many of my cases, i mostly litigate with the u.n. proper and the administrative office also based in geneva. there are about 40 different international organizations, intergovernmental organizations that subscribe to the jurisdiction of the ilo. you wait on the merits, whether it's an employment case or an injury case. you then get dachblgs. and you have no other recourse, that's the problem. now, what i've tried to do more recently is challenge the u.n.'s immunity before the european court of human rights.

who then had his claim denied, the european court found that he could, in fact, bring he claim because he was not performing any sovereign functions, that they couldn't deny him his civil rights to bring his employment clachl. now, in the united states, in the u.s. courts, the u.s. courts have viewed employment matters as part of protected by the sovereign immunity. so i think there is some potential to use that for staff members who work for international organizations at least within the jurisdiction of the court which covers some 37 or 38 european countries.

the problem is there's no one guarding the guardians. the proverbial problems of who is going to be in charge. who's providing the oversight. in theory, it's the diplomats. it's the member states that are supposed to be providing the oversighted. many achl bas doors then go to work for these international organizations. this also creates, obviously, a clear conflict of interest. no one wants to accept the apple cart.

this also happens -- i also find quite a revolving door between state department, foreign ministry officials who, again, are there to be the overseers of the organizations. but ultimately, end up working for the organization. and the internal systems just provide no real justice. it's a system that's set up by the defendant. it's controlled by the defendant, run by the defendant. i find that very, very difficult. occasional occasionally, you do get a win for the client. the staff members win less than 30% of the time.

so it's not an effective system of discovery. as a lawyer, you want to have -- i mean, you're dealing in administrative law. many things are done on paper. and to prove your case, you want to see the documents, you want to see communications to get those dochlts 1 virtually impossible. it's worse than pulling teeth. and wharve i ask for, in every judgment i ever get, particularly from the ilat, they always admonish me from my fishing expeditions because i'm asking for documents that are pertinent, but they still continue to claim that, well, you know, if you don't have the documents, you haven't proven your case. so that's the ernd of it. just very quickly, what can be done? there are times, certainly, when the u.n. and other intergovernmental organizations should have the immunity.

whether it's sexual assault, termination, things of that nature. how that will happen, and i mean, there's many different ways. the problem is the now that the uchlt n. immunity arises out of the general convention, which was promulgated in 1945 and was accept accepted or ratified by the u.s. senate in 1971, i think. so one way -- and it gives international -- it gives the u.n., i should say, absolute immunity.

look at this convex. vengs. it's absolute. there's nothing we can do. one is perhaps applying the tort and commercial exceptions. it applies to sovereign countries right now. if you commit a tort, if it's something to do with real estate. that, instead, if the immunity is applicable and is appropriate, you can raise it as an affirmative defense and then the judge at that point should dismiss. but right now, you never get to the heart of the matter in a

case brought in the u.s. court in many courts nationwide because you filed a claim and the uchlt n. says oh, we have absolute immunity, judge. dismiss the case and the judges do that. that's what the jurisprudence says. two other very quick solutions i have. one is to promulgate a u.n. fraud claims act. similar to the federal fraud claims act chrks is the federal fraud claims act turns individual whistle blowers into private attorneys general where they can bring actions on behalf of international -- on behalf of the federal government to recover fraud ewe lent obtained funds. there's room for spg like that in the u.n. another would be a freedom of information act. right now, getting information out of the u.n. is worse than pulling teeth. how do you enforce those? one is to set up a special tribunal that, assuming you keep the immunity in place, which, if

you can't get rid of the immunity, this is an alternative. and as to any award made to this tribunal pursuant to the u.n. freed dom of information act is to reduce any of those awards from the amounts that have been al kated by congress to the u.n. which i think brett recently wrote something saying the direct assessments are four or five billion a year. and actually, all in, it's something huge. so double that, at least. that's another aspect. so i can go on, you know, you can ask a lawyer to tell war stories and it's -- it's hard to shut him up. but that sort of gives a general overview of what the problem is. and, for me, it really is the immunity. and, today, in the 21st century, there's no reason for the u.n. to -- and other international organizations to enjoy an absolute immunity that sort of harkens back to the day of, you

know, kings and queens. no government today enjoys absolute immunity. the prevailing theory in international discourse is a restricted theory, except with the u.n. you have to address that at the root of it. to bring these organizations to heel and to bring them into the 21st century. thank you. >> well, it's hard to follow such an area diet. but, as you know, my name is jim

wasserstrom. i am a u.n. whistle blower in the flesh. what i'm about to talk about has absolutely nothing to do with my current position or the u.s. government or the u.s. government's position vis-a-vis the u.n. this is my personal experience. in the course of my duties, i discovered that they were up to no good. that they were in the process, possibly, of fixing a bid that might have generated a $500 million kickback.

so i tried to confirm it. i couldn't. i turned it over to oios, to the inspector general at the u.n. she and i agreed that i would cooperate in an undercover investigation, which we did for several months. in the meantime, my colleagues found out about my cooperation with oios. they engaged in e gree jous retaliation. they trumped up charges against me. i was -- they controlled the police justice system. so on a weekend, after i had been accused of all kinds of wrong doing they then arrested

me. i was brought back for a year. three against me criminally or administratively. one was an investigation that i was working on with oios. one was that i be investigated for retaliation because i viewed all of this as retaliation. after a year, i was cleared of any wrong doing. and the investigation that i had cooperated in, the report van h vanished. we don't know what happened to it. never saw the outcome. and for me, personally, the retaliation investigation, the investigators at oios come back with the finding that there was absolutely no retaliation involved. despite the fact that yes i was

arrested and there was an illegal search and seizure and all of the terrible things that i had said happened had, in fact, happened. there was no retaliation. there were random acts. i found that further retaliation. so, in 2008, my solo prak tigs attorney from manhattan and i filed a claim in the u.n. dispute tribunal. i was one of the first whistle blowers to take the ethics officer which was responsible for protecting me and which i found did a who ren dus job in protecting me and took them to the dispute tribunal. after four years and the u.n.ic norring six orders. this was their own tribunal ordering the secretary general to turn over documents on six occasions and he didn't do so.

eventual eventually, the judge turned the documents over to my attorney and me. and, in my view, those documents supported my claim. so, in 2012, the dispute tribunal order ruled in my favor. and i think for all of the whistle blowers, it was the first case of a whistle blower actually winning in the u.n. dispute tribunal courtroom. the judge in the case decided to separate the liability damage judgment. >> all of this is a matter of public record now. and he decided to have a separate trial on damages at a later date. avenue several months, he decided not to have a separate

trial. heest mated 2% of miest mated losses. those losses, by the way, were calculated by professionals. not by me. and they were uncontested by the u.n. in the face of no contrary evidence, the judge decide ds that this was only 2% of what i haddest mated. he essentially knocked out anything that had to do with my losses in terms of finances and to award a small amount for what they call moral injury which is a catch-all phrase for defamation and mental stress and so on. it's well to raum that, in fact, during this period, the u.n. was

continuing to defame me. they violated their own rules on not speaking public about on going investigation. but they did so. in the ebld, i got this very, very small award. and the point in all of this to be, and i want to be very clear about that, was never about compensation. this was always about truth. and justice: and i know that may sound cliche or somehow corny, but that was what it really was for me. i was violated. my career was i recall repblely damaged. my name was blasted out in dozens of countries as a corrupt u.n. official caught while attempting to flee for a couple of years. and the u.n. supported that. quietly or maybe not so quietly. and, to have that very small award was a terrible message to send to other whistle blowers

who might want to come forward. and that was really what it became for me. why would anyone come forward to suffer what i have suffered if, in the end, you don't get truth and you don't get justice. so we decided to appeal and ask for the u.s. government to put pressure on the u.n. earlier this year, in january,with the support of congress, the 2014 consolidated appropriations bill was signed by the president. in that, there is a section that refers to u.n. agencies mplt and it requires that each and every uchlt n. agency adhere to whistle blower best practices.

there may be some debate as to what those are. i've referred to only a few here. please feel free to look it up. one is the u.n. staff must have access to independent adjudication. secondly, that whistle blowers who are vicktisms of proven retaliation should have the consequences completely mitigated for direct or indirect or fuel kwhur consequences.

of whistle blowing. you shouldn't suffer any consequences of whistle blowing. . in my case, there was no consequences for anybody but me. all of us went onto have great lives except me. so those are three of the areas that are high lighted in this section.

my view of what's wrong is the accountability institutions of the u.n., there are three of them. there's the ethics office, which is the guardian of the faith, there's the office of internal oversight services, oios, to which it has referred. and the third is the justice system. each one of these is broken in some way for the ethics office. i get these from the government accountability project. since the establishment of the ethics office, there have been more than 300 whistle blowers or those who inquired about whistle blowing have come

forward to the ethics office. of those, they reviewed 99 and found retaliation in only two cases. two. mine is not one of those two. second is oios. there has been -- there are cases that ed has referred to, that brett has referred to that indicate witness tampering, evidence tampering, to getting their job done free of political interference. in terns of the everyday in my case, to say that there was no

retaliation. when we looked at it, it was absolutely clear that they chose to set aside evidence they had in their possession to find that there was no retaliation. i don't know what the explanation for that is. third is the justice system. they are not independent. woe would like them to be. there have been some very, very courageous judges. but they have complained about tampering with the statute which defines their domain as well as to the limits of how their case law can be applied to expanding the statute for whistle blower protection. so that is harmful to whistle blower protection.

in my own case, we will have our appeal heard in vienna at the u.n. appeals tribunal on thursday. i will be going. ed has provided me with much discouragement, but i am not discouraged. again, because i am here for the pursuit of -- i feel i've got the truth out. i feel people understand what really happened. i wasn't a corrupt individual who was fleeing my alleged wrong doing. and the final judgment in my case, we have been told will be rendered in eight days on the 27th of june.

so i may be at the end of this long and winding and very tortured road, which i don't believe will be the end. i think with the new u.s. law as i mentioned, i think requires each and every agency automatically withholding 125 pbt of their u.s. contribution, and that is a substantial amount of money in most cases. the u.n. is under pressure to change its ways. as far as ed's point about immunity, it's both immunity and impunity. it's a nice ring to it. people don't feel protecting

whistle blowers to reform which we hear about over and over again in the u.n. system. one of my suggestions would be to have some sort of external body that is as independent as one can get with funding and staffing k4 is independent of u.n. mechanisms. but which has some sort of authority to make binding judgments on those in the secretary yat. i don't know how that could be done and i shrink from the task of taking away immunity. i admire those who were pursuing it. i think it is definitely unwarranted in many cases. but assuming that that remains in place, these are -- this is one idea. i'm not a big fan of the uchlt

n. ethics office. i think where that track record, two out of more than 300 have come forward and the number keeps growing. but the number of those approved as for whistle blowers who have proven the case of retaliation remains more or less the same. i think something must be done with the ethics office perhaps even getting rid of it. so, with that, thanks, brett, and thank you all for coming in and inviting me today. good afternoon, can you hear me? >> i hope i won't cover too much of the same ground. first, bret, thank you very much for the opportunity to present

here today. obviously it's critically important issues and paramount and it's a testament that you're keeping these issues at the fore front and it's so important. my initial remarks would be that i would echo the sentiments in just about everything that the two previous speakers have alluded to and i think i'm going to go over some of the same areas that were being raised and hope i won't be too repetitive. but i think it's worth emphas e emphasizing what it is that's deficient in these different pieces to the u.n. administration of justice puzzle. at the out set, i think one of the major problems here is the privileges and immunities that have been granted to the u.n. and the way that the p.i.s have been interpreted by the organization.

i agree it may be a misinterpretation of the expansiveness and the reach of privileges and immunities. it's causing weeks of havoc that ripple throughout the administration of justice in the u.n. that hurts in the lack of a true immunity function and framework hurts acountability. what you're seeing is skpampls of a series of instances which demonstrate lacks of accountability, which, quite frankly, is really something that is unacceptable. you know, i first came into the u.n. with the food investigation

and tasked with my group leading the investigation with the secretary general at the time and his son and the committee was independent entity which was not bound by the rules and regulations of the u. nvrmt and was able to do a little bit more independent investigation and had an opportunity to be a little bit more accurate, thorough and real vant. but after that, when he became chairman of the task force and within oios and we operated within the u.n. system within the rules and the dynamic changed considerable by and what we saw develop was, if you didn't know any better, you thought the world was upside down because the investigators became the subject and the subject became the victim. so, in many cases, in one case,

we proved that an official steered a con trakt that hailed from the same country that he was from. the case was pretty well done. the u.s. prosecuted the case and convicted the staff member of fraud. in order for a criminal code to be applied to a u.n. staff member, if so if the secretary general does not choose to wave

those p.i.s, the person can go complete completely scott free in everything he's done. so this is a major flaw. this reverts back to the immunity issue. if you look at the successful episodes 234 this context and where the nation states pick up the criminal cases on their own. so what happens is what happened in all the other cases. it didn't go the national body where the national authority was going to pursue them. they went into the blax hole.

there's cases that have not been followed up on. there's cases that have used embezzled funds that have not been identified. that have not been held accountable. the big question is why is that? why could that ever happen? i think you need to look at, promise, some other things here that have not been identified to round out the nature and scope and the dynamic which is the u.n., you would think would want a strong oversighted presence. it does not. why does it not? well, cases of misconduct, cases of misappropriation, cases of mall fee sense, cases of loss of taxpayer funds are perceived in the u.n. as very bad press.

very unwelcomed news and also types of messaging that can jeopardize the very existence of the organization. >> the view of many is going to run into problems that donors see large headlines of corruption. donations to the organization thereby ending the organization. so what you really have is a very strong self preservation ideal that permeates the organization. i'm not saying everyone, but certainly those in position of

of a case which is wrongly or rightly pursued because it could not end up -- it may not end up in their interest with that kind of a dynamic and framework. but with this kind of a system, and with this kind of a reality, it does not promote sound and effective administration of justice. and i think what was pointed out earlier was the example of diplomats. who's the real overseer here? they are the member states and diplomats. what is that? well, what was said earlier is it's a significant and profound conflict of interest to have those interested in positions

reviewing and overseeing and judging oversight and this function where where they sit. what you need is a truly professional independent body that is truly proofficial and not beholden to the organization or administration. that can review and identify those actions in cases that have taken place and where there's challenges and claim that is there's been errors and misconduct and also a lack of justice. to read the last case that i think was mentioned earlier, the case is actually about two investigators who have been retailuated against for doing job by a senior member of that office.

despite the fact that the findings of the dispute tribunal judge were extremely strong, extremely clear and hardly profoundly challenged. yet, you have two victims who have suffered severe consequences and you have the perpetrator that is unaffected. the role is completely reverse. and that kind of sends a very sour message to the rest of the organization and to the rest of the folks, not only to the oversight body, but also throughout the administration and the organization of how can we count on this organization to

effectively meet out sound and proper investigations if you have results that are occurring like that where you have no accountability and victimized even after being identified as victims even being found to have been wronged have stimbeen given minimal recourse and have been no accountability to the wrongdoer. it screams that this kind of a situation needs a complete and utter overhaul. certainly, a finding that, you know, immunities that that have been put forth by the organization don't reach to the level and as far as they claim they do.

there needs to be a restructuring of organizations to make them truly free of conflict and truly a way in which base cases with have basses, in fact, are brought to the system. rial ration is one of the hardest things to prove. i think without acknowledgment of that, you're never going to have an effective ethics office

until they recognize that these are difficult to recognize and in 1u67 cases. without a strong whistle whether or not her program where comforts can be built upon it, this sort of circumstance will not change. there will be little to no insentive in the future for people to report wrong doing and misconduct in the organization. especially when they don't see a level of accountability. when there aren't final decisions that are fair and just.

and when there's a mistake made that can be corrected. whether it be in the judicial forum or during the investigative process. there's so many different ways and aspects in which these casings can be derailed by errors. >> thank you, bob. before we go to q&a, i was wondering 23 you can describe the task force and where those cases are right now?

>> the task force, which involved fraud, financial mall fee sense, financial fraud and, also, it took over cases of eight senior staff members who would be accused of misconduct. in three years, there's no way we could complete the entire load of cases. we completed about 200, a little over 200 cases and we found more than 26 significant fraud and corruption schemes. certainly some with significant financial loss, others where

there's been harsh management and misuse of u.n. funds and positions. when we disbanded, these cases went into a black hole. cases in which further work hadded to be done. and cases in which individuals and migtss that identified, at least it had been found, alleged to have been found to engage in misconduct worthy of cases in

the administration of justice within the organize saigsz. not even outside it. they were not taken up. at least that's the appearance that's being provided and nothing seems to have been done for some time which dove tails you sometimes can make enemies. there's a disincentive. anyway, the long and short of it is there's a lot of work that seems to have not been pursued. in others, it's been dropped. cases that have not made their way through the justice system. >> thank you. >> we have time for a few

questions and answers from the audience. but i'm going to go ahead and lead it off with one short question to both ed and gym over here. and that is considering the outlines circumstance for the legislation thafgs just passed in january about the whistle blower standards established by congress, do you think that any u.n. organization currently meets those standards? >> no. absolutely not. >> so you would be surprised that a u.n. organization could meet those standards and that the u.n. money should be paid forward? >> sir, in the back please.

>> the question or concern that i would put forth, in the united nations, you have an international body. it validates which come from different legal systems. you'll read from the four major ones are the system in iran, civil law, friends, most of the world is under civil law. and such as the israel system. does the -- under which of those paradigms do these legal investigatory and adjudicatory bodies work. are there differences between these legal systems?

partly at fault for the impasse or sometimemy that has been described. and to what extent might there be extrajudicial, political considerations that these adjudicatory bodies are not putting in these reports but which might influence them such as this was necessary to get this country's cooperation in whatever we were doing. these people may not know. and the investigators may not know. but the hire up is fine.

what surprises me, okay, here's a settlement of nondisclosure and moving over to that country. >> so the question is how does the arbitration process base itself common law, civil law and to what extent do the political circumstances come into play so,ed, do you want to take that first? >> sure. for the most part, it's a mixture. as to your second question, does that contribute to some of the problems? i think it does. i think my experience is it's much more based on dochlts. they do not place great weight on witness testimonies,

cross-examination: is there secrecy because there might be some underlying krrgs? probably. there are mechanisms that governments already use to deal with sensitive issues. but, today, in the io system, i mean, there's just no disclosure. i i think the secrecy has to be dealt with other than just go away. >> i would hate to see secrecy being used as an excuse for an action. most of the whistle blowers as far as i know have come forward. and i know many of them, including the whistle blowers

who came forward whose cases were value dated, at least one of them, feels that he's still being retaliated against. there's nothing dramatic, mistier yousz or secret or no quiet mode of forces behind this that i'm aware of in any of the cases that are aware of. so i certainly wouldn't use that as an excuse for an action. >> bob, do you have any comment about the basis for the u.n. judicial system? and in your experience, did you find some of the judgment that is came out? just quickly, on a second part, i think there's two things. you have a series of rules in the u.n. that are based on -- that are coming from the charter of the organization that form

rules of conduct. various basis for a charge whic comes really just out of the charter. and out of the seminole documents from the u.n. you also have the second category that we have the national laws in the particular country that you're involved in, that sometimes you pay heed to as well. you know, if in fact you're in a certain country where, for example, you know, bribery is accepted. that's a good question, because i think in those cases, there really is sometimes a tension between which -- you know, which law should apply, the western law that strictly prohibits paying bribes to contracts, or the local law that sees it as a

custom and a duty, and a way of life to do so. you know, there is a real issue. and the other issue that really dovetails into the secrecy piece is, what happens when you have a critical need in a certain area, and your goods or services that have been procured, and procured corruptly, but it's critical you need to get that item, good, medicine, food into that mission, or that location, otherwise, you know, people may suffer and die. and so then which takes paramount importance there. you know, are you going to impose the system of law and accountability or are you going to put a premium and a more importance on the item of the good. and i can tell you in the u.n., a lot of times the importance of the item and good weighs out. and the issue that is

underlying, you know, the bribery or the corruption is buried. >> thanks. >> let me just add to that. i think that those are exceptional cases, and they should be examined one by one. some of the underlying assumptions should probably be examined very carefully before making a leap of faith, this is the only way to get those goods and services to the people in need. that principle can very easily be abused. >> ma'am? >> hi. [ inaudible ]. >> just to repeat the question, in case the audience didn't hear

it. she's asking if the new u.s. law enacted in january is addressing the issue of privileges and immunities under the u.n. treaty. >> it doesn't specifically mention that issue. where the issue of immunity dovetails with the whistleblower best practices, because there are five specifically mentioned, immunity not among those five, but in the larger work done of whistleblowers best practice, there is a mention of immunity. and the withdrawal of the immunity. i think perhaps one of our audience members can address that, that the best practices comes from the accountability. >> bob, would you like to address how you would go after this particular issue if you were trying to be more --

describe the immunity in the u.n. to address this problem? >> one problem with this law on a case-by-case basis comes the example that brett gave in his opening about wipeout. wipeout derives most of its funds from patent application fees. approximately 50% of which come from american patent applicants. the u.s. government pays a very small amount of money to wpo. so, therefore, in my opinion, wpo certainly does not comply with this law. but it's probably not going to make any difference, because they don't get much money from the u.s., and wouldn't care if the u.s. cut off whatever contributions it's made. even though in my view today, wpo is one of the most corrupt organizations because of the lack of accountability. i applaud the work of jim and

bea. but it's a start. in a case like wpo, it just doesn't address the problem. >> bob, would you like to comment? or are you fine? do we have any other questions from the audience? yes, ma'am? >> [ inaudible ]. >> it would be done through the station department. >> [ inaudible ]. >> they're taking the effort very seriously. they've circulated a questionnaire where they are gathering statistics on -- the law doesn't talk -- does not focus on policy, it's focusing on implementation of policy. because the organization has

policies. and some of them read very well. but it's really how that policy has been implemented. i think they're taking it seriously. and we'll see what they come up with in the end. i think it will be submitted to congress, and it will be up to congress to decide whether or not there's these notifications, the documentation that's been collected and in fact presented are adequate. i think that government accountability will be watching this very closely. >> i'll conclude with a final question, and that is, do you get the sense that the united states is unique in its concern about these types of issue, or is the frustration with the treatment of whistleblowers within the u.n. system more widespread than that? >> well, one of the efforts that i'm trying to undertake is to

internationalize this movement for whistleblower protection in the u.n. and i am in touch with some society organizations, governments, and with media in a variety of other countries. i'm looking -- working closely with major donors of the u.n. and there's considerable interest, the fact that the u.s. has taken this step, and it's generated a lot of curiosity, and other countries, particularly those which have a strong rule of law, and strong belief in whistleblower protection, are taking a look at taking action themselves. whether that means withholding or political pressure or in some other manifestation, i don't know. we're in the early days here. but there is an interest in it. and media in other countries have picked this story up. they are quite actively pursuing it. and that hopefully will generate a constituency that will put pressure on politicians in those

countries to do the same thing as has happened here. >> very quickly, i think the u.n. has to be treated, particularly in this type of question, as -- you know, they exercise many of the -- indicators of a sovereign state. although they're not a sovereign state. they're almost like a supernatural state because of the immunity they enjoy. but they get a pass. for example, transparency international doesn't review the u.n. i'm not sure why. i think they should. so i think we have to come back and reexamine that as well, to make sure that if they are functioning as a quasi state, that they have the same accountability and oversight. whether that will happen or not -- i hope, but whether they will, i'm not sure. >> bob, any final remarks? bob, any final remarks? >> oh, i'm sorry.

many of the important things said today, a lot of the things have been brought to the fore. it all fits together for the administration of justice, to have a viable protection program, to have a viable administration of justice, and have fair and equitable results. we have investigations, and if treated properly, all of this is related and all this needs to be addressed. and now, you feel like exasperation, because these issues, these episodes have been going on for some time. they come out in different forums, but this has been going on for many years now. there's been a lot of casualties. and we really need to get a vested interest and enthusiasm to address it. because those who have suffered,

it can be a traf esy to have them fall by the wayside, for this to continue. >> thank you very much. and thank you all for coming here today. i hope you enjoyed it. and good night. or good-bye, rather. [ applause ] next, speakers from today's faith and freedom coalition luncheon, including senators mike lee, marco rubio and ted cruz. then a house hearing on iran and human rights. after that, the ceo of general motors testifies about that company's internal investigation concerning delay of the ignition switch recall. an "f" on transparency and freedom of information. and i think my colleagues in journalism would give a similar grade whether they're liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process is a joke. it was well on its way prior to the obama add murgs. but this administration has

perfected the stall, the delay, the redactions, the excuses. and really, it's shocking, because i feel very strongly that the information that they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. we own it. but there's no sense of that when you ask for it. they covet it as if they're a private corporation, defending their trade secrets rather than understanding that what they hold is information they've gathered on our behalf. >> emmy award-winning sharl attkisson on the q&a. marco rubio of florida, ted cruz of texas and mike lee of utah are among the speakers at the faith and freedom coalition's annual policy conference in washington, d.c. also speaking to the gathering were u.n. ambassador john bolton and former u.s. representative alan west. faith and freedom coalition

founder ralph reed opens the event. it's about 90 minutes. >> it's my great privilege to introduce our first speaker of today's program. senator mike lee, who is a great champion for our principles, our values, and has been a tireless advocate for the constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. mike lee graduated from his undergraduate education at brigham young university. he also graduated from byu law school. he was in private practice for several years where he specialized in appellate and supreme court litigation. he clerked for then circuit court judge samuel alito in the third circuit prior to samuel alito's elevation to the supreme court. he served as the assistant u.s.

attorney in salt lake city. he was an aide to governor jon huntsman. when he decided to run for the u.s. senate in 2010, as one of the first candidates of what would become known as the tea party movement against a powerful, entrenched, incumbent republican senator, virtually no one gave him a chance to win. he won at the republican convention in a shocking upset. he went on to win the general election in 2010. with 61% of the vote. he has a 100% score on the faith and freedom congressional scorecard. he's pro-life. he's pro-family. he's advocated social security and entitlement reform. he's advocated a next generation of welfare reform, called for basing our criminal justice reform on the right on crime principles. and he's also called for a new

reform conservativism that offers an agenda for the 21st century, and a tax credit to strengthen the family. i think he's one of the brightest stars in the political affirmament today. please welcome mike lee. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, ralph. it's an honor to be here with all of you here today. it was great a minute ago to see dara, sammy and esra leading us in the pledge of allegiance. it wasn't that long ago when my kids would have been drowned out by this podium. it won't last very long, they will grow up faster than you know it. it reminds me of the fact that when my twin boys, my two

oldest, were just about 16. i had an interesting conversation with them. about three years ago. i was driving down the road with james and john. they're both good students, both good kids. we were listening to a popular song on the radio this particular day. a song that i had heard many times, but i hadn't paid attention to very closely. on this particular day, i happened to notice the words. the words were awful. the words were exactly opposite of what any christian god-fearing father of children that he wants to raise to be god-fearing children would want his kids listening to. so i seized the volume control in the car stereo and turned it down and said, guys, have you ever listened to the words? they're terrible. my son john, who is a good kid, didn't miss a beat. without batting an eye he said to me, dad, it's not bad if you don't think about it. i thought, oh, my goodness, my

son john must be advising the president of the united states. well, you're all here because you are thinking about it. and i'm delighted to be at this event once again. because i always enjoy spending time with conservatives who are thinking about it, and who understand the essentials and inex trickable link that exists between faith and freedom. for those of us who are here at this conference, we recognize the artificial nature of any division between economic conservatism on the one hand, and social conservatism on the other. these are simply terms of convenience used to describe two sides of the same coin. for conservatives, faith and freedom are both rooted in respect and reverence for the dignity of human life, whether advocating on behalf of the unborn, or championing the moral

and the material superiority of free enterprise. conservatives are animated by the same moral truth of human dignity. this is the essence of the self-evident truths expressed in the declaration of independence. that all human beings have an equal claim to self-government, and all endowed with unalienable rights with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. human dignity is the undeniable basis for everything we stand for as conservatives. it's the reason we cherish human freedom, and the right to live according to our own beliefs. it's the reason we insist on economic opportunity for all, to earn a good living, and build a good life for our families. and it's the reason we hold up voluntary civil society, formed by free individuals, as the best and the most ennobling place for

citizens to cultivate bonds of cooperation with, and service to one another. today's conference is called the road to majority. this title reflects the importance of transforming the conservative movement into a national majority. but we should recognize what's needed to be successful in building this road. first, we must know where we are, and second, we must know where we're going. some have suggested that the ultimate goal is a majority. i respectfully disagree. i believe that like a road, a majority is a means to an end. our ultimate goal is to enact conservative policies that restore the proper role of government. reenergize our economy. and create the conditions in which all americans have a fair chance to pursue happiness, and find it. starting there, we can start to work our way backward.

our task, to paraphrase james madison, requires two things. first, fidelity to the object of government. which is the happiness of the people. and secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. to enact conservative policies, we will need conservative majorities in the house and senate. but this alone is not enough. we will also need to elect a conservative to the white house who will unapologetically fight for the principles we believe in, the values we share and the policies we all know will actually work. [ applause ] now, that does mean winning elections in 2014 and in 2016. but to do that, we must earn a mandate from the american people today. starting right now, we must win their support for our vision.

a conservative reform agenda that redesigns our unwieldy welfare status and outdated government programs so they address the growing lack of opportunity for the millions of working families of, or aspiring to the middle class. i don't think i need to go to great lengths to explain the problems with our current government. there's no shortage of facts showing that our fiscal situation is unsustainable. but suffice it to say that we have become far too comfortable with the word trillion in our political discourse. more and more every day, we're confronted with the real-life consequences of a government that tries to do things that it cannot, and should not do. our federal government is so overextended, that it's failing to fulfill even its most basic responsibilities, like caring for our veterans, securing our

borders, enforcing our laws, and conducting a coherent foreign policy, that at the very least does no harm to our national security. and the liberal ideology driving this state seems to subordinate the dignity of the individual, to the political agenda of a progressive government. this is an agenda that denies the sanctity of life, that rejects the inviable human right to live, according to one's religious convictions. and is utterly blind to the moral and economic consequences of our nation's growing marriage crisis. this is where our road begins. at this unsustainable and unacceptable state of affairs. what stands between us and a truly healthy, flourishing society, one filled with vigorous citizens, stronger families and more rear rowic communities, is a conservative reform agenda that doesn't just

cut big government, but also fixes broken government. federal programs cost too much, because they're part of a broken bureaucratic system, one that cannot be fixed simply by pouring more money in, or simply by taking money out. to fix our broken government, it's not enough to simply roll back ineffective policies that concentrate too much power in washington. we must also roll out full conservative reforms that empower the people closest to the problems, to test and refine solutions that work best for their communities. this bottom-up approach to solving public problems enables service providers to experiment with different approaches, and it allows consumers, and beneficiaries of those services to figure out what works, what doesn't work, and how to keep improving. conservatives can be confident that these kinds of reforms would reduce the size and cost

of government. but perhaps only incidentally. the primary goal should always be to build a functioning government that works for all americans. especially for the poor and the middle class. and protects the space for them to meet the challenges of life in the 21st century. these are the basic principles behind a new line of legislative proposals that i've been rolling out, aimed at reducing the costs and increasing access to the staples of working in middle class economic security. to mitigate the economic costs of raising children, i've proposed a tax reform that would get rid of the marriage tax penalties and the parent tax penalty. i've introduced a transportation reform proposal that would dramatically reduce the power and influence of the washington filter, while empowering the states to improve their own transportation systems so their citizens can spend less time

stuck in traffic and more time at home with their children. to reduce the skyrocketing costs of college, i've proposed a bill that would open up our higher education system to more diverse, affordable and responsive educational options, aimed at expanding post-economic opportunities for the students who are truly left behind by the current system. for every one of my legislative proposals, there are a handful of others coming from a new generation of conservative leaders in congress who are committed deeply to meeting our challenges with principled, positive and unapologetically conservative reforms. this election season, we've already seen the kind of momentum that these kinds of reforms can generate. as many of the most promising and conservative candidates around the country have embraced these ideas. and they're winning. this is exactly the kind of model that we can replicate at the national level, again, in 2016. the key to expanding the

conservative movement, expanding it into a conservative majority, is to get more and more people to sign on, and run on these reforms. this is how we win elections. this is how we succeed in implementing the real alternative, to big government, a thriving, flourishing nation of cooperative communities. where your success depends on your service. it may seem like a long haul to get from our starting point today to the end of the road, where a conservative president is leading the effort to enact bold conservative reforms, but there's no place i'd rather be. i'm thankful for all the efforts of all the happy warriors in this room. and i look forward to continuing to the end of this road alongside all of you. thank you. and may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ]

>> thank you so much, senator. and now it's really a great privilege and honor to bring our next speaker to the podium. he's a man who understands the importance of freedom and liberty, because his parents came to the united states in 1956 as the specter of castro's communist tyranny began to fall over that country. he knows that freedom isn't for free. he graduated from the university of florida. we'll forgive him for that. i'm a bulldog. he then graduated from the university of miami law school. he practiced law. he interned in the office of congresswoman illiana latham, which was pretty darn good training. he ran for the state house in

miami in 2000. and let this be a lesson to you of the importance of a single vote. he won his primary for his first legislative post by 64 votes. so turning out to vote really does matter. he was elevated by his colleagues to be the speaker of the house, where he helped lead the way on fiscal responsibility, reducing taxes, and reforming florida's educational system. after he left the state house, he ran for the u.s. senate against the incumbent governor of florida, charlie crist. when he got into that race, charlie crist had $6 million and the endorsement of virtually every republican politician in washington. all marco had was the grass roots. he not only won that primary, he chased charlie crist out of the republican party, for which we

are eternally grateful, i might add. [ applause ] in addition to being a miami dolphin fan, something that is very important to him, he's also a family man. he and his wife, jeanette, have four beautiful children. he flies home every weekend. he not only knows who he is, he knows whose he is. he knows to whom he belongs. he's been a leader on our issues, on issues like religious liberty, where he ventured his bipartisan legislation to repeal the obamacare mandate that forces employers to violate their conscience and assault their own faith, by providing health care services that undermine their beliefs. he's been a leader on calling the veterans administration to accountability for its many scandals. he's somebody who's been a great friend of faith and freedom. not just the organization, but the values of faith and freedom.

please welcome united states senator marco rubio. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. let me clear the record on a couple things. i have nothing against the university of georgia. you've got to have someplace for people who can't get into the university of florida to go to college. [ laughter ] and as far as charlie crist is concerned, i sometimes -- sometimes i -- i don't know if you know this, but he's now a democrat. ran as an independent, now a democrat. but a few weeks ago he announced that he's interested in potentially traveling to cuba. so there might be another party change yet ahead. so we'll see. i'm really honored to be with you here tonight, or today, or this afternoon at this event. for all of what you guys do at home for the cause of our faith and freedom and how those two

things are combined, let me start by telling you a little bit about my own family. ralph talked about it a little bit a moment ago. but i think we all come from where we come from. we're all deeply influenced by our backgrounds and the people who shape us. and i'll highlight the importance of that in today's america. my grandfather was born in 1899 in rural cuba. one of 13 children. raised in a rural area to a farming family. when he was 6 years old, he had polio. so he lost the use of one of his legs. he was left disabled permanently. he couldn't work the farm. so his parents sent him away to school. that was the only channels he could have to get ahead. he learned to read and write. and he became educated. by the way, he was the only member of the family who knew how to read. when he left school, he went to work at a cigar factory. he would sit in the front of the room while the workers were rolling their cigars and he would read to them, first the newspapers, then a novel.

when he was done he would sit at the tables and roll cigars himself. a few years after that he went to work at a railroad station. he actually ran the station. life was not bad by the standards of early 20th century cuba. then one day he lost his job. overnight. he lost it to someone who had a political connection. someone who was connected to power and to politics, and life was never the same for them again. life in early 20th century cuba was hard for a disabled man to provide for his seven daughters. he wound up in havana, cuba, fixing shoes in a little space he rented out in a barbershop. before finally having the opportunity to come here to the united states. years later, my grandfather was like my best friend growing up. he lived with us in our home. i would spend countless hours on the porch of our home listening to his stories about all the things he learned reading the

novels and history and politics. one day it was about the cuban revolution and the next day it was about world war ii. but the most important lesson my grandfather left with me is something that shaped everything i've done since. the notion that i have chances to do things that he didn't have the chance to do. my grandfather was born like almost anyone who's lived on earth. into a society where your future was determined by the circumstances of your birth. if you were born to a rich family, with political connections, you, too, could get ahead. but if you were born to a poor family, with no access to power, then your future was usually very limited. but what he wanted me to fully understand is that i was born in one of the few places in human history where that was not true. it was beyond anything else the lesson he wanted to leave with me. i'll never forget on the day that he died, as he slipped away into coma, i grabbed his hand and i told him, i don't remember the exact words, but i basically

let him understand that i was not going to let the opportunity that i had go to waste. and even as he slipped away, i remember him squeezing my hand as if to say, that's exactly what i wanted you to know. the reason why i say this is to you is not to make you feel good about me or you or our country in general, but it reminds us what makeses special as americans and a nation. the reason america is special and what defines us as a people and as a nation, is the idea that anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything here. because we believe that everything human being born anywhere on earth has a got-given right, not a law-given right, but a god-given right to take you far. we've put in place a limited government political system. and a free enterprise economic system that made that possible here more than any other place

in all of history. the problem we face now is that there are millions of americans that don't think that's true anymore. they feel as if that dream of equality, of opportunity, is slipping away. and the irony of it is that the people in charge in the white house today actually ran on the promise of helping people like that. and yet by every conceivable measure, people who are trying to get ahead are worse off today than they were six years ago. why are these things happening? one is because the world around us is radically changed. the nature of our economy has changed. a moment ago you heard from a great reformer, mike lee. my colleague with whom i work closely on, on many of these issues. our economy is different. we used to have a national economy. now it's a global one. our competition is often halfway around the world, not halfway across town. you see the jobs that have slipped away because of automati automation, and because of outsourcing. we also see challenges in the fact that all the better paying

jobs in the 21st century require a higher level of skill and education. but you also see an erosion in the values that have made our economy and our people strong. you can't have a strong country without strong people. and you can't have strong people without strong values. the world around us has changed, and yet our laws, our government and our institutions have not changed with them. they are relics of the 20th century. the policies of this administration, they're not just wrong, but relics of an age that's gone. every problem has a government-sponsored solution. they think the economy will grow if we borrow more money and spend government money into it. they think they can educate more people by simply pouring more money into an outdated and broken educational system. and they completely ignore the importance of families and values in our society thinking that instead those things can be replaced by laws and government programs.

the good news is that we still have time to reclaim the american dream, to restore it, to help it reach more people than ever before. but to do so, we must do what mike lee just talked about, we must give our nation a 21st century reform agenda, that embraces our free enterprise and federal government under the challenges of the 21st century. there are three simple goals we need to lay out. the first is we need an economy that will create millions of higher paying jobs. and those higher paying jobs are created as a function of one of two things. innovation, or investment. someone builds and creates something new, or someone takes money they have access to and they risk it to start a business or grow an existing one. we have to make america the best place in the world to invest and innovate. right now, we are no longer the best place to invest, because our tax code is among the most complicated and expensive on the planet. other countries are targeting investment away from us.

they brag about how their tax code is better than ours. the second thing that -- the other thing holding back innovation is runaway regulation. here's the dirty secret about runaway regulations. some of the strongest supporters are established industries. big companies, big corporations, and status quo industries, who use regulations to prevent competitors from ever existing. imagine for a moment if blockbuster video had successfully convinced the federal government to pass a law that required that in order to rent the movie, you must go to a retail outlet to represent the video cassette or cd. because in their head, it would be a way to protect children from watching "r" rated movies. if they had ever come up and passed a law like that, we never would have had the ability to download streaming video like we do today. it's not outside the realm of the imagination to see a law like this being proposed in another industry. but time and again, we have seen

established industries use our laws and our regulations to protect themselves against competitors. of course a big company may not mind big government. they can afford lawyers and lobbyists. but if you're trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you can't afford lawyers and lobbyists. by the way, you're probably violating the zoning code. the second thing we need is a modern 21st century education system. one that gives people the skills they need for the higher paying jobs of the 21st century. what does that mean? number one, we have to stop stigmatizing career education. in this country we still need welders and plummers and electricians and airplane mechanics, and we should be able to graduate high school kids with those skills to make it to the middle class and beyond. [ applause ] we need a higher education system that is available to people who have to work full-time and raise a family. if you are a single mother with two girls, you have to work full-time, you wake up in the

morning, you make those girls' breakfast, you drop them off at day care, you work nine hours, you rush back to pick them up before day care closes, you make dinner and they do their homework and it's 11:00 at night and you're exhausted. the only thing available to you is the higher education cartel. established higher education system that does not allow any competition. these universities will tell you, we offer online courses. yes, they do. the online courses oftentimes are more expensive than sitting in a classroom. we need to provide a new form of higher education for people who have to work full-time and raise a family, so they can package learning, life experience, work experience, online course work, often that is free. and some classroom work. so that they can get a degree that allows them to get a better job. the receptionist needs to become a paralegal. the billing clerk needs to become an ultrasound technician. they will never be able to do

that with our broken higher education system. another example of an established industry, a higher education cartel that crowds out innovation and choices. the cost of higher education is completely out of control in america. [ applause ] i don't have time to get into all the solutions, but here's two in my mind that make sense. when a kid takes out a student loan, that university should be required to tell them, here's how much people that graduate from our school make when they graduate with a degree you're seeking. so the great philosophy majors will understand that the market for greek philosophers is tight. [ applause ] and the other is we need alternatives to student loans. hey, i owed over $120,000 in student loans. when i came to the senate, i still had over $100,000 in student loans. we need to create alternatives to student loans. i propose one called the student investment plan. it allows you to go out and find someone who will help you pay

your higher education and in return you pay them back with a percentage of your income over a defined period of time. i encourage you to read the "wall street journal" last week that featured that idea and how it's used in other countries to open options for people around the world. the first two things we have to do is make america the best place in the world to invest. it will create millions of jobs and give people access to the skills they need. but here's the third you never hear discussed. we must reinvigorate the role of values in our country. you see, i believe you can have all the diplomas on the wall you want, if you don't have the values of hard work and discipline and self-control, among others, you will not succeed. and the trick is, that no one is born with these values. there is not a person in this room, in this country, or on this planet who was born with those values. those values were taught to you. and they were reinforced. they were taught to you in strong homes and they were

reinforced by churches and synagogue and by the community around you, and your family as well. it is eroding around us. the greatest contributor to economic and educational underperformance in america today is the breakdown of families. the single greatest contributor to poverty in america today is the breakdown of families. i don't say this as a way to give up on the people. i say that as a way of saying we have to do everything we can to help people that are growing up in these challenging circumstances. because all the government programs in the world will not help them overcome this, unless something happens. and there's some things government can do. for example, we have to empower parents. it is unfair, it is immoral, it is unamerican that in this country, four people are the only ones who cannot choose where their children go to school. every parent in america deserves the right to send their children to the school of their choice, not the school board's choice, and certainly not washington's choice. [ applause ]

we need to make family life -- keep up with the cost of living. mike lee talked about pro-family tax reform. a real health care reform, not the disaster that we have today. but one that allows families to buy the health insurance that they need, at a price they can afford, from any company in america that will sell it to them, no matter what state they're in. [ applause ] but the last point i would make is, the last point i would make is, we have to talk about this. you see, in this country, we tell people all the time not to smoke, because it causes cancer. i have no problem with that. we tell people to be careful not gain too much weight because it causes heart disease and diabetes. i have no problem with that. we also need to tell people, it's important for you to keep your family together. it's important for you to be good parents. it's important for you to instill values in your children.

because you will struggle to succeed in this country and this world if you do not. too often we have too many leaders in both public and private life that will not do that. because they are afraid to be seen as sitting in judgment of someone. at least those of us inspired by ju deo christian values, we're not seeking to sit in judgment of anyone. but we know that there are fundamental truths proven through thousands of years of human history. and we have an obligation to our country and to our fellow man to use our positions of influence and to highlight those values. no matter how much we spend or reform education, no matter how attractive we make america economically, we cannot have a strong country without strong people. and we will never have strong people without strong values. and that's why i encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. i'll close by saying i'm not typically considered to be someone that came from a privileged background. at least if you believe the

american dream is how much money you make or how famous you become, that would be true. but i did come from a privileged background. you see, my parents both grew up poor as well. i told you about my mother's struggles because my grandfather struggled to raise them. my father when he was 9 years old lost his mother and went to work, and would work basically for the next 70 years. both of my parents came to this country because it was the only place on earth where people like them had a chance at a better life. it wasn't easy here either. here they never became famous or rich. my dad was a bartender, my mom was a cashier, a maid, a stock clerk. yet my parents fully lived the american dream. they were able to find jobs that allowed them to make it into the american middle class. they were able to provide for their children, a strong and stable home where we were loved, and felt protected, and safe, and we were encouraged to dream. a home where our parents loved each other and they loved us. and they saw their children grow up to do all the things they

never had the chance to do. i had the privilege to grow up in an environment like that, and all those things are an extraordinary advantage. i would rather live in a strong and stable home raised by loving parents, than in a broken one raised by millionaires. and so i did come from a background of privilege. the greatest of all is to be a citizen of the one nation on earth where the son of a bartender and maid could have the same dream and the same future as the son of a president or a millionaire. today there are millions of people that seek the same for themselves and for their families. and whether america remains exceptional or not will be determined by whether those dreams become possible or not. if we ever become a nation where people like my parents can no longer get ahead, we will lose what makes us special. but if we return to the principles of our founding, the free enterprise, to limited government, to the notion and reality that government is supposed to serve the people,

not people serve the government, to the fundamental truths of strong values equal strong people, then we can reclaim the american dream. then this 21st century can be an american century. at the end of his life, my father never lived to see election day. but he did see me win a primary. on the day of my primary, he wanted desperately make it to my event. he had been sick for a number of months, had not gotten out of bed for weeks. and so i went to check in on him, in the middle part of that day. my nephew opened the door, he lived with my sister at this point. he's smiling. i said, what are you smiling about? i walked into the back of the house and my dad is sitting fully dressed ready to go in his wheelchair. first time he had been out of bed in weeks because he wanted to go to his son's victory party. he was a proud father. as i look back i realize he wanted to be there, not simply because he was proud of me, but

because on that night, his life was affirmed, that all the sacrifices he made, that all the difficult decisions he had to make, all the nights he didn't feel like going to work because he was 69 and tired, but he did, it meant something. it had a purpose and a meaning. and what makes this special is we are one of the few nations on earth where that story has been possible for millions of people. including almost every single one of you here today. what we are called to do in this generation is not just to preserve that, but to expand it to reach more people than it ever has. and i believe that we will. in less than two years, we will have new leadership, god willing, in the white house and both houses of congress. and then we can do what every generation of americans before us has done. whatever it takes to ensure that our children inherit what we inherited, the greatest single nation in the history of all mankind.

thank you for the opportunity. god bless all of you. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, senator rubio. now i am beyond honored and delighted to introduce my brilliant and wonderful friend, senator ted cruz. [ applause ] of all of the superlatives that apply to senator cruz, brilliant public intellectual, inciteful writer, harvard debate champion, gutsy leader, a true senate maverick, great husband and father, good friend, american patriot, the one that breathes life into all of those things,

this man of principle. he is truly one of the most fearless men of principle in the country today. and sometimes i think america hangs by a thread, but is still only hanging on because of senator ted cruz. [ applause ] ted cruz is elected as the 34th u.s. senator from texas. he won victory in both the republican primary and general election. the "washington post," it killed them to write this, called his election, quote, the biggest upset of 2012, a true grass roots victory against all odds. the national review described ted cruz as a great reagan-ite hope. he's argued 43 oral arguments in front of the supreme court -- nine, excuse me, before the u.s. supreme court. he graduated with honors from princeton university and with high honors debate champion at

harvard law school. he served as a law clerk to chief justice william rehnquist on the u.s. supreme court. every day, and i follow the senator on twitter, as well as in other areas, and every day i see senator cruz taking on the big issues in order to try to save america before it's too late. there is ted cruz taking on obamacare. there is ted cruz taking on fast and furious. there is ted cruz taking on benghazi. and the irs. and the va scandal. and the bergdahl swap. and the out-of-control government spending. and the president's lawlessness. the list goes on. whenever i see him taking on yet another big issue, i invariably tweet, must ted cruz do everything. and the answer is, invariably, yes, because with the exception of his fellow warriors for freedom here today, he literally

has to do everything himself. and thank goodness he's willing to do it. please welcome, a true hero of this republic, i'm honored to call him a friend, senator ted cruz. [ applause ] >> well, thank you so very much. thank you, monica, for the very, very kind introduction. what a fantastic fearless voice for liberty, monica. and what a blessing it is to be with all of you. you know, the scripture tells us where two or more gathered in his name, he will be there. and there are a lot more than two of us here today. it is a real honor, it is a pleasure to be here with you, to be joining you today.

you know, many of us, we go to church on sunday. we'll see the pastor going back to the original greek. you look to the etimolog of the word politics. there are two parts. poly, meaning many, and tics, meaning blood-sucking parasites. which is a fairly accurate description of washington, d.c. so, welcome to the swamp. the place that combines southern efficiency with northern hospitality. you know, these are extraordinary times in our nation. the threats we're facing in this country are unprecedented. for five years, we've been trapped in the great stagnation millions of americans struggling

to get jobs, struggling to achieve the american dream. abroad, we see our foreign policy collapsing, every region of the world is getting more and more dangerous. and america for five and a half years has failed to stand with our unshakable ally, the nation of israel. and we are seeing at the same time liberty under assault. we're seeing our constitutional rights under assault like never before. what i want to talk to you about today is one aspect of liberty that is imperiled like never before and is precious and cherished by every one of us. and that is religious liberty. there is a reason why the very first provision of the bill of rights, the very first phrase in the first amendment protects the religious liberty of every

american. because we were formed by people from all across the world fleeing religious oppression and coming to a land where every one of us could speak out the lord god almighty with all of our heart, mind and soul. you know, i've been blessed for much of my life to have the opportunity to stand up and defend religious liberty. when i was solicitor general of texas, i was honored to honor the ten commandments monument on the state capital ground. we went to the u.s. supreme court and we won 5-4. [ applause ] when a federal court of appeals struck down the pledge of allegiance because it includes the words "one nation under god," we went to the u.s. supreme court defending the pledge of allegiance, and we won unanimously. [ applause ] and when a federal court in california struck down the

mojave desert veterans memorial, a 70-year-old monument, a lone white latin cross to the men and women who gave their lives in world war i, i was honored to represent over 3 million veterans, we went to the u.s. supreme court defending the mojave veterans memorial and won 5-4. [ applause ] today the threats to religious liberty are even greater. i want to talk about them both here at home and abroad. here at home, we have an irs who is asking citizen groups, tell me what books you're reading. tell me the content. tell you something, the federal government has no business asking any american the content of our prayers. [ applause ] last year, in alaska, an air

force chaplain posted on his blog the phrase, there are no atheists in foxholes. he was ordered by his commanding officer to take that down. i guess it was deemed insensitive to atheists. i kind of thought it was the job of chaplains to be insensitive to atheists. [ laughter ] to welcome them into the forgiving arms of a loving god. but it's very interesting to look at the origin of the phrase, there are no atheists in foxholes. it came from a 1954 speech to the american legion given by president dwight d. eisenhower, a man who i might note had some passing familiarity with the military. in the course of that speech, president eisenhower describes the story of the four immortal

chaplains. that story arose from the uss dorchester, that world war ii was hit by torpedoes from a german u-boat as it came around the southern tip of greenland. and the dorchester began to sink. and they realized with horror that there were not enough life jackets aboard for all the men on the ship. there were four chaplains on the dorchester. two who were protestant, one who was catholic, one who was jewish. each of those four chaplains when they realized there weren't enough life vests, each took off his life vest and gave it to another. and then they stood arm in arm and they sung hymns as the four chaplains went down with the ship. and the origin of that story is that when those chaplains were handing their life vests to

another, they didn't ask, are you a protestant, are you a catholic, are you a jew? they simply stepped forward and sacrificed their lives to save the life of their brother. that's the origin of the story. that is the american tradition. the idea that our federal government is coming after religious liberty now is just astonishing and heartbreaking. now, you look at the intrusions on religious liberties that are represented in obamacare. take obamacare. please, take obamacare. you know, the u.s. supreme court is considering right now the case of hobby lobby, a christian owner that has stood up and said the federal government cannot force them to pay for and provide abortion-producing drugs to their employees. the obama administration is

litigating against them to try to force them to violate their religious views. there's another case that's even more stark. the little sisters of the poor. this is a catholic another casen more stark. a catholic convent of nuns, who have taken vows of poverty. and the obama administration is litigating against them, trying to collect millions of dollars of fines to force these catholic nuns to pay for abortion producing drugs. let me give you a simple rule of thumb. if you're litigating against nuns, you have probably done something wrong. and then you look at the threats to religious liberty abroad. right now all of us are horrified by watching what's happening in the nation of iraq.

as isis, a group of radical islamic terrorists so extreme, they were thrown out of al qaeda is systematically taking over more and more of that nation. they're stated objective is to create an islamic califate that runs from syria to iraq, and then to work to exterminate jordan, israel and ultimately america. the 1990s, there were roughly 1.2 million christians living in iraq. today there are fewer than 300,000. christians are being persecuted in stunning numbers. they are being stoned, they are being tortured. they are being beheaded, they are being crucified. that's what's happening for people speaking out to their

faith. and that's not just people from other nations. pastor saeed abedine. he's an american, an american citizen, a resident of idaho. he was in his native country of iran, building an orphanage when he was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of sharing his christian faith. eight years in prison. his wife and his two little kids live in idaho right now. i've had the opportunity to sit down and visit with his wife. she shared a story before this sentence where she and her husband were both captured in iran, threatened with prison together. and were told, if only you will renounce christ we'll let you

go, and they said no. she described how one of the commanding officers who captured them asked all the other army officers to leave, and he sat down at the table with the two of them and said, tell me about this jesus. as pastor saeed languishes in an iranian prison while the american government negotiates with the government of iran, a negotiation that i think is only increasing the likelihood of iran developing nuclear weapon capability that will gravely threaten the national security of both israel and the united states. our president and our government have not been able to secure the release of an american citizen languishing in an iranian prison. simply for his christian faith. now i'll tell you something

incredible. during the time pastor saeed has been in prison, he's been able to lead dozens of fellow prisoners and prison guards to chri christ. [ applause ] >> and then you look to another example. an example of miriam ibrahim. miriam is someone who every elected official, every american should be speaking out. miriam ibrahim is a young woman, a wife, mother, she is in prison in sudan, for the crime of being a christian. miriam has a 20-month-old son, his name is martin. and she has a newborn baby daughter mia. miriam gave birth to baby maya

just a few weeks ago, in a sudanese prison while in leg irons. miriam and martin and mia are in that prison right now today, and the government of sudan has sentenced miriam to 100 lashes and then hanged by the neck until death for the simple crime of being a christian. for all of us our faith is an incredible part of who we are, and yet few of us in this room have had faith tested. miriam has been told you will be spared this horrific sentence if only you will renounce christ.

and miriam has told her captors i cannot and i will not renounce christ. every one of us needs to be lifting miriam ibrahim up in prayer. but every bit as important ly w need leadership. the president of the united states should stand up and speak on miriam ibrahim's behalf. miriam is married to an american citizen from new hampshire. miriam's two babies are american citizens and they are langui languishing in a prison in sudan, waiting for their mother to be whipped and hung to death.

we need to speak out against these atrocities, we need to speak with one uniform, powerful, clairian voice for freedom and we need the president of the united states to say in no uncertain terms, send miriam home. [ applause ] >> let me say finally two things. number one, men and women here, every one of you is a leader. whether you're a pastor, whether you're a rabbi, a business leader. whether you're imam. every one of you is here because you believe in the faith and freedom of principles that have built this country and made this country strong.

at no time in our nation's history have we seen the threats to liberty. religious liberty and every one of the bill of rights more dire than they are right now. the reason i'm here today more than anything else is to tell each and every one of you, thank you. every one of you is here, and every one of you in your communities has a place in leadership. just like yesterday, for a time such as this. that's why you've been called to leadership, to speak out and to speak the truth. the last thing i want to share, i want to share a story that my father often tells. many of you have gotten to know my father. he's very shy and soft spoken. he's a pastor from texas who's seen the evils of totalitarian

government. this is a story he often tells from the pulpit, with respect to salvation, but it applies in many context. it's the story of a tightrope walker. a crowd gathers around. he asked the crowd, he said, how many of you believe i can walk across this tightrope and back? the crowd cheers. he said, how many of you believe we can walk across this tightrope and back pushing a wheel barrel. the crowd cheers and he does it. how many of you believe i can walk across this tightrope and back pushing a wheel barrel with two 100 pound bags of sand in the wheelbarrel. how many of you believe i can walk across this tightrope and back with a man in the

wheelbarrel. the crowd cheers. he points to a man in the front row and says, get in the wheelbarrel. the point obviously is that believing, whether in the context of salvation, believing is not sitting on the sidelines saying, yes, yes, i believe. believing is stepping forward and getting in with your heart, mind and soul, putting everything you have. that's what you all are doing every day, and that is what it's going to take across this nation. awakening and energizing the