for tuesday's washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. have a great morning. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> live on c-span today we will have remarks from senator casey. he will talk about the afghanistan presidential election next month. speaking at the center for american progress. we will have live coverage today at 230 you sent. -- 2:30 eastern. president obama will be hosting

the men's and women's division i champions in all sports today, tuesday he will be traveling to new york for several democratic arty events. wednesday he meets with the ukrainian prime minister to show some are for the new government. the announcement of that meeting occurring this weekend as russia increased the military presence in crimea. thursday is the meeting on whether to break away from the ukraine and join russia. we are planning coverage. the house returns tomorrow, one of the items in their agenda in ukraine called on the u.s. to oppose sanctions in russia. the vote on final passage was sponsored by claire mccaskill, addressing sexual assault in the military. , senators from the

task force have approved an all-night section -- session scheduled for the evening. watch live coverage of the senate today as usual on c-span2. the house, when they returned tomorrow, live on c-span. for more details, this morning we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. what can we expect to see a capitol hill today? guest: it is a slow start to the week as is often the case. the highlight, certainly for the c-span audience, will be that the senate plans to not come in until 4:00 this afternoon, but

once they start, they plan on spending all night in session. there is a large group of democratic senators, at least 28 members of the democratic caucus so far, who plan on giving for speeches around the clock, basically, on the subject of climate change. this has been in the works for a few weeks. this thursday they finally locked it in and finalized it. they are going to be in session all night, probably until at least 8:00 or 9:00 in the morning on tuesday with

speechmaking about climate change, as they burn through some unrelated to big-time on a circuit judge nomination. host: what are the biggest votes you're watching this week in both the house and the senate? guest: over on the house side, there are two highlights of the week. one is a set of bills that are designed to address what house republicans view as an undue overreach by the obama

administration in not enforcing laws. they want there to be more transparency when the administration officials opt against enforcing statutes, particularly at the justice department. they want to be able to have standing in order to sue to try to get laws to be enforced if possible. the other thing that is big in the house this week is that i weeks and they are supposed to take up legislation that would maybe once and for all resolve the so-called doc fix. is an issue of doctors treating medicare patients for long-standing situation where they face a cliff of payment cuts on a basically annual basis. they want to resolve that, and that is on the agenda for the week.

now once the senate is done with the climate change speeches, and once they're done confirming a few judicial nominees, we might well be already at wednesday. it is a week leading into a recess. it is not clear how much we will get done. in theory, they will do a child care and development block grant reauthorization, but that seems like it could all get pushed aside. right before he came on, you were discussing the situation in ukraine. the senate is looking to do something probably before they leave regarding an authorization of additional aid to ukraine, and maybe something on the realm of russian sanctions, anti-russian sanctions. that would probably trump everything. host: how contentious is that? is that expected to pass easily? what are the politics there? guest: it will probably pass easily once it is put together. it would seem for mature -- chair members men and this and corker would get easy passage. on thursday, secretary of state john kerry is supposed to be making his regularly scheduled

appearance to review the state department budget and the foreign aid budget with the state and foreign operations appropriations subcommittee which is chaired by patrick leahy of vermont. there is a kerry citing -- sighting. i wouldn't be surprised if that veered off topic into news of the day. host: we have been talking with neil's less new ski who covers on breast for roll call -- we have been talking with niels lesniewski. always a pleasure. guest: thank you. >> a reminder that the house will have a brief pro forma session today, live coverage on c-span. legislative edition tomorrow. the supreme court last week tested the limits on the intellectually disabled.

in 2002 the supreme court ruled who arecuting those mentally retarded was declared cruel and unusual punishment. the issue is the iq cut off of 74 determining intellectual flexibility. this past monday. this last about one hour. argument this morning is encased case 12, hall versus florida. mr. waxman? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, and atkins versus virginia the court held execution of persons with mental retardation. persons with significantly some ,verage intellectual function with an onset before the age of

18. because of the standard error of measurement inherent in iq tests , it is universally accepted have obtainedwho scores of 71 to 75 can and often do have mental retardation when those three prongs are met. the statistical error of measurement -- >> the line has to be drawn somewhere. in atkins we did say that we would leave it up to the state for the standards on this issue. what is the rule that we announce today? 70 is not ok? 75 would be? i am not quite sure. let me first take some issue, with all due respect, to your characterization of atkins. it is not that we leave it to the states to establish the

standards for the clinical condition of mental retardation. what you said was we leave it to , the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restrictions that we announced. the only real question presented in this case is just this. conditions versus opportunity to demonstrate mental retardation on obtained iq test scores, it cannot ignore the measurement error inherent in those scores that is a feature, a statistical feature. >> we did not base our decision on a study by the american psychiatric association and

others considered to be mental retardation. we based it on of what was the general rule that states had adopted. a large number of states had adopted 70. what do the american people think is the level of retardation that should make it impossible to impose the death penalty? we did not look to the apa or any of the other medical associations. we looked to what the states did. what has changed and what the states to? anything? >> i would like to respond with four points and i hope that i remember them. all, what this court said was that this court, number is, made it clear as it reiterated in miller versus alabama and graham versus florida that while the consensus

or perceived consensus is important, the ultimate test is this court's conclusion about what the eighth amendment does or does not allow. in making that determination on page 318, this court after reciting in footnote three the of mentalefinitions retardation's and in footnote five the point being out that 70 to 75 is the established cut off for mental retardation, this court said the following. "clinical definitions of mental retardation included these tests and because of these impairments, mentally retarded persons, by the clinical definitions, have the definition to understand what made the imposition of that penalty for

persons with that clinical condition unconstitutional. as to what the state did, the 18 state refer to statutes. not a single one of those statutes or decisions of the highest court of any state or appliedt in any state to the standard deviations without reference. the only statute that addressed arizona theas obtained iq. collects as -- >> as established by who? as established by the creators of the text. it is not something that

clinicians dream of or something aidd.s decided by the it is inherent in the test. both professional associations make it clear, as it is a statistical fact, it must be anen into account such that obtained iq test score is actually the result. >> for what purpose do they establish these scores? capable ore who is incapable of controlling their actions? is that what they are looking for? >> intelligence tests were were not created for the clinical

definition of mental retardation . they were created in order to determine a proxy for true intellectual function. their power, a true iq test score -- >> i am not talking about iq tests in general. i am talking about they used to pick 70, now they pick 70 to 75 is the upper limit. upper limit for what? i assume it is people who would profit from medical treatment. >> there are many reasons why a person's iq, a person's intellectual functioning, may be important. for a whole variety of reasons. medical, psychological, developmental. as a component of mental retardation, the eighth amendment. >> let me just clarify one thing.

tos is not limited to iq 70 75. across the board. >> the statistical concept of a standard error of measurement has applied to all forms of testing. >> it has nothing to do with the death penalty and mental retardation? sure that when archimedes announced his principle based on his experimental observations, he also recognized the standard -- >> let me come back to something similar to what justice sotomayor or started out with. view, does the constitution permit a state to establish any harm at all? can they do that? >> i think it can, because the standard definition of intellectual functioning below the median.

let me just explain. if the state is using an iq test score as a proxy for true intellectual function, it has to take into account the standard error of measurement. therefore states like mississippi and oklahoma that in fact establish a cutoff of 75, in our view, is constitutional as this court announced the class of individuals in atkins. >> when you say the standard error of measurement, you're talking about a degree of confidence? your submission is that there needs to be a 95% degree of confidence. ordered to i have the numbers wrong? a task that is normal at

100, 70 is two standard deviations below the main, if there is a standard error of measurement. this is not my submission. >> i am just trying to figure out what it means. >> it means that someone with an has a 95%q test score opportunity -- >> why 95%? where does that come from? 95%? whyou picking isn't it 90%? >> i am not doing any picking. >> they have had two standard errors for decades and decades. they recognize that universal consensus in footnote five of the opinion. >> which party has the burden of persuasion on this issue?

>> it varies from state to state. >> what about the eighth amendment? does it permit the state to assign to the defendant the that? of persuasion on can they assign that to the defendant? >> the short answer that we come to is yes. we believe it is entirely constitutional for the state to approve the burden of mental retardation on the statement -- on the defendant. insofar as it is a three-part , the logicalest consequence of that is that as

, the burdenponent with respect to problem or one is the burden of proving some average intellectual functioning in which a true iq score is probable evidence. told me that the state could establish a hard cutoff. in the case of someone who scores 75, is this not the case that there is more than a chance that the person's real iq is 70? how does that square with any burden or standard of proof that might be assigned?

>> first of all, this is a man who has a 71. >> as to the general issue, let me say it this way. the whole idea behind measurement error is that you cannot make a valid judgment that somebody does not have a true score of 70 or -- or below if he obtained score is within the measurement error. more fundamental than that, your questions suggest that diagnosing mental retardation, the constitutional inquiry, is a probabilistic inquiry into a person's true iq score. true iq scores themselves are concept from a hypothetical test without measurement error.

true iq is not the same as intellectual function. iq tests themselves, however perfect that may be, do not perfectly capture a person's intellectual function. >> i understand that argument, but it does not seem consistent to the point that the state can establish a hard cutoff. is the end of the inquiry. the person does not qualify under adkins. standardould not be a that i would endorse, but i in light of the consensus test that all professional organizations apply , which was recognized in atkins, a score that is above the standard error of for deviations above the mean would be ok. the point from congress that seems not to be true is that we know for a fact that many, many

people who obtain test scores of 71 to 75 in fact have mental retardation. thismay just point out in case that there were six experts who fully examined mr. hall or supervise the full examination cognizantl, they were of the iq test scores that he had received. , withoutof them opined hesitation, that he had mental retardation, functional mental retardation. >> but they did make a finding that he did not show adaptive behavior. if that was so, all of those experts that you referred to were speaking retrospectively to

non-evidence as to the defendant's current condition. >> that is correct, justice ginsburg. the state trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prongs two and three, but they did allow his lawyers to make a proper -- proper, pursuant to the state agreement that there could be a proper in some expeditious manner. that is joint appendix 158. one of the grounds that we appealed to the supreme court, in addition to the hard cutoff of 70, was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not allow us to put on all of our evidence about wrongs two and three and that these -- that the said thatpreme court

we do not need to consider that question, because we uphold the rule in sherry. >> what would you do with direct to the trial judge in his simple question? how does the defendant adapt in prison? thatxpert is attesting to that they did not know why they did not do it. something that he said he had in fact done in other places. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was that it was limited to the testimony of one of the experts who examined him and did the adaptive testing function. that expert did say that he did not test in prison.

again, there is a universal professional consensus that adaptive functioning is tested by adapt to functioning in the real world. not adaptive functioning that occurs after 35 years on death row. in fact, we also know to a clinical certainty that because mental retardation is a condition that is both developmental and not transient -- that is that there has to be a demonstrated onset during the developmental. , one does not emerge from the condition of mental retardation, unlike for example mental illness. could you talk about the condition of mental disability involved here? i want to go back to something you said in response to justice scalia. it was along the lines of -- what does it mean to have the disorder under the dsm?

it means ise thing that the scholars can talk about it and all focus on the same subject. does it have any meaning other than that? index orobjective characterization that certain people have certain mental conditions? does that -- is that what it means? >> that is exactly what it means. as this court recognized, it is a clinical condition. unlike, for example, sanity or competence. >> is there any evidence that society in general gives substantial deference to the psychiatric profession in this respect? to studies that we can look to see of that is true or not true? >> i am not aware of anything that suggests that society doesn't look too professional

valuations to do this. in fact, if one looks only at florida usesystem, mental retardation as a determinant for things other than the death penalty. they use the existence of the condition for educational remediation, vocational rehabilitation. in those instances, as we pointed out in our brief, florida does apply the standard error of measurement. there was an argument about economic theories. little different, because in that case it is the court's own jurisprudence. do you think that we defer to psychologists or psychiatrists anymore? it must be much more, as the court has pointed out this is a clinical condition.

a condition that can only be appropriately diagnosed by professionals. change their mind, counsel. this is the same organization that once said that homosexuality was a mental disability. now they say it is perfectly normal. their minds as to whether 70 or 75 is the new test for mental retardation. >> the latter is not true. two things that are not in dispute in this case, we are only here talking about the first prong, which is significantly sub average intellectual function. nothing else. everyone agrees, all the states agree, they all agreed when atkins was decided, that the clinical condition is defined by three elements and that the first element, significantly sub

average intellectual functioning , is defined as a person whose intellectual function is two or more standard deviations below the mean intellectual function of contemporary society. >> can i take you back to a question that the chief justice asks? he asked where this comes from. it is the test that has the determination that this is the margin of error that gives you 95% confidence. i guess the question here, or one question here, is why do we have 95%? 95%do we need and confidence level? you could say it either way. gosh, we are putting someone to death, we should have a 100% confidence level. or you can take it like justice alito's point, that the burden of proof is on the defendant

here anyway, so a 95% confidence level seems awfully high. we should ratchet it down to 80%. why, for this purpose, do we have to go with the test makers determination that five is what gives you a 95% confidence level? >> the fact that two give you a 95% confidence level is a statistical fact. i take your question to be -- why do clinicians and professional associations use .hat >> no, that is not really my question. i understand why they might use it or a wide variety of purposes, but why is there determination that it is useful for wide variety of purposes, why is the state stuck with that for this purpose? >> this goes to the youth -- the reason they use it. because of the inherent imprecision in testing in general, but particularly

testing for the presence of something like relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people who for a variety of reasons obtain a 70 or 72 that in fact have mental -- because evidence of intellect and valuation of intellectual function involves clinically much more than a test score -- look at what happened in this case. all of the iq tests that were were accompanied because they fell within the standard error of measurement. accompanied by the administration for further intelligence testing. >> is that what you want? i go back to justice sotomayor or his question. 95% is all over the law. it is a clash of bass classical measure of when they have confidence in the fact that the

regression analysis seems to establish a fact. it is in tort law. whether jury trials are discriminating on black people in the jury. it is all over. i assume that you are not asking us to muck around with that number. i don't know what the consequences would be. so, you get the same test six times, reduced from five percent. so, maybe one 100th of one percent. >> to your later point -- >> about what i said. >> you are not right in some of the things you said. thelast thing is not right. last thing is important. >> but i want my thinking to the last thing being dependent on everything before the last thing. am i right before the last thing? , generallyust

speaking, a feature that is widely adopted as a confidence level and is particularly important here because the constitutional guarantee announced that adkins was against the execution of persons with mental retardation. >> i do think that this is important. is there another way of proving liability? suppose there are not multiple tests. suppose someone is given 25 times the personal scores. one time the person scores 72. how would you deal with that in a state with a hard cutoff? >> this is the last point i wanted to get to. before my time runs out i want to point you to page 10, footnote three of the reply brief, which sites the handbook of clinical diagnosis. on those pages it explains why when you have a situation of

someone who takes more than one test, the appropriate determinant is very much not the average. it is what is called a composite score. the composite score is different. for people below the average, because you have to take into account the fact that the regression towards the mean and the fact that a person takes 2, 3, or four tests -- that changes the bell curve of standard deviation. the example given in the handbook is very similar to this case. there were four tests. they averaged 72. , when theree score is a statistical explanation, is 69. the standard error of measurement is actually larger using the composite. that is why as to the last point, simply averaging scores

does not, in fact, give you a better handle. because there are so few people who scored significantly below , whatans of multiple test clinicians use and is a that takes analysis into account the different documentations about what a standard deviation below the mean is. >> that is not my understanding and is not consistent with it. what would be your answer to my hypothetical? multiple scores above the cut off, one below. what would you do there? know what florida does. >> what does the eighth amendment require, in your view? >> that if a state chooses to use iq test scores as a proxy for intellectual functioning rather than a full inquiry into intellectual functioning, it cannot refuse to employ the

standard error of measurement inherent in the test. >> but you would not need to go on at 176? >> our view is that a state, consistent with atkins, could say that if you have no obtained score on a valid, properly administered, up to date test that is below 76, you may consult usually be precluded. i think that many clinicians would go ahead and do adaptive functioning, but our view is that states like mississippi and oklahoma that set 76 as the cutoff do in fact comply. >> thank you, counsel.

general windsor? >> may it please the court, this court should affirm the decision of the florida supreme court because it represents a reasonable legislative judgment. i would like to start by responding to your question, justice, about what you do with multiple scores. in fact, in this case we are not talking about someone who had one or two. when you look at the test that is the gold standard, there were test scores of 71, 72, 73, and 80. as we understand what the petitioner would have the court to, it would be to take those lower scores and subtract numbers from them. that is not consistent with the material that he cited in the footnote of his brief. if you look at the example, they statistical examples, but they did not simply take the lowest. is fairly obvious, you could

not have a situation where, taking this case, you have a low iq on one and a high on 80 and say at the same time that there is a 95% chance that his scores between 75 and 85 and a 95% chance that his score is between 66 and 70. >> you want us to decide this case as establishing the principle, the significant principle where you have a criminal defendant condemned to who scores ader 71, 70 2, 74, and 80. that is ok? that is all you're trying to persuade us of? having tot very happy go through this in future cases, where you have someone who has 69, 73, 74, and 81. don't you have a more general principle other than the

particular scores in this case being good enough? >> we do have a broader principle, which is that when you are dealing with something in thental diagnosis medical field, there is good reason for the court to do what it has historically, deferred a reasonable legislative judgment. >> let me ask you this. suppose that the american psychiatric association and all other professional associations do use the scm. suppose that. it seems to me that what the state is saying here, in declining to use that, is that it declines to follow the whodards set by the people administer and interpret the test. >> well, i have two responses to that. if there were a constitutional rule that the eighth amendment required adoption of all kinds --clinical criteria

>> this is not clinical, this is statistical. butkeep saying clinical, the scm is not a clinical judgment. >> that is right, but the justices question, as i understood it, was -- how can florida deviate from what was suggested in best practice? >> this has nothing to do with best practices. this has to do with what the test givers say is the right way to look at their test. >> the test makers published the error. how manysuggesting deviations. >> no, they are not challenging the standard deviations. they are saying that if you are going to preclude functioning of the other factors of your test

based on a score of a test that says it has five, you have to use the scm. it is very different. they are not telling you to take that number and declare the person intellectually challenged. you just have to apply the other factors. >> it is a three-pronged test. extent you would have to demonstrate the existence of all three. >> i thought that you don't have , you to it, in your view don't have to go through the second and third language? not if on the first is 70 -- , homestead does not come into the picture if it

is above 70. >> correct, your honor. it is a three-part test. the mental community and petitioner do not dispute that. he would have to demonstrate something unique. what is wrong? there may be agreement among you thatis, but adkins says there are three parts, as you say. one part is significantly sub average intellectual functioning. that is the first part. so, what you say is that if it above 70 on a couple of iq tests, that is the end of it. we don't go further. they say they want to tell the jury or the judge something. judge, i have an expert here. thank you. an expert. i want to tell you, your honor, that number 70 is subject to

error. it could be a big mistake. 68 to bringmeasures in the witness. five percent of the time he would say that it is within five points either way. that is all they are going to do. there could be other ways of going about it. maybe you give the same test six times. it may not eliminate, but it might reduce the possibility of error. or there could be some other way to do it. you call in a psychologist and that you would do the same thing if you wanted to, on the downside, i guess. lead people not to be executed. that is their position, i think. they get to do it on the upside. .t does not sound so terrible

this is not need to be an independent proclamation. questions the kind of i would love to have. >> what is wrong with that? up to 75 -- it >> that does not raise the limit to 75. and the expert informed just what i said. and that is what they want to do, i think. what is so terrible about doing it? wind upyou would increasing the number of people mentalld be eligible for retardation. >> only those who are in fact so, this isarded

notst an evidence you are someone who is standard proof within challenging. recognizes that the best measure of your true iq is your saidforth you are to have done is declared the and we do stop their actually wind up with individualized iterations,

allowing people to make their best case about why they are not eligible. essentially, you're cutoff stops for a personracks who may or may not even have a 70, let aloner stopping people in their tracks and he does still -- quite see does still have individualized >> with respect to this critical question, we said that you cannot execute someone who is mentally retarded . now he says that you are preventing me from showing you testbecause you have an iq , one part of a three-pronged test, an iq test that says not

mentally retarded, but the iq , like not using the margin for error. >> that is a very recent development. if you look at the dsm-iv, which timers in existence at the and we have not been able to reassert the assertion of mental retardation by pointing to the fact that he is the one who sees the young woman, who pushed her who drove the car with her topless following in

the next car. could the state bring that in someone who is mentally retarded enough, sub mentally retarded, so as not to subject to theor death penalty, certainly could not have pulled off all of this. this is not someone who is significantly mentally retarded. could the state show that? >> on the adaptive functioning portion of the test, historically that has been all about iq until very recently. they talk about how people react in the ordinary world to difficult situations. some of what you talked about mayor may not be relevant. but responding to the earlier question, it is that florida is making a finding that you cannot satisfy.

>> it seems to me that to follow from justice kagan's question, a very important question, we have been talking here about the inaccuracy, to some extent, of iq scores. us frome prevents getting a better understanding of whether an iq score is accurate or not. we cannot even reach the adaptive functioning prompt. .ou prevent it at the outset incidentally, you do not prevent it under 65. >> you would have to satisfy all three. with respect to your question about adaptive functioning evidence on iq, we submit that that is not the case. that is why there are discreet inquiries. doesn'tvery close case

that eliminate whether or not the iq test is exactly as reported or if it is subject to some increase or decrease depending on the evidence? no, your honor. that would be the position of the modern dsm. again, it used to define the intellectual functioning as being determined exclusively. make no mistake, there is an adaptive function. you have to prove intellectual function, adaptive function. >> that was under dsm-iv? writes that has been a part of it for decades. what is changing is the way the medical community looks at how to measure iq and what to do with it. >> at the very least you give someone an iq test to scores a 71.

they might have that iq, or we know from the way these margins of error work, he might have an iq of 69. you won't let him go to the ,ther half of the test and show you know, and show that he can function in society in the ways that adkins seems to care about. notwithstanding his iq score number might be accurate or might not be. >> since adaptive functioning as a critical component, even the guidelines -- no matter your deficit in the adaptive functioning, you do not qualify for that diagnosis without also showing substantial deficits in intellectual functioning. >> i know that there is less emphasis on the iq test than there was before, but when the iq test was used, was it always used as a fixed number?

>> the scn has been part of the equation. yes. >> they have not changed that. >> we are not disputing that. wax that has been the same in all medical diagnosis? >> the application has been a component for some time. we do not dispute that. we do note that the emphasis on iq is increasing and that the medical community is now suggesting -- >> they are not arguing for that, just that we should stay where it has always been. >> i think that what they are arguing is that you should do this, apply in the same way as clinicians because it is the same way that clinicians do it. if you go down that road it is difficult to understand where that would stop. thoseit not the case that who use those tests always require a 95% confidence level and always must?

let's suppose that the school on the other side of the scale wants to put in gifted children. that if you haven't obtained score of 130, you are in the gifted child program, even though there is the same percentage that would be the case with respect to someone of an iq of 70. would there be something wrong with that? >> no, your honor. >> are there places that do that? >> it is up to the places relying on the iq. the decision-maker relying on , for your example like want to bey might overinclusive or particularly restrictive. that is one of the areas where what we're dealing with here is fundamentally different, because

we have an adversarial process with respect to contested cases and a burden of proof that is not shared in the clinical setting. reasons whylot of it is difficult to make a diagnosis in the clinical setting. particularly now, where the emphasis is on services, making them available to people, where you do not have the same disincentive to be overinclusive . >> general, could the state change its statute to say they are using a new threshold? >> i think the answer to that is would be more difficult. what you want to do is go back and look at the consensus that was a part of adkins. i think that before making a decision on those different thresholds, you have to look at the whole picture. >> explain that to me a little.

i thought that this was very long-standing. everyone seems to agree that it is 70 for many decades. maybe forever. why would the state say no to that? what would you look at? isthe special interest here being more restrictive, because of the malingering incentives that many would have to score .ower than they would you would not have that in the clinicals setting. >> that is where you have the ?ther prompts >> certainly you have them. >> and the juncture for the cut off, you have the ability to defeat the other two, which are stopping them on a test based on a test score that has a margin of error recognized by the

designers of the test. .> we are not stopping them all we are stopping is the consideration of the others that cannot be satisfied. in the briefing this idea that it necessarily has to precede a certain way, it does not. if someone could not satisfy the adaptive functioning, it would not necessarily be the iq. >> then i misunderstand the case. i thought the florida court held, in effect, that the iq was a threshold. if you had over 70, you could not make the showing. >> that is correct. what happened in this case is that there was a motion by the state recognizing that the iq scores at issue were all above 70. notion, evidentiary where you have to prove his --

have to prove causation and damages. >> than you did not get to two or three. >> that is right. but by the same token, you do not get to three and so on. it is simply a recognition that you have to satisfy all three. today, under the law of florida, a similar case , thean iq score of 71 prosecutor points out to the judge that that is higher than 70. the defense lawyer says -- your honor, i would like to bring in my test expert who will explain to you that even though this , there are some fairly small but significant probabilities of ever that could impact as high as 76. and he explained to you that that was the situation and, therefore, can i have him

testify? does the judge need to let him testify or not? >> if i understand the without 71 or below he would not? >> it is the dispute in the case. they would want to present the expert, you would say no. >> that is right. >> my first question, which i will not repeat, this man has been on death row for 35 years? >> yes, sir. 1978 was the act. >> 10 years after his first conviction? >> that is right. the hitchcock setting came in the late 1980's. this long?one on 1978 is when he killed this woman? >> there have been a number of appeals to this case. but yes. people that10 florida have executed, there has

been an average of 24.9 years on death row. do you think that that is consistent with the purposes of the death penalty and is consistent with sound administration of the justice i apologize. >> consistent with the purpose of the death penalty, the purpose it is designed to serve? consistent with an orderly administration of justice? with theconsistent purposes of the death penalty, certainly. of course most of the delay in this case, it was five years before they were on the atkins question. has the attorney general of

florida suggested to the legislature any measures or provisions or any statutes to expedite the consideration of these cases? >> there was a statute enacted ast spring and it addresses number of issues you raise and it is presently being challenged by the florida supreme court. i would like to talk about the -- >> why do you have this policy? is it administrative convenience? >> the people of florida have decided that the death penalty is not appropriate huntsman for the most harvard crimes -- the most part of the crimes. >> why do you have the 70 threshold? >> florida wants to ensure that the people who evade execution because of mental retardation are ones who are mentally retarded. if we apply the rule that the wouldoner presented, it

exempt people. >> some of the people may be mentally or retarded. >> they are not mentally retarded root -- read -- if they don't have an iq score of 70 or below? you don't believe that. this is a tool. it functions and one prong of a three prong test. >> it is the first prong. to --ter what your a debt your adaptive deficits are coming you must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that you have an iq of 70 or below. if you say there is a 95% chance that my iq is between 68 and

70%, you might qualify. there is a very small chance. you have a 95% chance that your true iq is within five points of the measured iq. you can have an equal chance of having a 66 or 67. if you take the test over and over, you will score near the peak of that belt which is where your true iq would be. into that 95% threshold is a small likelihood that is your true iq. with each additional test you above 70, the odds would go down. it is something not the case that you can say he has a 72 so he has satisfied the first prong. matter, -- as a

factual matter, every wechsler test was over 70. it 71, 70 2, 73 and and 80. what are the odds that with that group of testing that his true iq is under 70? it's possible. you can exceed beyond the 95% confidence level area -- competence level. knowing disputes that the true iq is capable of being measured. the iq test is what the community has and is the most objective of the three prongs. that's why it is important to focus on that. it is the most objective test we have. many states retain that bracket? >> there are eight states that have both a hard cutoff and a 70

deviation. it has been expressly recognized by the states. there are a number of other states that have statutes similar to florida but have not been interpreted one way or the other area >> of those age, how many actually have a fixed cutoff and how many have asem? i thought it was only four. >> always have fixed cutoffs all of 70. >> that's something else. >> and most of the instances, they have had a statute that was interpreted the courts. >> that's what i'm saying, only four have it interpreted without the courts. >> i apologize. >> i thought only four had interpreted without using the s.e.m. we have alabama, florida,

idaho, kansas, kentucky, north carolina, virginia and maryland which has repealed the death penalty. courtld add that the respectfully add this. >> you have one minute remaining. . cherry whichersus is the florida supreme court decision that establishes rule that if your lowest score only score is 71, you are out and that applies whether you take one test or multiple tasks, here i am quoting from the supreme court decision in jerry that " it is a universally accepted is a that thesem universally accepted given and as such should logically be considered in determining whether a defendant is mental retardation. what the court said was -- we have to read the plain meaning of the florida statute and the florida statute says to standard

deviations. the notion that the florida legislature -- may i finish my sentence - it says the people of florida have made a considered decision not to account for the se is baselessm and belied by the legislative report that accompanies the statute which said 70-75, thank you. >> council? that oral argument was from last week. the supreme court is taking a break from hearing oral arguments this week. several cases are coming before the court later this month and in good one dealing with the contraceptive mandate in the health care law, specifically whether secular, for-profit corporations are entitled to an exemption on religious grounds offering plans that cover contraceptives. the court will also hear arguments in whether secret service agents can be sued for keeping protesters blocks away

from the president during public appearances. those orals to cover arguments later this month. coming up live, in about an hour, we will go to the white house for today's press briefing with press spokesman jay carney greatly expected here about the white house meeting with the new head of ukraine government. the briefing is scheduled for noon eastern and we will have it live on c-span. coming up this afternoon, we will bring you remarks from the pennsylvania senator on afghanistan. a member of the foreign relations committee, senator casey will talk about next month's presidential election that country in the state of the u.s.-afghan agreement. speaking at the center of american progress, live coverage charts at 2:30 p.m. eastern the house and senate are in session this week in the house will return tomorrow with a resolution imposing sanctions on russia. you can see the house live here on c-span and the senate will be in today at 4:00 eastern to vote on final passage of legislation sponsored by missouri senator

claire mccaskill dealing with sexual assault in the military. starting ons night session on climate change. you can watch the senate live on c-span two. the conservative political action conference wrapped up its meeting this weekend and they cast their votes for rand paul. thee was a discussion on crisis in ukraine moderated by the former under secretary of state paula dobrianski. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon, everyone. we will spend some time focusing on the crisis in ukraine. i want to take a minute and give you a little bit of context as to what is happening. action conference wrapped up its meeting this weekend and they cast their votes for rand paulu. in november of last year, then president yanukovych turned down the opportunity to become associated with the european union.

that association would have resulted in economic reforms and political change in ukraine. ukraine is in dire economic straits. could make a real difference and its way forward. as a result of his unwillingness to find that association, protests, massive protests took out on the streets inkiev and throughout ukraine. people were protesting and put their lives on the line because they wanted to become associated with the west and the european union and secondly, they were also protesting against corruption. corruption has plagued and set ukraine back. fast-forward, february of this year, three diplomats from europe went to ukraine to try to broker a peace between the opposition and those demonstrating on the streets and with then president yanukovych.

you had the polish foreign minister, you had the french and german foreign ministers and also, by the way, the russian ambassador was there on the scene. agreement was concluded and that agreement was signed by yanukovych.nt the agreement calls for a change in the constitution, an agreement to go forward with economic yanukovych. and that there would be new presidential elections to be held before december at the end of 2014 and there were other terms that were established between the opposition and then president yanukovych. it was signed by president yanukovych and those three diplomats. then was in the news -- and that there would be new presidential elections to be president yanukh disappeared.

he ended up in moscow and then the next thing we saw was that there was a russian aggression into crimea. this comes as such a crucial time. ukraine is politically gripped and economically in very dire straits. what will this mean for the united states, for the west, for ukraine, for the globe at large? we have a great panel and i want to invite them to come out and join. is the cliff may who president of the foundation for the defense of democracy and as a foreign affairs contributor to the "washington times." [applause] ers,lso have paul saund executive director of the center for national interest and associate publisher of "the national interest." we will hear more about the crisis in ukraine, thank you. [applause] gentlemen, let me go to you

immediately with that backdrop. the question on everybody's minds first and foremost is why support andt putin advance this aggression into crimea which flies in the face of international legal agreements including the osee and the budapest memorandum with u.s., u.k.,ich the and russia signed when ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and the agreement was the protection of the ukraine sovereignty? >> if i had to boil it down to one reason, and i'm speaking from a russian perspective in trying to explain their thinking rather than from my own point of russia an american -- has been quite frustrated over the last 20 years by the way europe has developed.

many russians feel that russia does not have the kind of role in europe and in european security that they like. and they are especially concerned about the fate of ukraine which has a very close historical, cultural, and other ties to russia. what you see here is essentially president putin trying to tell the united states and western europe that you cannot decide the future of ukraine unilaterally. you need to consult with me. >> there are measures you can use which are -- which conform with international norms. the basic reason he did this is because he can. he looks back at this and knows under the tsar's russia had an empire as well as the commissars and he thinks they have an empire under him.

sarah palin was here recently. i want to give her a compliment because it turns out she can see russia clearly from her house. [applause] saw vladimir putin clearly, more clearly than two american presidents. president bush famously looked eyes and saw something akin to thomas jefferson when he should've seen something terrible. we had the reset with russia which assumed what was in your question that russia wants to live by international norms and wants to abide by international law, that vladimir putin is an aspiring democrat when in fact, he is a very convinced autocrats who thinks the way we try to govern the world, the idea of an international community, is very silly and he will take advantage of that. in 2008, he chopped off a piece of georgia.

now they will chop off at least the crimea from ukraine. does this matter to the united states and to the west? should we care about what is happening? >> we better care because putin is deciding what else he will do next. this is not the extent of his ambitions. we don't want to see a crisis next him latvia or lithuania or perhaps in poland or other parts of eastern europe. we better think about whether we will send a strong message of our own or a weak message. he is not the only tyrant in the world looking at this and learning lessons. among those lessons is under the budapest memorandum, yes, the ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed in exchange for which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.

the supreme leader is among those saying don't give up nuclear weapons no matter what the western diplomats say. we are not in the western community. >> i have to agree completely grinds -- itunder undermines the nuclear treaty. i'm sure iran is watching this very closely as our countries like japan. >> and china which is throwing its weight around as well and knows it has influence in washington. certainly, i agree very much that it does matter. there is no question that it matters. we are really talking here about the future of europe and beyond that, about the future of the international system. i would differ a little bit with cliff on the question of russia

doing this because it can. there are many things that russia can do that it does not do. russia could be sending f-300 missiles to iran. at this point it is not. russia is defending an iranian lawsuit because they signed a contract to deliver those missiles and at the request of the united states, they did not. they also decided they wanted to keep the money which did not please the iranians too much. they certainly have the option to deliver those missiles. the iranians would be quite pleased with that. russia's not doing that. has done is entirely inappropriate. it violates international norms and violates a lot of agreements. but the question of russia doing things because it can, i think

that is not a helpful way to think about it. let's talk about the united states, the west and looking at options as to how we can have potential influence. do we have influence on the situation and secondly, if we do, what do you use? are there political or economic instruments? other other options on the table? has mostrue that putin of the high cards especially when it comes to crimea. to take theme able back into russia and we may not be able to stop that. i think this will have an impact on his thinking further down the road. i think we should not take steps simply to honest russia. this is a good occasion for us to take steps to strengthen

america which will send the most important message and perhaps stop him from going further. to take ado not begin peace dividend and bring our military down to pre-world war ii levels. we don't do that. that idea. [applause] time to lay off soldier so we can hire more irs officials. obama said asident few years ago that he was going to have in all of the above energy policy and it has not happened. we should be utilizing every source of energy we possibly can like the keystone pipeline and encouraging entrepreneurship and all of our gas and making sure that our energy supplies are abundant and diverse and we can export to europe to begin to reduce the dependence europe now has on russia and eastern europe in particular. you may agree with may.

- me. the g six and the g7 was expanded into the g-8 with russia. it never belonged. it is not productive enough or it is not a democracy. i think russia should not be in the g-8. we should be discussing that. we should begin to turn that club into an association of democracies and not pretend that those who joined will become democracies. >> what about the wto? there have been those who have singled them out because russia has used instruments, economic instruments, too strangulated ukraine even prior to this aggression. what about the wto? >> it is less on my list because everything on my list will be something that strengthens the united states and bolsters american leadership, economic power, military power, diplomatic power in the world.

i think united states has to shoulder the burdens of leadership because there is nobody else that can do it. the international community will not do it. let's see if paul agrees. >> i certainly agree on the military. i certainly agree on american energy. i think those are two critical areas. g-8, we can decide in this room that that is something we want to do. there are six other countries there. many of them are in europe. europe gets about $120 billion from exports to russia. europe has about 180-$200 billion in foreign direct investment in russia. whether european governments are per pair to agree to that, i'm not sure.

the foreign minister of france said that they are not yet prepared to consider canceling ral sale of two mist helicopters to the russian navy. i think we are getting a little bit out in front of the europeans on that issue. >> what about freezing assets? that has been put on the table. it would be about those russians complicit in these actions. >> i think freezing assets is a little bit of a comical idea on the part of the administration. the united states congress already passed 50 months ago, act which gaveki the united states government the ability to do that. what ill intentioned, russian after 15 months would have significant assets in the united states? earlier this week, the administration, when they

announced they would extend this authority to this issue, they expose lee said we have created this authority but we are not naming any specific people. there have already been three days for anybody who did not take their assets out in the last 15 months to get to work on that. i imagine the number of them called their bankers fairly quickly. i don't consider that to be a credible policy. where i would look and it extends a little bit some of the things cliff was saying is let's talk about europe. our european allies are trying to develop their own energy resources. i certainly think the united states should get behind that. there is some american companies exploring for shale gas in western ukraine. that could make a huge difference in terms of ukraine's

energy dependence on russia and i think that is certainly something that should be supported. to think after the situation and we will hear from a number of our allies about the disposition of our forces in europe. that is something we have to consider carefully. >> let me ask both of you -- the foreign minister of sweden pleaded just this morning that the ofce helsinki monitors tried to get into crimea and they were not able to cross into to actually verify the allegations going on. the statements made that the russians and russian speaking ukrainians, that their lives are in jeopardy, and they sent monitors but they could not get in. said therethat and is a movement of russian troops in the area. what does that portend? no monitors? troop movements?

where is this going? >> it is more than a violation of international norms. when you send your troops into a whengn country especially they are not wearing proper insignia, that is a violation of the most basic international law. it's aggression. knowsossible that putin exactly what he is going to do. it's also possible he is waiting to see and judge the reaction and then he will decide. i don't know whether he thinks i would like to have eastern my sphere ofrt of influence are part of russia proper. areasld be like other were the status is murky. you might think it's better not to have that and simply let the government of ukraine know that no decisions should be taken that displeases him. he is looking at a number of possibilities and it's hard to

fathom his strategy. if he were to cut eastern ukraine off from western view the he could be western ukraine as a ward of the european union. it would be a basket case of a country. he might want to do that. i don't know that he has made a decision to do that. it is at least possible to begin name his decisions as we go forward. crimea is probably realistically is probably lost. >> do we anticipate this aggression will go further and split ukraine? >> we've got eight days until the referendum and crimea. -- in crimea. if we had come in this country,

and effective administration, i think eight days actually would be enough time to try to work with moscow and with others to point crimea in the direction of much redder autonomy, somewhat like it had under the ukraine 1992 constitution when ukraine had -- when crimea had much greater autonomy than it has now. with the leadership we currently have, i think it's very unlikely that heavy lift will be accomplished in eight days. when we look at eastern ukraine and compare it to crimea, crimea is roughly the size of the state of maryland. geographically. there is about 2 million people there. thehave, population density is t too high.

eastern ukraine is a totally different situation. sending the russian military into eastern ukraine into major urban centers where the population is divided and sometimes more divided than in crimea, that could potentially be very costly and certainly a different kind of decision in sending the russian military into crimea which certainly was empire and russian the russian republic of the soviet union. until 1954. it is just a different situation. that point.me to cliff is correct in suggesting he has not probably decided. for the russian leadership, that

would the a much tougher decision than the decision to go into crimea. >> there are a lot of variables that are hard to predict with confidence. we know what will happen in this referendum. 60% of ukraine identifies as russians. it has long been a place where russian military officers retire. there is the basic stalinist vote does not count, it's who counts the votes. is worth the audience knowing that there have been quite a few polls taken in ukraine itself. by the way, for both east and west, the numbers come out higher in a variety of polls when ukrainians, both russian

speaking and ukrainian speaking russians -- when they're asked to you want to be associate with the easter the west, always the west has come out ahead. war?is a new cold >> i don't think it has to be. i think that is one possible outcome. i think we need to be very careful moving forward in how we think about this situation. thought one school of which is that we need to isolate russia. some say that is the answer to this problem. the challenge we have in the world today is that it's the world today -- it's 2014. it's not 1990, it's night 1980.

isolating russia is not really something that the united states can do unilaterally. the european-russian relations but there is also china out there. even if we were to succeed in bringing our european allies along with us on a strategy of isolating russia, isolating russia, in my view, basically pushes russia into far closer alignment with china then it's in now. majorart to again see russian arms sales to china. do we start to see russian support for the chinese territorial claims? then we have a new cold war. it could potentially be a dangerous one. >> i don't think we have a new cold war. i hope we have a time when we take off the rose colored glasses.

when need to understand who it is we are dealing with. administration has been more solicitous of our enemies then our allies. we had a ms. view -- a misguided view of many people around the world. we do not have this wonderful international community with shared values. we should be one among many equals and we should remind people that they should be on the ninth -- right side of history. there andemies out those who have different geopolitical interest than we do and different values. if we recognize that, we can form policies that will be protective and defensive of the free peoples of the world and expand freedom in the world. [applause] >> we get one last question. which way is ukraine going to go? >> i think it will be split one way or the other.

if crimea stays in russian hands, it is split. putin that, how much decides to take his largely in his hands. >> i think crimea is probably lost. i think the loss of crimea drives the rest of ukraine much more firmly toward the west over time. we need our european allies to step up to the plate and help make that happen. >> we also need to be there, too. thank you so much, gentlemen. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we will have more from the annual meeting a couple of minutes. about half an hour, we will

go live to the white house for today's rest reefing with jay carney. we expect to hear more about the situation in ukraine and possible reaction to news today that the inspector general of the health and human services department plans to investigate problem's erland has had with health care exchange. today's press reefing will get underway at about noon eastern. this afternoon, remarks from pennsylvania senator bob casey on afghanistan and the upcoming presidential elections. that will be live starting at 2:30 p.m. the house in the senate are in this week in the houses back tomorrow with a resolution imposing sanctions on russia. you can see the house live right here on c-span. the senate is in today starting at 4 p.m. eastern with a vote on final passage of legislation dealing with sexual assault of the military. the senate plans and all-night session tonight to urge congressional action on climate change. you will see the senate live in her companion network, c-span2. back to thecpacthis afternoon, m pennsylvania winter meeting with a panel looking at how

demographics will shape the national elections and what they mean for the future of the republican party. this is about 35 minutes. >> the cheap seats are jammed in the premium seats are not. what does that tell you about the republican party and the conservative movement? it's nothing you did not already know. this is an exciting panel. you all know what it's about. it's a peek into the future by two pollsters, strategists. strategistpublican airs.whit he has been doing this for many years.

you remember is clintonformer president was having difficulty with his personal life. coodell was bashing him even though he is a democrat. thewebsite said he left democratic party in 1988. another site says he is a democrat pollster. we're going to embarrass him when he comes in here and ask if he's ais it democrat and bashes the democrats, why? let me tell you about myself. i was the chief political correspondent for the questions and times until this moment.

have you ever gotten a leak before? is everybody seated? cpac attendees are skeptical according to this poll about barack obama.

those are the two leaks. i want to thank you. i still have more to do. i am going to move over there and i'm going to bring out pat caddell and whit ayres. [applause] wait a minute. are you coming out? there he is. i am going to sit in the center and you take a seat on the right. pat, are you there? is he still in the house? ok. ok. i think i've told you something about these guys but what i am going to ask is for a brief statement from each of them.

what do you want to be known about -- how do you want to be thought of by people? >> today or in general? >> just right now. >> i just want them to hear what i would have to say and understand i am trying to present something new. we will see. we will find out. >> i think that is modesty. what do you want the audience to think of you as? >> at the end of my career, as a look back on it, i have worked with a lot of really impressive leaders and strong conservatives. we have worked with marco rubio since his early days when he was an asterisk against charlie crist. i will tell you that marco rubio is the ronald reagan of the 21st-century. i would love to be known as president marco rubio's pollster at the end of my career. >> this is an example of a

washington objective. -- disinterested objective. by the way, if anyone out there wants to ask questions to me, do it to @cpacnews #hallowpanel. everybody got that? hello? thank you. you are going to take us down the road to the future, right? you are going to do that by presenting pictures to us. >> i am. if we could call the slides up and we will take a quick look here at what is happening to america in the future and we will take a look at the challenge facing conservatives as we go forward. let me thank you all for showing up here.

it is 63 degrees and sunny. it is the best day we have had in washington in weeks and you are in here listening to this panel. that is hard-core. i really do appreciate it. let's take a look at the challenge facing conservatives as we go forward. this is the 2012 presidential election by racial category, and on the far left, you will see that mitt romney won in a landslide among whites, not hispanic white voters. he won 59% and that is a higher percentage of whites than ronald reagan won in 1980 when he beat jimmy carter. if you look across the other way, you will see the african-american vote which was almost unanimous for barack obama. you will next see the hispanic vote which was an overwhelming 72% for barack obama.

you will see the asian vote which was even more than the hispanic vote for barack obama. asians voted for bob dole in 1996 but they voted for barack obama. you will see the other race on the far right-hand side which will tell you that races other than white voted overwhelmingly for barack obama. this is a problem. why? this is a problem because hispanics are the fastest-growing minority group in the country and they have voted generally for democrats, but the margin is very dramatically. it makes a huge difference whether you get a gigantic margin or a small margin, particularly in states like florida, colorado, nevada, new mexico, increasingly georgia and north carolina. mitt romney got the lowest percentage of the hispanic vote

by any republican candidate in a two candidate race since watergate. in the 1990's, you had ross perot dividing it up but you also see the fair -- that is george w. bush in 2004 winning not only 44% of the hispanic vote nationally but the majority of the hispanic vote in the sunbelt states. some conservatives are disturbed at the prospect of winning hispanic votes. bush showed how to do it as has rick perry and many texas republicans demonstrated how you can do it. bush did it by reaching out very aggressively in the hispanic community. he campaigned in the communities, he advertised on hispanic tv, he supported immigration reform, and he spoke a version of spanish like how he had a version of english. it can be done. it can be demonstrated how to do it.

that is important because the percentage of the national electorate that is white is declining at an increasing rate. what this chart does is go back to 1976 when pat caddell was running a presidential campaign for jimmy carter. 88% of the electorate was white. 16 years later, when bill clinton was elected, it was also overwhelmingly white -- down 83%. the second 16 years, from 1996 up until 2012, whites went from 83% down to 72%. they declined to five percentage points in the first period. 11 percentage points in the second period. we have some good news and we are going to have a great 2014. we are going to hold the house and pick up the senate. it will be a great 2014. [applause]

one of the reasons why -- we have a couple more. the percentage of whites in the electorate is about five points higher in off-year elections. it is going to be about 75% or 76%. this is a chart of americans alive today by age and if you look at this, the oldest people are on the far left and you will see people who are seniors are overwhelmingly white. you will start to see in the far right-hand side americans alive today who are age five and younger. that is 52% white, not 80%. a quarter of the kids alive today in america are hispanic, about 15% are african americans. all you have to do is take this chart and have the younger people replace the older people and you will see a revolution is going to occur. this is a census chart for what is going to happen over the next

50 years. the top line is the percentage of the population that is non-hispanic white, 62% on the left-hand side of the chart you will see the red is hispanic and you will see that growing dramatically. many of you are young people. many of you when your kids are getting ready to apply to college, whites will be a minority in the united states population. what does that mean for conservatives? it is an opportunity, to me.

conservatives can be very successful in the new america we reach out and adopt inclusive tones and aggressively campaign in their community. thank you very much. [applause] >> what did we just hear? you are going to the podium? >> i am going to do what i came here to do and we will discuss whatever you want. >> i think of myself as a moderator still. pat, hi. what are you going to talk about? ok. >> i can do this. let me do a few things.

i have never been an opening act to sarah palin. i never imagined. i was here last year and causes some problems because i attacked the republican consultant lobbyist class as a racketeering operation that had not only blown the election but it eluded the system and i just want to say, i don't want to reprise -- they understand one thing. they just hold on and they get all the money back and that is what is happening. the people more willing to lose as long as they could preserve their situation are now in charge of your great hopes for 2014. now their new strategy is to stand for nothing. it is what i call the surrender caucus. i am on a show which is a very highly rated program on sunday nights at 7:30 p.m. on fox news.

we talk about this all the time. not to it was a decision contest spending, all of the issues, the debt limit and have barack obama produce budget, the notion has been that if we say nothing and do nothing, we will win in 2014. that is a hell of a way to lose. it has repercussions. i want to say a word about my own party. i am an apostate for both of them. parties as the two the corrupt party and the stupid party. they actually have a lot in common. johnson turley got up last week, who was a liberal democrat, he said i agree with barack obama's

programs but you have no right to discard the constitution. is where wasme everyone else? no one else speaks up and i had seen this on benghazi and the irs which should be something that frightens people. it is most of all about economics as people have paid the most price under obama and they are the basis of his coalition which is lax, hispanics, women and young people. they have had the greatest loss of income, and issue the democrats have not been able to manage. i want to talk about a problem in this country. there is the rule of law. when harry reid decided to have nuclear option which president obama and joe biden and everyone else up pozen when the republicans were trying to do it some years ago opposed it

because you should not overthrow the constitution. the president decided that he can rule by fiat with without regard to the constitution. let me tell you what the republicans did not do. the republican leadership in the ,enate led by mitch mcconnell as i call them the ambrose burnside of american politics, the worst several that's the worst civil war general ball but he always surrenders to the democrats. the republican leadership said we don't like this and we cannot wait to get it. sometimes you should stand up for the country. the republicans in the senate could have shut the senate down and said we will not function without unanimous consent in the operation of that body. they could have said we will stand up to the constitution and stand up for runcible and they did not. [applause] they never do.

,bamacare and the whole idea let's not say anything and everything will work out -- there is no alternative. there is no party position the way there was in 1994 worked quite well. there was a republican party position that says here's an alternative. it just resumes that you can get by with doing what you wish. the lack of a narrative -- when the president got up and said you can keep your health care program, it was the greatest lie of the new century. [applause] -- by the way, the american people have come to expect it. say politicians lie about everything big or small it's not like they are just fibbing like they did in the past, it is threatening democracy. a large majority think rule of law is in jeopardy. i want to speak about the irs.

is republican leadership happy with the irs going after the tea party. can't anybody figure this out? they are threatened by them just as democrats will be threatened by outsiders. that's why john boehner, there is no committee investing -- investigating government abuse. they occasionally do these things. if they were serious about the irs which threatens every american without regard to party because that is a slippery slope, imagine what will happen in the future with other presidents. move to de-fund the irs. the country does not think they should either. they let the woman who gave money to obama and let the stuff go on because they choose and -- are allies in the big lobbying establishment.

i sai -- i said putin had taken his measure of barack obama and found his neville chamberlain. on national security, there's nothing that tells you more what's wrong with the political establishment of this country than benghazi. [applause] i believe john boehner cares about his country but apparently, it's about fourth or fifth on his list. members of the80 republican caucus demanding an investigation -- this is not about politics, it's about the truth. the central truth is not been addressed. where was the president that night? [applause] secondly, who invented the talking point? they did not descend from heaven by some fairy godmother. [applause]

let me just say this -- i do not blame john boehner and eric cantor. i blame you. 180 members are taking you for a ride, pretending on one side that we will have a special committee. they could bring in the speaker or mr. cantor and mr. rogers and mr. mccarthy and so you either put in a special committee or you were gone tomorrow. [applause] if they were serious. they are not serious. this is the problem with our politics. part of the benghazi story is the media. if the real bob woodward was alive, this would not happen. there are many who poopoo benghazi. it is not about politics, it's about the truth. it's about dead americans and 2/3 of americans believe there

should be a special committee and 60% of democrats believe there should be. what the hell is going on here? the politicalelite does not want it. and i wanto tell you to react to what the future is -- we have a system designed but only has liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans on a very flat axis. there are different paradigms. i will give you the first tenet which was syria last summer? the president talked about a redline. republican leadership in the democratic leadership all united to support the president. the american people rose up and said the hell with you and stopped it. it was not an organized movement. it just stopped it. we see the same thing with the

nsa where we have the politically established lindsay graham's and others telling us how great it is that they are spying on you and everyone else in the country are saying this is fine. in september, i was involved in a research project. it explored whether or not there is a another politics coming. i'm not here today to go through it. i will tell you this -- and that is whatg, that blue bag i call the candidate smith project for it candidate smith is about a new paradigm an organization of politics. it is based on the 80% of the american people who believe the american dream is harder to attain. /3 of americans think the system is rigged. if you are trying to work hard, you cannot achieve the american dream because the system is

rigged. 2/3 of americans now believe that if you work hard, you cannot succeed. you cannot make it, you cannot change your cell. this violates everything we believe about america. 65% of theantly, american people who believe that their children will have a lesser future than they have, the religious tenet of our civic religion in this country is you give your children better than you had. if you kill that idea, there be an idea but there will be no america. that existed before america. that vision of what to do -- i will read you a conclusion about what i have been working on. the alienation level, the american people believe the system is rigged and his corrupt.

at least 75% or more believe the government does not operate with the consent of the people. that is a prerevolutionary moment. there is a difference between the current political structure -- wethe american people are dealing with an alternative universe. we are dealing with another alternate universe. people yearn for true reform. the resurgence of america. t you do not