"washington journal" is live every morning on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> the studentcam competition for 2013 is underway. this competition from midland high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be cemented by january 20 of 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information and grab a camera and get started today. >> with with the midterm elections just a month away, the senate first teaching and internationals that he is held in discussion about hispanic voters and u.s. foreign policy in latin america. among the panelists was luis

miranda and relations with mexico and cuba were among the topics. this was just over one hour. [inaudible conversations] , live. >> morning, everyone, and welcome. i would like you to join us, carl meacham and i are the directors of the program and i want to welcome you to what i think is probably one of the most interesting events that we are going to be having this fall. as you know today we will be talking about latin america in the context of the u.s. and midterm elections. i imagine that some of your not entirely sure why this region is relevant. but i get that most of you

assumed the majority of the event will be about immigration reform and sure, some of it will be about immigration reform. we will be talking about it today pressure in the discussion. but what we are hoping to impart is a different message, not that immigration is the only issue that makes it relevant to u.s. elections, but it's one of many. there are a series of issues that are instrumental in nature and that means relevant to foreign policy and domestic policy. immigration is certainly one of those issues and key in these midterms. including the u.s. cuba policy and are relationship with venezuela, trading, security, all of these issues that have a large relevance in the united states. so let's look at the context that we are operating within first. last year we had seen upwards of 70,000 unaccompanied children merely from central american countries illegally crossing

into the united states across the southern border. panama invited cuba to the meeting, calling it a question about the form and the u.s.'s role in it. including repeatedly making headlines in the united states largely because of the country's role in energy stability and design throughout the region. that is not to say that these new developments are not taking center stage here. issues of global scale like the threat of isil and the russia and ukraine conflict will still dominate media coverage and create talking points. everyone is looking at those issues and how they will develop and that is inevitable. but latin america should be a u.s. foreign policy priority as well. on the one hand and a that because it is a prioritization. given the changing demographics and how those changes impact the map, the issues related to the region will only become more and more important. latin america is uniquely

prevalent to the united states and this comes from a variety of factors marketing them important to our prosperity and our evolving demographic as well. in terms of prosperity the numbers speak for themselves. including the u.s. and $180 billion from imports and 160 billion in natural resources development and energy reform as well. this is deeply integrated as well and thanks to nafta, 40% of goods contain components of many in the united states. as far as this goes, the us-mexico border is 2000 miles long, taking 3.5 or 90 minutes. because of that geographic closeness in the region

reverberate as people smuggle northward implying that this is a shared responsibility. most of the u.s. foreign-policy region is working in a cooperative security framework including this initiative. including cooperative security arrangements which is part of this with mexico. this includes violence connected to our own security and not just at the border. so subsequently, even if it doesn't always garner the crisis attention that we see paid to other global hotspots. this leads to the second issue, whether or not latin america should be a foreign-policy priority, it's inevitable that issues related will become relevant through elections here in midterms and presidential

elections. so what do those demographics will quite? about 2.5 million immigrants from all over the world have entered the u.s. in 2007. half are from latin america and some people make up nearly one fifth of the u.s. and they are the fastest-growing minority group and they play a unique role in u.s. policy. the group is growing fast and increasingly relevant in key electoral districts. in contrast with many other demographic groups, latinos often care about policies that impact countries of origin. so so in this context, what does it mean? we live in states with sizable communities, arizona, colorado, florida, illinois, new mexico and new jersey. five of those states are where latinos can make a difference and we will go into that in detail. but all mine will be key in

2016. looking at colorado as an example, the colorado races closely contested in nearly 9% is latino. many say that that has been made closer by president president obama's decision to delay an executive action. and more generally the numbers speak for themselves. latinos are to 5% more likely to report this than the general populace and over three quarters factor into the voting. even those unaffiliated with either party overwhelmingly support immigration reform and it is these voters that can make a huge impact in election years. in 2012 president obama won the support of the countries latinas and 53% of all americans. his popularity has certainly decreased overall, but we have to look at the spread with regard to these issues as a whole. and so on the issues with

latinos in particular, the president support has dipped significantly and i'm not going to give you numbers because i think the panel here will have their views particularly on some of these issues. and i would just say that immigration is just one of these issues that will be relevant in the u.s. electoral politics. i've taken enough time in the opening and i'm sure that our panelists will have different views. so i'm going to do is provide quick introduction to our panelists and then we can get on with this today. moderating this event we will have a longtime "washington post" writer and he is an accomplished author. i'm thrilled to have him here to moderate today's discussion. thank you. >> thank you. to my right we have daniel runde, director of nbc strategies and he served as

spokesman of communications to president obama and deputy communications director as well on numerous occasions. on my right we have a senior advisor here who served as u.s. executive director and has a senior member of the treasury department international affairs team in addition to his background in international law, i would say that he serves as a political designee during the obama administration. is that correct but i. >> yes. >> welcome, my good friend here, he holds the chair here and is the director on prosperity and development. he has worked at the international finance corporation and is head of the foundations unity and serves as the director of office of global development. so i'm thrilled that all four of you are here. and i'm going to turn it over to

manuel rois-franzia for his opening. we are on the record and we are lucky to be covered today by c-span. for all of you out there, please say hello to mom. [laughter] >> thank you very much. okay, so we're going to have a conversation about politics and policies that are connected. i have been a reporter at "the washington post" for a long time. one of the fundamentals of journalism is that you don't make predictions. never, never make addictions because they catch up with you. so i'd like to start today by making a prediction. [laughter] that prediction is this. the first latino president of the united states is alive and has been one in that first latino president might be a member of congress or she might be a first grader in texas.

he might be a highschooler in california. but that person is alive. we are looking at the midterm election and the midterms are always a tough run for the presidential election but a test run. and as we work through the panel here, i think what you should be keeping an eye on if the connection between those two big events, november 2014 in november of 2016. so we just start with gustavo arnavat. >> event the average lifespan of an average american, depending on male and female, i would hope that your prediction is very accurate. >> check with me in 50 years. [laughter] salami to start by saying that i both of these, i think that this indicates the kind of interest

in politicians in this kind of community. and about half population is hispanic in florida is about a quarter. but it's not just states that are traditionally associated with latinos like colorado and etc. and have high percentages of this. almost half the united states have 9% or more population that is hispanic. in states like hawaii, georgia, kansas, oregon and utah, over 10% of the population is the panic. not all are registered or eligible to register but over time the percent of those individuals who are hispanic and who can vote will increase. and i think that that is getting to the heart of what this panel is about. to what extent do hispanics vote

-- vote in ways that further their interest through their countries of origin. i would argue increasingly the we have at least a third of hispanics that were born in latin america and some were born in canada. and these individuals are very interested in seeing the u.s. policy reflect their interests on the security front and i think it's going to be an issue, if not in latin america, and then today. but i think increasingly issues have to do with hispanics went to origins and become more and more important. >> moving on to you, can we even say that there is a hispanic or latino electorate in the united

states? did that exists as a single entity? >> that's a great question and 10 years ago i would've said no. i would say the hispanic vote is fairly fragmented and idiosyncratic, it depends on the country of origin. but immigration issues have really galvanized the hispanic community in ways that i hadn't seen before. i spent my early formative years there, growth in miami. and i met folks from other parts who were puerto rican or mexican american. i would say that i think the immigration issue has caused hispanics to feel that they are part of this in embattled group. but that is my general sense. >> thank you for having me. just a couple of issues.

i think the way in which some of these issues, getting into what it means in a minute, as they play themselves out at the local level, i think we need to have context about what the issues are today. as we looked at "the washington post" before i came here, 90% of the economy, 12% of terrorism, a percent said immigration and that was october 1 and that was the top issues in the midterm election. i went back in july and there was immigration, which was the number one issue in july and some of the polls and i think it had to do with some of the news about children crossing the border. so there's volatility in polling in terms of what public opinion we are thinking about. but i would not say latin america is on the ballot. for those of us who think about

international affairs and are particularly energized about issues, we may care about it at in the congressional district it's not an issue per se and their are certain issues that you need to be a little bit careful about how and where it will be locally expressed in different ways as well. and i will share a couple of anecdotes and a couple of issues worth describing. whenever i raised the issue and i think a lot of members of congress and folks running for governor -- oftentimes i'm the one that has to talk about conversation with international affairs, not because are not globally aware were cosmopolitan and unsophisticated. but it's just that those of us who are in think tanks, it is interesting when we invest our time, and we need to understand that kind of a larger context

and i think that the american educated comedy energy reforms are very important. and imagine canada with the keystone pipeline and that's something we should think about. and having increased energy investments in the united states and things like hydraulic fracturing, we have a regional energy power in north america. what would that mean in terms of our negotiations. we took it into the debate to europe in the ukraine. and they said what if we could offer europe, who are in some ways constrained with what they can do in confronting russia, that we can be your energy so

that you are not ad hoc to the russians as you respond what is going on. so that was his sophisticated analysis with governor chris christie among others, it's a tremendous opportunity for the united states if we think in regional terms and that's not necessarily exactly but part of foreign policy. so let me talk about what we think is showing itself. one is the challenges in central america which is a result of poor governance and corruption and also the result of a two-way flow of gangs including some who think it is a u.s. generated problem, causing people to send their children on trains a thousand miles away and put them in danger. and so showing this up on the ballot, we need to think about

how we respond not just at the border where most of the energy has been, but how we can respond in a sophisticated way in central america to help resolve the longer-term problems in the way we that we have looked at the problems in colombia. fifteen years ago we had this conversation in this room, no one wants to invest in climate, no one wants to think about colombia, 15 years later people say amount to invest in it, to welcome and state and an ally until the part about was america's engagement. through drugs or insecurity being exported with something that was on the ballot the people were concerned about so much in the way that some of the challenges have exhibited in the security risks in the united states. so the challenges in central america and energy and one more. reading and interesting book by my friend called [inaudible]

it is making the argument that for latin america and the united states to progress and develop, we're going to have to have more sophisticated ways of vocational and technical training and education and we will have the reform that in the private sector in a much more significant way and this is both a u.s. challenge and latin america challenge and very elegantly linking the two issues of latin america and the united states. that is education and training in something that people do care about as an issue because it has to do with their ability to progress to see education come up from time to time. linking the two that is something that will turn into an issue on the horizon. >> moving on now, one of the reactions would be miners coming across the border saying, did

you have any initial thoughts on this? >> i've written about that here saying that i'm in favor of this and historically the intentions are short and if you go back 30 or 40 years, we will respond to a crisis and then they will take that intentional way and it will require bipartisan extended focus the way that we have and make some kind of significant change in the problems of governance and security as well as putting young people into productive activities. either they're going to use it in an unproductive way or in productive ways including participating in productive

ways. >> okay, we might be repetitive on this panel, but in terms of this when you talk about the hispanic community and that includes one of the biggest challenges and that includes breaking it down and try to clarify with the dynamics of this community are. and that includes the plurality of non-hispanic whites. and that tells us in this includes more than 50 million people that are of latino origin in the united states and yet the perception that the plurality is

part of it. that has to be rectified potentially as much as 60,000 and many of them if not several of them will be able to vote and register. i think with the conversation or comes into play as many of them don't feel motivated or connected. or a sense of belonging and that is what we are going to have to make a decision with. and part of what they have to recognize that these issues are not specific to that community is some of the others have pointed to in the and that needs to be addressed so when you have issues like the republican shutdown of the government that they affect the security operations targeted in this and

they complain about this and we have to start looking at how these issues are interconnected and they are issues that are broader security including government officials and checking a box, and i think that the candidates are going to do well are those that recognize that and are ahead of the curve and you already see that in many places were latin americans often play a role. the rhode island actually has a

strong african-american community and when the president decided to delay executive action on immigration, that included the control of the senate and i think that is what we are going to have to start to look at from the national picture. but the conventional wisdom is that hispanics are going to play that big of a role in the election. so you can take that risk with folks like mark prior. but he may have actually done the opposite and 14% of the electorate in 2012, if they don't turn out and they are not energized and motivated, and that can particularly cause problems in the senate. in a city lake north carolina where you have 9% of the population but only 2% of the electorate in 2012. well, that can make the difference within the margin of error right now and it can

decide control of the senate. i mentioned florida, u.s. citizens in particular are going to make a difference and you see a lot who have been a swing vote in an especially a state like that where republicans can be a partisan democrats cannot, many of them are up for grabs. and so reaching out for them getting them involved continues to be an issue and politicians are having to adapt to the reality that many of them actually want to go back and support the small businesses in

the lot are still clinging to hard-line policy which is alienating some of the younger folks. whether or not it is yet to be seen. that is the reality that they have to address and stay on top of areas and they began to integrate non-as something else but into the record. >> what did they tell you about this one fundamental question? why they aren't turning out in bigger numbers and elections? >> it's motivational, it's a sense of ownership. when the ukraine crisis was happening in at the same time

there was very little coverage of what was happening. and that connected to the mainstream media and the 50 million latinos and had connections or nbc, cbs, and nbc. you see a different and serious certainly important, hispanics care about the band and pulling you regularly see this outpacing immigration. and one of the things that we have done was trying to get ahead and in 2005 i traveled with howard dean.

whichever one was going to be better for relationships with mexico than any before. and that includes a lot of media in the border states and it reverberates. and that is something that they are starting to do and is colombian and yet it has a lot of penetration into florida and new york and los angeles. and we shall about that we care about whatever efforts they are making. and sort of thinking that that

has checked the box. i think diversity has to be all the way to the top. with howard dean we had this just because you're black doesn't mean you can only talk to black people and just because you're hispanic doesn't mean you can only talk to hispanic people. and that includes us ethnic type of approach that doesn't make a lot of sense and doesn't make people feel like they are part of the system. and part of it is that it doesn't include what the population really looks like. >> much of your work has been involved in business development and this includes poverty reduction. should they care about whether businesses are doing well in

american countries with high rates of poverty there. not only that but you think that they do care. >> that's a great question. >> we actually don't realize that they are our largest trading partner. and roughly speaking about the gdp per capita, you can just imagine what that means for u.s. goods and services. for that reason alone is the outlooks and capital entries that went through this double disc capacity.

look, the border with the united states and mexico, 2,000 miles long. have not measured it, but the border with canada has to be at least 50%. you don't have canadians trying to get in like we do folks from latin america, and there is a reason for that. they're doing relatively well. so the more we invest, the correlation between economic development and security. but the more that folks there will decide -- it is a very hard thing to leave one's country. you don't leave unless you really have to limit the was born in cuba.

if you languish. so that's another reason the you will have, you know, folks who want to stay. and then you see the illegal immigration issue that goes away. >> it is only somewhat counter intuitive. been mentioned that the been mentioned that the america is in the front burner vote generating issue. it has been in other elections. nafta was a big campaign issue at one time. here we have a larger latino population and less of a focus on latin america. and in another era with a slightly smaller latino population a large focus. how do you explain that? >> well, i think it has to do -- well, our veterans? right now the issue has been immigration and the issue

that is in the media and the spotlight. i would say two things. one, these issues will grow and importance as the population grows, which is what we're seeing the be the second issue, you almost as had the development of two parallel soda of media conversations in the night, if you just watches, a whole bunch of issues having to do with regional issues. i don't think in 1991 and 1990 you had that kind of coverage. people watching it in 1990 and 1990. so i think there has been a change in the context in which we're having this discussion. so it is not that these issues are less important. i think that there's just a different approach to dealing with it. i would agree with what has been said here. their is a lack of, i guess, a way of mainstreaming these

issues. their is a separation here. you touched on it, and then did. okay. you want to talk about lead america. someone with a latin american last name. and check the box. i don't think it's like that anymore. think it is getting less and less. the issues -- i mean, ideally will like to see is that these issues are part of the critical mass of issues that a candidate would have to deal with, not that they would become hispanic issues. >> that is actually correct. when you pull hispanics and ascham the important issues, by the way, i was not aware of the issue. but by and large hispanic americans living in this country are no different than others. they care about jobs and health care and education. the immigration issue is important for social reasons.

you know, what i said earlier, you feel that in terms of party identification, you ask yourself what party dry feel more comfortable with, what party during think if i join or vote for will be most moment. and immigration is akin to the civil rights issues being made in the 60's and 70's. it is not by coincidence that the vast majority because they saw what happened in the debate and a social upheaval that we had. and i think that i have to tell you, but as a democrat i had been -- i am stunned that the republican party has not done a better job of reaching out to republicans. no there was something done in 2012 where this was identified as an issue. and yet look what happened. i think hispanics are looking at this debate this is the time when they're

forming those opinions of party affiliation. if their successful now i think there will have a hold on them for a long time. >> and touching on that. if you look at the debate in wade received so much attention back in '94 when it happened 20 years ago, it was not driven by latinos or a hispanic conversation. it was driven by labor concerns over what it would mean for the lost jobs in the jobs moving to mexico. i think that is a great example of how we have to make sure that people understand that latin american issues are not specific to hispanics but to the general situation. a really good example of. but it was the fear of losing jobs that made that powerful, the fear of change which is part of the challenge. i think immigration groups

in pro hispanic advocacy groups have been great have bringing attention to the immigration issue. as backfired as certain way which has brought attention to the immigration issue and a way that makes people see hispanics as foreigners. a lot of them, with a new mexico, oracle, arizona had been there for generations long before the states or even part of the union. those are realities that we have to address, and there needs to be leaders in both parties that look at the very small minority. let's face it, most republicans are ready to vote for immigration and to support, many of the market that, it is a very small minority that fears the demographic change. they have to recognize, those that are not legal, a very small portion. you look at arizona be, there was a village discovered, of 1300 year-old phyllis discovered an

arizona. some of these folks would want to deport everyone in that village. and that is the attitude. hispanics were there for hundreds of years. we have to tell the story, make sure that they understand that hispanics have fought in the revolutionary war in the civil war on both sides, and every complex has been a part of the american fabric. and that doesn't told. it allows for those issues of fear and has united latinos. i think that it is becoming a sense of respect. the way that it is dark about, it makes you feel like your entire community is under attack. when you address unblock you give respect you enough to care about the other issues the also care about. >> a couple of things. the countries have changed. some of the best growth years.

we want those countries to succeed. we want to have a kind of sophisticated conversations with the mexico were pariah that we have with south korea or other countries that used to get assistance from the united states. and i think that is happening. the kind of conversation when the governor comes to washington and a loss to talk about trade and higher education, technology, and he wants to talk about how can get people to stay and prosper and how can i do that in the lettuce mutually beneficial? think we're having a more sophisticated conversation. i do think on things like trade certainly they get a lot of credit was a really excellent record. i think that the problem is we're only talking about our trade record. in 2005 to mike unremembered

but i think the bush and administration push for panama. the colombian the free-trade deal that took three or four years to get done. president bush spent a lot of time on those. i do think we don't necessarily get credit, and die also think oftentimes the immigration debate is divisive, there are divisions in both parties, some parts of the labor unions have not been that enthusiastic about immigration, the first two years a president obama's term when he had democrats in the house and senate that did not pass comprehensive immigration reform at that time. so i think it sometimes, the republicans are easy to scapegoat. think it is a little more complicated on the one hand. in terms of the changing trajectory of the societies in latin america, the kinds of conversations are different. they want trade, but they want more sophisticated

discussion about education and training, infrastructure, and they want as you were saying, there is an opportunity to prosper here where their growth as well. so we want to have that kind of a mutually interesting dialogue. i think we are getting there. the last ten years have been part of changing the conversation. >> the diversity in government and in positions of power in the organization's penny not a tremendously big hispanic presence in government at the national level, and media institutions tend to not look south. they tend to look more toward europe. that is beginning to change to include more people, but it is not quite where it needs to be. that is one of the things we will see changed.

one of the big things this administration is trying to do is the 100,000 strong program or this and more people the study abroad. traditionally they think about paris and london. more and more people start to go steady and get comfortable. it is not just the hispanic latino americans that are heading south, but more of a just traditional populations that would otherwise go steady in europe began to study and south america. that will help. so you see those type of developments increase in the connections and the ties that will lead to even surely the same people who may have studied in be in a position and cnn are at the state department where they can actually influence things. >> or one of the networks. >> right. >> on that note, i think there are a couple of things that need to be mentioned as we focus on the international. i think dan mentioned the fact it the bush

administration had and they're free trade agreements and had a budget of over $2 billion. and when you look at the region and the current administration, you see what a half billion. things like what you mentioned, but there has been a private to asia dividend there has been in some circles, in some quarters are questioning with regard to the commitment to dealing with some of these issues. the focus in the region has primarily been on columbia, the initiative, and it is not expanding into other areas much. on the one hand you have a lot of folks in this country focusing on the immigration discussion. and there are causes of that, but the region as it moves along -- and i think you talked about is a little bit, interested in doing --

in improving the social mobility of its citizens, education issues, as mentioned. so there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to this discussion with the administration to begin to think that we are going to be forced to have this discussion regardless of republican or democrat simply because the region itself means so much to the united states and is starting to look at other places. >> privately funded. if you look at the day-to-day government work, from 2009 there's been an emphasis on trying to develop strong relationships with countries like brazil, colombia, mexico. the free-trade agreement with columbia is a perfect example of the attempts to foster that. every day there is work. what you see is a shift at the top level where the

attention continually gets distracted from latin america toward the middle east, europe. and that sends the wrong signal trade and security, you still have a problem of perception that, i think, needs to be corrected. one of his first mistakes must talk about our backyard. secretary clinton visited the region an unprecedented amount of times among the millions and millions of miles that she logged with the secretary of state, of those went to latin america and his secretary carias not been as focused. and that is felt in side of the state department and in latin america. i do lot of interviews with the first question i often get is why doesn't the united states care? and this points at the united nations. >> took the headphones off. that was big news in argentina.

>> and we're going to take the microphone and pass it into the audience and open up to some questions. the way they can ask you some of those things and some of the other things. >> eventually i don't blame president obama for having taken the headphones off the beat that's just me. >> who wants to go first? >> chris christie was not the only governor. it was also governor jerry brown of california because, well, he called it the other mexico. does this mean that at the local level at least we can trust that more business development between government will occur? or will that -- will we have to do that more? >> california is one of the best examples of having a strong relationship with mexico and some of the other border states where they

recognize the mutual interest in trade, security issues. tucked about trafficking in between the state and california and mexico, pretty commendable how they're working together, not just on the government side, but printed of the public and private interests to help deal with those issues. >> but also at the municipal level, we have mayoress and latin america and the other where around. a business level which is where it is most important. companies in latin america. and they see the attractive market. increasingly will see more and more. americans going. increasingly more and more latin american companies want to do business in the united states. >> at think it's interesting

i do think a lot of governors are seeing that as part of rural suzanne martinez, fourth generation mexican-american, beautiful listening to her speak spanish. it's great, but she has a distant relative a second level he wrote in the mexican revolution, a household name in mexico something equivalent to samuel adams or paul revere the evidence so when she goes to mexico, people love she is peaches peaks race parish. also, our family has been here over a hundred years were close to 100 years. she had a relative who have some connectivity to the history of mexico. connect with that panel it's interesting. you have governors and michigan are main comic strips to mexico, not just the border states. i think to his point, they

see themselves as part of their little as governors, to be ambassadors for various industries. for example, in maine i ask this question at a meeting. the current governor of maine, a republican, said 90 percent of maine is for it. we're jump starting the paper industry with a mexican firm who is investing. so this is an example. it is not just california are in mexico, and it is because of what was saying earlier, the changing dynamics, economics or your having investment going the other way. it is an interesting twist. we're in a different world. so even in a place like mean you're seeing this. governors absolutely have to be doing this as well. >> yes, in the green. >> i work through dss

consulting. i am interested in unemployment in the workplace, especially for young people. was curious how we could start that conversation with inland america and the u.s.a. between higher education, schools, and the workplace. >> want to take that. so i think just going back to this issue of whether countries are in their economic development, they want -- there is a challenge and development of the middle and come trap. one of the ways you get out of it is to increase productivity. one way is education. when the governor came to washington and met, he wanted to talk about higher education partnerships, community college partnerships. president obama did this bill is i think this is absolutely important. but i also think this issue of is talking about earlier problem they to find young people, whether it is in los angeles or summerhouse,

young people will use their energies for productive or unproductive activities, and we want them to be using for productive. well, that is not just a challenge for the state. as of getting companies involved, getting your community of churches involved. it also means, i think, thinking of a new ways of training and education. that may not necessarily be teeseven specially folks to leave the formal education system. this book touches on. i highly recommend it. it is just come out. >> that amazon review right there. >> this exact topic. >> another question. >> and heritage tradition

perry had a question about help politicians in france this platform of investments at think it is hard to make the case for long-term investment. i think we need soon invest soc -- economically. >> you're talking politicians, a democracy. be able to appeal to the interest of the voters. and so to the extent that different districts to wear for talking, they half significant parts of the population that still have family in central america, for example better yet would think it is an attractive case to make the reader should be investing in that region for security reasons. you are helping

communicating with these individuals. you know how difficult. the message. but these are investments. lending to sovereign countries, i've never experienced defaults. that's wise a triple-a-rated institution. these are investments we're making. the principal is paid back as well as the interest. otherwise, if you look at small and medium-sized enterprises, a greater percent of those who are owned by hispanics actually trade to latin america or are involved in exports purses are average, let's say, as indeed produce a that is also you can make degrees try to create government programs and institutions in order to promote exports. >> i would add also, there

are a lot of companies all over the region, colombia and brazil, completing 85 competing globally. in no, that has to do with assistance. these are just smart business decisions. the region is now growing in a way that it has not before. it is a very diverse region. the countries of venezuela. the business environment is not the best for investment. but in other places, brazil in particular, the countries of the pacific alliance, chile, colombia, peru, mexico. i mean, these countries have environments and regulatory frameworks that are much more attractive to businesses, not just from the united states, but from all around the world. i think it is an attractive case to make.

if we want to to take off in the region, if you want to have better relationships, if we want to be able to really hit the ground in a place where we will be able to get a return on investment, we have to be in these countries. it is not just an issue of bolstering american security and there is a case to be made. but it is also putting line america into a global framework of investment, and it is relevant in that regard. i think we need to talk about that. >> our leaders need to realize that they need to invest time and effort. i brought up the argentine example. one of the things i said, south americans also need to recognize that if they want to be taken seriously on the world stage and get a security council seat they need to be serious about threats like isis in the

coalition. the united states is how organizing. >> but the president, that's why i feel it's important for the united states to take that role, not just as the assistant secretary, but from the very top. this administration has designated vice president biden to be the point person on the major issues which is a good step and he is in a lot more contact. and that is important, but really as much as the south americans need to take responsibility, we need to elevate our average so that we are both investing in promoting small business and growth and the economic prosperity that helps both sides and preventing creating a vacuum that allows foreign threats. >> i think dan was championing the other day. i think this issue of what karl was saying,

interesting. this is not a one-off. a lot more of this. a lot more sophisticated. i think about the first bush administration, bush 41. argentina sent a ship, the first gulf war. there are examples or in the past brazil contributed in world war ii to the allied cause. so i think. >> the first colombian death and korea. >> yes. >> the question from the gentleman and the start purple shirt. >> thank you. georgetown. i was wondering all along the lines, can you speculate a little bit of potential changes in u.s. foreign policy for latin america and aside from latinos, all of that? comment on the obama's coalition and the u.n. and

other latin america's been there are not believe in the event of a change of control of the senate which is what it will take command there won't be any change in the house, speculate and possible changes. the. >> well, i mean, if we had a republican voice it would mean like marco rodeo will likely be one of the 210 it is to have control over an important subcommittee on foreign operations. he's one of the two folks. again, you would have a series of very thoughtful people. a bigger appetite for more trade deals. the republican party is known as a pro free-trade party. i think if you have vigorous cross when the election and brazil you could have the hemisphere of trade agreements. wwor

>> i think that we have a window because of the presidential election and i think that a lot of people are going to be putting pressure on resolving immigration, dealing with root causes of why children are coming in dealing with the security side of it or

undocumented people in the united states and that is one issue. you mentioned brazil and the possibility of winning or being the president. but the tax treaty is the issue in brazil. the tax treaty and the brazilian business to be able to do business easier and that is another one. keystone pipeline, a western hemisphere issue. a question of the pending decision and that is another one that is very relevant. and i think that it is important to be realistic. we can speculate as much as we want and we will have our own interests and agenda. for the next two years are going to be very interesting. it's going to be very difficult to get some of these things done and i think the interest, we are all interested in latin america and getting more of this stuff done. but it's important to temper these ambitions with reality. >> my republican brother, i agree with you.

[laughter] and i agree with that sense of reality that in a republican-controlled senate, you see very little of that. but bringing that back here us why we are here. [talking over each other] >> it's going to be a split congress. >> so the likelihood of a lot happening there -- i think you're right about that. that this is why we need to continue to work on diversity at every level. democrats and republicans are starting to get that. they have not reached the numbers yet but the diversity in the congressional races better than it's ever been and that is starting to translate into there being a bench that they play a role with bill directors and then they become campaign managers and they join the presidential race as the state director and then eventually the political director of the next one. and you will start seeing that people gain more experience whether or not they make an

impact that we would all hope that they make in this election, they will be making an impact on the next one and the one after that. building that sense of diversity that we are starting to see right now is going to make it interesting. >> a quick comment and we have time for another question. >> i think it's fascinating that we have not talked about. fifty years ago we would've been talking about drugs and democracy and corruption. i think it shows how far we have come and how the narratives are changing from those things. >> immigration is still an issue, which is how we can work together and benefit economically and grow our trade relationship. it's certainly going to affect drug legalization conversation. >> final question in the back. >> a lot of pressure. [laughter] >> thank you. since we are talking about the midterm, i hear that there's a

lot of optimism and enthusiasm on voter turnout, but the statistics don't hammer them out. only 7.8 million hispanics are going to turn out and hispanics additionally don't turnout in the midterm and that could end up hurting democrats and you're right, they are upset about this in immigration measures a missile end up hurting democrats that republicans are getting closer to regaining the senate. someone if you could elaborate a little more about why this the hispanics are really feeling let down and they are not going to come out and vote considering the potential. for those who have been talking about the sleeping giant and the potential for this, it hasn't come out yet. >> i don't suggest that there's a lot of excitement, a lot of things that we hear about includes how we motivate these

voters. the affordable care act, obamacare has lowered the uninsured rate among hispanics from the high 20s and 30s and all of those people who now have something to lose, they need to be aware that that kind of thing is at stake and they need to understand what is at stake economically and financially and really compare with the economic policy means in that particular district. so the challenge for democrats is to really connect what difference it's going to make to those particular voters and immigration is a head wind. i mentioned it at the beginning of this panel. and it's been a long hour. at the beginning of that i was talking about the that the president may have actually hurt himself with the delay in states like colorado and north carolina where the margin of error can make a difference. so there's definitely an enthusiasm problem. but it starts with reaching out

and making people feel that they matter not just in us but for the priorities of that particular candidate in what has to be done one at a time. >> it's an opportunity for republicans and an opportunity to go from the rhetoric on immigration issue to action. and i think that that is something the republicans, if they do take the senate, but they are going to be judged upon on this issue. i think it's an issue of growing interest and growing importance and i think it's an opportunity and right now and closing the latino vote is one for grabs now than what it has ever been. would you agree with that? >> i agree with that. i think they've made a big mistake in not being more aggressive and you have those like mark prior of the world dominating this instead of those who have a bigger constituency.

the democrats have put themselves in a difficult scenario where they should be able to capitalize on this constituency, but it's not a 100% deal. but republicans are missing an opportunity not just to the next cycle but with the lame-duck session. they say clearly what they should have been looking at was let's deal with immigration now so that we don't continue to have this as a challenge because at the end of the day the latinos in the dreamers are not going to stop. i'm not going to stop showing up and challenging them in at the end of the day if republicans get this out of the way in the lame-duck session, they don't have to deal with that, they take it off the table and the republicans don't have to focus on immigration and they would be smart to do that rather than just dragging it out.

>> read all of that down we will check it in six months. [laughter] >> or in 35 years, exactly. [laughter] >> i would like to offer a round of applause to the panelists. [applause] >> thank you all for coming and participating so you can relive it. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow morning, the atlantic council post a discussion about online voting. the technology behind it and the potential effects on future elections. it will air at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and c-span2. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> you don't have to be an einstein to know that the only way to keep ebola from coming in the united states is to have the president stepan and demand that no one from africa be allowed to come in into this country for at least the next 10 years or more until this is completely eradicated. i can't comprehend how people are so nonchalant about this getting into the united states.

i'm so glad that c-span put out this number for viewers to call and i hope all the people who feel as i do will call in and stayed their outrage as to how this problem is being handled and demand the president to take the action that i have suggested. people expect about this outbreak two they said that they would never reach the united states ever. now, look at what is happening. and then three dozen other people over there? are you kidding me? do think that we will fall for this that the doctors are smiling and saying that we have this under control? it will never spread. well, it wasn't supposed to get over here either, blah, blah, blah. >> now a panel discussion on the ebola virus and it's been all over the news they came from

liberia in west africa over here. he got out and went to his kinfolk and they contracted the virus from him and it could be construed that there was a reckless disregard to the americans on this guy was allowed to leave a place that was played with the ebola virus without someone having checked him out before he boarded the plane or then coming over here and nobody kicks them out and he goes right on into the taoist community and as a result of that, he was quarantined and he's in the hospital and i

haven't checked the local news because i've seen it on c-span right now, to the whether he went to live or die. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-6264 to ###-#200 or you can send us a tweet at c-span hash tag comments. like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. now i discussion about the president's authority as commander in chief and the military strategy in fighting isis. the cato institute examines the legal basis for the campaign in iraq and syria and whether military intervention serves national interest. this hour-long discussion took place on capitol hill in washington. >> thank you all for coming today. i am the director of

congressional affairs at the cato institute and today can officially be said that we are the ones fighting against isis. we are not the only ones to do so. the president of decided to bomb targets at a time when congress was out of session in the parliament of the united kingdom debated an authorized airstrikes which makes one wonder which country has the monarchy in which considers itself to be a constitutional republic. the united states is the only country to do this, even the turkish parliament debated. i'm sorry, but the constitution included herbage to declare war and james madison said that no part of the cost edition is more found in the closet confronts war, peace, or legislature and with that in mind, let's hear from gene healy on the

presidents actions. even if congress debated an authorized airstrikes, with the public want another war in the middle east and is there a clearly defined mission two christopher preble will explore those questions in depth. first up will be gene healy, who is a vice president of the cato institute and his research interests include executive power in the role of the presidency as well as criminalization. he is the author of this book, america's dangerous devotion to executive power, and barack obama and the continuing cult of the presidency. he is a weekly, columnist and he holds a jd from the university of chicago law school. he will be followed by christopher preble, who is a vice president for defense policy studies at the cato institute, he's the author of several books including how american dominance makes us less safe and less free.

he is also the lead author of exiting iraq that the u.s. must renew against the war against al qaeda. before joining us in february 2003, he taught history at temple university and he's also an officer at temple university and with that i will turn it over to him. >> thank you, john, thank you all for being here and also to the division of labor this morning. i will talk about whether what the president is doing it is legal and chris will talk about whether or not it is a good idea. so first of all, what are we doing? well, since early august the president has launched a couple of hundred airstrikes near the iraqi and syrian border, most of them against isis targets but

two weeks ago he also withdrew tomahawk missiles in syria which we were told threatens to bring down u.s. passenger planes by letting off explosives. so what are we calling what we are doing? well, the bombing has gone a little bit ahead of the branding. at this point we are going by the placeholder designation and operations in iraq and syria as "the wall street journal" reported last week, we are actually running out of names for the operations that we launched than we thought about operations infinite result, apparently, but as you can we bear that the journal is running a contest for name that military operation, hash tag operation name if any of you have good ideas. get on twitter for that.

so what is the legal basis for this conflict to be named later? in the nationally televised address on september 10, the president said that i have the authority to carry out this -- what do you call it? but where that authority was supposed to come from was anything but clear, least of all it seems to the administration itself after several weeks of various fits and starts and trial and error is in two weeks later we got an official statement from the president in the form of the notification under the war powers resolution on september 23. he mentions several potential sources of authority there and i think we can group them into three separate rationales. commander-in-chief and the chief

executive, constitutional rationales and he mentions two sources of potential domestic statutory authority, including public law 107243 and the 2002 iraq war resolution and the authorization for the use of military force that congress passed three days after 9/11 to authorize the impending war in afghanistan and an ongoing war with al qaeda. and so starting with the commander-in-chief and chief executive, the commander-in-chief clause is not a particularly fruitful source of authority for launching a military operation as hamilton put it that this means no more than that the president will be the first general and admiral of america's military forces

because they have an important role but they don't -- the general gets to decide whether and where we we go to war. and so as far as the chief executive goes, this was the article one, section one clause, the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america and this was the source of authority where you might call strong unitarians like the legal architect of the bush administration's war on terror presidency includes military authority added to the numbers of this article section one. that virtually no one from this seems to have understood the executive power in that way. you go to the architect of the presidency itself, pennsylvania's james wilson, the man at the constitutional convention talks about the

motions that the executive should consist of one person and he said at that point that the executive power was principally the power to execute the laws. so when it came to declaring war wilson said at the pennsylvania ratifying convention convention that the system will not hurry us and it's calculated to guard against it and it will not be in the power to involve us in such important powers of declaring war in the legislature at large. and the framers were consistent on this point, even alexander hamilton has a series of pamphlets and early debates between hamilton and madison over washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793 and hamilton writing says it is the province from the duty of the

executive to preserve for the nation the blessings of peace and the legislature alone can interrupt them by placing the nation in a state of war. so madison for his part and i do think john reference this out before that in no part of the constitution is there more wisdom to be found in a continuous bed the temptation would be to grade for any one man. and so nobody thought that the president has the inherent constitutional power to launch wars that will but to be fair, the obama administration hasn't placed a great deal of emphasis on broad theories of presidential power to justify this latest war. justifying war on a presidential power theory is for people like dick cheney and others.

the obama team tries to shy away from that sort of thing, so they have instead embarked upon a somewhat desperate search for this outside of article two under authorization for use of military force passed by other congresses for other wars. who needs john when you can do what you want right torturing decades old authorizations are wars past. in the obama theory of constitutional war powers, congress gets a vote, but it's one vote and one congress, one vote, one time. -- oh, maybe two times. [laughter] for the president identifies two possible sources of statutory authority both over a decade old password different congresses for different wars. one of them is the iraq war resolution passed in 2002 to authorize the president to disarm saddam hussein of u.n. security council resolutions.

and interestingly in a blast from the past, obama is not the first president to argue that they never die. and so as it happens the bush cheney administration tried a similar trick in the run-up to the iraq war 12 years ago, this article from "the washington post" in august of 2002 that president bush had concluded he can launch an attack on iraq without new information including the 1991 resolution giving bush's father authority in the persian gulf. so to their credit they drop that argument after about a week and a half and actually sought congressional authorization. the 12 years later here's the obama administration arguing that the resolution that gave us this gulf war still has enough life in it to support gulf war

number three. what's wrong with this argument? well, let's start with the title. the authorization for the use of military force against iraq and the resolution of 2002. you can look at the language and you don't have to -- you know, deal with the preamble and all of this dealing with saddam hussein, weapons of mass destruction and you can just look at the operative clause which empowers the president to use the armed forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the nationals 30 of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq. and so it doesn't read like a delegation allowing future presidents to wage war against any potential threats emerging

from the geographical region loosely defined. this war with isis isn't against iraq or the continuing threat posed by it. the government led by iraq is actually part of a coalition here. so this argument and what is more in terms of july 25, two weeks before the president started bombing the targets in iraq, president obama's national security adviser told speaker boehner that the iraq a could safely be rescinded. but a month after the bombing we got a statement from an unnamed senior administration official arguing that the 2002 amuf with

servers at statutory basis on which the president would rely as military action in iraq. and it hasn't changed and we would like to see it repealed. and onto the rationale number three. the administration seems to have settled for its primary source of legal cover on the 2001 aumf. one plan with that rationale was for al qaeda is publicly denounced and excommunicated isis, a senior administration

official has to look around for that as well because of the groups long-standing relationship with al qaeda and its position supported by some individual members in aqap aligned groups that it is the true inheritor of osama bin laden's legacy in the argument goes within us despite this public split between al qaeda sr. leadership and isis. that is some time ago they used to be friends and many in the jakarta community think that isis is hot stuff. and so it certainly it wasn't around and it is difficult to see how they are harboring an organization that excommunicated

them. are they supposed to be an associated force of a group that refuses to associate with them? or is the administration's legal theory been passed to a new generation and isis is the proper successor to al qaeda. well, by the way, it doesn't really matter as far as the administration sees it, they are covered. and all of which leads us to the larger problem of something that is long past time. toco

>> >> the drones will continue until morale improves. recently a report from a subdivision of polluted fact evaluated that obama had bombed more countries than george to the bush and rated it true but they could not

settle on a precise number that both presidents may have bombed the philippines. we cannot be sure because under the way the administration have interpreted the aumf the associated forces under the aumf al qaeda the splinter groups the factions we are at war with our classified information with who is on the associated forces last -- listed open session this is war on a need to know basis and we don't need to know. president obama gave a very strange speech a disorienting speech may of 2013 at the national defense

university. he quoted james madison's warning that no nation could survive. and a warning of his own a perpetual war would prove self-defeating to alter the country in troubling ways. he will come to this debate with himself. when you look at how far we have drifted from the vision and the framers had for the constitutional allocation of four powers that it would not hurry us into war begins to think it would be nice that a real debate perhaps in congress itself. thank-you. [applause]

>> thanks everyone for coming out tonight. standing room only. and also to our staff and also especially want to give a shout out to my interns' who really helped with this presentation. so in anticipation or hope that congress will fill its obligation and actual debate for the war that we are fighting in iraq and syria i was thinking of some questions or considerations that might come up in the course of that debate. and going back to my documents to the cold war era nearly 30 years ago the national press club here in

washington caspar weinberger who was secretary of defense outlined six test with u.s. combat forces abroad. remember the context after the disastrous mission in lebanon and beirut battle so the attack on grenada so there were two cases that weinberger had in mind they were wars of choice not whether not to use force with vital national security interests but more ambiguous. is a fascinating document. you can find it on the internet. i will not read all of the different passages but i will highlight of view the

emphasis is with the original on combat troops the first point is vital interest more than our allies we should commit to the mission wholeheartedly that seems fairly reasonable that seems fairly obvious this is one of the outgrowth of the vietnam conflict and another point is we should have clearly defined political and military objectives that we should continually reassess of what we have committed to achieve them. and the support of the public and the congress. the last point and it seems it bears repeating we don't commit u.s. forces to combat of us as a last resort this

is one of the great benefits we have with this extraordinary security that we take for granted. we have the luxury of choice that other countries do -- do not. these ideas have persisted it turns out that way now nova aid at the time was power he drafted a speech from 1984 and general powell himself articulated us similar sets of rules often referred to as the power doctrine. a few years ago i came up with my own list, and i borrowed from that doctor in and i will lay that out

briefly for you and you will see some clear parallels. there should be a compelling security interest at stake with strong public support that should be manifest in a congressional debate and authorization at least with a declaration of war with the old-fashioned concept after all the michigan should be clearly defined to understand what we are trying to achieve the and whether or not we can achieve its. and the last resort argument. i have used these in the past. don't like them? use their own but somewhere we should assess whether or not going to war is a good

idea in the first place. so the question is how does that current ongoing mission measure up against these criteria? the first is compelling u.s. national security. you can see to approaches of the one hand for dianne feinstein wrote the op-ed that focuses of that isis' sheer brutality and barbarism and made a few comments about the relative effectiveness to seize territory in iraq and syria therefore the implication clearly was this group posed a clear and compelling threat to u.s. national security. on the other hand, secretary

johnson focused on what information the intelligence community had about both the isis intentions to attack directly and the capabilities to do so. i only picked to but the point is that isis poses some security threat but not particularly great or the existential threat. we have got away from the language i hope so but is there a care compelling national security interest? we could debate that and let's debate that. the second point is their strong suit -- public support? so three out of every four

americans favor air strikes against isis the question is a question from last month there isn't emphasis on both iraq and syria of course, referencing the debate that tries to do differentiate between the targets in iraq or syria but the way the question was asked to the american people clearly explains it is not just iraq and syria so they favor airstrikes as three out of four americans. but six out of 10 oppose the use of ground troops. not really so surprising with the memories of the war

is a neck in a stand and iraq especially, it is not so surprising about another major ground war in syria and afghanistan. so this is where the public is how we go about doing it so the real question is whether the air of the campaign can accomplish what obama and set out to do. so is there a clearly defined mission? in his speech on september 10th he suggested that air only campaign could degrade and ultimately destroy a isil he did say it was not a terrorist threat but also said we will not get trapped

into another conflict in direct so the president's statements to the american public was he thought we could to ultimately destroy isil with assistance for those on the ground but it turns out not so fast "the washington post" reports that mr. -- retired batik -- marine general to deal with interagency process, general allan has directed everyone should stop using the word destroy when describing the mission. he said no word was too imprecise coveted degrade is better and said he might also said it is impossible to do this.

the president said destroy but the general said don't use that word. among senior military officers there is also some debates or disagreement but to clarify what this mission will look like and to paraphrase a little bit, he said the coalition assembled on the ground if this coalition fails we can go back to the recommendation of ground forces and the army chief of staff, he emphasized to have to have ground forces capable to do to them out but it is very clear with the context of the general's remarks he was

not talking about u.s. ground forces but placing emphasis on general dempsey and those forces there in the region. if there must be boots on the ground not necessarily or the case of wait and see aunt others are equally convinced only u.s. combat troops only can accomplish the mission and the need is urgently required now in both iraq and syria. and other 14th of september or bolted on the 15th and most recently senator graham today with senator mccain to make the

case that this mission cannot be done from the air. but mr. obama as political goal this is what senator mccain says is a transition from a side to a political order that will require the u.s. military to upgrade the opposition to change the momentum of conflict to preconditions for political solution which means a much heavier u.s. presence than what is under consideration this is a debatable point and this comes through a different position so this is a debatable point. the last one is, is the last resort?

is this a particular war of choice or particular wars of joyce? is it essential to u.s. national security? do we not have other options yet aside from u.s. combat troops? or is there no other alternative than to right now to more is simply people helping to direct the strikes on the ground? so a couple different statements suggesting that maybe the case from the middle of last month but there is still the expectation of those that are directly affected by a

isis have the most at stake that will to most of the heavy lifting. so to return to my rules is there a compelling national security? i think this is worth debating to talk about the nature of isis they are barbaric that nobody disputes with the capacity to carry out conditional attacks or their intentions are capabilities i think that is a debatable point so throw that into the mix. there is strong support but there is strong support to punish isis but not the mission we want to embark on to change the political order in two countries to

shift the political order. this gets to the third point is the mission clearly defined and attainable? i say no because of the strong public support of the public opposition to the ground forces that was expressed so clearly in the poll that i showed and finally as a last resort for reasons that played out. again i use this criteria many times in the past. they're not particularly original but they don't need to be. there are criteria are that we have used in the past whether forces should be engaged in the military operations abroad and it is incumbent the

representatives in congress to have that debate to debate the questions with the criteria i have come up with such as caspar weinberger and colon powell is fine but these seem to be obvious questions i would hope we would hear those in a thorough debate in congress. with that i am happy to take questions and thank you for your attention. [applause] >> we do have time for some questions. but we do not have microphones. >> [inaudible]

>> i think chris could probably speak to this strategy better than i could, but i think the way to successive administration and have stretched the post led 11 aumf does threatened to permanently change the default setting of the united states from peace to war as i alluded to at the end of this speech, there is, as we get further away from september 11 with groups of various

composition or connections to al qaeda or intentions for the united states whole way and, we're becoming increasingly divorced from the original legal basis of the war against the al qaeda. and i do think it is quite shocking this is in 2013 senator levin asked a pentagon official for a list and he was told he might be provided with the list but it could not be shared with the public because the forces on the west -- list could our national security because by naming the people we are at war with, just by

a naming them they gain credibility. and that makes them even more of a threat to the united states. this is insane right now. if anything should be publicly debated it should be the question that we can deal with as a society and that is the question of "war and peace" with the constitution envisioned for what the framers envisioned and as we go 30 years into the history of the aumf, it becomes a complete pretext of any real congressional authorization as it is treated their perpetuity to do more or less whatever they want in the name of

national security. that is not the way our system is supposed to work. >> i could add to that this actually predates nine lfa going back to the existence of the expanding military force that was never the founders' intentions. in the constitution of talks about raising an army and maintaining a navy. there is meaning to that. so the fact the president is no longer required to call up forces why you don't have declaration of war because there at his disposal. this goes back to the cold war after reports to to maintain a much larger military we had prior so

this is a problem th predates 9/11. >> average people when they look at isis that the passports were not revoked they actually said on 60 minutes they will not revoke their passports but watch them carefully. looking at the war on terrorism is this the new war or the extension of the so-called war on terrorism that we will fight over 20 years? >> sometimes it makes more sense to talk about the war's end and floral and spend less time coming up with new names for new

operations a key bit in the singular. this is envisioned to be the third year war even though the president has said it has succeeded dramatically in a nationally televised address we have no intelligence that suggest a threat to the united states homeland. whether it is wars or a war there is a case to be made it is continual. >> to decide when war is absolutely necessary, and i think it becomes tricky with

factors to say this is the moment when you don't surrender. >> edits the excellent point* that gets to what he just said. because we have declared war on the tactic of terrorism that by calling it a war on terrorism so we have seen that with the evolution that are the bitter enemies that are treating them effectively the same way. i wish i had a better answer. is a good question but i do think there is some evidence terrorist organizations over time fall apart for different reasons some

pressure can contribute to that collapse. some are dependent upon strong leaders, or become less relevant. the different strategies or the political context or the disputes changes so the goals change. it is always true to deal with these more discreetly. >> this is the debate we should have been and things are that i am curious as crazy as it is it is a return to argue what is called the polish doctor and the pre-emptive strike on on stage actors but d.c. a

category for whatever you call it? for those who want to carry out mass terrorist attacks? >> a good question. i struggle a little bit with of bush doctrine it wasn't specifically on stage actors but he had in mind the stage actor to call their pre-emption so we understand it as prevention as a different vehicle context. and appropriate next -- appropriateness the way to wage war ising group -- and distinguishable. it is done kindly at that.

and it is important in this case to assess isis actual capabilities to carry out attacks against the united states are even small-scale events for as much attention as the comments on "60 minutes" attracted, the number that sticks out in my mind is one dozen possible terrorist wannabe's coming back to the united states. is a concern. existential or great? certainly not. just as in the case the one similarity talking about waging pre-emptive for to understand their capabilities as well as their intention is as much as non stage actors.

>> and i think as a constitutional matter the president does have some retained authority to act in the absence of congress with there the constitutional convention debate -- debates they thought it stood well the president should have the power to. certain attacks did not initiate war but now this reserved power or defensive power on the use of power without congress i don't thank you will find many who say that is often the first punch before we can't do anything. . .

it has been used to build an archipelago of secret drone bases throughout the middle east and africa. and mean, we have literally had drones over timbuktu. you know, the -- in foreign services committee, senate foreign services committee hearing a year-and-a-half ago an administration official to my think it was lindsay grams questioning, he said, do