have conversations about. especially for me because there are a lots of folks that i love and dig who are public academics who would be like david, oh my gosh, hold on. because i'm part of the bbee hive. but i think not having those conversations and putting it front and center really allows us to escape some of the responsibility i'm saying we have to assume also. >> okay. then lastly, i really like your word amplify that you're using a lot. i just wanted to say that. but i wanted to sort of bring attention to the show "blackish"cy ellis ross is a professional, she works in a dock tr. her husband is a professional. so there are other expressions of black womenhood and professional black women on television and we need to amplify them by supporting and watching. >> you're right. you're right. thank you.

>> this is to go off on courtney's question on like narratives. so the narrative -- you talk about having different narratives on -- >> use the mike so that people can hear you, sister. >> okay. have been different narratives on television and so "scandal" is written by a black woman. right? how much responsibility do we then place on a black woman to have like -- to put forth the proper narrative? right? because i watch "scandal." i love the show. but just like you, it's grim a little bit when the only male partner that was ever presented to olivia was just not even -- it was never -- it never came off as a viable option. no one -- i don't think any viewer saw it as a viable option for her in terms of like the kind of woman that she was.

right? so for chandra rhymes, someone who is a black woman, well educated, what responsibility does she hold in putting forth such a narrative because i feel like she has a lot of power. >> i don't know. right? she does have a lot of influence. right? and so i think that we could have a whole nother lecture that looks at the difference between influence and power. but she has a whole lot of influence. she's also developed shows that have been very, very nuanced and complex. i first started is watching her"gray's anatomy"." which is in seattle and has all these different flavors of folk which is important. so she might have assumed her responsibility in terms of her determination of what it is that she needs to be responsible for. i think what we have to do as critics and not cynics of the type of narratives we are assuming is we have to be able

to ask those questions. you no he? we have to be able to ask those questions and not shy away from them. so your question so me is, to what degree -- what type of responsibility does she have? well, she has some. and she's assumed much of her responsibility. and i don't want it to seem like i'm back-pedaling here but we still have to be able to have those conversations of -- look. people are investing in "scandal" in a different way. i think. i would have to look at the ratings. than perhaps "gray's anatomy" was invested in or "private practice." then we also can look at "empire" which just finished breaking a 23-year-old record recently in terms of having more and more viewers. well, it is a great show. i dig it. i watch it. i missed it this week so i hope dr. camera doesn't get me back and tell me anything about that. but we also also have to look at again, what is it that we're comfortable consuming. right? what is it that -- how is it that we're comfortable seeing

ourselves. and that becomes a difficult conversation not only for white folks and how they see us but how we're comfortable seeing ourselves. >> i have a question. so what is the responsibility or what should our white counterparts being doing in order to help us establish that black lives matter? >> so had written something in here -- i don't know if i skated over it or if i changed the language, but "stay in their lane." so what does that look like? no but what does that look like. because i think that's honest. well, i feel it is honest for me. is that recognize that we're privileging and understanding the importance of articulating how black lives matter. there doesn't need to be any confluence or countertransference that exists there. you know? when i say stay in your lane, i don't mean this is ours and we're just -- how is it that you

occupy a certain type of privilege and what is it that you can do with your privilege to be ally, to be comrade. we don't want to be dismissive. when we say black lives matter it doesn't mean that black lives matter just to black folks. it means black lives maertdtter. so what is it and how is it that you do things that help us to amplify. >> hi. >> hello. >> hi. so my question is it seems like -- i guess i can only speak from my own experience, but so i have my narrative about what black lives matter means to me and my parents also have a narrative. and there's a lot of differences, and the differences

often seem to be almost counternarratives. that they can't fit together in some ways. and i don't know if this is something that's generational and if you've seen this before and i guess how do we deal with narratives that seem to not fit? how -- do you understand what -- >> i do understand. it is difficult for me to answer the question wholly without knowing specifics, so maybe we can do it not on television? >> yeah. >> but i think that the one thing that i would hope is that there's a common denominator. right? the common denominator would be that you and your folks understand black lives matter. right? so the rhodes that you take to get there might be different, but i would hope that because of that common denominator, you'd be a ibl toable to arrive at a common place. you can think about -- when i was younger, i was fortunate

enough to work at transafrica which is a lobbyist group for africa and the caribbean which is helmed by another hero of mine, randall robinson. and when i was there, i was allowed to work there when i was very young. crazy young. and i remember that they had protests all the time in front of the south african embassy and i wanted to go and get arrested because i knew -- i mean i'd be like i'm going to go and i'm going to get arrested and i'm going to make a statement for all my people. and they were like joker you are not going to get arrested. i was probably in high school. i'm like power to the people and all that stuff. i think the sentiment was an authentic one, but from my parents' perspectives and the perspectives of the folks who were taking care of me while i was at transafrica, there were other things that you might need to do right now. right? i remember also saying to my mine after reading the autobiography of malcolm x, i'm willing to die for my people.

and that's a profound thing to say if the -- if your life -- if giving your life is the only thing that you can do in terms of the revolution. but what about you live for your people. right? so my mom and the work that she did and the work that my grandparents did, they didn't do all that work so i could read malcolm x and say i'm going to die for my people. they're like no, hold on a second. you've got more work to do first. you know what i mean? so i think that it becomes important to be able to recognize and understand the generational divide. but then it also becomes important for us to kind of yield to those who have gone in front of us who have kind of a broader view of what the landscape looks like as we're traversing towards liberation.

>> thank you. i had a nice view from the back. you mentioned paradigms. and i'm taking a class right now where it's all centered around paradigms and collapses of societies and i was like kind of just wanting your thoughts, not necessarily a question but to me paradigms is a way of thinking. it is a system. so like we have like a paradigm like we grew up with and in our society is just kind of the way we thought. so like when you're saying to somebody or trying to have like a controversial conversation with them, you're like -- they kind of attack -- or take it as personal instead of looking at it, like you said, a paradigm or a way of thinking or a way of thought. so how do you navigate -- i mean obviously i'm not black. i'm not african-american, but -- >> it's not necessarily obvious my sister. but go ahead. >> i'm not. >> just want you to know. >> i'm not. i'm not black but we have our own issues like when you are

trying to have a difficult conversation with somebody and not attack them personally but attack more of the system and the way that they were taught as growing up so like how -- a personal question for me like how do you navigate? how do you attack the paradigm and not necessarily i'm not attacking you as a person. i'm not attacking what i was taught, i'm attacking what you were taught and the institutions we were born into. >> thank you for the question. be compassionate and caring for the individual which seems to be what you're leading with. and also be caring and considerate enough to talk to them about paradigms and systems. the most convenient way for me to kind of mirror what it is that you're talking about is to talk about racism. right? so there are a lot of white folks who say i'm not racist. i love black people and, you know, i sit next to them and all that kind of stuff. i'm being jocular but they're saying i'm not racist, i don't have a racist bone in my body and all that kind of stuff.

well, nobody wants to be called racist. right? and so one of the things that we can say is that -- i don't know if this sounds bad -- you benefit from white supremacy. the idea is that racism is a system. i talk about it as an elegant system. i mean how elegant is it to where racism is presented in such a way that black people hate on themselves in many instances? right? and so when you're talking about racism, you're not just talking about this kind of personal interaction or commitment or violation of one another. you're talking about a cultural system or paradigm that you're broad up in and you're talking about a socialized paradigm that you're brought up in as well. so i think when we begin to talk in that way, it allows folks to not personalize it so much. i think another thing that becomes important is i love people. right? i love people. and so the point is that just because i am black and i believe

in black revolution and whatever that looks like, and i believe in black liberation, just because of those things does not mean that i'm going to devalue what other cultures and communities can contribute to me. but it still means that if i'm going to be a human being who's in a democratic society where we all have voices, i get to assert my voice without you feeling like you're violating. you know what i mean? i get to say that racism exists at wellesley. right? patriarchy exists at morehouse college college. hetero hetero hetero-centrism exists. these paradigms grind people into dust. the important thing for us to recognize is that we have to be able to attack, just like you've said, attack the systems, attack the paradigms and change them for the betterment of humanity. again, that can sound so kind of

pollyannaish and all that kind of stuff, but it's not. right? we're here all in this room, presumably because we want for our world to be better. in a cancer that's associated and attached itself to the culture that we live in and develop in is racism. it's not just racism that looks like, oh you can't eat at this lunch counter or what have you. it is racism that kills peep. because of the perceptions and narratives that people hold and/or the assumptions that we have about folks. so, me pointing out all this kind of pop cultural stuff is not just fun and games. they have something to do with how it is that minds' eyes are framed and how it is we interact with one another. that all has everything to do with systems and paradigms. so we would do well to look at those paradigms in full view so that we can help to dismantle it and make it better. for my babies and yours. right? thank you.

yeah! i got a clap! let me just say that it's been a real privilege to be here. i was excited to develop the talk for you all and i think i got more out of the back and forth than of course my developmental talk so i thank you for stoking my interest and my thinking and i hope that we'll share ideas with one another on the interweb or wherever. thank you so much. >> thank you, dr. rice, for coming all the way from atlanta to share your work and your insight with us. on behalf of dr. cameron we would like to present with you a small token of our appreciation. >> thank you. do i have to open it right now? thank you so much. >> please join us for refreshments where you can continue to speak with dr. rice. thank you, again, for coming.

>> thank you. thank you, all.

the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road. traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. next weekend we've partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. with the opening of the suez canal in 1869 sailing ships really were almost dealt a death blow. with that opening of the canal, coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east, to india, to all of those markets so sailing ships really needed to find a way to make their own

living. so instead high-value cargo they started carrying lower valued cargos. coal. oil. cotton. et cetera. so alyssa really found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a very fast pace. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday march 7, at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday, march 8th at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3 p. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words al lan ryskind talks about hollywood in the 1930s. sunday an noon our live three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author

lani guinier. her books include "lift every voice" and "the miner's canary." and on american history tv on c pan 3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina following the surrender of the city to union general wilson tecumseh sherman and his troops in 1865. sunday afternoon at 2:00 on oral histories, an interview with daniels elsburg on the pentagon papers. a classified study on vietnam which he copied and gave to the "new york times" in 1971. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the conversation.

like us on facebook, join us on twitter. coming up tonight on c-span, day two of the cpac conference wraps up with remarks from governor mike pence of indiana. see the potential 2016 presidential candidate's speech at the:00 p.m. eastern. as part of our day-long cpac coverage we've been asking you to join the conversation. answer the question who do you like in the 2016 presidential field? logon to our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. or tweet us using the #c-spanchat. now some of our earlier cpac coverage. here's prospective 2016 presidential candidate senator marco rubio of florida. his remarks are 20 minutes.

>> thank you. thank you very much. i am -- i'm happy to be back at cpac for the fifth time. my first time was in 2010 when i was 50 points down in the polls and the only people that thought i could win my senate race all lived in my home. four of them were under the age of 8 at the time. but i'm glad to be back with you on the eve of the most important election in my lifetime. november of 2016 is not going to be a choice about hot next president is alone. the question before us in november of 2016 is what kind of country are we going to be. now for over two centuries we've been an exceptional nation. a place founded on the belief that every man, woman and child was born with a god-given right to life and liberty and to pursue happiness. sometimes you wouldn't know we're an exceptional nation by listening to the left. they describe us as a people divided on lines of gender and ethnicity and race and class.

sometimes you wouldn't know we are an exceptional nation by listening to the president. who he a described our nation as sometimes being arrogant. or dictating terms to others. but americans know we're exceptional. and you know who else knows we're exceptional? the world does. after all, when was the last time you heard about a boat load of american refugees arriving on the shores of another country? but our greatness was not an accident. it didn't happen on its own. our greatness is the result of god's blessings the sacrifices made by men and women in uniform, and the choices made by the people here before us. god is still blessing america. and we are still blessed with brave young americans willing to sacrifice their safety for the sake of ours. but what remains to be seen is

whether we are willing to do what those before us did. whatever it takes to keep america exceptional. like those who came before us, we do face challenges. at home we have millions of hard working families living pay collection to paycheck and they're wondering when are things ever going to get better for them. around the world because of the obama-clinton foreign policy, our allies no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer fear us. this is the road this president has placed us on. a government that increasingly controls every aspect of our life to our health care choices to now even the internet. a foreign policy that treats the ayatollah in iran with more respect than the prime minister of israel. here's the bad news. the bad news is that today our nation is on the road to decline. but here's the good news. we are one election away from

triggering another american censuring. imagine if we cut our taxes, imagine if we balance our budget, imagine if we repealed and replaced obamacare. if we did these things our economy would create millions of better paying jobs and the american dream would reach more people than it's ever reached before. imagine, if we had leaders that understood that the family, not government, is the most important organization in society society. imagine if we had policies that helped people acquire skills not just through four years of college but as plumbers and electricians and welders and airplane mechanics. those are good jobs too. and imagine if our laws protected innocent human life from conception to natural death. if we had these things if we

had these things not only would our people be stronger than ever before, but they would be equipped with the skills and values they will need to succeed in this new century. and imagine, if we had a commander in chief that understood that the way to defeat isis is not to find him a job. imagine if we had a president who doesn't travel the world badmouthing america. after all, that's the u.n.'s job. and imagine if we didn't have a secretary of state who believes that the world is safer today than it's ever been while at the same time radical islamic jihadists are taking young women and brides, are burning prisoners in cages and are beheading christians on a beach in libya. if we had these things america would once again be the most trusted and respected nation on earth and we would be safer. this new century presents us with significant challenges.

but solving them are well within our reach. and if we do our future will be even better than our history and the 21st century will also be an american century. after all, leaving our children and our country better off than the way we found it that's what americans have always done. and that is what we are called to do now. let me close with this. for me this is deeply personal as it is for many of you. america doesn't owe me anything. but i have a debt to america that i will never be able to repay repay. in may of 1956, my parents arrived here in search of a better life. they had little money, no connections, quite frankly barely spoke the language and had a very limited education. less than four decades later

all four of their children live the lives and the dreams that my parents once had for themselves. for me america isn't just a country. it's the place that literally changed the history of my family. it's a nation of equal opportunity. it's the most powerful force for good that the world has ever known. this is the america that welcomed my parents. this is the america that changed the world, and this is the america that you and i are now called to leave behind. and so inspired by the memory of who we truly have been, and are, let us now move forward to seize our destiny as who we are still destined to be the single greatest nation that man has ever known. thank you for having me. god bless you. thank you.

>> let's give it up for senator marco rubio! good morning cpac! how y'all doing? i can't hear you! oh. by the way, if some of you aren't feeling well this morning, you were up late drinking, it's not your fault. it's not jack daniels' fault. it's george w. bush's fault. >> there's nothing wrong with drinking. >> by the way, i got my water too. drink up. >> senator, it is an honor to be with you. >> thank you. >> great conservative tea party senator from the great state of florida. >> thank you. >> i love your family story. >> thank you. >> that is the american story. here's where we are now. and this breaks my heart and i think it breaks the heart of everybody in this room. nearly 50 million americans in poverty. nearly 50 million americans on food stamps. we have 92 million americans not

working. out of the labor force but the government tells us the unemployment level's great. we have $18.1 trillion in debt. $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. how do we dig ourselves out of that hole? >> first, we have to understand that the world has rapidly changed. we're basically having the industrial revolution every five years. that's how fast the world has changed and our leaders are still stuck in yesterday. they think if we just pour more of your money into the same programs that didn't even work that well in the past we're going to get us out of this. there are three things we have to realize. we are now in competition with dozens of other countries. unless we cut our taxes, reduce our regulations get rid of obamacare, balance our budget and fully utilize our energy portfolio we can't compete. we do those things we can compete with anyone in the world. the second think is we need to help our people be stronger than ever. that begins with strong families. by empowering parents. by allow parents to school the

school their kids go to. not have the government tell them where they're going to go to school. by the way with be that also means not having a national school board that imposes a national curriculum on the whole country. >> i'll put you down as yes for common core. >> and then but beyond that we need to understand that in the 21st century some of the best jobs require more than high school traditional high school but less than four years of college. that means we shouldn't be stigmatizing those vocational careers. we should be graduating more people from high school ready to work at plumbers electricians, welders machinists, bmw technicians you name it. and by the way, the four-year degree is still important. okay? i went to four-year degree. i owed over $100,000. student loans which i've paid off with the proceeds of my book now available in paper back if you're interested. but we have too many people in america today graduating with a four-year degree that doesn't lead to jobs and they owe tens of thousands of dollars. we should tell students if you

graduate with a major in greek philosophy you're going to struggle to find a job because the market for greek philosophers is tight. >> senator, let me ask you this. i think everybody in this room applauds everything you said. i think that's the vision of what conservatism is about. there's been a lot of disappointment with the republican party. in other words, a lot of republicans run, they say they want to repeal and replace obamacare. but then when it comes to that moment where they can use their constitutional alal authority and the power of the purse, it doesn't happen. we've kicked the can down the road as it relates to the dhs funding bill. every republican that i remember in this last election said they'd do everything in their power that they would not allow obama's executive orders on immigration to go through. but it appears some people are buckling a little bit. >> here's the problem that we face in the party. there is dispute between those who simply think you are o job is to do a better job of managing the government and

those who understand that we are at a crossroads moment in our history which every generation faces. that's the point of my speech. we're not alone in this. every generation of america has been asked the same question. do you want america to be special or to be just another country? the point has come again. a lot of these issues i understand don't play well in the media but when ray gab took over the soviet union and the cold war and said they were destined for the ash heap of history, that wasn't popular in the media. people called him crazy for calling the soviet union an evil empire. there comes important critical moments in our history and stand up and say if we keep doing what we're doing now, it isn't going to matter. we'll lose what makes us different. that moment has come on a number of these issues and we have to view it that way. >> why is there this mysterious reluctance and resistance and fear that the republicans are going to be blamed for a shutdown -- >> because we are. that's the hypocrisy of this. when we're in the minority and we filibuster obama wear, we want to repeal it or at least

get a vote on it, we're shutting down the government. when they're in the majority, we're shutting down the government, too. >> we keep hearing there are differences in strategies, tactics. is there a point where you stand on principle and put all political considerations aside? >> this latest issue this latest issue that we face on the executive order that the president took in december is not a policy issue per se alone. it is a constitutional issue. this is a president that -- let me tell you something. i believe we need to cut the corporate tax rate. i believe we need to cut personal tax rates in america. but if a president took executive order to cut the tax rate by refusing to collection more than a certain percentage i would be against that even though i support the policy because you don't have the power to do that. if you lose that constitutional check and balance on power, you lose the essence of what makes our nation different from a government standpoint.

22 times the president said he did not have the authority to do what he did. as far as i can tell, in the last four years the constitution has not been amended. so i don't know where he's suddenly found the constitutional power to do this. >> he made it up. >> this is not a policy debate. this is a constitutional debate. >> he made it up, as usual. i think it is very key though because it is fidelity to the constitution. that is our foundation. that is our rule of law. let me ask you about immigration. you went forward with your immigration proposal. at the end of the day, you said it didn't work, i tried it's not going to work. and you even -- last time i interviewed you on radio about it you said you regretted going forward. you learned from the process. you thought you made a mistake. explain. >> well, i wasn't very popular. i don't know if you know that. here's the thing. it is a serious problem that has to be confronted. let me tell you why it is serious. for one, we don't have the mechanisms in place to enforce some of our immigration laws. we don't have an e-verify

system. we don't track -- 40% of illegal immigrants come illegally and overstay their visas. we don't know who they are. three sectors of the border one in particular, are completely insecure. it needs more fencing, more patrols. that stuff has to get done. we also have a legal immigration system that's the most generous in the world. a million people come to this country legally. but it is all based on whether you have a family member leer. it has to be based on some sort of merit and economic contribution. that has to be dealt with as well. and you have 10 or 12 million people in this country many have lived here longer than a decade, many haven't violated the laws the immigration laws. i get all that. but what i've learned is you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know -- not just believe but it is proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled. that is -- and brought under control. that's the single biggest lesson

of the last two years. >> i think everybody in this room would agree with this whenever there is a budget deal made and they talk about we're going to have tax increases and we're going to have spending cuts. you get the tax increase on day one. then the spending cuts, ten years later never happen. isn't it the same thing with the grags? immigration? >> that was the strongest parts of the argument. the president not once but by twice has basically said by executive order i won't enforce the law. >> all right. so my question is -- in other words, i think the fear of empeople -- everybody agrees that i think we have to deal with people that entered this country illegally or overstayed their visas. but isn't the real answer sort of like getting the spending cuts up front, secure the border first? >> that's my point. my point is that the only way forward -- i keep telling this to people. i can't just tell people we're going to secure the border put e-verify. you have to do it. they have to see it, see it working, then they'll have a reasonable conversation with you about the other parts. but they don't even want to talk

about that until that's done first. what's happened over the last two years, myigratory crisis, the executive orders. >> you are a first-term senator from the state of florida. we have a man in the white house right now who is a one-term senator, voted president as a state senator. had some very bizarre friendships in case you didn't ever hear me talk about it. i talk about it a lot. but why do you want to be president of the united states? >> well, i haven't made that decision yet sean. but a good try to get me to announce it. >> look. on a scale 1 to 100, where are you in the process of committing to it? >> i don't know about the number. look for me it is really simple. the only reason why i want to be in public service is because i believe i owe a debt to america i will never be able to repay. america doesn't owe -- >> we all benefit -- >> and i believe not a -- some people don't think that way but i certainly feel that way. i think everybody in this room feels that way.

and to me, to me for someone who has literally seen the -- my family's entire destiny altered by the fact that america happened to be 90 miles from cuba instead of some other country. i have to pay that back. not only do i have to pay that back in some way, i have to make sure that people who are trying to do the same thing now get the chance to do it. i don't want my kids to one day and grow up and ask me how come you got to grow up in the greatest country in the world but we get to live in a country that's diminished? i have to decide through careful prayer where is the best place for me to serve my country at this stage in my life. >> you said you wouldn't run simultaneously for president and the u.s. senate. but you don't have to make that decision until march april or may. >> no. but i think if you want to be president of the united states, you decide that's what you've been called at this time in your life to at least run for it you believe that's the best place for you to serve america that's what you run for. i don't think you can think about what's my exit strategy, my plan b. truth is i don't want to be in politics my whole life.

i want to serve our country and i'd like to do some other things. like maybe own an nfl team or something. i don't know. i'd have to sell a lot of books for that. >> one of the most pressing problems that the world faces right now, we have seen mass beheadings. we have seen people burned alive. we have a president that says the islamic state is not islamic. he won't mention the words radical terrorism. >> we're not presbyterian. >> no they're not. we see the rise of antisemitism. we see hostility. you mentioned in your speech toward the prime minister of israel. how -- if you did become president, how would you deal with this crisis of worldwide terrorism, a group that wants to raise the flag of islam in the white house and meet all of us in new york? how do we deal with that? >> two separate points i'd make on that. first, understand why the president has not put in place a military strategy to defeat isis. if we wanted to defeat them militarily we could do it. he doesn't want to upset iran.

in his mind this deal with iran is going to be the obamacare of his second term and he doesn't want to do from ig that upsetsz iran. they don't like it when we send military force into the region because they think the region should belong to them. as far as what we would do, it is quite straightforward. isis is a radical sunni islamic group. they need to be defeated on the ground by a sunni military force with air support from the united states. the egyptians. the saudis. the jordanians. the qataris, eae, even turks and even kurds. put together a coalition of armed forces from regional governments to confront them on the ground with u.s. special operation support then provide logistical and intelligence support and the most devastating air support possible and you will wipe isis out. >> let me ask you. we're running out of time. if you were elected president, quickly, what would be the top five agenda items that you would push hardest for in your first

hundred days. >> three things we need to do. first is have a healthy economy. tax reform regulatory reform, repeal replace obamacare balance our budget. give people skills for the 21st century. totally revolutionize the with a i we pay for higher education in this country. not everyone should be forced to get a four-year degree to get jobs. we should allow people to access to skills they need. third, we need the strongest most powerful military force in the world and an american foreign policy that tells the world very clearly it is bad to be our enemy and good to be our friend. >> we're running out of time. this is what we call our lightning round. abortion. >> i'm pro life. i mean it's just as simple as that. >> gay marriage. >> i believe marriage is between one man and one woman. that's what it's been for thousands of years and it served our people well. >> colorado marijuana

legalization. >> i'm against the legalization of marijuana. >> should every law abiding american have is the right to carry a weapon? >> absolutely. the only people who don't care about gun laws are criminals. >> i'm going to throw out a couple of names to you. hillary clinton. >> yesterday. >> bill clinton. >> what's the next one? really yesterday. >> barack obama. >> failed. >> last question. you talked about your love for america and how we all really -- we receive so much more than we could ever pay back. explain -- if you believe in american exceptionalism and why. >> i don't know if people realize but in every other society in human history your future is decided by what your parents did before you. if your parents were rich, if your parents were famous if

they were politically connected, if they could pick up the phone and find you your first job, you were set. if they couldn't you were stuck, no matter how hard you worked and how hard you tried. the fact that a son of a bartender and a maid had a son sitting on this stage is what makes america special. ♪ >> as part of our day long cpac coverage we've been asking you to join conversation. answer the question -- who do you like in the 2016

presidential field? logon to our facebook page facebook.com/c-span. or tweet us using the #c-spanchat. richard, not too happy with senator rubio as a candidate, says rubio is not a conservative. he may have been but when he got to congress he became pals with the gang of eight. pat, on the other hand, likes former governor rick perry of texas saying he would be a good candidate in my humble opinion. governor perry also spoke earlier today at cpac. his remarks run about 20 minutes. ♪ >> thank you. i come here today to speak

plainly about the times that we live in. at no time -- at no time in the last 25 years has the future been more uncertain and the world more dangerous than it is today. on three points we must be clear. first, our country has entered a time of testing and our political leadership is failing the test. the american people see a president who bows to political correctness, in denial of the threats that we face, making grave miscalculations that make the world less safe. now, this administration's incompetence in iraq, in syria have allowed the emergence of isis. they're in american tanks. they're using american weapons. and isis began taking cities that just a few years ago were secured by american blood.

now let's be very, very clear about who isis is. what they represent. they are a religious movement that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic. they mean to cleanse the world not just of christians and jews, but of muslims who disagree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as possible. it's time. it is time for the american people to hear the truth. the president -- the president declared in the state of the union that the advance of isis has been stopped and that is simply not true. he says that isis is a religious movement.

again, he's simply wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and to down playplay the seriousness of it is naive, it is dangerous and it is misguided. isis represents the worst threat to freedom since communism. if egypt and jordan recognize that they are at war with radical islam, isn't it about time our president proclaimed the same? we didn't start this war, nor did we choose it. but we will have the will to finish it. now let me state another obvious fact about the middle east. it is not in the interest of peace and security of the free world that iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

reports concerning this bilateral negotiation between the united states and iran indicate a deal on the table would allow iran to develop nuclear power after a certain number of years if they live up to certain treaty obligations. i believe it is fundamentally dangerous to grant iran's nuclear ambitions diplomatic cover. our discussions with iran should be governed by two nonnegotiable principles. number one is iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, period. and number two, israel has the right to exist as a jewish state. yeah. amen. it's time. it's time we stood with the most vibrant democracy in the middle

east. the administration's policy of isolating israel must stop. watching all of this unfold is the president of russia. he's been watching as our president drew a line -- a red line in syria that was crossed without consequence. and then this russian president watched as our president canceled plans to deploy missile systems in poland and the czech republic. and it was against this backdrop of weakness and empty words that putin annexed crimea he entered ukraine, and it was those conditions that allowed him to negotiate a one-sided cease-fire with no real consequences. here's the simple truth about our foreign policy. our allies doubt us.

and our adversaries are all too willing to test us. no one should be surprised. no one should be surprised that dictators like assad would cross the president's red line because he knows the president won't even defend the line that separates our nation from mexico. there aren't any real consequences. there are no real consequences when dictators and adversaries defy america, and this must change. for the world to be safer america must be stronger. and for america to be safer, our border must be secure. drug cartels, transnational gangs, they smuggle drugs and weapons and people. they are a clear and present danger to the health and the

safety of all americans. any conversation. any conversation about comprehensive immigration reform must begin with comprehensive border security. comprehensive border security. and that is exactly why. that is exactly why last summer i told the president, looked him right in the eye and i said if you will not secure the border between texas and mexico texas will. plaulz applause so here is the second point. and i want to be very clear today. the conservative movement must be a great agent of reform. to lead this country, we must offer a vision of change. our nation is $18 trillion in debt. so every agency of government, every department out there, they

must account for every dime that they spend. for the first time in american history a generation of leaders is on the verge of breaking the social compact with the next generation. and that is to leave a better country and with greater opportunity than the way we found it. with debt the size of our gdp our nation's involved with generational theft. there are fewer of us that believe in the american dream than any time in the last 20 years. for middle class americans, opportunity and security has been replaced with anxiety. and worry. out of pocket healthcare costs. housing, college tuition. they have all gone up faster than wages. student debt is at an all time high and this has to change.

it is time. it is time to restore hope and opportunity to the middle class americans out there. and we can start with our tax code. we've got the highest corporate tax rate in the western world and it is time to lower that corporate tax rate, to lift up middle class wages. we can do this. it is time to provide easier access to credit for small businesses. these lending reforms are squeezing our community banks and our small businesses. it is time to bring jobs and prosperity to main street not just wall street. and it is time. it is time to stop this overregulation by run away federal agencies. that you realize the regulatory cost that -- this regulatory

cost hits american families for about $15,000 year. that is the highest cost on your budget than anything other than housing. it is no surprise though. it is no surprise that when one out of five american children are on food stamps because one out of ten american workers are either unemployed, underemployed or just so discouraged they quit looking for work. i want to say this quite plainly. the unemployment rate is a sham. it leaves millions of american workers uncounted. and if the republican party doesn't take a stand for these uncounted americans, who will? the answer is not to expand the welfare state. it is to build the freedom state. and i happen to know it can

happen because we did it in my home state. and our formula was simple. you control the taxes and the spending. you provide smart regulations you develop an educated workforce and you stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. in my 14 years as governor we helped to create almost 1/3 of all the private sector jobs in america. in the last 7 years we created 1.4 million jobs. you take those jobs out of the equation, minus those jobs created in texas, this country lost a quarter of a million jobs. it is time to bring economic revival to every state in america with policies that limit

government instead of expanding it. and here is the third point. i've never been more certain than i am today that america's best days remain in front of us. the weakness and incompetence of our government shouldn't be confused with the strength the ingenuity and the idealism of the american people. our experiment in republican form of government it's too durable or the sidetracked by one confused administration. you think about it. we've survived worse. by had a civil war in this country. we had two world wars. we had a great depression. we even survived jimmy carter. we will survive the obama years too. [ applause ]

there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed with new leadership. you see, i see an america where a skilled worker can find a job where wages are on the rise and freedom is on the march. an america where opportunity is the birthright of all, not dispensed by a government to a few select ones. it is time. it is time for america to lead the world. it is time to stand with our allies. it is time to pursue an america worthy of our found ears ideas. it is time that we build an america where our citizens and their children can dream again. so let's roll up our sleeves. let's go to work and let's revive this great nation again. god bless you. thank you for being with us here today [ applause ]

new thank you fellas. thanks for being here. thanks for being are with us. >> governor perry we have a few questions if you don't mind. >> ah there you are. >> that was truly incredible. so thank you. a few questions we've gotten on twitter. what would you do in the white house about illegal immigration? >> well obviously addressing this, i've had a little bit more than just a talk about it. i've had to deal with it. and i think that is one of the major issues that we've got with washington and congress is that they talk. they talk and people literally die. because we've had to deal with this issue. last summer when there were literally tens of thousands of individuals showing up. some of them unaccompanied minors on that southern border. i had to make a decision on how to deal with that.

because not only my state, but the country was being impacted by it. and the president asked me to come and meet with him on an airport ramp. and i told him i would be glad to do it mr. president but i want to meet with you and talk to you about this issue with our border. we met and it became abundantically here the that he was not going to address this issue. i told him if you don't secure the border texas will and that's what dewid. if you do not secure the border first you cannot have a conversation about immigration reform. that is just the fact you. don't trust washington to deal with this. i don't trust washington to deal with this, until they secure the border. and we know how to do this. we've had a 74% decrease in the number of apprehensions in that 150 mile region of the border by deploying our national guard, by putting the law enforcement

there. i will suggest one more thing. and that is aviation assets that look down 24/7 give us the information with fast response teams and we can secure the border. at that particular point in time. then you have a conversation of how to deal with this entire immigration issue. there are a lot of interesting ideas on table out there. but not until we secure the border first. >> thank you governor perry. there is lots of talk of climate change. how would you as u.s. president if you were to run how would you secure america's energy future. >> let me address this issue. i think there are some good examples how to deal with our environment. as a matter of fact during the last 14 years texas added 5.6 million people to its population roles. 1.4 million jobs created in that seven year period of time, '07

through '14. 5.7 million people. that's lot of cars on the roads in texas. during that same period of time using thoughtful incentive based regulations we decreased our nitrogen oxide level which by the way is a real pollutant, a real e manition. nitrogen oxide levels were down by 62 and a half percent. oez ozone levels down. sulfur dioxide down by 50%. and our co2 levels, whether you believe in this whole concept of climate change or not. co2 levels were down by 9% in that state. and the point is you can have job creation and you can make your environment better. and that ought to be the role of those 50 states. of being able to put policies into the place, incentive based policies. we put policies in place that

helped remove old dirty burning diesel engines from the fleets. we were able to transition our electrical power system to the natural gas burning. that ought to be our goal in this count are and it also starts with energy policy. open up the xl pipeline. create energy jobs in this country. that needs to be what we're working on in this country from the standpoint of creating the jobs and making america more energy secure. >> thank you governor perry. and thank you for coming today. >> thank you. god bless you all.

good morning everyone. as the braet great pleasure. a great honor to be with you this morning. we are going to be i think very fortunate to listen to the voices of two leading advocates of the opposing viewpoints in the nexus between national security and constitutional rights. we are joined this morning by general michael hayden, whose without question -- [ applause ] -- one of this nation's most distinguished and long-serving public servants. and amongst all of his other duties he is also served the

nation as the director of the cia and the nsa, which gives him some standing for this discussion today. [ applause ] and on my right, my good friend and colleague, judge andrew napolitano. judge napolitano a former superior court judge of the great state of new jersey which we both have the good fortune to live. i'm saying that only partially tongue in cheek at tax time certainly. and senior -- senior judicial analyst. i refer to him as executive senior judicial analyst for fox news. great to have both of these gentlemen with us. [ applause ] we are going to follow the format of presentations from each of them for a few moments about their views. then we're going to begin a

discussion. i'll ask questions of each beginning with judge napolitano. we'll follow up each give them an opportunity to rebut or agree passionately with the other as the case may be. and with no further ado, judge napolitano. >> thank you lou. good morning. i was in 1973, before most of you were born i was present at the first cpac in the madison hotel in downtown washington d.c. there were 25 people there. one of whom was a guy named ronald reagan. [ applause ] when i speak on privacy and security i often start like this. i want everybody to take their blackberry, iphone android, whatever they have in their pocket and turn it on. because i want president obama and the nsa to be able to hear

everything i'm about to tell you. of course this is not a laughing matter. because they will hear everything i'm about to tell you whether you turn this on or not. because they have the ability to turn this on without you knowing about it. without going to a judge and getting a court order for your cell phone. they can listen to every you say and read everything you write. how did we get there? my gosh, we have the 4th amendment to the constitution to the united states to protect the kwint essentially american right of the right to be left alone. the reason we have this amendment is because the framers and the founders found intolerable the concept of the british use of general warrants. a general warrant was an order

from a secret court in london authorizing the bearer of the warrant to search where he wanted and to seize whatever he found. we fought a revolution so that general warrants would not come here. and we wrote a constitution so that the new government here could not do to us what the british has done to us as colonists. and in order to assure that we put the 4th amendment in the constitution. which says, you have the right to be left alone in your persons, houses, papers and effects. and if the government needs to assault your privacy in your persons, houses papers and effects, it must go to a judge and present evidence of probable cause about you. not about everybody in your zip code or your area code but about you. quote, specifically describing the place to be searched or the person to be seized.

this applies whenever the government wants to search or seize, whether it is for criminal purposes, tax purpose intelligence purposes or whether because they just want to know what you are doing. fast forward to today. the secret courts that our forefathers fought against in the revolution are here in washington d.c. so secret that the judges on the courts have been sworn to secrecy. so secret that the judges on the courts are not permitted to keep copies of their own records. so secret, that if you knew about it you would say this is a violation of the fourth amendment. because these are general warrants that authorize the nsa to listen wherever they want and take copies of the content to whatever they listen to. we've come 180 degrees from fighting a war against those who

would violate with impunity our right to be left alone, to hiring public servants who will do that to us. we are in a twilight era. where freedom is diminishing. because with the exception of people in this room there is very little outrage. no matter how grievous the violation of constitutional liberty, if there is no outrage, the government will continue to do it. general hayden will tell you -- and in my view general had season a patriot whose entire career has been devoted to defending the country [ applause ] general hayden will tell you when he speaks that the line

between privacy and security can be moved by him. not by the court but by him or whoever his successor is in the nsa. there is no principle of law. there is no constitutional principle. there is no supreme court ruling that moves that line. because your right to be left alone is a natural and personal right. only you can give it up. the majority cannot take it away from you. and certainly american spies cannot take it away from you. [ applause ] i hope after this morning you will be outraged. >> general hayden. >> okay. judge, it's beginning to feel like an away game for me here. [ laughter ] if nsa were doing, if nsa were

even capable of doing what the judge has just outlined for you we wouldn't be having a debate here today. there would be nothing to argue about. let's talk about reality. let's talk about facts. the judge is an unrelenting libertarian. [ applause ] so am i. and i am an unrelenting libertarian whose also responsible for four decades of his live for another important part of that document. the part that says "provide for the common defense." [ applause ] let's talk about specifics. right after 9/11 the congress of the united states has a joint inquiry commission. it was an unusual body. it was a combined house/senate

intelligence committee inquiry into what went wrong on 9/11. one of the most telling aspects of the document they came out with. we had a shorthand for it called the jik report. that nsa -- i was the head at the time -- that nsa was far too conservative. far too conservative when it came to the most important kind of terrorist communications there could be. terrorist communications one end of which was in the united states. and so our charge from your elected representatives, naturally from the president, was be better able to respond to that kind of threat. now there are tools available to us that we understood the constitution. and so we looked for the gentlest approach possible, the one that would squeeze american privacy the least in terms of responding to that particular

charge. how do you detect terrorist communications entering or leaving the homeland? because after all we had just been attacked from the homeland. we hit upon meta data. meta data, defined as information about a communication. a call to, from, when how long. despite what the judge said about assistance and constitutional protectance, the controlling legal authority is smith versus maryland 1979 which the supreme court held 5 to 3 that meta data constitutionally protected. and we therefore struck upon it again as the gentlest way as we which we balance the two demands of our constitution, your security and your liberty.

there were other tools available. we were accused of using some of these other tools. the judge came close to accusing us of those other tools just a few minutes ago. we were accused of having a drift net over deerborn michigan or freemont california and sucking up the content of phone calls of american citizens and then searching those phone calls for keyword searches, looking for words like bomb and things like that. that never happened. we never got to content. by the way we never even collected the meta data. there were no metaphorical alligator clips on metaphorical wires here. we actually got the billing records from the large carriers in the united states. so those who claim when there is something of interest you can click on that number and see the content. that doesn't -- that just doesn't violate the law of the united states. that would violate the laws of physics. there is nothing there that allows that to take place. so we gather this meta data and

put nitit in a large repository. and truth in lending. it is big. it is a record of calls made within and between the united states and elsewhere over years. and it's billions if not trillions of records. but now what happens to them? well to use a phrase that is probably not popular around here. we put them in a lock box. and we access this lock box only under very strict circumstances. we have to have what is called a reasonable suspicion, judge it's not quite probable cause. reasonable articulatable suspicion that we a number associated with the terrorism. a foreign phone number. imagine we go in yemen and grab guys ss we've never seen before but it's associate with these guys with terrorism.

we have a reasonable suspicion that is that terrorist phone. so what do we get to do? we get to walk up to this ocean of meta data and get to metaphorically yell through the tranceem tran som. any, anybody in here talk to this phone? and if we get a number in the bronx that raises its hand and yeah i talk to him every thursday. nsa gets to say who the hell do you talk to? i am now done explaining to you the authorities of the national security agency when it comes to this program. anything else that is done with that data has to go through law enforcement, not foreign intelligence processes. how many people get to yell through the tranceem, hey anybody talk to this number? the last time i counted at nsa was 22? how many times did they yell

through the tranceem? in 2002 about -- times. honest men can differ about this. i understand that. honest folks may even object to the existence of the database. but before we pass judgment let's look at this in its totality and how it has been conducted. again, as the end of the discussion here some of you may disagree with me. but i can -- i think we all should allow ourselves to think "this ain't quite the british army parking on boston common." thank you. >> well as the only non libertarian on the stage i'd like to address a couple of things. and begin with.

the reality is most americans are pragmatic, judge. they want to be safe. they want to be secure. is there a resolution beyond saying that the fourth amendment t constitution t t, the constitution of the united states forbids intervention intervention. we know as the nation we've had surveillance. if we separate utilities, say google and facebook from what was once at&t i think most miles per hours would have been mightily upset to find out at&t was not cooperating with the federal government and its respective relevant agencies. >> you know, most people kwhoo defend the constitution and defend the concept of privacy do not object to all spying. they object to all spying all the time on everyone. when the general and his folks have reasonable arcticable

suspicion or a probable level higher cause they can get a warrant about that individual. and that is what the constitution requires. the good general took the same oath to uphold the same constitution when he entered the military and each time he got all of his well-deserved promotion to the rank of four star general as i took in engineers. the constitution is supreme law of the land. governs no matter where it goes, whatever it does, whatever the task is. if there is a problem with the constitution, amend it. but while the fourth amendment is there, it says if you want to search someone you have to present evidence about that person. >> and when you say -- >> [ applause ] >> and when you say go to court, i presume you are not talking about a fiza court? >> when i was sitting on the bench -- the general is probably familiar with. this judges sit 25/7.

it was sometimes a ridiculous assignment and sometimes unwanted because you have to be awake 24/7. and my friend judge royce lem bert in d.c. famously signed a search warrant on the back of his motorcycle at 3:00 in the afternoon. and i have signed search warrants in my gym shorts in my living room at 3:00 in the morning. so judges are always available to hear emergent applications when there is probable cause about the target. the problem with what general hayden's folks have done is they have gone to a secret court and said give us the authority to listen to or gather data from and about all of verizon's customers. that is 110 million human beings, as to which there is zero evidence about inappropriate behavior on the part of any of them. >> your response general. >> sure. first of all, the jury should

disregard the remark about content. because we've made the case this is about meta data. and again we can argue about meta data. but it is not about content. it is about fact of call. and again i repeat the controlling legal authority of smith versus maryland 1979 there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy that you or i have about the bill that your telecommunications carrier has about you. now with regard to the reasonable arcticualable suspicion or problsz, the judge wants us to go to a judge. keep in mind what i say about any narrative here. this is not reasonable art kabul suspicion about the number in the bronx that i referred to. this is reasonable arcticualable suspicion that the phone we just snatched in yemen is affiliated

with terrorism. by the way the macro collection of the meta data since 2006 has been authorized by a court. and over the last two years nsa doesn't get to yell through the transom unless it does go to a fisa judge about the specific phone number in yemen. before they make the inquiry. >> satisfied? >> i'm satisfied that the general believes what he said. i'm not satisfied that it's even remotely consistent with the constitution. >> let me turn to another aspect. after edward snowden, the edward snowden affair broke. >> you know this is supposed to be a happy occasion. now you mention snowden. >> well. it is a happy occasion. and it is going to get happier. the reality is this. that we learned from general keith alexander whose running the nsa upon inquiry as to his

revelations. when asked about the number -- the number of conspiracies and planned attacks that were thwarted, the number given by general alexander initially was 57. and we'll go with that number rather than the adjustments later. 57. what i wonder is why in the world the oversight committee intelligence oversight committees of the house and senate, why they didn't know that number themselves. and two, why that number has not been in some way incorporated into the analysis of the strategy of what we're doing, its cost and arguably intrusions into american society. >> great yes. and it gets to the reasonable argument in the front halftime of the fourth amendment. the judge is emphasizing the back half that no warrant shall be issues except upon probable cause. and you realize, certainly any of you who came here by airplane that not all searches are the

prompted or le legitimated by a warrant. the overall standard has to be with reasonableness. and it has to include the factor whether or not it is worth doing. do you get any out of the other end. i understand the offense if you got your phone bills up at fort meade somewhere and no good comes from it. you can't stand that argument. it doesn't go anywhere. keith when he said 54 was referring to significant events ss we were able to intervene not just the one program but the 702 program. the totality of things that snowden revealed with regard to privacy. >> telephonic and the digital. >> right. and this is going to offend the judge more. remember i said we go to court to get a warrant for 2006. i didn't go to get a washington for four years at nsa. we were to ancestor of this program under raw executive

authority. which by the way the fisa appellate court has upheld saying we take as a given that the executive has inherent constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant for foreign intelligence purposes. so we are still basing this on a body of law. we have learned a lot from this program. i went and looked at some notes of the things we were able to show. when i was doing it. through my time at the agency, which is 2005. about 18 months ago the president ordered the closure of about three dozen american consulates and embassies throughout the middle east. and as smoo as a matter of record the president says to the clapper we got a north american nexus to this threat? this is only about the mideast? and jim because of this program. because we were tracking the program through phone numbers

was able to jam those phone numbers up against the meta data program, came up emmettpty and said no we have no nexus here. it is useful for security. it is also very useful for liberty. because if the president was genuinely concerned it has a north american nexus what were his other options to give him confidence that he could keep you safe. >> couple of comments. you only talked about the first half of general alexander's testimony in which he testified under oath in response to the, either or house or senate intelligence committee. i don't remember which. that it was 54 or 57 plots that were stopped as a result of nsa spying. the next day general alexander wrote to amend his testimony to say it wasn't 54. it was three. and when asked to identify the three, he declined to identify them.

i could list a half a dozen plots that have gotten through. the shoe bomber. the boston marathon bombers. the copenhagen bombers. the revolution in yemen. the revolution in ukraine. well you guys knew about that because you fermented it. the nsa's problem is it has too much information. it is listening to innocent people rather than focusing on those as to whom there is evidence of wrong doing. i don't care and the constitution -- and the constitution doesn't care who you listen to in a foreign country. i care who you listen to in the united states. and the constitution says the prerequisite is probable cause. [ applause ] >> we're talking about the 215 program, which has do with meta

data and phone bills. that is the high water mark of nsa with regard to domestic communications in the united states. once again the judge has used the verb listen. i challenge any of you to take your phone bill when you go back home and put it up to your ear and listen. see what you can learn. [ applause ] >> and i think for the record we should also point out that there are other agencies that have some responsible for example in the boston marathon bombing and amongst them the fbi which had direct information from the russians, as to their concerns about those two brothers and some of their associates. it is always -- i don't know if it's comforting to say that there are more agencies who are not adequate to a given task. but anyway there it is. i'd also like to get some idea of privacy as it exists in the

national security interest as it exists in a nexus between the private sector and the public. and that is we have two plaintiffs right now suing the federal government -- twitter and google -- insisting that they have a higher standing and responsibility for privacy than even the government itself, is the effect of that suit in my judgment. but where we have private companies, google, facebook, microsoft, they are cooperating it seems to greater degrees with the government for example, of china than they are with the government of the united states. the as peculiar moment in our history. where is we would have once expected these companies to be very, very cooperative with our agencies, they are in fact resisting. and doing so to what end? i don't think it's entirely clear to most of us. and i'd like to get your idea as to this conflict between private

interests and public. >> i don't like anymore than anybody else if google or verizon or at&t shares my e-mail with you with the government of china or the government of the united states. if i'm a google or at&t customer they have a duty under our contractual relationship to respect my privacy. however, the fourth amendment only governs the government. it does not govern private entities. and if google wants to disseminate my e-mails they can do so and it is my obligation then to find another carrier. the problem is that the federal government of the united states through general hayden's former colleagues have pretty much said to google, open everything up for us. let us in there. we don't want to go to a judge. we don't want to have to come to you. we want to be there present in

your facilities so that when we need to read an e-mail or listen to a phone call or learn the meta data we're right there and we can get it. and they all caved. >> your response? >> wait for the applause. [ applause ] >> come on you can do better than that. >> again if nsa were doing the things the judge just outlined we would not be having a debate. he kind of echoed what is called the 702 program, which allows the national security agency to approach isps, internet service providers, e-mail providers, with specific foreign e-mail accounts that have been warranted by a judge in a general way admittedly foreign e-mail accounts that the agency can then access for foreign intelligence purposes. you mentioned the boston

marathon two or three times. let me come back to that as the little morality play for what we're talking about here. the judge mentioned it as a failure. >> one act play. >> i can be very quick. the judge mentioned it as the failure. and the nsa and other agencies have been criticized. these two kids t tsarnaevs they were out there searching in jihadi websites. and how did you not know this? the reason is we do not look at the activity of legal citizens or legal permanent resident in the the united states. this isn't this open-ended activity that's been suggested up here. this is actually very narrow. and the national security agency and ore elementther elements of the security structure actually have chosen not do things for your privacy that unarguably would actually make you a bit safer. >> may i ask the general a

question? >> no. [ laughter ] -- yes. >> does the head of the nsa have the constitutional legal authority to move the line between privacy and surveillance? [ audience members shouting no ] >> there is a premise how they would like you to answer. >> it is a trick question. because i know how he answered it last month at law school. >> you want the rest of the story? >> yes. >> this bha a two act play but i'll give you the executive summary. i'll be efficient. what i did the afternoon of 9/11, had do with something called minimization. you know, the accusations fit on a bumper sticker. the reality takes a little longer. and i'm sorry. but minimization is what nsa does when it inadvertently

incidentally collects information about you. they could be targeting a foreigner. that foreigner talks to you. nsa is still targeting a foreigner. in the routine conduct of business it gathers information to, from or about what we call protected persons, which is a bigger group actually than u.s. citizens. when nsa does that nsa is required to suppress the u.s. identity. so in other words foreign terrorist terrorist abu ahmed bin bad guy is talking to a known u.s. person -- we won't say who, just the u.s. person. and we minimize the u.s. identity to protect your privacy, unless of course the identity of the u.s. person is absolutely essential to the intelligence value of the intercept in the first place.

and so i've got a bad guy talking to that phone number in the bronx. and says brother, the attack tomorrow is at noon. i think the u.s. person identity is pretty important to the intelligence -- [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the appreciation of color asks the playing of the in national anthem.c[v÷

♪

please be seated. good afternoon everyone, i'm sally yates the acting deputy attorney general and i want to thank you for joining us here this afternoon for this special ceremony celebrating our attorney general eric holder. first, please join me in thanking the joint armed forces color guard and the president's own marine corps brass quintet for the prelude music and the presentation of the colors.

[ applause ] i want to welcome all of you here today. senior administration official, including one person whom we hope will soon be a senior administration official, loretta lynch. [ applause ] members of congress, members of the judiciary, friends colleagues and most importantly attorney general holder's family. his wife dr. sharon malone -- [ applause ] -- his daughters maya and brook [ applause ] his son eric

[ applause ] his brother william holder, [ applause ] his sister-in-law debra holder [ applause ] nieces ashley and amanda holder and his sister and brother-in-law margie and reed tucks. [ applause ] welcome everyone to this place that has been attorney general holder's home for much of his professional life. this place where as a line attorney as united states attorney as deputy attorney general and now as attorney general of the united states he has dedicated himself to seeking justice, to keeping our country safe and ensuring that the law is enforced equally and fairly

for all. now all of you here today know our attorney general. so it probably won't be a surprise to you to hear that he didn't really want to have a big farewell to-do. and he in fact resisted having this event. we knew that the only way we were going to be able to strong arm him into this was to go to a higher authority. but given that he is the attorney general of the united states, that's pretty much limited to the president and dr. malone. [ laughter ] mr. attorney general, we are glad that you relented. because we couldn't let you walk out the doors of this department without recognizing and thanksing you for all you have given to the department of justice and all that you have given to our country. [ applause ]

the attorney general's commitment to our mission, you are a singular mission to seek justice as guided his entire tenure at the department of justice. as attorney general he's had the courage and resolve not just to manage the department but to lead it. he has chosen what's right over what's popular what's just over what's easy, and others over himself. he has said what needed to be said even when some didn't want to hear it. and he has stood his ground when needed. eric holder loves the department of justice. and on behalf of the career men and women of this department, i want to tell you we love you back. [ applause ]

thank you for devoting your life to the cause of justice that we all hold so dear. history can sometimes be hard to grasp as we're living it. but i have no doubt that for the years to come young lawyers will walk by your portrait in the halls of the department of justice and feel a special pride for this chapter of history that you have written for this great institution. and speaking of your portrait i would like to now invite dr. malone and the artist who painted the portrait to the stage to join the attorney

general at the portrait for the unveiling. simmy knocks has been repeatedly called upon to capture the essence of our nation's leaders. his work bill clinton and first lady. and governorco cuomo and the supreme court justice thorgd marshall. thurgood marshall. will you do the honors? [ applause ]

simmie knox. >> it is not often i get to boss the attorney general around. it is a tradition at the department when an attorney general steps down he or she is presented with the actual cabinet chair in which they sat during cabinet meetings at the white house. on behalf of your friends and colleagues here at the department we are presenting you now with your very own cabinet chair. it may be a little worn around the edges after six years of use but we hope that you won't mind. [ applause ] and now it is my privilege to welcome to the stage the

president of the united states. [ applause ] hello everybody. thank you. please please everybody have a seat. i think it is important to point out first of all that eric has more gray hair than that. clearly he posed early in his tenure. but it is a remarkable likeness. the wonderful portrait. i am thrilled to be here. despite the fact that eric is

really just milking this departure thing for everything that it is worth. i mean golly. [ laughter ] i'm thrilled to be at doj with all of you today. to celebrate a great friend and a great public servant. somebody who's left this department with integrity and along with all of you made our nation more free and more just. our attorney general, eric holder. [ applause ] now, in september when eric and i stood together in the white house and announced that he'd be leaving the justice department he thanked all of you for joining him on a journey that in his words will always be guided by the pursuit of justice and

aimed at the north star. and that sums up eric's career. a life guided by justice, aimed at his north star. his bedrock belief in the fundamental rights and equality of all people. it is the principle that shaped his career from early days through his years on the bench his previous terms at the justice department as the deputy attorney general and acting attorney general and finally his exemplary service as 82nd attorney general of the united states. eric is america's third longest-serving attorney general [ applause ] i know it felt even longer.

[ laughter ] and i'll just come out and say it. he has been one of our finest. [ applause ] hundreds of terrorism convictions. the largest mafia takedown in history. billion dollar financial fraud cases. long overdue reforms to our criminal justice system. thanks in part to eric's leadership the overall crime rate and overall incarceration rate declined together for the first time in 40 years last year. and then there is all that eric's done to restore what he calls the conscience of the nation, our civil rights division. and as many of you know eric has

a personal connection to that office. when nicholas catsenback was deputy attorney general through that corporation he escorted two students through the doors after the courts of alabama ordered that school to be desegregated. one of them was vivian malone. one became an accomplished doctor and married a promising young doctor somewhat below her standards named eric holder. [ laughter ] so, if you ever wondered why eric has katzenbarh's portrait in his office that's why. under eric's watch, this department has relentlessly defended the voting rights act and the right to vote. pushed back against attempts to under mine that right.

he's challenged discriminatory state immigration laws that not only harassed citizens and legal residents but made it harder for law enforcement to do their job. he's brought record number of prosecutions for human trafficking and hate crimes. and resolution to legal disputes with native americans that had languished for years. several years ago eric recommended our nation stop defending the defense of marriage act because he wants a country where love is love and marriage is recognized on the federal level and same-sex couples can receive the same benefits as anybody else. [ applause ] with eric holder as its lawyer america has become a better country. which means that saying good-bye

is bittersweet. you have done a remarkable job. it's hard to let you go. i tried to talk him out of it. [ laughter ] but he's earned a break. and sharon and brooke and mia and everybody, they waited pretty long time to get you back. eric promised to stay on until the senate confirms his successor and just yesterday the senate judiciary committee approved loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. [ applause ] once the entire senate confirms her and she's finally loud to get to work i know she will do a superb job. and eric that means you're leaving the justice department in outstanding hands. let me close by saying that you

don't have to take my word that eric has made a difference in the life of this country. we collected just a few samples of the letters that were written during the course of the presidency or after the announcement that eric was leaving. never in my lifetime one letter from an older american in michigan, can i remember any attorney general of the united states that has done so much for our country and all its citizens. a woman in california wrote, eric holder was the best u.s. attorney general ever. people complain about you that means you're doing something right. he'll truly be missed. a kentucky man wrote to say we thank you, mr. holder, for your unwavering passion in pursuit of

your honorable vision. you made a difference. you are much more than simply a public official. you are a servant possessing a heart with the audacity to care. i'll provide one last testimony from today not in written form. working with eric in the wake of the trayvon martin case we initiated something called my brother's keeper and we're trying to reach out to young people am across the country who may not have all the advantage may sometimes be subject to stereotyping, trying to give them pathways for success. and as part of this, we had a group of young men, african-american latino who our white house mentees drawn from this local area, and today

we had dinner or lunch. broderick was there and we sat down and i explained to them that they don't have to be that tense which fork to use, you kind of work your way in. that when i had dinner the queen of england i seemed to do okay with just that basic rule and not eating with my mouth open. and we went around the room and they talked about their hopes and their aspirations and what colleges they had gone to and what they were doing and there were a couple of outstanding football players in the group and a track star and a number of future neurobiologists and several who are planning to joined our armed forces, and this one young man who had, at the moment disqualifying hair

cut -- [ laughter ] -- said i want to be the attorney general of the united states. didn't say he wanted to be governor or senator or a congressman or even president. said i want to be the attorney general of the united states. and i think about all the young people out there who have seen you work and have been able to get just an innate sense without knowing you personally that you're a good man. and, you know, having good men in positions of power and authority, willing to fight for what's right, that's a rare thing. that's a powerful thing. it's something that shapes our future in ways we don't even understand. we don't always imagine.

it made me very proud. so eric, your country thanks you for your honorable vision and your unwavering passion and as the gentleman from kentucky said, your audacity to care. michele and i thank you for acfriend and partner throughout this incredible journey and to all the men and women of the department of justice, thank you for your extraordinary service on behalf of the american people. with that it's my pleasure to introduce my friend, attorney general eric holder. [ applause ] thank you.

thank you. [ applause ] thank you. [ applause ] thank you. before i begin my remarks i want to do something that's pretty risky which is to recognize somebody at the risk of not recognizing a whole bunch of other people to whom i owe so much. senator patrick leahy is here. [ applause ] and in tough times both

professional and personal this is a man who has been there for me. he is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. this country is better for the work that you have done as a senator generally and more specifically when you chaired the judiciary committee. i learned a lot from you. the relationship that we have will continue beyond my time here at the justice department. and at least for today and he'll understand what i mean by this, at least for today you are the real patrick. ask him about that. [ laughter ] i came to this department as an uninformed 25-year-old graduate from law school. i'll leave grayer and wiser but still struck by the wonder of all that this great organization and its people have exposed me to. i have made friends during my

time here and lost some of them to the vagaries of life but each of them have left a mark on who i am and who i still aspire to be. the beauty of this department is that at its best it's like our country, at its best always growing, always changing, always being vigilante in defense of those values that distinguished this nation and made it truly exceptional. this quality is derived from the ideals that serve as the foundation for all that we love about america. great as it is our nation is not yet perfect. the fact that we can acknowledge this is what truly distinguishes us as a people. we have always examined ourselves and determined what needs to be improved that which needs maintained and that to which we should