Like oh pwplbama has said all wars must end its on the scope of the president s war powers and the use of military force. They include the draw down of u. S. Forces and the rise of new groups like isil that threaten regional stability. This past february president obama submitted the proposal if a new force organization targeted at isil. The responsibility of congress in responding to new threats. Whether the nature of new threats like isil require us to rethink traditional conceptions of the war powers and the optimal ways of the powers should be exercised. Were fortunate to be joined by a distinguished panel of experts. Ill introduce the panelists to you and theyll speak in order and after that well have time for questions and answers. I would ask in advance when you have a question please come up to the mike phones to ask your question. First well hear from Lieutenant Colonel. Hes at the department of law at west point. Hes the u. S. Army judge advocate who was deployed to iraq as the chief Legal Advisor to a combat brigade. Before being assigned to west point he served as deputy chief of International Law division at u. S. Army europe, so a discontinue wished career both in academia as well as on the ground. Hell be follow by ryan goodman. Hes a professor at nyu and coeditor of the just securities blog. He formally taught at Harvard Law School where he was a professor of human rights and humanitarian law and director of the human rights program. Hes a member of many distinguished boards and american journal of International Law and department of states fiftiesadvisory committee at International Law and Foreign Relations and published widely at academic journals and elsewhere and his book socializing states which he cowrote had the certificate of merit. Then well hear from julian. Distinguished professor of law at hofstra law school. Focuses on the relationship of International Law and skopbs doingsal law and also conducted an Academic Research on a wide range of topics including chinas relationship with International Law. Hes received many honors including membership in the american law institute. Hes the coauthor of the u. S. Constitution and has written numerous academic articles, book chapters, sim pose i cant as well as writing in numerous popular journals from the wall street journal to the los angeles and new york journals from the wall street journal to the los angeles and new york times. His blog is read by thousands worldwide. Were fortunate tonight to have such a distinguished group of experts. Ill turn it over to them and theyll speak in the order they were introduced and well move into the question and answer portion of the segment. I think i get it go first so jonathan thank you for the introduction and thank you for having me. I have to give the standard d. O. D. Disclaimer. Im here in my personal capacity so any remarks are not for west point. Ill give the lay of the land and the framework on the law as it exists and then turn it over to professor goodman. So our topic is president ial war powers. Any time you talk about president ial war powers you have to start with the basic concept that in our system the president any time he uses force has to have two legal justification. Internationally were talking about primarily the u. N. Charter. The u. N. Charter article ii. 4 sets the standard that states do not use force and thats the baseline and gives us exceptions. The primary exception is resolution or acting in self defense and then under self defense you have several different types of self defense. So, thats one legal justification that the president has to have. We can get into that tonight if anybody wishes to. The conversation leads in that direction. In my sense as in regards to isis thats not as controversial as domestic legal justification which is the second the president has to have. So thats probably going to be our primary emphasis tonight. I will talk about what are those potential legal justifications and then get into what are the specific ones hes relying on in the case of isis. Any time you talk about the legal justifications you start with the constitution. Congress the way the constitution divides the war powers between the two primary branches of government, congress and the president , the congress has the greatest number of lifted powers in this area, so they have the one power to declare war and the power to punish offenses against the law of nations and have more greater list of actual powers that relate to the National Security area as compared to the president. So his primary president is the commander in chiefs clause. Its very straightforward and the president is the commander in chief but doesnt give us details of what that includes. We know or most people are relatively confident it includes some power to defend the nation. We get that from the indications and then the way the president has acted over the years since the founding of our government many. So thats his primary power. He relies on a general Foreign Affairs power. We know he has the power to make treaties. We know that he has the power to receive ambassadors and appoint them and from that we derive a general idea that the president has the power to execute Foreign Affairs. That includes some ability to use the military. The president is the chief and that alone is a grant of power that can he use in this area. So those are the way the powers are laid out generally in the constitution. Most people are relatively comfortable saying that. Founders intended congress to be involved in this area particularly in war powers than they are today than the way it was originally drafted. Over time weve seen this evolution of power towards the president. Why has that occurred . For several different reasons. Primarily the president is a aoupb terri actor. He has the ability to act independently. Where congress has to muster the will of 535 people. So thats often a problem. So what often happens the president acts and Congress Even where many of them may disagree with his use of power may muster up the political well to check him. When we have seen over time is like i said is power evolving toward the president. Doesnt mean that the congress is no longer important at all in this area, right . They still have a significant role to play. Primarily flowing from the idea that they are the branch of the government that will supposed to declare war. Thats become obsolete but yet we have modern day equivalents of that. So theres definitely certainly still a role for congress in determining when we use force and the president is always on stronger ground if he can act. He can say, look, i have the power to do this whether congress is with me or not as a backup but the president always looks to have the support of congress when he can to act. So in the particular instances, specifically with isis but in lot of our conflict what is the stat khoer authority that the president is relying on. Its primarily the a. U. F. M. From 2001. It was passed right after 9 11. It gives pretty broad power but its in specific regards to 9 11. So it says the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist thats occurred september 11, 2001. You can see the intent of correct me if im wrong in that language was focused clearly on the terrorist attacks appropriate force against on on 2001. Yet the president has relied on that for many of uses of force that we have seen like places like yemen and somalia and hes relying on that for use of force against isis. Thats the basis that hes currently relying. There are other authorizations out there. There are others specifically for invasion for iraq in 2003. The problem with that one however is it was specifically directed at the threat created by Saddam Hussein. Theres been talk it says that the president can use force to end threats coming from iraq is the basic language. It was clearly directed at Saddam Hussein and the threat here isnt coming from iraq. You can make the argument it does apply. The other political implication is that that would link president obama with the president bushs policies and the invasion of iraq which he has separated himself over the course of his political career. Although that one has been thrown around, thats not the one that the president seems to be primarily relying on for his use of force. And then of course the problem with 2001 is it was directed as those forces directed in 9 11. Thats somewhat problematic given that we know that isis is in conflict with alqaida which is the force that we link with 9 11. But the administration would argue that, well icy flows from al kaied da in iraq that we were fighting there from 2003 until we left in iraq and therefore it is an associated force. You can see just from the language its kind of problematic and were now 15 years later and the president is still relying on this aumf. Thats what has led the president to ask for a new d at umf. Oh, by the way the president made a speech a year or so before before this the conflict with isis arose in which he said the president i the president and future president s need to stop relying on aumf. He says it cant last forever. Hes using that very same aumf. You can see the problems that arise from that. Thats pushed or encouraged the president to ask or request this new atumf the one he proposed and has got this specific language in it and gives him some interesting leeway that professor goodwin will talk about. I want to orient you about what hes asking for. He says as the president is authorized subject to limitations to use armed forces of the United States as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate against isil or associated persons or forces. If you go down further he has some restrictions. It does not authorize armed forces in crime comebat operations. Its not previously used in documents. What is an enduring offensive ground operations and he says the authorization shall terminate they years after the date of the enactment. Unlike the aumf of 2001 the president s proposing this this one includes a builtin determination date. Thats the final thing i want to talk about from my perspective. What would be their role in the discussions . I dont speak officially or personally from the official position but i can talk to you about what the military wants in any operation as they want clear objectives of what they are expected to accomplish and two they want operational responsibility. Can i imagine the leadership in the department of defense thinks that three years is problematic in and of itself because its tarb arbitrary. So i can imagine that can i say its likely the leadership and the department of defense will not participate in the public debate on of defense thinks that three years is problematic in and of itself because its tarb whether it should be or not be passed because that would go against Civil Military relationship, the idea its in charge of a military. As a cultural matter generally the military leadership doesnt participate in this debate. What they probably are doing behind the scenes, both with the president and with members of congress is talking about Operational Flexibility and the concern thats this idea of no enduring offensive ground operations is a limitation and more specifically theyre concerned about this idea of a 3year limitation, all right . So my sense is that the impact that will have it will just make this harder for this to go forward. Because if the military leadership is telling the president theyre concerned about this and maybe the president says okay i got it and this is still important for me for various reasons but theyre talking to members of congress and saying, this is the concerns we might have and that will influence some members of congress and may influence them as to whether or not this goes forward or not. These are the considerations and thats the general layout. So i think with that i want to turn it over to professor goodman. Professor. Professor thank you, thats a terrific overview. Professor goodman. I think ill drill down on amuf. Just to give a sense of where were an at in terms of whats happening on the hill, two things to think about, one is drilling down on the concerns that the 2001 amf dont authorize Current Operations that are on going and thats the deep program. Theres been i think ill drill quite a lot of bipartisan statements on the hill especially when representatives from the Administration Come before congress saying we really arent buying this theory that isis is somehow underneath the hill especially when representatives from the 2001 a mf. Because it was about the attacks on 9 11. Governmentments argument is not what some people think which is that the notion isil is an associated force of alqaida central but rather than isil is a successor of alqaida. So that helps because the Administration Says, okay, even if there is fighting between the two groups it doesnt matter, because were not saying theyre in association in a battle against the United States. Rather isil was diseffective and broke apart and now is an independent group but theyve taken president mantle and they are the true inheriters of bin ladens campaign. Thats the argument. Partly the presumption is that they were unified. It was a little bit and clear even in the first years in 2003 when the United States was fighting alqaida and iraq what the relationship was because alqaida and iraq was not following the command and control of alqaida central. This was a lot of infighting until they broke a part. Some people say what about the name . It was called alqaida. There was a name that they ascribed to them. They did it in some sense to try to tell the public that these groups were related and that Sadam Hussein and the situation in iraq was related. But that was our u. S. And forces to the name to the organization. Theres one open question were they ever unified before they broke apart. The second one is their organizational goals. Does isil or did it have the same organizational goals as alqaida. One of the reasons they split apart is because our u. S. And forces to the name to the organization. They had ambitions and didnt pose a threat to the u. S. Homeland and theres been no evidence of imminent or likely threat against the u. S. Homeland. When the group formally was alqaida iraq when they withdrew they stopped attacks. There was no real threat, even to the point of summer of last year the white house sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying we no longer need the 2002 amf because there is no threat. Some people cited the they hadbeheadings of american journalists. It started happening after the u. S. Started its air campaign, not before. So it cant be a justification for the air campaign. So theres an inherent weakness which nobody heard of before and this concern about the relationship organizationally between isil and alqaida central and their organizational goals as to whether or not they have split apart and still fighting the fight against the United States. With that, the concern is that if the president is not acting under an existing stat authority then hes not acting with support. Everything colonel said i would agree respect the president is stronger both as a constitutional legal matter but political matter. Because troops on the ground want to know that the American Public and congress is behind them. So that some statements that are being made by members of congress, senator cane made it this week, how can we have people sacrificing their lives in iraq and syria in the u. S. Armed forces and congress isnt doing its job which is to come forward and vote on this authorization and design it how they see fit and give that kind of support and approval for the president s operations. Recently on the hill, just in the last 24 hours apparently there is a letter circulating on behalf of the democrat and republican member of the House Intelligence Committee representative adam shift and republican representative tom cole asking boehner to please put this to a vote so congress can step up. I think that kind of goes to the question that we have for to us night on this panel and just kind of an important quote id like to try to take out of that letter where they say, quote, eachedation additional day undermines our authority and role in matters of war and peace. If we refuse to debate a resolution on the question any nation faces we see a power that the framers delegated to the congress. Thats the chief concern that operates behind the scenes as to whether or not well see congressional action on the white house proposal. That said, i do have deep concerns about some aspects of the white house proposal and the first one i want to highlight is the definition of associated forces. For the first time what the white house wants is Congress Actually ratify the notion we wont go to war one entity but what ever its associated forces are. Currently it operates under the framework under the 2001 at umf it might be in the Arabian Peninsula in yemen but thats what they have given. The words associated force dont appear in the 2001 atumf. I think it would be good. It would codify an existing practice. One thing remarkable is a conspicuous omission of the element of the test. The United States has been operating for several years and what jay johnson the former counsel of the Department Defense said other organizations that join the fight alongside the Principal Group similar to the way the terminology is used it thats the definition weve been operating under which gives a lot of justification to why the United States have been in conflict with alqaida and another organization operating out of yemen that joins the fight. What is conspicuously absent is the term cobelligerency. In fact what the administration has said without this cobell i think rensy test there is a concern for slippery slope. Maybe they arent connected in a cobelligerency cooperating with isil but organizations that might pop up and assert they are also operating under the brand of isil. Thats a concern. Because it doesnt seem to fit the standard but the administration is already invoking those kinds of far flung groups. Second concern is even if you apply the same test isil is not like alqaida. Theyre organizationally very different. Im some sense at peace with the ways they used the associated forces test over the past 14 years. Its fairly narrow. For the first time it really listed an exhaustive list that it considers to be an associated force i would say its fairly narrow but thats because alqaida had a High Standard for anybody becoming an associated force. Isil is considered to be a more populous movement. They say lone wolves who want to stand up under our banner can. Theyre opportunistic. Theyre working with the bathists. Its part of the reason they have territorial success in iraq. It means a bunch of other forces, individuals that might associate with them. The last is following kind of thought. I think its very likely that congress isnt going to enact an authorization for isil. In that scenario the United States government will be acting under the 2001. It does not need the authorization. They would like congresss biin. They have the authority under the 2000 atmf. So in the status quo its not something we need to worry about just for the draft language. But in the status quo we want to know the answer to the question of do they think they can apply force to wannabe organizations and the like or do they in fact use the jay johnson standard. The second point i wanted to highlight is also something the colonel touched upon which is the sunset clause. Just a couple of thoughts. I wouldnt call it a termination date. Because the idea is not that they would terminate. The idea is that congress would get a second vote. If there is a three year time frame, three years from now congress should be back at the table reauthorizing and tailoring the authorities according to what the situation is at the time. Some say that congress shouldnt be involved because isil morphs and these organizations change rapidly and thats why congress shouldnt authorize but i think the fact that the organization morphs and the conflict is almost unpredictable the degree to which it morphs the added reason not to determine nate authorities but reup authorities. Thats another indication of theyre American Forces would know they have the public behind them. One argument against having a sunset clause is it sends a signal of weakness to the enemy. They think we are only in it for three years. If we say we are unafraid to have a reup in three years, that sends a signal of weakness. Just to wear another hat a great Political Science scholarship has a finding that democracies wage and win wars more than nondemocracies. This actually sends a stronger signal to be enemies because you have to justify your actions to the public and then build support. It says the more democratic states are, the way they wage wars, they think is important because it requires numbers of congress to justify to themselves and then inform the public about why the war is justified. The last point is there is a curiosity in the white house s isil amf. It says nothing about the 2001 amf. That is a logical. If the u. S. Administration says it is operating under the 2001 amf and doesnt need any authorities and the plate on top and isolate amf for three years lets say it terminates, and the white house will just go back to the two dozen one amf. It defies 2001 amf. It defies logic. You can just revert back and continue along. The best answer seems to be that you need to have a sunset for both or neither. The last thought is whether or not it is appropriate to have an authorization for force. It is actually a part of the dna of our constitution. The thought is that we in some ways already have sunsets on authorizations to use force. It is in the appropriations clause of the u. S. Constitution. Congress cannot appropriate funds for longer than two years. Hamilton writes that the purpose behind that was to have a buyin from the Congress Every two years. A part of our structure is understanding we Want Congress at the table. You kind of lost that sensibility. Thank you for allowing me to join a very interesting and important topic. And join this panel on this topic and to all of you for coming here in such grade whether. Great weather. I want to take a step back and look at the same issues that professor goodman discussed. But, from a broader constitutional perspective, try to locate where we are from a broad, constitutional discussion and come back to some of the more technical detail issues that professor goodman addressed. It is also Campaign Season for the 2016 presidency already. It is worth thinking about where are we Going Forward with this. What will the future administrations do any various scenarios . I want to open with a quotation from someone who is a teacher and a practitioner in the area of war powers of constitutional law. His name is barack obama and he says the president is not have the power under because addition to unilaterally authorize a military in any situation that does not involve being an actual or imminent threat to the nation. That statement is from the 2008 version of president obama, not the 2015 version. Candidate obamas view of the war powers as expressed in that statement while he was a candidate, which i call the congressional list view of war powers, is incorrect. The strongest evidence that this strict view he offered is incorrect is that he himself has abandoned this view in his actions as president. This is important for setting the president s prec edence but also any broader perspective as we go forward in trying to understand the allocation of what powers are under the constitution. Let me begin by outlining building on what the kernel explained, what i call the two views of how war powers allocated under the u. S. Constitution. I want to give a little more detail. I will call the two views congressionalst the congressionalist uses the primary use of military force to congress. It does allocate many more powers over military and Foreign Affairs to congress than the president. The main basis for this view is in the text of the cost of tuition. Congress has the power to declare war, raise the army and navy. Congress has the primary responsibility for managing all aspects of the armed forces, including the ultimate decision as to whether to use the armed forces in some sort of military action or Armed Conflict. This view has many adherents. Many legal scholars. In opposition to this is what i would call the president ial ist view which is that the president has an inherent power to deploy American Armed forces in a war or Armed Conflict even without specific congressional authorization. It offers a different reading from the constitution. It holds of the commanderinchief power gives the president the decision of how and when to use the armed forces including and a conflict. The definition of war primarily serves to give formal notice that the u. S. Government will treat a foreign country as an enemy under foreign law. That is not about controlling whether or not military force will be used by the u. S. The president view also is enjoyed by many legal scholars. It enjoys a lot of support and the practice of president ial administration throughout history. The difference is not as large as it is sometimes seen. Even the most extreme president ialist agrees congress has the power to fund or not find ella terry action. The most military action. The difference between the two views boils down to according to congressionalists, president ialists argue the president can choose to use armed force if necessary to further the National Security interest of the u. S. Even in the absence of actual or imminent attacks. This leads me to my second point. While present obama campaigned as a congressionalist he has embraced the president ialist view. Especially in libya in 2011. The men military action of the u. S. During the administration has been in iraq and afghanistan. In 2011 when the u. S. And nato allies intervened in the libyan civil war, there was no such specific authorization and president obama did not seek an authorization from congress. His department of justice offered Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion which rejected the view and defendant would be an action as a constitutional exercise of the president s inherent hours to use inherent hours to use military force. It is worth noting this opinion did not claim the libyan civil war constituted an actual threat to the u. S. In this opinion, the assistant attorney general rejects the congressionalist view. Accordingly, the absence in immediate selfdefense interest doesnt mean the president lacks military authorization. The opinion what on to advise the president to engage in unilateral, military action to protect National Interest like preserving regional stability and supporting the Un Security Councils credibility and effectiveness. Libya is not the only case of the administration to parting from the congressionalist view. President obama was careful to state he believed he was already possessing the Constitutional Authority to strike syria for the use of chemical weapons. In a similar posture and current discussions over actions of the islamic state. Last summer, the administration suggested a could justify the use of force in iraq under the president inherent powers. One example was the president s action to protect and click minority trapped on a mountain in Northern Iraq surrounded by isis forces. At that time, the thought was there was no articulation under the 2001 amf. They were humanitarian justifications which were linked to the president s inherent powers under article two. The president has evolved as legal position on the isa lacks in to embrace the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. That is a very difficult legal argument to support. I suggested is a reason that it is not rolled out there is authority under the constitution separate from the 2001 amf. It has not ruled out the possibility that article to could provide legal justification for some if not many military actions the u. S. Is currently taking against isis. The rationale for the 2001 libya intervention is still out there and can support a constitutional basis for u. S. Action against isis. Let me conclude with a third point. Even though i think we can see there is a solid strong textual and historic basis for the congressionalistt view. I will offer some reasons why i dont think it is the best reading of the war powers. I dont think the textual, historical case for the congressionalist view there were doubts about giving the entire power of initiating action to congress. That is why the initial draft changed the phrase make more to declare war make war to declare war. The historical practice weighs heavily in favor of the congressionalist view. It is only specifically authorize the use of military force a few more times. The us has use military force abroad without congressional authorization and estimated 215 times. But is usually without congressional authorization. These range from very small actions to large actions like the korean war. Historical record shows the main actors who interpret and apply the u. S. Constitution are the congress and president dont necessarily embrace the strict congressionalist the. As a functional and practical matter to can inherent to a congressionalist view seems impractical as the World Largest military and power and economic power. We have National Interest in every corner of the globe and are subject to more diverse stress. The variety of possible military conflict from combating terrorist to shooting pirates to preventing humanitarian catastrophes to confronting other large military powers seems to support the strict congressionalist view not being practical in todays environment. Even if we abandon this view theres much room for debate over the exact scope of the president s and then empowers. The administration has given itself a substance of limits by saying that although the u. S. Can use military force without congress, that force cannot amount to a war. What is a war versus the use of military force . It is a fuzzy definition. The bombing in libya was these of military force. Other categories of actions would not amount to war. It is hard to figure out exactly what the line would be. Administrator has offered a clear definition. Not offered a clear definition. This is one way we may adopt a president ial the. The president can act independently without congress until it engages in what a war is. International law definition of war means every action. That is one way in which the administration has tried to cabin the power that it has claimed for itself. I think while there are disagreements on what constitutes a war, i think there has been evolution in the Obama Administration toward the president ial view of how war powers are allocated. Given the current debate over isis, the president has thought congressional authorization while pointing out it doesnt need it. It has adopted a very difficult to support interpretation of the 2001 amf. Even without that, i think there is different conception of the president s role in defining when and how to initiate military conflict on behalf of the u. S. I believe the conversion of barack obama from a strict congressionalist to a strict residentialist president ialist is understandable and welcome. I hope they recognize the weaknesses of the congressionalist view before they wholeheartedly embrace it. Thank you. Mr. Hafetz thank you all. Lets jump off from the professors distingu distinction between war powers and his argument that or his case for president ial war powers. I will frame the question this way so, for Lieutenant Colonel mayor more coming you talked about clear objectives and flexibility as the key objectives operationally which might be in conflict with one another. Ive wondered whether the model of president ial war powers over congressional war powers is more amendable. Would be easier to carry out or balance those two clear objectives and flexibility as opposed to the congressional model. Would be easier to have those two things of military once if we followed the president ial model. Besser goodman, you have an incredible professor goodman professor goodman, i wanted to know whether does this debate support in your view professor coos version which is that the congressional approval is salutary and beneficial for reasons but not required. And that being born out by the context of the last 14 years and the current debate. It is much easier to respond to one boss than two bosses. Certainly over our history, what typically the military seeks as far as guidance and what it needs to do. I believe that it probably enables or supports the idea of enhance president ial power. If the president is limited, it limits the military. Professor goodman i want to do dive into that part of the discussion and suggest maybe the military might benefit from shared powers in a sense that one of the items that is lacking from the white house dropped authorization is the objective. When the question that has been raised is what are the objectives so we can know and measure against whether or not we are succeeding. That is something the congress can force the administration to give to the public as well as the military. A certain sense of what the objective is and why you want authorization to use force. What do count as success . Is it pushing ifo back over the border so it is constrained inside syria . Is it defeating it . Is it defeating it to the point it no longer poses a threat to a rock iraq, the u. S. . Currently, we dont have that under the president ial system. On the second question with respect to does the authorization to use force suggest something about the notion that the president can act even without it . I dont think so because i dont think the administration julian said they are not uncomfortable with their iphone isil argument. I think they are accountable. If they arent, they should be. The kind of questioning secretary kerry as i do undergo for example, makes him uncomfortable because it is not such a great legal argument. I think it is why they have resorted to the statutory authorities. They dont say we dont need this week has we dont need this from you because of the constitution, they say we dont need this from you because we got it in 12,001 in 2001. President obama has made bad legal arguments to try to force himself to force the argument that is actually operating under Congressional Authority. Some of the arguments with respect to the resolution and libya was because this administration has embraced the war powers resolution more than others and said we meet the resolution because it doesnt rise to the level of hostility which are stretches of legal arguments but i think it stretches because he is not unapologetically embracing a strong commander in chief president ial model. He is trying to fit within congressional statutes. They could have come out with this strong article to authority but instead, it was like they were interpreting congresss restrictions on moving people out of guantanamo to be consistent with president ial powers so there was more like a statutory interpretation. Once again, trying to wrap themselves in the idea theyre acting within Congressional Authority. I think julian listened a lot of points in favor. March 2009 in litigation for claims coming out of guantanamo the federal judge require the administration to give its legal rationale. I dont think there accountable at the time. In a brief, an important moment in which the president said he was not claiming commander in chief authority. He was only claiming to operate a 2001 amf. There was at least that kind of countercurrent we have to take into account if we have an interpretation of what the administration has done. I think it is a mixed direction. Before returning to the audience, its you want an opportunity to respond. If you want an opportunity to respond. I am suggesting there are Different Levels or degrees of congressional was him congressional wasism. In two dozen it come it was neat for the present to say here was is you come it was very sent simple. My near a point narrow point is that from what i consider an extreme position president obama took in 2008, that position is gone in the sense that extreme position, which is that he cannot use military force about Congress Unless there is an eminent threat to the u. S. , that is off he table. The table. His administration claimed what i consider an extreme congressionalist position. I dont argue he is in any way an extreme president ialist . He has moved from what i think to be the extreme congressionalist view. It is the view shared by a lot leading scholars and many politicians. That view is not supportable. It is not practical. No modern president and i predict any president who enters the office will not follow that extreme statement he made in 2008 that the president cannot use military force about Congress Unless there is an eminent threat. Enemy does it just he argues that if congress i dont mean to argue that if Congress Comes later and tries to restrict the president i dont think that is a good view. The point is that congress can restrict the president but when they dont ask, the view is that article to authorizes the present use military force even without a specific congressional authorization. There is an narrow argument im making but i think it is a fair one given not so much to practical issues administration has been wrestling with but the broadbrush claims we are not all about executive power. It is a more complicated view. That is the point im trying to make. I dont disagree that like all administrations, it is not consistent. Good ministration is often made very difficult, maybe even wrong legal arguments under statutes because they dont want to make the obvious article to argument in another context i would suggest he is a full president ialist. I would like to open it to questions from the floor. Please come to the microphone if you have any questions. Please come up to the microphone. Yes. The one to your right. On the stand. A special referee to the state supreme court. The carnal talked about enduring we have been in germany, japan korea for 70 years or so. I those considered operations . We are there based on treaty. And of course, the nato treaty. You havent spoken of any specific war powers authorizations during the korea and vietnam areas. If someone who wanted to put an end to the vietnam war a member of Congress Introduced a declaration and talents congress devoted up or down and congress declined to declare war on North Vietnam while we were in multioperation, what would happen . Military operation, what would happen . It is not unreasonable for the president to declare that congress is infringing on his independent executive authority. You could get to a broader discussion of this idea of president ial power is you cut into a situation where congress is going directly contrary to a military operation the president tries to participate in. I dont take the View Congress cannot restrict at all. Im suggesting congress doesnt always have to initiate it which i think some people talk about a lot. I am less troubled by the war powers then i am by the view the president cant ask it would have delivered to the nation and the world and the enemy is this working . That the congress doesnt want it even at the president does whether or not the president has the authority. Thank you. Thank you. Come on down. My name is david. Before i have my question, congress did do what the previous questioner asked in 1971 repealed the resolution and neck claimed under article two he had the right to continue the war. I have a question for the professor. In 1991 and 2002, both president bushs saw congressional sat congressional approval and obtained. Would that have been unconstitutional or constitutional . As long as congress doesnt specifically defund or ban them from acting, i think it would because additional to initiate military action in those cases. There was a declaration of war introduced. That is my view. Congress can come and say you have to get out like they did in vietnam but i am not sure i am with nixon on that. In the terms of launching military action, the president can do so. There are virtually no limits in president ial war powers . Congress can stop them. Every two years, Congress Goes on a funding bill and they can and have restrict or power if they choose to. Certainly under the funding clause and even through the war powers resolution or other statutes it passes after the fact to limit operation. My point is not about initiation of military force. History suggests the president has very broad power in these of military force. Does professor goodman agree . Professor goodman i think there has to be some limit. I think if we are saying taking the nation to war, i think having congress the power to declare war as part of the idea even if we dont have declaration, we have authorization to use force. There is a residual authority to act in defense of the nation. Something like an imminent attack in which there is no time to go to congress. In that situation, one would think after a certain time when there is no longer imminent threat and it will be a longterm commitment by the nation, that is when we Want Congress back in. [indiscernible] the only question is one other element i am not a constitutional law scholar. There is the other question which is that congress affirmatively appropriated funds ended the appropriation count is authorization . I think it might be some of the background game the administration is playing now with respect to isil, which is even if congress doesnt get its act together to approve an authorization at a certain point, the administration will be asking a large amount of funds. They ask for funds to arm rebels and carry out the operation. Congress has implicitly given some fort of an authority. Some formal and authority. Sometimes were taking the most extreme conflicts and cases. I would not have a problem thinking [indiscernible] why didnt president printing go to congress . Does clinton do to congress . He did think he had the authority. Why they usually go to congress is not legal, it is practical and political. I agree that it would be better in every way for congress to authorize the use of military force, especially if it is substantial and before it happens. They do so when they think they will be engaged for a long time or need funding. Theyre more likely to seek the authorization. My point is that as a legal matter, the president has the power to initiate the use of military force even if it is not in response to an actual attack without congress. In the context of the invasion of iraq, however you regard whether president bush needed Congress Approval before hand, presumably the war power resolution would have kicked in and acted on a traditional use of force where u. S. Ground troops were introduced into hostility. The question is if we are looking at the war powers through the conflict of the 21st century and whether it is legal or practical, a president is going to want to seek congressional buyin before massively committing american troops to a longterm conflict over seas. The conflict seems to be increasingly the exception. A new conflict raised with limited use of troops and more with the use of drone strikes. Another message of conducting Armed Conflict. The question is is the congressional by in fading as a result of the realities of Armed Conflict today . That was part of my argument. To some degree, i think congress will always be deeply involved through funding. As a footnote, i think one of the reasons the Obama Administration became embedded with the 2001 amf is because they were worried about the war powers resolution. Even if they believed they had the Inherent Authority to go into iraq and syria, that goes out after 60 or 90 days and i dont believe the president can override the statute. Unless congress doesnt stop him, he can initiate the force. No president has succeeded the constitutionality of the war powers. Did ministration argue that libya wasnt a violation of the war powers act but it seems it was a violation of war powers. It certainly seems the congressional view is more consistent with the founders of the president ial view is more consistent with reality today. It is more practical and more consistent with modern warfare. I would like to ask if any member of the committee would support the proposition that the authorization by the congress of the funding for specific activities proposed by the administration in syria or iraq or otherwise would the impending war powers proposal, could be read constitutionally as a de facto organization of the force that has been requested. The administration has always put forward that is one of his arguments as to why these of fours is permissible and supported by congress. In this case, there is a debate in the committees that focuses on a change in the structure of the Defense Budget pretty much to get past problems of sequestration but the result would be under one proposal, a much more focused allocation of resources. Does that make a difference . I suppose it could under the theory the Clinton Administration used. If you do have specific appropriations for the ongoing operations, under that theory yes. But, im not supporting the theory. The other concern might be if you have forces on the ground maybe congress by appropriating funds rather than taking that funds is trying to attack the troops. It is not a signal they approve of the operations but rather with those kinds of facts on the ground, they have no choice but to dry do support the troops financially but that should not be read as them supporting the political matter. There are some competing concerns of how you interpret it. The war powers resolution itself in terms of an assertion of Congressional Authority say appropriations shouldnt count. Thank you for that answer. One follow up. It is striking that the administration picked three years as its sunset date. The length of the congressional appropriation cannot exceed two years as was mentioned by one of the panelists earlier. Do you have any idea why three years was chosen . I dont. I dont know why three years in particular but i do think they wanted it to be a determination made by a future congress and the next president. With enough time, they did not have to raise to a decision. Why exactly three years . I am not sure. There was some consultation with the military. I am sure they would have said, we dont want this limitation but if you are placing it, there was probably some consultation of what the various options were and how lumpy military thought it might need to accomplish the missions or objectives as they currently are. May i keep going . One final followup and we will wrap up from there. I havent heard anyone describe any coherent argument other than the ones considered. Deriving from the congress has justification for an activity. Is that because we were considering other issues or is it because nobody has heard a coherent argument . Defending an activity . An inactivity. Can you clarify what you mean by inactivity . Why Congress Wont vote for it . Yes. There is never going to be complete you still have the funding issue. They have to continue to fund the military and operation. They will never not have any activity. The Administration May not be excited to vote it down. There is a political split in congress. Some people think they want tougher limitations. Some of the critics in congress are not that they dont want to out the riser it they just out want to authorize this one. If you cannot build a coalition, it is a simple political reason. Why does congress not act . It is usually because they are divided and cannot agree. To further that line of thought, the chair of the senate Foreign Relations committee has said at this point, he doesnt have democratic support for the president s authorization because of the lack of limitations in it. He is unwilling to pass an authorization among party lines because of the signal that sends. It is more of a political argument than a constitutional one. The signal it sends to isolate and potential allies if to isil and potential allies. Who knows where you are pushing the blame. The second part is, why should i pour so much Political Capital into this one the Administration Says they dont need it . The Administration Says we really need this from you as an Additional Authority we dont have. Maybe they can justify that but if the Administration Says we just want to hear from you but if you dont do it, nothing will change. He said, i am a person to make a difference. If it will not make a difference, why . Public pressure building when the issue first came up has dissipated somewhat, which relieves pressure on the actors in light of what julian and ryan pointed out. I wanted to thank our panelists for an incredibly rich discussion of this important topic that goes to fundamental questions about our constitutional structure, the role of the president and congress in challenging and changing times. Join me in a round of applause for our panelists. [applause] thank you all for coming. Coming up next, president obama is in new york talking about his my brother keeper initiative. Then, the Inspector General for reconstruction gives an update on u. S. Spending in afghanistan. That is followed by dr. Ben carsons Residential Campaign announcement. On the next washington journal shingled mocker Shane Goldmacher discusses the 26 in president ial race. Then, the house and Senate Budget agreement. Plus, your phone calls facebook comments, and tweeps. Washington journal is live tuesday at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Tuesday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee announces his candidacy for the 2016 republican president ial nomination. He makes the announcement from his hometown at the university of Arkansas Community college at 11 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. President ial candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. Here is a look at some recent books by declared candidate for president. Hillary clinton looks that on her time in hard choices. In american dreams, marco rubio announces his plans to restore economic opportunity. In bluecollar conservatives Rick Santorum argues the Republican Party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. In a fighting chance, Elizabeth Warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career. Scott walker argues republicans must offer Bold Solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in on intimidated. Unintimidated. Rand paul calls for Smaller Government in taking a stand. More president ial candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in immigration wars, arguing for new immigration policies. In stand for something, john kasich calls for a return to traditional american values. James webb looks on his time serving in the military and senate in i heard my country calling. Bernie sanders recently announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. His book the speech as a printing of his eight hour long filibuster against tax cuts. In promises to keep, joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. Ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve americas future in one nation. In fed up, rick perry says government has become too intrusive. Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee in against the tide recounts is time serving as a republican in the senate. Carly feeiorina shares her difficulties and try ams. And triumphs. In a time for truth, ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant son to the u. S. Senate. Look for his book in june. President obama was in new york city monday to talk about is my brothers keeper initiative. He spoke at Lehman College in the bronx where he participated in a roundtable discussion with young men. This is half an hour. President obama hello, new york. [applause] a big round of a applause for that introduction. Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. We are so proud of darnell, we want to thank them for being such a great role model. I want to give a shout out to a friend of mine who happens to be your assemblyman, michael blake. [applause] where is michael . He is around here some are. There he is. You have to stand up michael. We are still teaching him about politics. [applause] when the president introduces you, you have to stand up. [laughter] get some tv time. [laughter] mike grew up in tough circumstances as well. He worked hard, went to a good college, joined my campaign, worked in the white house. Now, he is in Public Office to make sure other young people like him have every chance in the world. We could not be more proud of him. [applause] it is great to see. I am getting practice at home. I have all of these incredible young people who are doing great things. I want to thank all members of congress and elected officials in the house. A couple of browed lehman graduates. Proud lehman graduates. Elliott and jose. [applause] we have some more folks. Three other folks from the new york delegation. Gregory. [applause] the always dapper charlie. [applause] the outstanding yvette clarke. [applause] and a visiting from florida frederica wilson. [applause] they all share the same passion that i do and that is making sure every young person in this country has opportunity. That is why we are here today. Because we believe in the idea that no matter who you are, what you look like, where you came from, your circumstances come if you work hard, if you take responsibility, america is a place where you can mix on thing of your life. America is a place you can make something of your life. Our Public Institutions are all pathways for success. We are very proud of what they do. Everything we have done since i have been president from rescuing the economy to giving more americans access to Affordable Health care to reforming our schools for all of our kids come it has been pursuit of that one goal creating opportunity for everyone. We cannot guarantee everybody success. But we do strive to guarantee an equal shot for everybody willing to work for it. What with also understood for too long is that some communities have consistently had the odds stacked against them. There is a tragic history in this country that has made it tougher for some. Folks living in those communities, and especially young people in those communities, could use some help to change those odds. It is true of some rural committees where there is chronic poverty. It is throughout also many factual and communities suffering after factories closed their doors. It is true for young people of color, especially boys and young men. You all know the numbers. By almost every measure, life chances of the average young man of color is worse than his peers. Those opportunities begin early. The compound over time becoming harder and harder to bridge. That sums of unfairness and powerlessness of people not hearing their voices has helped fuel some protest we have seen in places like baltimore and ferguson and here in new york. A feeling that law is not always applied evenly in this country. And too many places in this country, black boys and black men, latino boys, latino men, they experience being treated differently by Law Enforcement and in stops, arrests and in chargeses and incarcerations. The statistics are clear up and down the criminal Justice System theres no dispute. Thats why one of the many things we did to address these issues was put together a Community Police task on policing including those who led protests in ferguson and some who led protests in new york, some young voices that needed to be heard. And Law Enforcement Police Chiefs and sheriffs and county officials working with these young people, they came up with concrete proposals that if implemented, would rebuild trust and help Law Enforcement officers do their jobs even better and keep them and their communities even safer. And what was clear from this task force was the recognition that the overwhelming majority of Police Officers are good, honest, and fair and cared deeply about their communities and put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe and their loved ones wait and worry until they come through that door. New york lost officer brian moore who was shot in the line of duty on saturday night and came from a family of Police Officers and the family of fellow officers, he joins the nypd and others deserve our gratitude and our prayers today and every day. Theyve got a tough job. [applause] president obama which is why in addressing the issues in baltimore or ferguson or new york the point i made was if were just looking at policing, we are looking at it too narrowly. If we ask the police to simply contain and control problems that we ourselves have been unwilling to invest and solve, thats fair to the communities and not fair to the police. But what we gather to talk about today goes deeper than policing and speaks to who we are as a nation and what we are willing to do to make sure that equality is not an empty word. Across the country and in parts of new york and parts of new jersey and parts of my hometown of chicago, there are communities that dont have enough jobs, dont have enough investment, dont have opportunity. You have 30 40 50 unemployment and been struggling long before the economic crisis of 2007 and 2008. Communities without enough role models communities where too many men who could otherwise be leaders, who could provide guidance for young people, be good fathers and neighbors are languishing in prison over nonviolent drug offenses. There is no shortage of people telling you who and what is to blame for the plight of these communities, but im not i havented in blame but in responsibility and interested in results. [applause] president obama thats why we have partnered with cities to get more active in quality Early Childhood education no matter who they are and where they are born and we created promise zones to give a booster shot and invested in ideas for support for new moms to summer jobs to young people and helping more young people afford a college education. And thats why over a year ago, we launched something we called my brothers keeper. An initiative to address those persistent opportunity gaps and ensure all of our young people, but particularly young men of color have a chance to go as far as their dreams will take them. Its an idea we pursued in the wake of Trayvon Martins death because we wanted the message sent from the white house in a sustained way that his life mattered, that the lives of the young men who are here today matter, that we care about your future, not just some times but all the time. In every community in america there are young people with incredible drive and talent and just dont have the same kind of chances that somebody like me had. They are just as talented as me. Just as smart. They dont get a chance. And because everyone has a part to play, we brought together Business Leaders mayors, Business Leaders entrepreneurs athletes actors, all united around the simple idea of giving our young people to achieve their full potential. And we were determined not to just write a report that nobody would read, to do some announcement and once the tv cameras have gone away and there werent protests or riots, somehow we went back to business as usual, we wanted something sustained. And we have been working with experts to identify the key milestones that matter. Whether they enter school ready to learn or graduate from school ready for a career, or are they in danger in falling into the criminal Justice System, can we catch them before they do. Key indicators that we know will make a difference. If a child is reading by the third grade, we know they have a chance of doing better. If they arent involved in the criminal Justice System and arent suspended while theyre in school, we know they have a chance of doing better. There are certain things we knew would make a difference and we looked at what programs actually work in intervening in those key periods. Early childhood education works. Job apresence tiesship programs work. Certain mentorship programs work and we have identified which strategies make a difference like mentoring or violence prevention or intervention and we knew this couldnt be just the work of the federal government, we challenged every community in the country, big cities small towns, Rural Counties tribal nations, to publicly commit to implementing strategies to help all young people succeed. And as a result, we have more than 200 communities across the country who are focused on this issue, they are on board and doing great work they are sharing best practices, they are sharing ideas. All of this has happened in the last year. The response weve gotten in such a short amount of time, the enthusiasm we have seen from folks all around the country proves how much people care about this. Sometimes politics may be cynical, the debate in washington may be cynical, but when you get on the ground folks care about this. They know how well we do as a nation depends on whether our young people are succeeding. Thats our future workforce. They know that if youve got African American or latino men here in new york who instead of going to jail are going to college, those are going to be taxpayers and will help build our communities and will make our communities safer. They are part of the solution if we treat them as such. So we made enormous progress over the last year. But today, after months of great work on the part of a whole lot of people, were taking another step forward where people from the private sector coming together in a big way. Were here for the launch of the my brothers Keeper Alliance which is a new Nonprofit Organization of private sector organizations and kppings that have committed themselves to continue the work of Opening Doors for young people, all our young people, long after i have left office. [applause] president obama i want to thank the former c. E. O. Who has been involved in a long time. And has taken the lead. Joe, stand up. You have done an incredible job. [applause] president obama just like my brothers keeper overall effort, joe and my brothers Keeper Alliance they are all about getting results. They have set clear goals to hold themselves accountable for getting those results, doubling the percentage of young boys and young men of color who read by third grade increasing the High School Graduation rates by 20 , getting 50,000 more of those young men into Postsecondary Education or training. They have announced 80 million to make this happen and this is just the beginning. And theyve got a great team of young people who helped to work on this, a lot of them from your corporation and we are proud of the great work they did. Heres what the Business Leaders who are here today and joe subscribes to this will tell you. Theyre not doing this out of charity. The organizations that are represented here arranging as varied as from sprint to b. E. T. , theyre not doing it just to asuages societys guilt but making sure our young people have the opportunity to succeed and its the economic imperative. These young men all our youth are part of our workforce. If we dont make sure they are healthy and safetyy our society will lose in terms of productivity and potential. America wont be operating in full capacity and that hurts all of us. So they know that theres an economic rationale for making this investment but frankly, theres also not more than just economics, its about values. About who we are as a people. Joe grew up about a mile from here in the bronx. And as he and i were sitting there listening to some incredible young men in a roundtable discussion many of them from this community, their stories were our stories. So for joe and i, this is personal, because in these young men, we see ourselves. Mistakes are clear and these stakes are high. What kind of society do we want to have . What kind of country do we want to be . Its not enough to celebrate the ideals that were built on, liberty for all and justice for all and equality for all those just cant be words on paper. The work of every generation is to make those ideals mean something, concrete in the lives of our children, all of our children. And we wont get there as long as kids in baltimore or ferguson or new york or appalachia or mississippi delta or Pine Ridge Reservation believe that somehow their lives are worth less. We wont get there when we have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity and we are in the richest nation on earth. Children are born into poverty. We wont be living up to our ideals when their parents are struggling with Substance Abuse in prison or unemployed and schools are substandard and jobs are scarce and drugs are plentyful. We wont get there where a man is less likely to end up in college than in prison or dead and feels like his country expects nothing else of him. Americas future depends on us caring about this. If we dont, then we will just keep ongoing through the same cycles of periodic conflict. We ask police to go in the communities where theres no hope. Eventually, something happens because of the tensions between society and these communities and the police are just on the front lines of that. And people tweet outrage and the tv cameras come and they focus more on somebody setting father to something and turning over the car than the peaceful protests and the thoughtful discussions that are taking place. And then some will argue these social programs dont make a difference. And we cast blame and politicians talk about poverty and inequality and then gut policies that help alleviate poverty or reverse inequality. [applause] president obama and then we wait for the next outbreak or problem to flair up and we go through the same pattern all over again. So in effect we do nothing. There are consequences to inaction. There are consequences to indifference. And they are found beyond the walls of the projects or the roads to the reservation. They zap us of our strength as a nation. It means were not as good as we could be. And over time, it wears us out. Over time, it weakens our nation as a whole. The good news is it doesnt have to be this way. We can have the courage to change. We can make a difference. We can remember that these kids are our kids. For these are all our children, James Baldwin once wrote. We will profit by or pay for whatever they become. And thats what my brothers keeper is about and what this alliance is about. And we are in this for the long haul. Were going to keep doing our work at the white house on these issues. Sometimes, it wont be a lot of fanfare and dont get a lot of reporting on this issue when there isnt a crisis in some neighborhood, but we are going to keep on plugging away and this will remain a mission for me and michelle, not just for my presidency but for the rest of my life. [applause] president obama the reason is simple. I know its true for joe and john legend and lieu for Alonzo Mourning who is here, part of our board. We see ourselves in these young men. I grew up without a dad. I grew up lost sometimes and adrift and not having a sense of a clear path. The only difference between me and a lot of other young men in this neighborhood and all across the country is that i grew up in an environment that was a little more forgiving and i had people who cared enough about me to give me a Second Chance or a third chance. Or give me a little guidance when i needed it or open up a door that might have otherwise been closed. I was lucky. Alex santos is lucky too. Where is alex . Stand up, alex. [applause] president obama he was born in puerto rico and grew up in brooklyn and the bronx. When he was 11 and saw his moms best friend, the man he respected and looked up to shot and killed. His older brothers dropped out of school and caught up in drugs and violence. He didnt see a lot of options. Couldnt envision a better path. He then dropped out of school. Then his mom went back to school and got her g. E. D. And inspired alex to get his g. E. D. Actually its more like she stayed on him until he went back. And i know because just like i was lucky. I had a mom who got on my back about my studies. This is what alex says about his mom. She made me realize that no matter what, there is a Second Chance in life. Today, alex is getting his g. E. D. And developed a passion for sports and he would like to work with kids as a coach. He said he never thought he could go to college and now he believes he can. All he wants to do is be a good role model for his Young Brothers and he said i matter to their lives. So alex and his brothers and all the young people here, all the young ones out there struggling, the simple point to make is, you matter. You matter to us. Interesting during the round table, we asked these young men incredible gifted young men what advice would you give us and they talked about mentor programs and they talked about counseling programs and guidance programs in schools, but one young man malakai, he just talked about, he said we should talk about love. [applause] president obama he and i shared the fact that our dad wasnt around. And that sometimes we wondered why he wasnt around and what had happened. But really thats what this comes down to is we love these kids. [applause] president obama if we feel like because they dont look like us or they dont talk like us or dont live in the same neighborhood as us that theyre different that they cant learn or they dont deserve better or its ok if their schools are run down or its ok if the police are given a mission just to contain them rather than to encourage them. Then its not surprising were going to lose a lot of them. But thats not the kind of country i want to live in. Thats not what america is about. So my message to alex and malakai and all the young men out there and young boys who arent in this room havent yet gotten that helping hand, havent yet gotten that guidance, i want you to know you matter. You matter to us. You matter to each other. Theres nothing, not a single thing thats more important to the future of america than whether or not you and young people all across this country can achieve their dreams. And we are one people, and we need each other. And we should love every single one of our kids and then show that love, not just give lip service, not just talk about it in church and then ignore it. Not just have a seminar about it. And not deliver. Its hard. Weve got an accumulation of not just decades but in some cases centuries of trauma that were having to overcome. But if alex is able to overcome what hes been through, then we as a society should be able to overcome what we have been through. If alex can put the past behind him and look towards the future, we should be able to do the same. Im going to keep on fighting and everybody is going to keep on fighting to make sure our kids have the opportunity to make of their lives what they will. Today is just the beginning. We are going to keep at this for you, the young people of america, for your generation and all generations to come. Thank you. God bless you. God bless america. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] Hillary Clinton hosts a round table discussion at Rancho High School in las vegas and discuss immigration policy and efforts to strengthen families and communities life coverage at 5 45 p. M. Eastern standard. Remarkable partnerships, iconic women their stories in first ladies, the book. She saved the portrait that endeared her. Whoever could find out what she was doing and what she looked like, that was going to help sell papers. And how do you that . And she did it. She had enormous influence and move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. A book published from Public Affairs looking into the private lives. Learn about their lives ambitions, families and unique partnerships with their president ial spouses first ladies, filled with lively stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. Often changing history. Cspans first ladies is an inspiring read now available as a hard cover or ebook. Host the figure is 110. What has been established . Guest quite a bit has been accomplished. The real question could we have done it better and cheaper . We have built schools. We have built clinics and a military which is now in the fighting season. But thats a lot of money that has been spent. More than we spent on the entire Marshall Plan after world war ii and 6 billion 8 billion. Host we have lines for democrats and republicans and independents and we look forward to taking your calls and just in a couple of minutes. 1108 billion been appropriated for afghanistan reconstruction. Our scung is 15 billion is left to be spent as of march 2015 and u. S. Government is committed to spending billions until the Afghanistan Government is able to sustain itself. Not knowing how many troops and how many police goes to troops explain more what that is and how is it that we dont know the numbers. Guest we have to rely on the afghans to give us those numbers. Every morning if you were in the military or police department, there was a roll call. It tells you whos present and what are their qualifications. And we no longer visibility at the command at the company level, we dont have visibility below the corps level. The numbers being reported, most of it is by hand. None of the systems talk to each other and we give the money directly to the ministry of finance and never designed a system and never forced the afghans to actually follow their own rules and regulations. For example, theres