i do not think it is only up to arab americans, by any means at all. >> [indiscernible] >> ok, i >> next, the speakers of the second day of the concert of -- conservative. and senator rand paul kentucky will be talking. conservative political action conference is underway. we are going to show you some of the speakers from day two of the event. we begin with texas governor rick perry. this is just over 10 minutes. [applause] >> good morning.

it is a good morning in america. we are getting to stand in the presence of american patriots. [cheers and applause] i am reminded this morning of words that speak to the american soul. words spoken by thomas jefferson, who said "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing." our country is in peril. our deficit is at a record amount. our economy, the economic recovery is stagnant. our place in the world is weakened. so i have a simple solution. it is time for a little rebellion on the battlefield of ideas. [cheers and applause]

instead of looking to washington to find the front lines of the battle, i ask you to look to the states. where we find the laboratories of innovation. 50 different experiments in democracy are taking place. among the states, we see two visions for america. there is the vision common in blue states where the state plays an increasing role in the lives of citizens. taxes are on the rise, pensions are out of control, and jobs are leaving by the truckloads. then there is the vision common to red america. [cheers and applause] the red state america vision, the freedom of the individual comes first and the reach of government is limited.

in these states, taxes are low, spending is under control, jobs are on the rise and opportunity is being sought far and wide. we see opportunity flourishing in states led by governors like nikki haley, bobby jindal, scott walker, rick scott. [cheers and applause] under governor haley's south carolina moved 20,000 citizens from welfare to work. under bobby jindal, louisiana has become more competitive for jobs. under scott walker, red state principles have been brought to wisconsin. the public union leaders balked and instigated this massive disruption of government. because scott walker had the

courage to reform pension programs fairly, the people of wisconsin did not recall him. they stood behind him and reelected him. [applause] under rick scott, florida's unemployment rate has dropped for 3 straight years. when just four years ago his predecessor presided over the loss of more than 800,000 jobs. now, that guy wants his job back. with a record like that, he is running to seek it this time as a democrat. [applause] ask yourself, what is the common denominator in these states? conservative governors who cut taxes, control spending, invest in jobs.

they trust the people more than the machinery of government. it is conservative governors who know the freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state. [applause] the contrast with blue states is crystal clear. pick any two. heck, let's pick the two biggest, new york and california. [laughter] from the east coast to the west coast. no two states have lost more personal income to other states than new york and california. if you rent a u-haul to move your company, it costs twice as much to go from san francisco to austin because you cannot find enough trucks to flee the golden state. [laughter] [applause] new york has this new

advertising campaign, "the new new york." they are implementing the tired old recipe of backbreaking taxes and you guessed it, regulations larger than a 30 ounce big gulp. [laughter] let's pick a large red state. shoot, let's pick texas. [applause] we cut taxes. we did not spend all the money. we created fair and predictable regulations. we stopped personal injury trial lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits. [applause] we have created almost 30% of the nation's jobs while keeping taxes among the nation's lowest. we have presided over an energy boom. the nation's largest population boom of monumental proportions.

we have demonstrated that no state can tax and spend its way to prosperity. but with the right policies you can grow your way there. the red state-blue state debate matters because it is about the future of america. the vision that wins out. either the big government, protectionist nanny state offered by liberal leaders or the limited government, unsubsidized, freedom state offered by conservative leaders. it will determine the future of our nation. [applause] america cannot sustain its current fiscal course. we cannot continue to borrow trillions of dollars from bankers in beijing and brazil and tokyo. the downgrading of our credit,

for the first time two years ago, it should not have surprised anyone. our leaders were fighting over a few billion dollars in spending cuts while our debt has soared by trillions in the last 5 years. how can the greatest nation on earth continue to spend its way to astounding debt without the bill ever coming due? how can we explode budgets with unreformed entitlement programs without the bill coming due? how can we appease a syrian tyrant and embolden his russian ally without the bill coming due. there is a price to be paid for policies that destroy our economy and embolden our foreign enemies.

i am here today to say we do not have to accept recent history. we just need to change the presidency. [applause] it is not too late for america to lead in the world. but it starts by leading at home. it starts by returning to the founding principles of democracy. found in our constitution. among the enumerated powers of congress are the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common defense. to regulate commerce with foreign nations. to declare war. to raise and support armies. to provide and maintain a navy.

but nowhere does the constitution say we should federalize classrooms. [cheers and applause] nowhere does it give federal officials, nowhere does it give federal officials primary responsibilities over the air we breathe, the land we farm, the water we drink. nowhere does it say congress has the right to federalize health care. [cheers and applause] you see, it is inherent in human nature. once given power, to never give it back. let me tell you something. this human tendency is a bipartisan offense. that is why we must elect the right kind of leaders to represent us in washington. leaders who devolve power to the

states, not rob them of it. leaders who believe in free markets and not a bigger federal government. leaders who respect the freedom of the individual instead of depriving them of the power to realize it. time for washington to focus on the few things the constitution establishes as the federal government's role. defend our country, provide a foreign policy, deliver the mail on time and on saturdays. [applause] get out of the health care business. get out of the education business. stop hammering industries. let the sleeping giant of american enterprise create prosperity again. fellow conservatives, the future of this nation is upon you, it belongs to you.

you have the power to change america. you have the power to speak to our newest hope in addition to our age-old dream, you are the past -- half to the future. represent over nude hope that america can be great again. god bless you and god bless this great country live in -- we live in. [applause] >> another speaker at the conference was texas senator john cornyn who won a primary for reelection. this is about 10 minutes.

>> good morning. it is great to be with you this morning. i want to thank our friends at the american conservative union and all of you for all the work you do around the year to promote the conservative message. i have to admit my friend governor perry is a tough act to follow this morning. it is a privilege to do so. under his leadership, texas has shown the world that concert of -- conservative policies do lead to growth and prosperity. [applause] i can tell we have a few texans in the house this morning. call it an experiment in one of our of democracy, if you like i'm a but quite a successful one compared to the failed experiment in big government during the last five years under president obama. has ever had cpac

to texans be back to back before. patience on your part. let me bend your ear for a few minutes this morning. i promise i will be brief but i don't want my brevity to distract from the seriousness of the topic. this morning, what i want to talk you about his accountability. specifically, the importance of accountability in our government and its shocking abandonment on the obama administration. accountability is a fundamental virtue. we hold in high esteem people who are accountable to themselves, to their families, and to god. american history is filled with stories that celebrate the accountability of some of our greatest leaders. from the founding fathers who famously who cannot tell a lie to one of the founders of our party known as honest abe.

we celebrate accountability as a nation and it makes sense to do so. not just because it is a morally admirable trait but because this entire experiment and self-government depends on it. thomas payne said a body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. [applause] as public servants, we must be forthright in our actions and fully accountable to those that have the privilege to serve. as citizens, we must hold those in public office to the highest standard of accountability. because unaccountability has always been the refuge of scandal makers and stubbornly bad government policy. for the last five years now,

five long years, president obama has put this maxim to the test for five years. he is advocated for a larger, more intrusive federal government. thefive long years, president refused to take responsibility for his own actions. let's look at the record briefly. when it was revealed that eric holder's justice department had knowingly allowed weapons to be smuggled to mexican drug cartels, did we get accountability? we got a cover-up. when one those weapons showed up at the murder scene of u.s. border patrol agent brian terry, i ask you, did we get accountability? >> no. >> when the president invoked executive privilege and the damaging evidence under lock and key when a career state department official dared to speak the truth about that

arrible night in benghazi, night were four americans lost their lives, did we get accountability? >> no. >> he was punished for his honesty. when it came to light that the irs was targeting americans whose only offense was to disagree with the president, did we get accountability? >> no. >> we got a campaign donor to the obama campaign instead, appointed to lead the so-called investigation. then there is obamacare. where do we even begin? when the website that americans must use to purchase government notated health care did work, do we get accountability? >> no. >> we were told the errors were great problems to have. theret was discovered were no criminal background checks for obamacare navigators, people employed to handle

sensitive information, did we get accountability? >> no. fact, secretary sibelius told me herself that convicted felons could be hired as navigators. barlow, ae like glenn planter in texas lost his health insurance, he found the only comparable plan was 65% more expensive and included maternity care which he did not need. did we get accountability there? >> no. >> we were told that people like him were thrilled with their options, thrilled. the fact of the matter is we conservatives predicted things like this would happen. when obamacare was debated, we scream from the rooftops that it would not work, that it would be make killer, that it would

health care more expensive and less accessible for millions of americans. for pointing this out, we were mocked and disparaged by president obama and his allies. we were accused of being heartless and misinformed. now, for years later, our predictions have come true and i ask you, has the president shown any accountability? >> no. >> instead we have gotten and mincedlays, words over exactly what the president meant when he promised you and me and all americans that if you like what you have, you can keep it. conservatives, what can we do? simply us no good to point to these facts and say, i told you so. quo is not written in stone.

if the last five years have taught us anything about our liberal friends, it is that they don't get accountability. a lost cause, be the future of our great country is never a lost cause. [applause] if we are going to get back to the america that our forefathers handed down to us, the america that our children and grandchildren deserve, we must foster a new era of accountability. here is the simple fact about conservatives. we are pretty good and holding people accountable. that is why conservatives must lead in rebuilding this new culture of accountability. for starters, we need to hold the house of representatives in this next election.

then we must take back the senate. [applause] we must win in arkansas, virginia, west virginia, north carolina, louisiana, montana, and other states. we must lead the charge all over the electoral map, including nebraska. that is how we will take back the white house in 2016. [applause] together let's support conservative candidates. let's win and bring accountability back to washington. let's get to work. thank you and god bless you and may god bless the united states of america. thank you and good morning. [applause]

>> another speaker on day two of conference was-- rick santorum. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much, foster, i think. it is always a joy to be with foster and you never know what you will get. i have been watching a little bit of what is going on here and i hear a lot of, we have to win. we all know what they mean. they actually mean we have to lose. we have to lose those currently

unfashionable stances on cultural and limited government issues that have been proven over time to give americans the best chance for a healthy, happy life. we are told that we have to put aside what we believe is in the best interest of the country so a republican candidate could win. now, that may result in a win for republican candidates, but it will be a devastating loss for america. [applause] i don't know about you but i am not out here fighting just to elect republican candidates and let them win. i am here to see america win. [applause] how did it work out for the

republican establishment and following their lead nominating moderate candidates in the last two presidential elections? let's face it. we have a bunch of leaders in this country who don't believe gas conservative policies could be the basis of the winning national election and so they put forth candidates that keep apologizing for the principles they say they believe in and then they wonder why they lose. [applause] i want to win too. i think everybody here wants to win. unlike a lot of these beltway talking heads, i am not pontificating. i have put my neck out there and just about every other body part. you may recall that i ran for president in 2012 and -- [applause]

i didn't run to carry an agenda. i did not run to put forth issues. i ran because i wanted us to win the white house. i wanted us to be successful in transforming america away from the fallacies of this administration. to create a better america for the people who are struggling and let's make no mistake about it. millions and millions and millions of more people are struggling because of the policies of this administration. despite being outspent four to one in every state, we won 11 states. that is more states than any second-place finishers since i got it finished second back in 1976 and named reagan. [applause] the popular consensus of the media is you want because he was a conservative, he appealed to the cultural conservative

voters. that really was not true. let be honest. everybody in that race was a cultural conservative. we all have the same issues. you wouldn't know that. we talked about something different. when out and talk about focusing on those who were working americans. notice i did not say middle-class. i don't know why we do this, fellow republicans. why do we believe, why do we use the term that is of the other side? why do we believe in the dignity of every human life. believe in equality of opportunity for everyone to rise. envy, leftist language that divide america against themselves. [applause]

classes in america. do you accept the fact there are classes in america? why do we use that term? why do we adopt that language? we have to stop that. we have to stop acting like them. we can reach out to folks. we should reach the term -- use the term working americans because we believe work is a good thing, unlike them. [applause] they use the class rhetoric because they are all about dividing. one class for another. one ethnic group against another. one group of americans -- that is what they do, they divided. to let them divide. let us unify. [applause] you saw from the news that president obama's policies continue to create an ever increasing wealth gap in america.

when i was out there campaigning, i was campaigning talking about the 70% of americans who will not get a college degree. 70%. degrees andcollege that number is not changing at all in america. what we going to do to talk to them? we answer has always been will cut taxes for high income people. i believe in that policy. under are sitting there employed, unemployed, looking for a job, wanting to move up in your job, and all we are talking about is cutting taxes for high income people, it doesn't connect emotionally. it doesn't exactly resonate with the people we are talking about so what i did is i went out and talked about cutting taxes what for manufacturing so we could create jobs for those folks who do not go to college that are good paying job so they can rise inside -- rise in society and

provide for their family. [applause] we celebrate that aldrich -- all work is good work. we can grow and expand and get behind in and not just create a quality life for people who are working him of the better energy for people in america. that is a vision that connects with those folks who stay at home in the last couple of elections. this in ohio. hundreds of thousands of people who stayed home because they could not vote for barack obama. they knew his policies were karen this and hurting them. not just the country, them. they couldn't vote for him. they also could not vote for us. they couldn't vote for us because they didn't think we cared. they didn't think we cared about them.

they stayed home. now we are here because we didn't connect with them. times are gentlemen, uncertain in america even today. the unemployment numbers are not getting any better. the predictions that the economy will fall through again. people are nervous, anxious, and yes, fearful. people ask me why we didn't win the election where so many people were doing so poorly in the economy was so bad? fear. look at where barack obama got the votes. he got the votes from the people who were the most economically vulnerable. fear. we are out there saying we're going to cut this and that and you're sitting there holding on by your fingernails. we have no message for you as to how things will get better for you, not for the employer who might hire you.

we are in trouble as a party. here is the sad part. are the pr -- are the party who has the policies that will work best for these folks. we are the party that will create growth and opportunity. we are the party that believes in restoring something that is broken in most of the communities where people are struggling -- the american family. i talked about how important it was that the american family beta -- be the center of all of our policies, our economic policies because if you look at it, the word economy comes from the greek word -- a greek word that means home or family. the first economy is the home. when the home breaks down, the economy breaks down. [applause]

talk aboutt to redefining marriage, i want to talk about reclaiming marriage as a good for society and celebrating how important it is for our economy. [applause] that is not what we did. that is not what we did. we went out and talked about jobs creators. we have to face it as republicans. we are talking is that everybody who is a voter is like us. high energy type, people don't want to work -- reach for the brass ring. we need folks like that and we need to have policies to encourage people to do that. workso need folks who will 9-5 and go home and coach little league. we need them to work at the library and volunteer and to be the parent in the neighborhood where the parent is not around.

we need people like that. that is the backbone of america. these folks who don't value just money, but they value family and communities, and children. america was a great country because we had that strong infrastructure of family and community. it is falling apart. americaof children in are born to a single mother. 40%. in the poor neighborhoods, it is three out of four. in neighborhoods, there are no debts. ads. i hear ben carson, wonderful talk about how he was raised by a single mom but he had dad and the community to help. there are no dads. what can government do about it? what can government do about getting people to stop smoking? it turned out a heck of a lot.

what can private enterprise do to help support marriage? it turns out when they take a cause, it turns out they could do a lot. what about education? what will get the educational institutions behind valuing marriage. what about businesses that say marriage counseling is part of a benefit. what about we have a movement to reclaim the true, beautiful institution of marriage? [applause] we talked about job creators, not jobholders. i will give you the classic example during the campaign. i wase that night and backstage address all these folks who were wonderful people, small businesspeople, some businesspeople. all throughout the convention

in every seat was a placard that said we built that. president obama said, you did not build that. we got outrage. yes, we did. we trotted out small business person after small business person after small business person after large business to the very small percentage of businesspeople who start their own business in america that we built. one server at restaurant to go out there on that stage and talk about how grateful she was that her employer sacrificed a lot to create a job for her. then we didn't have been employer walk out on that same stage and put his arm around that server and say, i think god for you in the work you are doing. that is uniting america, not dividing. [applause]

i understand. i missed it when people come out on the stage and they bang away at president obama. i know. it is fun. i get that. it is also easy. getting easier, i might add. going to win people who are sitting at home who are hurting. they don't feel better. we feel better. i think we need to take a lesson from someone who is maybe the most popular person in the world right now. pope francis. [applause] there might be some people that are surprised that rick santorum suggest we take advice from pope francis, but i do. what he is doing, he is going

out there and not talking about what the christian faith is against. he is going out there and talking about what we are for. [applause] he has not changed a single policy. he won't change a single policy. but what he will do is he will go out there and talk about the good news to a hurting world because he believes that is what the world needs. it means the lord. we are not a religion and going out there to talk about the good we need to do is talk about the news of a good america and what that good america could be. we need to paint a picture for people. we need to use a brush where

they see themselves in the painting. they see a part of their life where they hear someone say or they see a policy and say that is me. we need to be the that is me party. there are more speakers that will come up and i know you will have a lot of fun cheering and stomping your feet and railing obama. get it out of your system. after we leave here, we have a job to do. we got to win. [applause] we will win not by dividing, we will win by uniting. i asked each and everyone of you, candidates and supporters of candidates, to go out and stand with that underemployed

person working two jobs and talk about what we will do to help them. stathem. stand with a single mom holding things together. stand with the people who are fearful because theorists are awful -- because fear is powerful and overcoming fear is what makes america the greatest country in the world and you can be a part of it. gentlemen, we have an they arety because -- messing up big time. we have an opportunity. that's not below it i talking about them. let's talk about how we can build a great america again. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

>> another speaker -- [applause] >> thank you. what a great crowd. great to be here. [applause] imagine with me for a moment -- imagine a time where liberties spread from coast to coast. imagine a time when our great country is again governed by the constitution. [applause]

time when the white house is once again occupied by a friend of liberty. [applause] you may think i am talking about electing republicans. i am not. i am talking about electing lovers of liberty. [applause] it isn't good enough to pick the lesser of two evils. women oflect men and principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. there is a great and tumultuous battle underway for the future, not of the republican party, but the future of the entire country. the question is --

[applause] bolduestion is will we be and proclaim our message with be sunshineill we patriots, retreating under adverse fire? will we be firm in our convictions or will we power, -- cower and dilute our message. will we water down the barrel rights -- the bill of rights or will be b on fire like william lloyd garrison? for 30 years, garrison stood as politicians whimpered and compromised and left their fellow man. garrison would not. he could not sit quietly behind. he rose above those politicians that would lead the country half free, half slave. his voice was unwavering. andll be as harsh as truth

his uncompromising as justice. i will be in earnest. i will not equivocate and i will not excuse. i will not retreat an inch and i will be heard. [applause] will you, america's next generation of liberty lovers, will you stand and be heard? [applause] thank you. thank you.

the sons of liberty who fought against british shoulders -- soldiers would today make a bonfire of secret orders issued by federal police. the sons of liberty risked everything to guarantee your jury.to a trial by they would today call out to the president, they would say, we will not be detained, spied upon, nor have our rights abridged. mit and not sub trade our liberty for security. not now, not ever. [applause] yes, as our voices rise in protest, the nsa monitors your every phone call.

phone, you a cell are under surveillance. i believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business. [applause] thank you. i believe this is a profound constitutional question. nt be single warra applied to millions of americans e-mails, credit cards? , and i amment says telling you the truth, this is what your government maintains. they say you don't own your records. that your visa statement is not

belong to you. i disagree. the fourth amendment is very clear -- warrants to be issued by a judge. warrants must be specific to the individual. for millionsant of americans phone records hardly sounds specific to the individual. warrants are supposed to be based on evidence of probable cause of that an individual committed a crime. thatalized warrants don't name an individual and seek the records of millions of individuals goes against the very fabric of the fourth amendment. that jameswrote otis's protest against generalized warrants was the spark that began the american revolution. there is a great battle going on, don't forget it. it is for the heart and soul of

america. the fourth amendment is equally as important as the second amendment and conservatives cannot forget this. [applause] will we sit idly by? will we be like lemmings, rushing to the comfort of the brothers crushing embrace or will we stand like men and women of character and say, we are free and no man, no matter how well-intentioned will take our freedom from us. [applause] daniel webster anticipated our modern day saviors who wish to save us from having too much freedom. he wrote good intentions will always be pleaded for every

assumption of authority. it is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. how will history remember barack obama? [laughter] who had hoped president obama would somehow be a champion of civil liberties, roger waters might ask, did they get you to trade your heroes for goats? did they get you to trade -- exchange a walk on part in the war for lead role in the cage? i don't question president obama's motives but history will record his timid defense of liberty. when congress passed legislation allowing for the indefinite distention -- the detention of

an american citizen without a trial, he shamefully signed it while promising not to use such a power. a great president would have risen to the occasion. and set up merely suggesting that he would not use this dreaded power, a great president would've taken his hand in hand and vetoed this abomination. [applause] a great president would have loudly proclaimed congress cannot and must not overturn the right to a trial by jury. a great president would have protected us from the prying eyes of the nsa. a great president would have abide the, i will not

constitution -- the constitution will not abide it. [applause] our forefathers fought for the right for trial by jury so not one innocent man would be wrongly imprisoned. remember richard jewell? everybody thought he was the olympic bomber. he was convicted on television with no jury, no trial, only problem was he did not do it. had he been a black man in the south in 1920, he might not have lived to prove his innocence. anyone with a memory of the times in our history when we did not adequately defend everyone's right, when we did not adequately defend everyone's right to a fair and impartial trial should stand now and be heard. we must defend our rights. [applause]

justice cannot occur without a trial. of this fact should be abundantly clear to any group that had been persecuted. you can be a minority by the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. anyone who ever paddled upstream, anyone who was ever been a minority of thought or religion, anyone who was ever taught their children at home or sought to pray to god without permission should be alarmed that any government might presume to imprison without a trial. [applause] whether you are black or brown

or white, man or woman, you should fear a government that maintains the authority to imprison without trial. without a jury. notson wrote that we would need a constitution to protect us if government were comprised of angels. guess what? admitted we were likely to ever be guided and governed by angels. it isn't so much what president obama has done, although he has done a lot, very little good. it is not what he has done with his power as much at is the hesident -- the presidents sets for lawlessness that follows. if the executive branch could initiate or if the executive branch could attain citizens without trial, if the command

legislation, if they can declare the congress that congress is in recess, then government, unrestrained by law, became is nothing short of tearing he -- tyranny. [applause] he wrote when the executive branch usurps the legislative authority when the president said, i can write the laws, watch me. and phone.n he doesn't care what the law is, willring he -- tyranny ensue and we must stop the president from shredding the constitution. [applause] thank you.

it is not just the harm that this president has caused, it is the future harm that he allows by destroying the checks and balances that once restrained each of the branches of government. progressives, by their own assertion, do not want to be found by any original intent of the constitution or its authors. isy believe the constitution whatever the majority says it is. progressives believe that a majority may separate you from your rights. jim crow, the japanese internment, today's indefinite detention without trial only occur will me allow our god-given right to be abridged by majority vote. our rights are inherent.

they are inseparable from our person. [applause] our rights are innate. they come from our creator and no government can take that away from us. [applause] the constitution merely confines what exists before all time. mr. president, we won't let you, over ourot let you run rights. we will challenge you in the courts. we will ballot you -- that'll you at the ballot box. mr. president, we will not let you shred our constitution. [applause]

our future hangs in the balance. we can debate at jobless recovery, at alarming debt, i bothersome and abusive regulatory state, but know this -- you can have prosperity without freedom. the message of the rich versus the poor. it is a message for anyone who wishes to own their own destiny. america's greatness will not flicker if we believe in ourselves, believe in our founding documents. believe that all men are crated equal and that everyone can do succeed -- can succeed. it brings freedom, not only great prosperity, but extraordinary generosity. you think it is great to be poor in cuba? america's the most generous nation on earth. it came with our freedom.

they go together. it is going to take all of us together, it will take a national revival of liberty. america's greatness, america's exceptional character is not in our dna, but it is in the republic, in our founding documents. for the first time, it reports all individuals regardless of gender and ethnicity. it is a public that restrained government, not the individual. your task is not the minimize that loss of freedom. your job is to maximize your liberty. let's do it together. let's take a stand. when the president refused to rule out droning of american citizens, i took a stand. i filibustered. [applause]

some things are worth fighting for. when i discover that the nsa spied on and collecting every american citizens records, i took a stand. i sued the president. [applause] it is decidedly not a time for this, it is a time for boldness in action. the time is now. stand with me. let us stand together for levity. -- liberty. thank you and god bless you all. [applause]

>> on saturday, live coverage of the final day of the conference. scheduled speakers include former house speaker newt , columnistim demint and author ann coulter, and former alaska governor sarah palin. live coverage begins at 12:40 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> suffice it to say, most of health policy really is not health policy at all. it is essentially budget policy. just docs on so many of the big issues and ends up putting together something might be called a patch. maybe it is an extension.

maybe it is called a stopgap but the big is, it ducks issues. particularly on medicare, we have 10,000 people eligible for medicare every day. there is a very real cost there is a very real costs attached. the challenge is to try to find a way to move beyond this fixation on budgeting. it would be one thing that there but wend budget policy do not get at the structural kinds of issues and move beyond this lurch from one budget calamity to another to come up with sensible budget policy. clicked senate finance committee chairman ron wyden on the challenges facing hospitals.

the historical ties between russia and the ukraine. c-spanat 5:45 p.m. on 2. sunday night at 8:00, mount vernon. >> former reagan justice department official bruce fein and jim gilmore engaging in a debate on privacy. edwardnsa contractor snowden is a patriot for leaking information while the former governor calls snowden a traitor. this is for the five minutes. -- this is 45 minutes. ♪

>> all right. good morning. good to be here with you today. i have the privilege of being with the panel here to discuss what i think is one of the defining issues of our time, and that is where are we going to set the line as a country between the government that rightfully protects us against some very serious threats, terrorism, for an attorney, and the government that has a capability to invade our privacy and potentially infringe on our liberties. the panel we have today will do a great job of exploiting those issues for you. i will introduce them in a second, but i wanted to make one other mention here. those have an important argument to make, and we live in a troubling time that will challenge us to think more about this than just today. that may get right to the panel. the honorable jim gilmore served as the 68th governor of virginia. today he works as the president of free congress and american opportunity. he builds healthy communities that bring innovative policies. in virginia he did a lot of

remarkable things. he reduced the property tax on cars by 70%. he increased funding for historically black colleges. he was the first chief executive in the united states to create a cabinet-level position focused on technology. he is a veteran of the army. back in 1999 he served as the chairman of a congressional panel that became known as the gilmore commission. governor, welcome here. all right. our next panelist you have seen on radio and television. the honorable bruce fein. he served as the deputy

associate attorney general during the reagan years. he was a director for the republican commission on covert arms sales to iran. he has been a visiting fellow at heritage. he has advised numerous countries on constitutional reform. he is regularly called to testify before congress. he is a founder of the litchfield group. bruce, welcome onboard here. all right. the last person i will bring up does not need a pair of bifocals

to read my cue cards. he is the founder -- he has a fan club. charlie kirk and he's 20 years old. he is the founder of turning point usa, a national student movement dedicated to young people about capitalism. he has grown turning point usa from nothing to having representation in over 100 high schools and college campuses across the country. he has appeared on fox news over 60 times. charlie, welcome aboard. all right. very good. i am going to go over the conversation, and we will listen to someone who has been in the

news daily. >> talk about how the surveillance state functions. does it target the actions of americans? >> nsa, it is focused on getting intelligence by any means possible. on the grounds of self-certification that they serve the national interest. originally we saw that as foreign intelligence gathered overseas. increasingly we see it is happening domestically. to do that, the nsa specifically targets the communications of everyone. it is not just anybody -- it filters them and analyzes them and measures them and it stores them for periods of time because that is the easiest, most efficient, and most

valuable way to achieve these ends. while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so. any analyst at any time can target anyone. where those communications will be picked up depends on a range of the sensor networks and the authorities at that analyst is empowered with, and not all lists have the ability to target anything. i, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president, if i had a personal e-mail. >> it is a dramatic statement. before we start let's mention one thing. if you want to tweet russians, we will bring those up to the panel. bruce, let me start with you.

you just heard what edward snowden said. you represented his family last year. is he a traitor to the nation or is he a hero? >> he is more in the line of a patriot, as thomas paine described it, as someone who saved his country from his government. what mr. snowden said -- [applause] was if anything an understatement. all of you in the audience, all up here, all members of the senate and house, has had all of their telephony metadata, whether a domestic or international call, since may of 2006 collected and stored in a database without any suspicion at all that our phone information is related to foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or otherwise. it is a staggering database.

the testimony they intended to keep this massive collection of information secret from the american people forever. the program has no end point to it. over eight years, according to two panels selected by president obama, the program has foiled zero international terrorism plots. it has produced basically nothing. the justification is that according to the nsa operators it gives us the confidence level that there in fact is no connection between all of you in the audience and international terrorism. that shows how far we have, from the original meaning of the

fourth amendment, which was captured in a statement that was addressed to the british parliament in 1763. the poorest man is castle maybe defying all the forces of the crowd. you may be frail, the roof failing, the wind may blow through it, the storms may enter, the rains may enter, the king of england cannot enter. all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. that, ladies and gentlemen, is the spirit of the fourth amendment that we have totally lost. the default is issued in the united states in the eyes of the founding fathers was our right to be left alone from any government intrusion unless

there was some reasonable grounds to believe we are connected with some kind of wrongdoing. we do not have to give a reason to be left alone. it is our right because we are human beings. it is a government that needs to give a reason. when they are collecting telephony metadata on everyone in the room forever, that does not satisfy the fourth amendment. >> all right, i saw you nodding your head. maybe you're shaking it, perhaps. what do you think of what snowden did? >> talking about edward snowden, which is what bruce related and addressed here.

the first thing i will do as i want to be sure that everybody in this room understands where i come from in the past. i've been the governor of virginia. i was the governor of virginia during the 9/11 attack. i know very well what this is about. when i was the chairman of the advisory panel on homeland security and terrorism, i spoke out against the accumulation of potential data. as governor, i even vetoed red light bills to make sure that people were not being watched on their own streets. that is not the question. the question here is edward snowden. this is edward snowden. this is a picture of the "new york post" with edward snowden on the front cover. edward snowden is a traitor. edward snowden is a traitor and a coward. the fact is that edward snowden betrayed his trust. they gave him a special high clearance which he then violated. he hid the fact that he was doing these things and there are some allegations that he obtained this information through trickery.

when the time came for him to flee, as a coward would, he told his superior that he was going to go to the mainland for some kind of medical treatment when interacting with the opposite way and went to hong kong where he then proceeded to expose this information if not the press, to the chinese. at later time he goes off to russia and want to make common cause with this stalinist thug who today is doing something right now that is not acceptable in the ukraine. the definition of treason is someone who makes common cause with our enemies, someone who gives aid and comfort to our enemies. and the fact is that edward snowden does that, remains doing it to this day. he is a traitor. he should stand up to his

convictions, be someone who is prepared to face the music, and make his case. then see what the jury says. they could acquit him, or a judge could take these concerns that bruce has expressed into consideration. the law must be upheld, particularly to someone who has had this kind of trust. >> before i get back to you, i want to hear from charlie because he comes from a younger generation. you have heard two polar descriptions of edward snowden. what do kids in your generation view edward snowden as? >> he will be speaking at a conference in austin, texas, by way of skype. i do not think people look at him as a traitor, as to what he revealed. every single tweet, every single text message is being stored and analyzed. we are in a culture where what you believe is being used against you, that should worry every single person in this room. every single person.

>> all right. if he is a traitor, would you defend him and how would you defend him? >> the government has not charged him with treason. they have accused him of espionage act violations, which i believe when a citizen exposes government wrongdoing like violations of the constitution, it would be unconstitutional to make that a crime. he did not have an adjudication of that because mr. snowden has not been formally indicted by grand jury, but i want the audience to know the federal government has not accused him of treason. secondly, with regard to the rule of law, let's examine exactly the circumstances in which mr. snowden made his revelations. the senate intelligence committee and the house for years had known of this secret

surveillance program that is now brought forth through mr. snowden's abilities. a lawsuit brought against by senator rand paul, because we know. the nsa intended to make this program secret forever. in march, over the revelations of last year, before the senate intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence james clapper was asked by senator ron wyden, are you collecting data on millions of americans? moreover, senator wyden had issued that question 24 hours in advance so he could deliberate on it. mr. clapper answered no. a clearly perjurious statement. you are talking about the rule of law? in a democracy the people have a right to know what their

government is doing, because we get to decide what the policy is going to be. and when the snowden revelations came forth, the american people have forced changes from what the nsa was doing on a because of mr. snowden's revelations. this cannot not be found without the revelations because before that because of speculations, it would have been thrown out of court. you're just guessing that the government is doing this to you. he needed a rule of law function which was nonfunctioning before that time. i wanted to say about all the members of the senate intelligence committee who did not have the courage to do what a 29-year-old had to do for them. and it is especially outrageous

-- they had come as you point out, a duty to uphold and defend the constitution, including the fourth amendment, which they were not doing. in addition, unlike mr. snowden, they enjoined debate clause of article four section six, which indicates and established to document that any member of congress can disclose anything free from worry of executive retaliation. a senator read 47 articles of the pentagon papers into the record. they said that was off-limits. the constitution gives this community to embolden figures, congressional oversight, and that was the default position. i underscore that if it were not for edward snowden we would not be having this conversation. this is the inner work of what democracy is about. >> governor gilmore, bruce said earlier there has not been a single attack stopped by the program. do you know of anything that you

are aware of where we stop an attack because of the gathering of this information? >> let me say i did not say he was charged with treason. i was saying he should be charged with treason. as far as the espionage act goes, that is a direct violation of the espionage. ron paul said he should have amnesty. rand paul said he should have a life sentence. this is wrongheaded. we should underscore the rule of law and the obligations and trust we put in people who have security clearances. so the question that bruce has raised, the question of whether or not this kind of problem justifies all of this or not, i have to tell you, i have been the governor during the 9/11 attack. i have been in the pentagon, in the smoking holes of the pentagon.

when i was there i looked around at all the rubble and said this is a terrible thing. there were people here, and he said, you are within 30 people of peoples pieces who are underneath all this rubble here right now. over the past 10 years, since that time, we have seen a very serious problem of the growth of the attacks on this country and the potential dangers to this country, the people who can do a cyber attack, who can do an explosion to intimidate our civil activities like in boston. the dangers are significant, and i have to tell you there will be another attack on the united states. there simply will be. i agree here -- our idea here is to prepare this country and protect it to the extent it can come consistent with civil freedoms. we are americans. we can preserve the civil freedoms of the american people,

and that has to be our goal and objective. >> i want to get the charlie first. you are the first generation who grew up with facebook and twitter. is your generation reconciled to the fact that when they get up in the morning the government will be collecting their phone records as part of being an american in the 21st century? >> hardly. people asked, why do people care about the nsa? are they ok with it? the way i answer that, young people have -- on their twitter accounts. there's a fine line between what you tweet, posts, and the public and what is behind -- there is a secrecy lined the government has crossed, especially for the younger generation. there's information we hold on these accounts, whether it be twitter, or personal iphone, that the government has overreached, taken, catalog, and

hopefully it will not be used against us in the future. it is an opportunity for conservative activists to engage young people in this conversation. it is much more of a natural fit for the limited government advocates. when barack obama said the nsa is a problem, i will make all these changes, 10 minutes later he said go sign up for healthcare.gov. he said i will rein in the nsa. yes, privacy matters a lot. otherwise, why would we be doing all the stuff we are doing? >> turn the tables for you for a second. you defend what edward snowden did. if i told you i talked to several intelligence officers, he said that the methods they were using, unrelated to what the nsa was doing, is by

revelations he was making. how do you respond to that charge, and should he have used poor judgment in what he released? >> before i answer that, i need to go back to governor gilmore's statement. the more rampant lawlessness which is government violating the rule of law, which he seems to be indifferent about. he did not say at all that james clapper should be indicted for lying to the american people. total silence. what about the rampant unconstitutional actions of -- i want to complete my -- i want to respond, because that is one of several. we have a president who claims and has used the authority on two occasions to kill any american citizen that he unilaterally decides in secret is a danger. that is due process of law? that sounds like putin sending poisons to london. there is no due process served. the surveillance program is another example.

he decides he does not want to faithfully execute the law? he says i do not like the law against immigration. i will not enforce those. he does not like the laws against marijuana. i will not enforce those. all of these examples of government lawlessness, total silence on governor gilmore's part. when the government becomes a lawbreaker, it invites every man and woman to become a law unto themselves. >> governor, no more silence. can you answer? >> bruce, i have been on the front lines of this battle. i have been an intelligence agent during the cold war in germany. i had the secret clearances. i had the opportunity to work on behalf of my country. i was a governor during the 9/11 attack.

i resent your implication that maybe i do not have any interest in the civil freedoms of this country. the answer is that we need to have proper oversight. we need to have proper laws. if you are going to misuse the data, then they need to be prosecuted. there needs to be proper oversight by the congress. we need to have this kind of things. they had the opportunity, they had the opportunity to take this data and target a person that they know from other sources, human intelligence or other communications intelligence, that the person is a potential danger to this country overseas. and then they are in a position to find out who that person is talking to in this country. and they also have an opportunity to see who that person is talking to and to develop investigatory techniques against the possibility of attacks in this country. the fact is that the enemy may not yet be successful in getting

people in this country that can attack this country, but they would aspire to do that. they would like to do that. it is our responsibility to make sure that our authorities are enabled to do their job with consistency with the law. we can do both of these things. edward snowden, by revealing that kind of information, has substantially weakened this country against the direct enemies of this country. it is a direct violation of the laws of espionage of this country. he ought to come back and not be a coward and hang around in russia with people who are not really in favor of the success of this country. he should return to this country and make his case before a jury of his peers. people have done civil disobedience for years and years in this country.

martin luther king did civil disobedience. they come back and they face the music and face the justice and they make their case not only to the court, but to the people. edward snowden has not done that, and that is why he is not only a traitor in my judgment, he is also a coward. >> we got to wrap this up. that's have a show of hands in the room. who thinks they are safer here today because of the data the nsa has collected? show of hands. governor, this is one of your hometown crowds. has something changed? do we need to bring dick cheney back up here? >> the key difference is that there's a tendency here, and bruce is guilty of this of trying to make this black and white. it is a mistake for him to believe that in order to be protective of our civil freedoms and our freedoms as americans we must sacrifice the security of this nation. that is not true. i tell you there is danger ahead, substantial danger that

is coming. the fact is that we have to put ourselves in a position where we can defend ourselves, consistent with the law and consistent with the values of our nation. we can do these things. we are americans. we can do both. you do not have to rely upon a man who takes it upon himself to make the decisions, that maybe he is smarter than anybody else and he has the ability to betray his trust, but rate the security clearances, lie to his superiors, go to foreign countries, and betray the station. >> i think you have the facts upside down. >> i want to hear what he has to say. >> i want to add an unfortunate realistic reality, and there is a difference between a traitor to our country and a traitor to what they call an enemy of the administration. let's think about this. i want to add an element. is ted cruz viewed as an enemy right now to many people? patriots all across the country are being targeted by the irs, and i want to reinforce this, because of their police. there are congressional hearings because of that. in the same sentence are we

going to say it is ok that we can spy on other enemies? is the enemy being redefined right now by this government? conservatives are under attack, and me to understand that it sounds really good, with all possible due respect, that we are going to target our enemies, foreign and domestic, and prevent terrorism, but in a culture where what you believe it is under attack, especially by this administration with a very -- we need to be very careful using that rhetoric. >> what governor gilmore does not understand is that the fourth amendment stands for the proper issue that we test risks -- we take risks that other countries do not take. thomas jefferson said when government fears the people, you get liberty. when people for the government, you have tyranny. that is what it means to be an american. it is the object in the republic for the people to censor the

government, the government does not censor the people, and as regards who speaks for the american people? it was the intelligence committee who said the american people are too stupid to know what safety measures are required. that is why we cannot tell them what we're doing out there. when edward snowden revealed what was going on from the american people rally behind his concept of what the law means, not the intelligence community and mr. gilmore's. >> you know, john, i have been a trial defense lawyer. i have made motions of the fourth amendment which i have won behalf of clients. i have been an elected prosecutor. i have been the attorney general of virginia. i think i understand better than any body with the fourth amendment is about and how it works.

"i lie"? i do not think so. the fact is -- i lead the free congress foundation, and we have a program in which we address these issues. we circulated a letter, charlie. we were the ones that circulated the letter in the foundation that complained about the internal revenue service targeting existing conservative organizations. you're just not informed about what we are doing. but the fact is this, and this is very important -- this is very important -- you cannot disarm this country at a time of maximum challenge to this nation. the fact is we have dual challenge in this country. we have people who are nation states who are operating against us with very sophisticated intelligence services. we also have people that are not connected to any state at all,

like al qaeda, who are working very hard to create the undermining of our nation. under the new battles that are going on in fourth generation warfare in the 21st century, you can attack the economy of this country, and civilians, and try to undermine people's faith in democracy. that is the confrontation that is ahead of us. we as conservatives have an obligation to make sure that we do both of these things. and that we do not set one against the other. we do not set the freedoms of the nations against the security of this nation. that is not the direction in which we must go. we have to do both and that has been my record. that is the record of the free congress foundation and american opportunity, and that is what we must do.

>> i want to go to charlie for a second. this story goes back to 1993. it turns out they had a human asset directly attached to osama bin laden and finding out very early on that he intended to finance. we rely on technology today. are you worried we do not do enough of the old-fashioned intelligence? human intelligence? >> there has been this increase in trying to use supercomputers and technology to collect everything that we can in a more substantive, traditional manner. we could use the technology we have to the best of the ability that still respect fourth amendment rights and understand we have to be increasingly hesitant of the growth of government. >> he managed to human assets when you were an intelligence officer. are you worried we are relying too much on technology? >> we have to use all of the above. human intelligence is not as

simple as going on the streets but it is quite in links and hard job. sometimes it is not the most savory job, i must say. today in the modern world, you have the opportunity today with modern technology to my this is a modern technology world. this is a place where we are all connect it and we have the opportunity to have communications. this is a chance to utilize the weaknesses that our enemies have to use in order to communicate. this is a chance for us to do something like that. it is consistent with our values and liberties, consistent with our freedoms and we could do so. the point is, john, and audience, we do not dismantle united states defenses. we do not open ourselves up to attacks by people i assure you want to attack us. you do not open ourselves up to that. you reform this and you make sure that we stay consistent with the law and you have proper oversight and you demand that people do not conduct oversight that they are subject to the

penalties of criminal law. we have to make sure that we have true oversight by the congress, by people who are exposed to this and people we can hold accountable for oversight. that is what we have to do. it must be our mission. this is not the answer the united states. i don't care what you say. it will not be the answer. the answer will be a mature, reasonable approach where you preserve the information, empower people to protect our citizens and of the same time protect our liberties and our values and you can do that through the law and through a democratic process. >> it got some great questions coming in from the audience. tell me a little about the lawsuit was senator rand paul is going to go. where will the courts come down on this in your estimation? >> the supreme court will find what the nsa is doing is unconstitutional and the

government is relying on their key case concerns a few weeks collecting of phone numbers dialed by a criminal suspect who was allegedly harassing someone who they had plundered earlier and they have taken that one case regarding a register with the numbers dialed targeting a suspected criminal to justify collecting metadata on every single american forever with no suspicion of any wrongdoing and i think that is too far. five justices of the supreme court in 2012 indicated they were inclined to being open to re-examining this precedent and that is ultimately where we are going in but i want to underscore in the jurisprudence and all of these areas, public opinion, our values as a culture are very important. your votes about what congress should do, state legislatures, privacy is critical to what the u.s. supreme court will be doing

and that is why your condemnation of the nsa, writing and to make sure you give remedial legislation is very important. the last thing i want to observe that governor gilmore does not understand is our greatest national asset in defenses the loyalty and patriotism of its citizens who love their government because the government does not treat them as potential terrorists without cause. when the government believes all of us are traitors. the greatest danger is they will lose the loyalty of the american people. >> nonsense. the fact is that nobody thinks

that the average american out there is unpatriotic. if you have a system in which you actually focus on the enemies of this nation and you determine what they are trying to do to get at us and what we have to do in order to uncover those investigative propositions and investigative methods, then this is an appropriate thing. to blow this up and suggest there is some suggestion that all of us are under scrutiny or all of us are being suspected as potential traitors, that is nonsense demagoguery and it is not helpful to a discussion that we, as conservatives, have to have to find out how you protect this nation and protect the defenses of this nation for ourselves, for our children, for the well-being of our people and at the same time protect our values and civil freedoms. these are the choices we have to face. >> governor, they are collecting metadata on every call you have

made since may 2006 in perpetuity. why are they doing that if they do not suspect you of wrongdoing? >> they want to be in a position to find out who the bad guys are talking to. not to you, not to you, not to me, but we have to find out what people are doing and that is the approach they are taking. you can have perfectly reasonable ways of controlling this and having proper oversight. the alternative is we're going to end up with more attacks like we saw at the boston marathon and there will be calls for a greater security state and authoritarianism responses. frankly, demagoguery is not helpful. it slows the ability to get to the goals of we need to achieve. >> we heard a lot about oversight. you think congress has done a good job overseeing this program? >> not at all. >> i want to respond to one

thing. i hesitate to use the words "bad guys," because we are viewed as bad guys right now in this government. we are. think about it. all the nsa has to do is just watch the phone calls made from cpac and the irs would have their audit schedule for the next five years. i say that kind of facetiously but we are in a very unique culture are these branches of government are being weaponize to against us and the history of western democracy shows when the government continues to do this and target people that are dissident against the government, we for the activists of limited government will soon be the targets and we have to be very careful. >> i love this thing called twitter. some people want to know if you are available to date. i don't not that's relevant but good luck to you on that front.

>> i see a question here that i really like. if the courts are going to intervene in congress is going to get involved, is there a new middle spot that we can find here? is there a place where we can collect some data that you would be comfortable with? you feel we have enough to go after the bad guys? >> provides the justification for gathering data when there is probable cause to believe you are an agent of a foreign government. this is how we did it for hundreds of years prior to the modern efforts to try to create a surveillance state. it has been utilized to prosecute cases and most of the prosecutions, not all, post-9/11 have been tried in criminal courts with probable cause standard utilized to gather information and search warrant's. i think that demonstrates that we do not need the extraordinary

measures in order to be safe and have the rule of law prevail. it does not mean that there will never be another incident again. people say the laws did not work prior to 9/11 so we could not use them but that's like saying the laws against murder don't work because we have 17,000 murders each year yet we still have them. it is not a criticism of the rule of law that laws against terrorism occasionally may be violated like any other law. >> are you open to changes, governor? >> there is nothing law wrong with can directing assessment of any authority in determining whether they had gone too far. as i said in my opening statement, 10 years ago, i condemned the concept of awareness because i was suspicious of how it could be misused in the future. fact is that we can, in fact, have an appropriate rule and regulation, oversight, to make sure that we do not disarm this country. by the way, bad guys, i know you

picked up on that and gave me a little slapping around because i said that, but what we really mean here are people who are agents of foreign countries who may have at some point in dr. war with us and that could still happen. the realistic world that we live in that people unconnected to states who are part of international organizations, whether they are drug organizations that are so often used in this country or whether they are people who are, in fact, agents of international terror organizations who want to do away with all states, these are the types of people we have to be prepared to meet in the 21st century. as americans, we will be prepared to do it. not because we think some view that we are all paranoid. we're americans. we are conservatives. we don't need to be afraid of anything. we can set the rules down an appropriate way and demand that they be followed, that there is proper oversight and protect this nation as well. >> how old were you when 9/11 occurred? >> i was in first or second grade.

>> are you worried that in the passage of time that people become complacent and forget the horrors we experienced that day? as we move along, some of what we see in the audience is just euphoric reaction and with another attack the pendulum could swing back? >> 9/11 woke up a lot of people. she said 9/11 was one of the reason she got into politics and it's kind of an example. the majority of younger people don't need to know the sacrifices -- and they don't even know the sacrifice of the greatest generation of world war ii. absolutely we forget and that is unfortunately the pendulum of history and that is the way that things go. it is unfortunate the only way to truly correct that is education and connecting with these people who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

>> with regards to all of these particular agents of terrorist organizations and foreign governments that governor gilmore mentioned, they have been subject to search and surveillance under laws for 20 something years. there is nothing that i've said that would serve those authorities based on probable cause to believe you're acting as an aid to foreign government. it is not an argument to just throw the word demagogue around. your repeated reference to demagoguery is not necessary to discuss what we are debating. >> i want to get to a couple of quick questions. >> we have an obligation to understand the difference between legitimate concerns about paranoia, and demagoguery and we have to be prepared to accept the reasonable concerns that we have with respect to a surveillance state.

i was governor during the 9/11 attack. i was chairman of the national commission on homeland security and i was a person who in writing resistivity surveillance state and said that we should not go and give up our values in order, in the name of some type of total security, i'm on the record having said that. there's a danger when you have a rand paul who says, a traitor like edward snowden should get a slap on the restaurant the father who says perhaps we should have amnesty or the new york times who says perhaps we should have amnesty. this undermines the legitimate trust that we place and people who have an obligation to meet those dedications to the security of this nation. that is violated and a person should stand before the bar of justice and allowing a lawyer to defend him and make his case and let a jury of his peers decide what is right and what is wrong. that's the way we do things. >> we have run out of time here and i want to thank you all for an impassioned and intellectual

debate and if you stick around, the audience will want to talk to you some more. thank you again today. thank you for your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] now a panel discussing the potential benefits of reducing prison populations. texas governor rick perry outlines his states efforts noting that the use of drug courts has driven down the number of nonviolent offenders in texas. this is followed by ralph reed and freedom coalition calling for the impeachment of attorney general eric holder. this is just under one hour. >> please welcome pat nolan, director for the center for criminal justice reform.

>> good morning. i think you're going to find this one of the most interesting panels at cpac. distinguished panel for you. first, the 47th governor of texas, rick perry. [applause] next, the president of americans for tax reform, grover norquist. [applause] and third, former nypd commissioner. we are going to discuss the growing consensus among conservatives that our criminal justice system is broken and in need of major repair.

abusive prosecutions to the rampant expansion and a number of crimes to the high recidivism rate of over 40% to the exploding costs of our state resin systems, the second fastest growing part of the state budget second only to medicaid. conservatives concluded that our system has spun out of control. think of the resources wasted on on scooter libby, the duke lacrosse team, senator ted stevens. even though his conviction was overturned, it was not until after he had been defeated for reelection and his replacement cast a deciding vote to pass obama care. think of the swat team that rated gibson guitars. armedd they need an militaristic team to rated business? were they afraid they

were going to flush guitars down he toilet? who knew fish and wildlife had a swat team? think of the widening net of crimes for which we incarcerate people, using plastic bags rather than card ordered, transposing numbers on a report a body withfilling sand and inadvertently mislabeling a shipment of orchids. there's been an alarming increase in the scope and authority of government far beyond what most people would consider criminal conduct. you would think they would have enough trying to catch terrorists, murderers, drug kingpins. there are many dangerous people we need to segregate from the bureaucrats of overdone it. over 2 million americans are behind bars as we speak right now.

that is one out of every 100 adult americans. and federal prisons fewer than half are in for violent crimes. most are serving sentences for drug offenses. that's not conservative. it's wasteful. prison is for people we are afraid of but we are filling them with people we are just mad at. with onessed to work of the great men of our days and one of the foremost prison reformers of all time. he summed it up pretty simply. only a nation that is rich and stupid would continue to pour billions of dollars into a system that believes prisoners unreformed, victims ignored, and communities still living in fear of crime. fortunately, conservative leaders have taken the lead in trying to bring about reform of the criminal justice system. the effort started in texas were the growing prison population

was going to require three new money for roads, schools, or even tax relief. the texas public policy foundation develop solutions based on conservative principles of holding the senators accountable and meeting the needs of victims, offering opportunities for inmates to turn their lives around and to be tightfisted on the budget. the top priority was to keep them safe while bringing prison costs down. it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in governor pair a signed it herein the results are very impressive. the inmate population has decreased to the point where the state has no plans to build new prisons and has been able to close a current one. overall, reforms have saved texas $3 billion. most importantly, the crime rate is now the lowest it's been since 1968.

[applause] i would ask if you have questions for us that you please tweet #nolanpanel. >> the governor went to go get something. he has not left. out onought he walked me. ok, there he is. >> i just wanted to make another entry. on bernard and we were just talking about a number of the programs that we have put in place in the state of texas. i had a little more standard list of the programs we put in place and some of the concepts and what have you because i do think that what we have done in

the state of texas can be a model. those of you who heard my states need to, be laboratories of innovation. bobby jindal was involved with creating a seminary program which was one of the toughest, meanest old prisons of all time. he started that seminary and it , a made a huge difference faith-based way of affecting people in a very positive way. it'si'm not going to say for everyone and everyone should go do that, though we took it and appropriated it, some people

say i steal jobs, we just appropriate them and move them to texas. he also appropriate good ideas from each other and i think it's very important for all governors and all legislators to understand the concept that we will be in competition with each other, yes. it is the laboratory of innovation that occurs in these states. you see something in louisiana, in this case, that worked with the seminary program and we take it to the department of criminal justice and implemented it. now, it is a prosperous program there in texas. southwestern seminary that operates it. it is a private sector operated concept. degrees areivinity being bestowed upon an individual who goes through four years in the program.

then those individuals go to other prisons. it is a powerful, powerful program. it is making a big difference. i'm not saying it's for everyone in every state, but for the state of texas it is one of those concepts, one of those ideas that's making a difference. >> would follow the money you saved, you are able to put some of that money into drug treatment where in most prisons, addicts do not get treatments. it's a mess, less than 10% of the inmate to get treatment and in texas, every single one has treatment available because of your program. this was started in, i want to say, 2003. i'm sure someone will fact check me on that. it's been at least a decade that has been in play.

was a democrat district judge in dallas that came and sat down with us and talked about the initial drug court concept. it made sense. it hasemented it and worked very, very well. hope people from across the country -- let me put it this way. there are not many things at the president of the united states and his attorney general and i agree about. know what i mean? and attorney obama general holder both pointed to texas and what we are doing with our drug courts and with our recidivism rates, what we are doing in our prison systems. the crime rate in the state of as it's beenow

since 1967. [applause] california's prison capacity is approximately 180%. in texas it is 96% of capacity. we shut it prison down last year. [applause] that is the message all across this country. you want to talk about real conservative government? shutdown prisons. save that money. rates, lowerdivism them. that is what can happen with these drug courts. they use a lot of different tools. basically toudges have the power to decide by looking at each one of these. i hope we will talk about

mandatory sentencing. quick sentencing guidelines. >> you probably agree. >> i'm >> texas is a tough on crime state. if you want to murder somebody, texas may not be the place you want to go do that. we are not a soft on crime state. i hope we get the reputation of being smart on crime state. [laughter] [applause] >> you would necessarily expect to hear a discussion about criminal justice reform at the conservative political action conference. this is a big problem. it is an problem. it creates problems.

only conservatives can fix this. our friends on the left have zero credibility when it comes to focusing on reducing criminal activity. some moderate am a liberal thing where we shouldn't be here. this is punishing real criminals, violent criminals, and keeping the cost down so we do not have to lose the american taxpayer to fill prisons with people who were not a threat to other people. but if you leave them in prison of in a few get additional problems. this is about fighting crime smartly. i hope you will have a chance to take a look at it. there are a lot of center