government. only about 24 or maybe 25 governance in the entire world have states or provinces. that is an interesting question. it would have to conform to the new democracy would have to conform to how you translate into the government. that is a separation of powers question. number two, divided the cover and give the regions some residual amount of sovereignty to be able to reflect the diversity of the country and maybe not blow up into violent conflict if you can have those different ideas contained.

we didn't succeed on our own terms even on the separation of powers question or the federalism question. but we stitched it back together. the question would be how did we do that? somehow we have an agreement about what political life is and it's the peaceful resolution of legitimate conflict. that is the hardest thing to get past right now. but again, egypt is not doing it so you have to pay attention and be careful about making stereotypes or generalizations about the reconciliation between the era every world and the democracy. it seems to be working in different places. one last question. >> in binder number one in the energetic public spirit, we said that we love america but we do not trust it.

>> could you explain that just a little bit more? do we allow politicians to say bad things about america ever? no. if you are not wearing a pin and with a hand on your heart there is something wrong with you and you need to be shamed until you correct that. we don't want politicians to think anything is going wrong in this country. and heaven forbid if citizens start to criticize out loud they are told where to go. so we have a political culture of affection that might in toqueville's mind be considered odd and extreme and not very self reflective. but at the same time the congress that we voted by the way, we don't like the president or the things he tries to do even though he said he would try to do that when he was elected

for the most part we don't like the court when they do something we don't like or we think the court is a very important push back against the dangers of society. so, americans are not very reflective. it's wonderful to have love but where is the interior? do we think about where we fit into the dysfunction, a word he wouldn't necessarily understand but it's one that's very powerful. who is to blame for the dysfunctions in the united states? in a free society where voters have a lot of opportunities to participate, we blame them and we don't often blame ourselves and when we distrust politicians are we really saying that we distrust ourselves and then it breaks down the question what is so great about the united states and it might be that we acknowledge these types of breakages between ourselves and our policy, between ourselves and the outcome of policy. so again to go back to that he

did say it doesn'would say it dy well and we distrust the institutions that we tend to love. is that it? [applause] a picture and headline on a story out of ukraine. u.s. appalled by deadly violence in ukraine. no action is announced. they urged ukraine to avoid violence against protesters have refused the consequences as they give us considers joining european partners to impose sanctions in ending deadly street clashes sparking civil war. the european called a meeting of its member countries tomorrow to address the situation and we see president obama making a statement. we hold of the ukrainian government merrily responsible for making sure that it is dealing with peaceful protesters in an appropriate way to him and

that the ukrainian people are able to assemble and freely speak about their interest without fear of repression on and we are going to be very clear as we work through the next several days in ukraine but we need to be watching closely and expect the ukrainian government to show race trained, to not resort to violence and dealing with peaceful protesters

the beauty of america is that in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are in the driving seat of our own future. and our biggest decisions in life are made. america creates a sense of possibility. and out of that you can become an activist or community organizer. you are living off of the capitalist explosion of wealth that you didn't even create.

nobody said america is a terrible place but there are a couple of assertions you have to take on that are astonishing. one is the idea that america's great invention was wealth creation. what about the fact of the entire content that was assessed? that doesn't mean -- of the residents that live here were murdered and that was a part of it, too. >> to all new c-spathe all-new s now mobile friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage of politics, nonfiction books and american history where you want, when you want and how you want. the new site scales to fit any of your screen from the monitor

of your desktop computer to your laptop tablet or smartphone whether you are at home, in the office or on the go you can watch c-span coverage of washington. checkable program schedules or search extensive video library whenever and wherever you want. the new c-span.org makes it easy for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> the clinton foundation held its third annual house matters conference in california. one of the panels featured a discussion on young people using prescription drugs. speakers included the former u.s. representative patrick kennedy of rhode island who spoke about his own struggles with addiction. the events moderated by doctor tao this stark an emergency room physician and host of the tv program the doctors. >> please welcome to the stage m physician and cohost of "the

doctors," doctor travis stork and panel members. also >> i'm doctor travis stork on a lot of you know me as the host of the television showed "the doctors" and what a lot of folks don't realize is in my real life i'm in er doctor and this panel today is important because i truly believe that what we can do today is to help save lives. consider this. in the next 19 minutes while we sit before you someone will die from a drug overdose that is preventable. all of these deaths are preventable. we call them accidental but in many ways they are not accidental at all and that is what we are going to be discussing today. i want to encourage anyone watching at home we would love

for you to become a part of this conversation. what you can do is send a question to us at @healthcarematters2014. i want to get you involved in an initial question to think about. the question i have for you all is what is the most common source for people that use prescription drugs to obtain the medication? is it a) they got it from a drug dealer or a stranger, b. guy they got it from a friend or relative, c., it was prescribed by one doctor, or d. come it was obtained from a relative or a friend clicks you can text or tweet your answers. we will give you those results later and give you the correct answer area but without further ado, i would like to welcome all of my fellow panelists and we will go down the line starting with congressman patrick kennedy. just tell me a little bit and

obviously everyone out here watching why this matters to you individually. >> thank you travis and to the clinton foundation. and all of the sponsors. so, about a year ago, i come after leaving congress i went to get a new doctor where i'm living in south east jersey and i'i've gotten a lot of publicity locally indialantic city press because i married a jersey girl and they made a big deal about this former congressman and being in the area and they talked about how i'd been the sponsor of the mental health parity act and that i was a person in recovery and i was doing all of this work in mental health and addiction. so i go to my new position at i'm also a mathematic. i go to the doctor and he asks me about my height, weight, blood pressure and asks about my lung capacity and all the rest

and, you know, before the recent scandal with my colleague, i was the tray radell. i was arrested for driving under the influence. i had been/all over the national press for being a national attic and i went to treatment and the like. and so there was a lot -- i am pretty well recognized if you know anything about this as the face of someone in recovery. the shocking thing was like most of my physicians in the past, i ago and they don't ask me one question about my anxiety or recovery. so we have healt healthcare todo decide how to do healthcare and you need to include mental health care in healthcare.

you need to include in your doctors checkup a checkup from the neck up. 50% of the cases the travis, that you see as an emergency room doctor, those are all driven off by the back pain the person is saying that they are in or that your double bowel syndrome or the fact they just have lacerations or a broken bone, all of those are symptoms of an untreated depression, anxiety or mental illness yet your colleagues and medicine are not trained or culturally disposed to ask their patients about the most important organ in their body and their brain. and it's shocking. [applause] my story is i try to tell a story like mtv and i want to say

to those who took the tragedy of the suicide and turned it into the largest and best practice for preventing situations like they had befallen them in their lives, my hat goes off for what they've done with the eject foundation. >> one of the goals of the panel today is to help explain to people what addiction really is, why it happened and why it is occurring frequently especially among teenagers. >> if we are addressing the issue of wellness and mental illness or social abuse disorder, then that is actually meaningless. why are we attracted to drugs? because the hijack system that

has taken billions of years of evolution. to design it in order to make the organisms do behaviors that are crucial for their survival and that's why we have social interaction data that's why we have been moved. it is highly rewarding and drugs don't stimulate the same system and that's why they are going into the mechanisms that can create power. and as we are speaking about the production medications, one of the things people think when they take them or abuse them is that they cannot be very harmful because they are given by physicians. but the reality is that certain types of medications have the same capacity to stimulate these

and as a result they can be very addictive. so it can have beneficial effects when it can be resolved. and to research, for example, now we understand how drugs start to change the brain in ways that make you much less sensitive to other types of rewards. which imagine if you wake up in the morning and nothing motivates you or excites you and they begin taking the drug and your brain learns it and it is automatic. you don't even need to be conscious about it. it is like a reflex or. when you get exposed to the stimulant, you immediately desire it. and the issue is at the same time the whole frontal area of your brain which is the one that allows you to exert control.

so you have a brain that is functioning very efficiently from a brain that is not connected to drugs and those changes are very long-lasting which is why we need to address that issue of substance abuse disorders and as a chronic disease of the brain that requires it to be treated and at the same time, recognizing that and addressing the importance of the wellness that we need to address prevention of the disorder as the key component as all of us in a society to improve the outcomes of our citizens. addiction can affect anyone at any time. there isn't one person in this audience are watching at home that this cannot potentially happen too. and a lot of it like you mentioned his biological.

there are reward centers. there are a lot of things. think about the last time you tried to put down a doughnut. addiction is something that is rampant. you've written eloquently about your personal experience with it. so glad to have you as a part of the panel today. >> the first thing i want to say is that it's extraordinary that you are taking this on to be a number of years ago the first time i met patrick kennedy i came to talk about drugs and addiction. drug addiction and mental heal health. you won't have that often not in shape to lobby for themselves and their families are often hiding because of the chain around this disease.

and in fact i wouldn't be here at all had i not been dragged into this field and into this world when my son became addicted as a child it was a very short amount of time. he used every druggie could think of on the street. we have your son. we better get you down here we don't think that he's going to make it. but he did. and the reason that he did is only because we were lucky. and i realize now how lucky we are because i hear every single day from people who tell me stories about their own children and sons and daughters and beautiful boys and girls who were just like my son but a person dies every 19 minutes.

addiction is the number three killer in america yet we don't talk about it. by nick cited about now is that the conversation is changing. it's changing because the people i think on this panel. the obama administration has made some remarkable steps forward. the thing i think will make the biggest difference is first of all that we are having the conversation. second, when we understand the drug use is often a symptom, we talk about drugs and tell kids to just say no and we try to scare them, but we have to understand the reason most people use drugs, the reason that our children do it there was a study that they asked parents over the country why they think their kids use drugs and the answer was overwhelmingly because it feels great, they get high, peer pressure. but when they asked th