ng with [indiscernible] homeland security should not be tied to something else. we will not defend the border unless you do what we want you to do? we will not defend the country? that makes no sense, whatsoever. it needs to be a standalone bill. host: we will and the conversation on the immigration issue for now. next, what happens in the fight against isis and the authority to fight that terrorist group. daniel newshauser will be here. later, two different perspectives on the legal the blade -- the legal debate to battle the terrorist group. first, a summit held at stanford

university addressing high profile cyberattacks, including the hack on sony pictures. [video clip] >> the cyber threat is becoming more diverse, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. that is why we are here. we were at a transformational moment in the evolution of the cyber threat area the actions we take today, those that we fail to take, will determine whether cyberspace remains a realm of opportunity and assets or one that facilitates bold new ideas or whether it becomes a vulnerability. unless we take action to strengthen our partnerships, most importantly between the

government and the private sector, and unless we develop a resilient set of defenses, i worry that a tax like the ones against sony pictures entertainment could become the norm. it is not all doom and gloom. you will hear later today from president obama. there is a light at the end of the tunnel. we have ideas and a pass and a plan to address these threats. there is a framework to get this right. we know what we need to do, both within the government and in partnership with many of you. we know what you need to do to overcome the many challenges we are going to talk about today. it is a shared risk and responsibility, to get cyber security right. we can take lessons from the fight we have waged against terrorism, to work across government better and to do a better job with all of you to up

our defenses and our responses. since 9/11, the government has developed an agile and effective approach to identifying and disrupting terrorist threats. host: if you missed the event you can go to our website c-span.org, to watch in there. now, joining us, daniel newshauser to talk about the next fight against isis. the president has sent his proposal for new authority to fight this group. what was the reaction from capitol hill? guest: tepid at best. among republicans, they do not trust the president on national security issues or anything, let's face it. he sent over this draft

language, but almost immediately, there were a course of voices saying it is not enough, it is too much, and a lot of my sources on the hill, some being high-ranking members privy to these discussions think there are no languages that can tow the middle line where you can get votes in the house and senate to pass anything at this point. host: will there be an effort made to do so? guest: certainly. they are having hearings already. they are going to take a hard look at this. it is their constitutional duty. it is their duty to debate it. they can say no. if they think the president has not laid out a strategy that they agree with, they will not vote for one. the biggest problem is that the

president is asking for authority to continue doing what he is already doing over in the middle east. if he distracted the authority from congress, it is the administration's view that they have the authority to continue doing it anyway. there's not a pressing need to pass it, it is more of a gesture , or a show of national unity. that scuttles the chances for this passing. host: what about the democrats reaction? guest: it is not so much this proposal as it is the one from 2001 after the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center. many are trying to turn this into a referendum on the 2001, that granted the executive very balanced power to attack terrorists around the world.

anyone who was deemed to be affiliated with al qaeda or the groups who funded or helped carry out the attacks on 9/11. there are some that want to rescind the order. the president says he wants to too, but not now. he says we need to start having the discussion, but there's not a political will to get rid of it. host: the new york times put together some language, looking at the different authorizations for military force. 2001 put together by georges b bush -- put together by george w. bush. a granted all necessary and appropriate force against anyone who committed or aided the attacks of september 11 or harbored such organizations or persons. guest: isis and al qaeda are in

a power war. isis used to be al qaeda in the iraq-syria area. host: what limitations does the president put on himself in the 2015? host: it is -- guest: it is vague, intentionally. the biggest thing is the ground war aspect. we are dealing with a war-weary country. congress is unlikely to authorize any kind of full-scale ground war. the language of the a umf limits in during ground offensive. it is up to interpretation as to

what that means. interpretation is we do not want to be embroidered in a ground war. host: to ensure that does not happen, he has put in a limitation of three years. this authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized. guest: whoever is president next would have to have this discussion again. it has been said what he is trying to do is set up a national conversation about what is the appropriate role of the united states and targeting these terrorist groups. democrats counter with the 2001 aumf, the point is muoot.

jack goldsmith wrote a blog post over the weekend, noting that in his interpretation, they could send as many ground troops as they want. while it is not politically feasible, if you look at the letter of the aumf, they could. host: it does not limit the president geographically, the 2001, neither does the 2015 language that the president sent up capitol hill. egypt would like the u.s. to leave this coalition against isis into northern africa. guest: i read news reports that egypt has started an obama campaign against isis in libya. republicans that i talked to

that is one of their problems with the aumf. democrats want to have some sort of geographic limitations confine this battle to iraq and syria, but republicans think the threat of racquetball -- of radical jihadist them has spread beyond africa and other places and they want to target other groups as well. host: we are talking to daniel newshauser. why obama's aumf faces trouble. he writes it has been on capitol hill for less than one day and it already was in trouble. robert, listen through your phone. caller: my opinion was that

obama has always had enough authority to do these, but the problem is, what are we going to hope to accomplish and all of this. it has been going on for years. we have not got any accomplished happenings in the middle east. how far are we going to take this war? are we just going to hurt them a little bit? if we are going all the way, are we dropping nuclear bombs on them? guest: i don't think the nuclear bombs issue is an option but the caller brings up a valid question, one that is being brought up a lot. how do you define success? is our mission to hurt isis, to destroy isis, these are a lot of the questions that congressmen and women want the

administration to answer before they authorize a use of military force. host: what about republicans that say we need to show force because every time there is a batting, it is propaganda for them to look strong and to help them recruit. guest: the counterweight is that the more we fight people over there, the more we send troops or drones or any kind of military force, the more we encourage people to deflect the united states. there is a lot of consideration that has to be taken into account. host: james, mississippi, independent caller. caller: i went to war in vietnam. when we came home, nobody

recognized the veterans of vietnam. we have been fighting wars and we will be fighting wars. it does not matter who the president is, democrats republican, independent. god puts a person in theirre. people once prayed for god, oh god, i've got a sickness. i've been through seven heart catheters. i asked god what i could do for him. i kept telling the doctors what was wrong. they semi-me to birmingham alabama, to cut my chest open.

i said it is not my valves, what is wrong with me. busy eight to me on medicine. i quit taking my medicine six months last june and i told my church members to pray for me. i was not taking my medicine anymore. i said i will not die. host: okay, we will go on to jeannie. caller: high. how are you-- hi. how are you doing? i am 77 years old. each of our presidents has always had thsiis problem of other countries wanting to destroy us and we elected him. congress and the senate and all

of those men and women should set down with the president and understand his powers and give him host: that sentiment was good by the white house chief of staff on sunday show. he was on cbs's face the nation. here's what he had to say about the white house's proposal. [video clip] >> we'll put together what we think is the likeliest outcome to get a strong bipartisan showing. we have given them a good place to start. i will say this, bob. what they shouldnt do this time is what they did in 2013, they took a pass on this issue. the president has given them a roadmap to follow, they can take that or come up with something

else. they should not take a pass on this issue. host: daniel newhauser, he says the president has given them a place to start. guest: like my story says, with the 2013 request, my sources on the hill do not see any kind of language that could thread that needle and get the aumf pass. that could be proven wrong, anything could happen the next few months. you remember after james foley was beheaded, there is a huge national outcry, if an aumf word to come out that, it would have been hard to turn away. right now things being where they are, i do not see them being able to craft language that satisfies everybody. host: we will go to collins,

mississippi, james you are next. caller: good morning. how are y'all doing? host: good morning. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i just went asked the guests, what is it about this new congress that the president -- not only with the war on isis, and all the wars, but why is it so much division and attitude when it comes to all americans? and the soldiers in the military, why is it like we act so afraid? they put these threats out. if america is so strong and positive, why are we attacking each other? host: about this partisan divide. guest: this is something that

has been going on pretty intensely over the last couple of years. it is not clear where it started. we have divided government. americans are extremely divided about how we move forward on a number of issues. domestically and internationally. i guess the eastern time with matters of international policy, foreign policy, were not necessarily dividing in a political debate, but the that does not seems to be the case anymore. host: let's talk a low more about that. a cnn poll came out showing 57% of those surveyed disapprove of the way the president is handling this threat of isis. then, i want to show our viewers what the top republican on the senate foreign relations

committee had to say when he was on face the nation. [video clip] >> it is our goal to have a process the number one determines the threat to our homeland. number two, and this will be extensively looked at, what is this president's strategy especially in syria? i think there's a lot of skepticism as to the administration's commitment to dealing with isis, or whatever you want to call them. that creates a lot of concern. we have an opportunity to look at that, what is happening in iraq, and hopefully shortly thereafter create language that can in fact pass through both houses of congress. host: what you make of what he had to say? guest: the republican line now is that they do not trust the president and they just think he has laid out an adequate strategy. speaker boehner said so much last week. on the other side, you're the ministration mind that is it is

congress is elected duty -- they cannot pass up football if they are given one. it's basically the starting point for this. one of the big reasons why a lot of people say they will not find a place in the middle. host: who should we be watching on capitol hill who may "draw something" and get it to the present death question mark -- who may draft something and get to the president's desk? guest: kroger, nancy pelosi, they are the ones who have to get things to the floor and sell it to their members. i know the matters of war and foreign policy are different than the mastic when it comes to politicizing them.

not an awful lot has passed. pass congress over the past several years. the first six weeks of this new congress has been incredibly rocky. it does not instill a great amount confidence that all us anything of any importance can pass right now. i guess we will see. there's also a possibility, but does not look very good right now. host: a proposal to give the president knew authority to fight isis. do we know when committees will take this up? guest: no. they have had hearings. just last week there are hearings in foreign affairs, armed services about the threat of isis. when it will specifically take up this language, and start marking up, and amendments intriguing the language, we have not seen it yet. the house is out this week. they will be back next week.

they have to deal with this issue of department of homeland security funding. until that is done, i do not see this today getting started. march at the earliest. host: cap a, florida. -- tampa, florida. caller: there are two things i want to say. we have not done enough with isis. i will not be happy until their faces are in the stand, to be honest. i do not trust the president. he wants to use a pen and a phone to pass an amnesty bill. to me, he is breaking the law. if he is giving drivers license to undocumented -- i called them illegals, call them what you want -- have their children in our hospitals -- host: i'm going to move on so that we can stick to our topic here, which is the debate in washington over giving the president knew authority to fight isis. we will move on to a democratic

caller in virginia. good morning. caller: first of all, i want to say that i'm a veteran of the afghan war. russia and china will have enough of this and stamp out islam altogether. why say 5% when it is 95% who are terrorists. host: daniel newhauser. your shake your head. guest: i don't think there is any room for talk like that. this debate is not about stamping out anti-religion and to conflate the actions of some jihadist, however many there may be, with an entire religion. it is wrongheaded. host: you heard from the previous caller saying that she wants congress, lawmakers the defense department to do everything they can to step out isis. to put -- she said, put their

head in the sand. what are the military expert saying about what needs to be done? what are they telling capitol hill? guest: it is tough. short of a ground war, which is no appetite for. a lot of you will tell me that you will not be able to completely destroy isis. there are several options -- bombing, air strikes they only go so far. there is army different -- farming different sectarian groups around the region to are also fighting isis, but that comes with geopolitical implications and obviously risks . a lot of groups that we arm, it goes back to the 80's and before, they have come back to harm us. they're sending troops in an advisory role, we have about 3000 or more on the ground

already. there is idea of sending even more than that in. in a larger ground war. none of those on its own seem to be enough. it's a very difficult situation. host: will go to frank from new york. an independent caller. hi, frank. caller: thing for taking my call. i do watching this for a long time and i've heard both sides of it. especially recent article that said the ideology going on a building radical islamic beliefs, especially in countries like saudi arabia, which is supposed your friend. when you type but ideology taught in the schools, you cannot just target isis as the only entity that is causing all the violence and bloodshed. you have to target the ideology from all these countries that

are donating, organ to being, as far as the belief that we are the bad guys. the united states and our culture is the bad guys. host: let me just jump in at this point. does the latest language from the president, the 2015 aumf, talk about our partners? and having some sort of coalition that goes after guest: ? it does not adjusted to much. it is very vague. when the white house secretary was asked about it last week, he said it was fuzzy and intentionally so. they were to give the hell a blueprint to start with. a have been clear that they want to work with coalition partners. egypt is getting involved now and jordan, after this horrific execution of one of their citizens. they said for early on, one of the biggest things they can do

is try to instill some stability in the region. they would like to work with the iraqi government to setup an inclusive government. to try to -- like a set but some stability in the region and not allow for a power vacuum like this to must us to size. that would be part of the solution to. host: because of the headings in libya, does that put more pressure on europe's get involved? guest: it is possible. the very idea that is brought up about a more inclusive iraqi government was one proposed by david cameron and barack obama in london several months ago. again, i would have to venture to say that the european

government is just as weary as us. very skeptical about getting into any kind of large-scale ground war. it would lend some legitimacy to what we are doing over there for dinner with coalition partners. host: pleasantville, new jersey tony, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i'm just calling in reference to the authorization. why the republicans will not give obama the authorization. yet, they say that he is muslim. he's this, he's that. giving him authorization cause his bluff to see what he will do. that's what i would do if i were a republican. call his bluff, give him authorization and see if he will go in their white these people out. they are cutting people's heads

off over there. common sense to me. you have intelligent people up there on the hill. if you really want to do something, why don't you put his feet to the fire. guest: back when we had this debate in 2013 authorizing military force in syria one republican was quoted in "then times" as saying, "if we authorize this, then we are in it too, if we do not authorize it, and things go wrong, we can say, we told you so." there is a lot of that sentiment privately. people tell you this is political. again, they do not need to authorize and aumf it is continue. obama would continue whether this passes or not. why add yourself to it? why make yourself complicit in this question mark as it goes

wrong, they can always say, we did not authorize the anyway. host: larry in richmond, texas. caller: high. . when we started this war when they flew airplanes into our airplanes and killed 3000 people, we were the bad guys. now, the beheaded two guys. and they say we can't go to war. guest: if you think back to two thousand one i don't think they were saying this was a bad war. i think there were a lot of things that happen in between the towers being hit and now for people to change their opinions. host: what would this do to the 2002 aumf? guest: it would get rid of it.

i is also a problem. this was the aumf that authorize the iraq war. this would get rid of that and replace it, essentially, with this 2015 aumf. even then, a lot of people, a lot of republicans particularly, and some hot gue hocker's democrats do not want to do that either. it is very tough. i don't think there's any language or commendation of aumf's, or getting rid of aumf's that would make everyone feel comfortable with passing something. host: daniel newhauser, thank you very much for your time. guest: thank you. host: this conversation continues. coming up next, we will get two different perspectives on the legal debate of the request from president obama to congress for authorization. we will talk to jennifer daskal and charles stimson.

coming up later our h tour of historically black you receive in colleges continues with a look at florida agriculture mechanical university. ♪ >> this week on c-span in prime time. three nights of tech featuring the innovators driving today's most successful internet companies. >> is you lease a taxi for

$40,000 per year, it should be a bentley. but instead, it is a taxi. for that privilege of easy a car for $40,000 per year, he gets to be impoverished. >> hear from the heads of at sea, paypal, and more. >> three nights of tech, starting tonight at 7:00 eastern on c-span. the political landscape has changed with the 114 congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are also eight new women in the congress,

including the first african-american woman. keep track of congress using the congressional chronicle page on c-span.org. it has voting results and specifics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back. let me introduce you to our next guest. we will get your perspectives on the president asking for new authority to fight isis. charles stimson of the heritage foundation and jennifer daskal, former attorney general for national security and now a professor at american university. thank you for being here. jennifer, let me start with you. just you reaction on the language of the request that

president obama set up to capitol hill. guest: to start, i-8 credit him for engaging. it has been over six months that this conflict has been going on. the conflict has been pursued during this old 2001 language. it is late for their to be engagement. that said, the proposal put forward fall short in a number of ways. the most significant one of which is that it leaves the 2001 aumf on the books. the new authorization includes a three-year subset by does not address the underlying 2001 aumf. the result is that there's absolutely nothing that precludes the next administration from saying, we will just revert back to the thousand one eo mass. most of the constraints that are included in this proposal become

rendered meaningless without also addressing the 2001 amf. host: or if congress does nothing, they miss jason kincaid doing what it is doing because of the 2001 amf. why do you think it needs to be repealed? guest: the 2001 aumf has been in place cents 2001. the language is sparse. it is concise. it is designed to go after those who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. also known as, taliban and al qaeda. it has been used in the past 14 years to also associate -- target so-called associated forces of al qaeda. it has been used to target groups in a number of places outside of afghanistan including yemen, somalia, and now in syria. the problem is that there had not been public discussion and by and. -- buy in.

the conflict has continued without any discussion as to who we are fighting, or even the identity of the cortical enemy. america fighting a war, but the executive branch refuses to tell us the full range of who the enemy is in this war that we are fighting. host: charles stimson, your perspective. guest: and aumf is not a substitute for a strategy. i think part of the problem with this aumf is the last august, the president said that we do not have a strategy. he gave a 14 minute speech where he painted rod strokes of a strategy. then, secretary state kerry laid out the four pillars of what should be in a nagel, he did not really get into strategy.

then, last week, secretary rice gave a speech. try to put some more me on the flash. flecsh. i think that mr. john a responsibility to lay out a strategy, and that backs up the legal. let me rephrase -- there is no language that will make everyone happy on capitol hill. democrats for the most part, i'm painting broad strokes, think this is way too broad, especially with language were loaded related to enemies. host: do you think the 2001 aumf needs to be repealed?

guest: i will stick to what i said before, that is, unless the threats directed by that 2001 aumf cease to be threats to our country in a substantial nature, we should not repeal it. should be there point in time where we as americans can say we defeated that enemy and we do not know when that is. i do not think it should erupt into this amf. i think this aumf has serious deficiencies, by do not think it should be repealed. host: jennifer daskal, the front pages of thhe newspapers this morning, the egyptian president saying the u.s. needs to lead a coalition into syria. does the aumf allow him to do that? guest: yes.

there is no geographical limitation on the aumf. there's unfortunately very little as to mission objectives. while the conflict has been fought in syria on the general self-defense of iraq, the amf does not limit the conflict as to why we are going against isil. one other area that needs clarification is some discussion as to what are the objectives here. some limitation as to what the authorization allows. it is a very different -- if the sole justification is collective self-defense of iraq, and it becomes very hard to justify going into libya. if there is a broader objective which may be possible and needed. it may authorize going into libya. as written, there is no limitation. host: do you think there should

be geographical limitation to any new authority given to the president to fight isis? guest: to the extent that the authorization is limited to collective self-defense of iraq, there ought to be geographic limitations consistent to that principle. i would write the authorization to say use of force in iraq and places where -- if the purpose of the authorization is collective self-defense, and that is what the ministration of claim today. it may be that their thinking on this has morphed and there may need to be a real discussion on what the strategy is. if i ssil poses a broader type of threat, that we ought to have a public discussion and debate about that. i would be open to discussion.

limitations ought to track what we think the objectives are. host: charles stimson, do you see problems with having geographical limitations? guest: i think i see problems on the left that they will not like that. eric holder gave a speech at northwestern university several years ago where he said, we take the enemy where we find them and we should not limit ourselves geographically. secretary of state john kerry said that in one of his four pillars. you have to do it in the law of armed conflict and war. you cannot go off to any country in willy-nilly and strike to isis members. this is a different type of conflict and we realize that. when isis broke away from al qaeda in 2013 and grew in syria and now have occupied at large portion of iraq, and the letter

that the president set up to the hill talks about isis at the threat they posed to the people of iraq and syria. i think we have to take the president at face value that that is serious. i think we've had the start of a conversation about geographic limitations, and other components about this amf, that the duty of the hill is to smoke out the administration and get them to put more flesh on the bones about the strategy on each and every component of this aumf. host: i want to get our viewers involves in this conversation. we are title of the president getting new power to fight isis. jennifer daskal, assistant professor of law from america u-ven university and charles stimson of the heritage foundation are with us. we'll go to our first caller. caller: i have a couple of

comments. picking up the president is ridiculous for a party to do. if we had not gone into iraq there would be no isis there. he did not allow that to go on. we got gaddafi, that is a mess. every dime you bring down at the theater these people fighting amongst themselves. there has have a strong man in charge of them. not a democracy, they can't seem to work that. here we are, trying to carry on like we are getting world war iii going here. we need to sit down and find out what would make the normal muslims happy. host: i will step in and let tall stinson answer first. guest: i think her comment reflects something a lot of people are thinking. that is that it was a mistake to go to iraq, and that part of the

world actually operated better under dictators. i think a lot of people in the human rights community and i include myself of the present who cares about human rights, think that most people want said be free and live in some form of government were to have some rights and women's rights children's rights are respected. not a democratic republic like ours, but at the very least some form of freedom. -- the other part the hen pecking of the president. we have declared war five times. we have had dozens of authorizations of use of military force in our nations history. in all but handful, the president has been the person, as the commander-in-chief, in article two, section two, to send the language to the hill. it is incumbent on whoever the president is to do that. now, the ball is on the hill and

they can decide what, if anything, to do. host: jennifer daskal, the president has done that, and in doing that he has repealed the to 11 two aumf that that with iraq. guest: right. the present proposal does repeal the 2002 aumf. on the question of handpicking the president, i agree with the caller that the president inherited a lot of things that weren't his. but he is the president. and as languages have a lot of flaws, and we ought to be talking about that because there will be congressional debate and on ongoing dialogue on what to do next. for me, one of the biggest flaws is the failure to also address the 2001 aumf, the failure to specify within the language of authorization to use military

force that this new authorization supersedes any 2001 language. so during its existence, it becomes the sole authority of going after isil see don't have two sources of authority. then, the third thing we have not talk about is that there is linkage and authorization that also justifies the use of force against so-called associated forces of isil. this, as i said earlier is a concept that has i been used in relationship to the to the one ao mess. the language of the president proposed here is wrought or even t them that which was used in the 2001 aumf. it is not tied to certain groups. it also authorizes force against successor organizations to ifo, without really explaining what that is.

that, to me, is concerning. guest: what jennifer is talking about is section five of the presents a deal left the language is specifically, "associated persons o means deep organizations fighting for or alongside isil or any close successor entity." the 9/11 ao mess has been determined to be al qaeda and that, an associate forces. this is even broader. the second point, that i that is alluding to is the enduring ground com combat. if the president got this amf, he you would think that he is not able to, or hasn't use large-scale operations, but he

could back door that the 2001 aumf is that stays on the books. there are some tough decisions to be made here. if congress will engage on this, congress should engage on this and spur a national discussion. host: that is the subject of a piece in "the new york times" -- putting forth this idea of no ground troops. is that what he means? maybe not. they could maybe get through that loophole. . host:guest: to me it is the most least important aspect of this authorization. the president has been pretty clear up until now that he will not engage massive amounts of ground troops in this conflict. whether or not the aumf says that the not seem to be a big

deal. if another ministership thought it was essential to the use ground forces, they can go back to congress. the piece about the ground troops to me as a little bit of a little theater and the least important. it will certainly not have an effect on strategy and the short term. host: let's get more of our viewers involved. christina. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: i believe that congress should thoroughly debate about any military action. this republican congress -- they are cute. they want to sit back and play it safe. i want obama to lay out a strategy. if i remember correctly the bush of ministers at no strategy. here's my question. i'm a little confused. i understand about the authority, they left. obama has the authority to

proceed without congress. it is that like the bush doctrine that allowed bush to attack any country, even if they were just a suspect of a threat? host: i'll let you jump in. guest: what president obama gave his speech on september 10, a senior official at the same time reece members of the media and said, we are actually relying on it doesn't want aumf or legal authority to conduct this operation. shortly thereafter, they said and into the oven to aumf. i think the analogy to the bush doctrine is probably not apt. in the letter to congress, they said, we arty have the legal theory that we need, but we would like to engage congress for this isis specific aumf.

if you heard fox news on sunday, yesterday, he said what congress my end up doing is saying, no things, you arty have the authority to your deeds. these are the perplexing aspects of the transmittal letter and the aumf as written. host: jennifer connelly begin be the next caller. it is wrought on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i saw senator dick durbin of illinois say that republicans are playing games. playing games with homeland security. meanwhile, what has been proposed here is an executive order for amnesty attached to it. not to mention that as you are indicating and fox news on sunday, he arty has the authority anyway. it's pretty clear who is playing political games and attaching political strings to this. host: what you referred to about

the executive action for amnesty be attached to this? caller: the executive action on the part of a obama is attached the signing off of the homeland security proposal here. as to iraq, we had three national elections. we had investors of everything under the sun and apartment -- and a parliamentarian organization. it was a mop up mode. then, obama got his hands on it and all hell has broken loose. host: let me jump in. i'm thinking he is talking about two different issues. what is the aumf figures the president the authority to fight isis. then, there is homeland security

and the executive action on administration. jennifer daskal, comment on what he said at the beginning. he has authority why has he said this to capitol hill? guest: i think this relate strictly back to the question of congressional engagement. yes, he has authority but it is from the authorization related to the 9/11 attacks. certain groups did not exist back in 20 -- host: it is time for the public to get involved. it is time for congress to get involved. and to update the authority as needed to fight the current enemy, not the enemy from 2001. host: john from illinois.

caller: good morning. i have a comment. it is about terms of engagement but on a better scale. one of the reasons i think people are hesitant to go deeper into this is because they see it as something that never end. al qaeda, or isis. part of the reason for that is because unlike in, say world war ii, unless you are -- avoiding civilian casualties was something that was important but was not the priority. unless you're willing to go in and do whatever you need to do to take a military targets, you realize that civilians will i, that is the case. a lot of them dead. if you're not willing to do that, as awful as that is, and do that on a huge scale as

necessary, until the other side is saying, we do not want to do this anymore, we are done. then, it will go on. it will go on forever. we did not worry about if we had more people in germany and japan wanting to attack us. host: i think we got your point. guest: i like john's point because it goes back to a live we of the having since 9/11. ok, you can conduct military opp operations with physici positions sometimes, we have not seen the president being shy about using drones and other technologies, that means you can kill the enemy. in more times, there are collateral damages, so the dark killed. how do you stand out the ideology behind enemy question mark this authorization for military force would naturally

cover the military side of things, ultimately to repeal the ideology that is behind isis or al qaeda, behind radical islamic terrorism, is the bigger struggle. that is not unique to this president. no matter who the president would be right now, that would be that person's challenge. whoever is the next president, that will be his or her challenge. host: that is taken up on that "new york times" this morning. "u.s. it intensifies effort to blunt isis's message." "now analogy that the terrorist group has been far more effective in attracting new recruits, that the united states and its allies have been in the awarding it. at the heart of the plan, the heart of all the existing attempts to counter messaging

this will be announced today when the president is slated to begin a three-day summit in washington." it is a summit on combating terrorism with community leaders but also for ministers from 40 nations. what do you make of this? guest: i wish that small section of the state department quebec. there have been writ repeated efforts for one decade or more to do that. there is a push poll eating getting -- bush-pool thing going on. others have -- other efforts have been push forward with people saying that we should take the lead, but maybe not out front.

i wish them good but. i think will take more than 10 people at the state department to do that. host: jennifer daskal, do you have thoughts on this? guest: i dig get highlights how limited the discussion often is and how much broader of a discussion this nation ought to be having as to countering notches isil, but violent extremism it generally. killing is one piece of that but there is a much broader peace. i applaud the state department for engaging in the area. it is essential. military experts talk about the ways in which thrown strikes on targeted killings have, in some instances, the field recoupment -- fueled recruitment. it is a very different situation from bombing germany, where the

caller mentioned. here, there is an unlimited supply across the globe at people who may join up with isil or isil related groups. it is essential in thinking about how to effectively dismantle and destroyed a group. and du we will not be will to do that if we fueled recruitment at the ability for the groups to attract host: more and more people. as the white house summit gets underway today, "the wall street journal" editorial board says this -- "the videos of isis is to show that the group is on the march. to intimidate muslims who might otherwise resist. the longer islamic state appears to be advancing despite mr. obama's promise to destroy it." we'll go to peter next. caller: good morning.

i have a different outlook of the full thing. unfortunately, ever since president obama was elected -- while they could've done anything they wanted, but they didn't. i do not know when they put in that rule where the republicans could not filibuster. i believe that role is still in effect. am i right? host: what are you referencing? caller: you know, right now, the war at, or the things that obama wants to do, there is no way republicans can stop it. they don't have that no filibuster rule. host: peter, they control the

senate now. republican leader, mitch mcconnell has the first right of recognition. whatever comes the floor, it is his decision. guest: right. peter is referring to the so-called nuclear option. that has not been applied to legislation. there will be a 60 vote threshold and they will be able to filibuster this if they want. i don't even know we will get that far. i don't know if you agree with me or not. there is a lot of green between the bottom of the cup. . the green will comprise of hearings, discussion, a debate. that will act as a forcing mechanism, in my opinion four the menstruation to put the fine touches on its strategy. i do not know how will turn out. host: more to come. albertville, alabama.

franklin. good morning. caller: good morning. this is for charles. i went head to comment on a comment that marie hart made over the weekend on some show that if we would take and get jobs for i sold, this would solve our problem. i would like child to make a comment on this. guest: there are also its of aspirations in the world franklin. i wish i were 6'5". i'm not. that is a great aspiration. if there is 100% employment around the world in peace. there would be known terrorism. host: george in pennsylvania. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am 80 years old. i grew up during the second world war.

in romania and yugoslavia, there were people call partisans. they were guerrillas. we do not identify these people as guerrillas, and that is what they are. they came out of the woodwork. these partisans decimated hitler's t troops in yugoslavia. this is what we have now. vietnam is another example. the viet cong came out of the woodwork. you can not fight a war against these people. you can spend all the money and send all the truth, but you cannot solve the problem. host: what should be done? caller: everybody criticized our president. it is a difficult situation. who has a solution? no one. host: jennifer daskal, your thoughts. guest: george is right.

we are fighting and nonstate we have been fighting a nonstate actors since 2001. a nonstate actor that morphs hides in the shadows. this is difficult. no one is suggesting that this is easy. i think george is right. there is a risk that a lethal strategy, strategy to put fighting first, would backfire. at the same time, there is also a place and a need for lethal strikes and and warfare. i do not purport to have answers. it is a carl icahn began difficult. we do not historically have a great track record, the united states nor any other nation in the world. that said, al qaeda core, the group that struck us the into of 11 has been decimated. there has been some success along the way. host: here is a tweet from one

of our viewers. "and aumf is not a substitute for the declaration of war that the constitution contemplates and mandates. ." are we at war? guest: we are at war. the president use that in his inaugural address. there is a big difference legally between being a armed conflict versus section eight where we declare being at war. we've than a five times. international law has changed. this would be a long boring legal the session. the preferred venue today in these types of conflicts is an authorization for use of military force, not an article one, section eight congress declaring war. host: do you agree, jennifer? guest: absolutely.

war has been declared five times. for better or for worse, this is the preferred method going forward. host: castling from chicago. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: you on the air. go ahead. caller: two points. first of all, what would make these people is here on stage think that president obama can win the war against the third world since this is been going on for thousands of years. it is funny how we can say here in -- so here and go in. but right here in this country you cannot even get a background check when that guy way in there and killed 25 babies in that school. that is what we should be focusing on. we are killing just like isis. you be heading just like them.

no one comes over here. take care of home for us. mind your business. then we would not have isis. guest: i think the caller raises an important point. the discussion of what is going on with isis is not substitute for conversation about what is going on domestically. there is a whole host of domestic issues that the administration needs to focus on. including gun violence, and a whole host of things that require our attention. host: can any president win this war against the terrorist groups? guest: i think what we have seen when our nation has been attacked or is under us threat, for the most part, the american people galvanized behind the president. whoever he is. polls today suggest, as your previous guest said, people definitely support this country taking some type of military

action against enemy. doing on option. at the same time, to kathleen's point, do we have kind -- we do have crime in this country unemployment, a lot of challenges. when you're the president, you do not get to choose just one thing and do one thing at a time. i have never been the president, i never will be. i assume he has 100 things he has to deal with any given day. and the various departments at across the government are operating at the best of their ability. he does not have the ability to just focus on one thing, he has to work on everything. host: fred from new york, democratic caller. caller: republican. host: ok, we're listening. caller: if we ever have a major disturbance or attack on this

country, we have not had one since 9/11. i think president bush to the right thing going in there and sending a message to the islamic terrorists, or what everyone called them, that we would not put up with it. we have not been attacked since. the only thing, you will drive them underground. we have to understand that if we're going to get in there, we have to make them so afraid to make a move. what they are doing now is -- and we will not let them do it. guest: two points. there has not been an attack on the whole lives since 9/11, that is true. that is something we should applaud and be thankful for. it is hard to know what would've happened if strategies have been different. the question is -- as to what to

do now, it still remains tricky. one of the reasons why a college pointed out earlier that the administration has been slow to lay out a strategy is because they're still struggling with this. it is not obvious what to do. there are press. it is not the isil is in one small territory, you can send in ground troops go that territory. it is spread out. they are underground. they are populating various parts of the world. it is very tricky. some of the actions of the u.s. takes can actually backfire and augment recruitment. these are hard, difficult choices. i do not envy those in the administration who have to decide the appropriate way forward. host: charles, i will come back to you after we hear from roger in iowa. caller: good morning to you.

i am a little concerned about all of this political talk. in world war ii, we had the nazis. if you read the newspapers from the 1930's -- i'm 74 years old -- what is going on now is what went on in the 1930's. if you look at world war ii, we declared war on japan. we never declared war on germany. germany declared war on us. yet, we fought germany. isis is an islamic terrorist group that has declared war on us. the fbi just said they have cells in 49 of the 50 states. it's simple. they want to kill us. we better kill them before they kill us. host: charles stimson, is it

that simple? guest: i think to my father's generation, my dad fought in world war ii, when you boil all of this down to the narrow thing that when there is a threat to your country and their try to kill you, you have to kill them. that is kind of like the american youth those to a lot of people. that is what you do. it is more copper cave-in that i'm afraid. that's the fact that there is economic instability in the area. oil prices have gone down. that has d destabilize some of the partners. jordan has obviously doing the fight because of the horrific burning of the pilot. they have a great air force. it is an interconnected world. when you are at war with a nonstate actor people global action, and who are intent on n

establishing islamic state there are a lot of factors. yes, we have to go in there and use military action. we have to operate on a lot of different levels if we will be the ideology over the long term. host: brandy and mississippi. democratic caller. caller: i just want to remind everybody to do what you know until you know better, and then do better. that is directed to our congress. and to our partners. in the battle of the minds that we are facing now. i do not have all the answers, but your previous caller talks about the third world. i live in the second world. issues are always addressed herein either. host: all right. let he bring in the street from

one of our viewers. "this is a war without end nnp ago can we also is a war terrorism in perpetuity question mark guest: guest: credit, i think it is appropriate because after three years they plan to revisit and consider where we are at that point. have we made progress? has the enemy morphed? so we should not be declaring war in perpetuity. obama has been very consistent in saying that this nation should not be in a state of perpetual war. that is damaging to our nation and identity. and a whole host of other areas outside of the war fighting context. so no, we should not be in a state of perpetual war. how we get out of that state is not easy, but certainly we are going back to our initial discussion about authorization.

that is why it obama is right to propose a sunset in this particular situation regarding isil. host: let's go about to that let's go back to 2002. why can't we fund the kurds? what's going on there, cully stimson? guest: they are very effective the fighters, but they will not be able to do it alone. nor will saudi troops, and nor will moderate fighters that we can find in the area. i take a little bit of issue with my friend jen. i think our goal should be a win , the ideological battle. but you take your enemy as you find them. i am a military guy, been in the navy 23 years. i did not obviously fight in world war ii, but i know enough

military people who know that what they want is a strategy for victory. the american people want a strategy for victory. does that mean we should be in a perpetual state of war? no. one of the to good discussions we will have is whether this sunset? which is not an ending, but let's get a report card of where we are, take an assessment of where the real threats are, and have they been degraded to the point where we need this wartime authorization, or can we rely on counterterrorism and other tools to beat back the danish king -- the diminishing threat. that is healthy in a democracy. host: do we have a report card on the health of isis? saudi arabia -- you said there was a very effective air force going after them. now egypt. the us-led coalition, where are they? because it does not seem that they are degraded and destroyed, as the president said.

guest: one of the things that the three of us do not have access to our the classified briefings that i used to participate in as a player where the administration officials who have high security clearances -- cia people and others -- can go in and brief behind closed doors members of congress and give them the real no kidding, this is what is happening, brief. there has to be a level of trust in our country where politics stops and national security rains -- and national security reigns. we have to believe that when the head of the fbi, the national security center, the head of the long-standing national security apparatus steps forward and says this is the threat, we should take it at face value. i take president obama at face value when he says that this isis growing cancer is a threat

to our country and our allies. we should take that at face value. host: by the way, the head of the national defense counsel -- if you want to know more about the threat of isis, go to our website, c-span.org. jennifer daskal, i want to give you the final word to wrap up. guest: i want to clarify something that cully said. we need to win. i think we are saying the same thing. we need to win. we need to agree that the whole range of other counterterrorism tools at our disposal, a twit -- of which there are many, are adequate and we do not have to go to the first resort. we are in agreement on that. congress has a chance to engage, and i hope -- i remain more optimistic than cully does and

i hope that we get an authorization that will reflect the best the nation has to offer. host: former counsel to assistant attorney general jennifer daskal, and cully stimson, former deputy assistant secretary, thank you both for this conversation this morning. coming up next, our tour of historically black colleges continues today with the campus of florida agricultural and mechanical university. we will be right back. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the rotary travel to u.s. cities to learn about the history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable to visit

greensboro, north carolina. >> after months and months of cleaning the house, charles howard berman was making one more walk -- charles halpern was making one more walk through and he found an envelope with a green seal on it and walked over and noticed the date was in 1832 document. he removed a single nail from a panel in an upstairs attic room and discovered a trunk and books and portraits stuffed under the eaves. this was this treasure of dolly madison's things. we have had this story available to the public, displaying different items from time to time but trying to include her life story from her birth in guilford county to her death in 1849. some of the items we currently have on display -- a carved ivory calling card case that had

the card enclosed with dolly's signature as well as that of her knees, ann -- of her niece anna. a pair of small perfume bottles and repair of silk slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arch of her foot. and reproductions of a silk -- a peach silk gown that she wore early in life, and a red velvet gown, which has intrigued both that it has lasted and that it is part of the collection. there's also a legend that accompanies this dress. >> watch all of our events from greensboro, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: we continue our visit to historically black colleges and

universities, and today the buses on the campus of florida agricultural and technological university. --florida agricultural and technical university. al myra magnum -- elmira mangum is here. let's talk about the cultural part. what are you focused on? guest: for the agricultural part of florida a&m university, it deals with florida a&m as an 1890's school, from land-grant institution, and we provide agricultural education across florida. the mechanical has to do with engineering and technology across the technological field. host: what is it that you focus on, the students there, at florida a&m? what is the focus? what sort of degrees are we talking about? guest: florida a&m provides a

great liberal arts and scientific education. we have a pharmacy nursing, all the majors across science and technology, engineering and math . we have a great liberal arts education that is available here . we are a doctoral research university. host: how is it that you attract students to this university for this specific focus? and what type of students? guest: we attract all types of students. we were formed to provide an education and opportunity for low wealth students and the underserved. as in 18920 institution, we provide african-americans predominantly with an opportunity to have an education, both male and female, as well as serve 11% of other students that come from all races and ethnicities as well as nationalities.

what we do to attract them is would provide quality educational programs across a number of disciplines over 100 majors and phd programs as well as professional programs. florida a&m university is the number one public historically black college in the united states. we are the number one producer of african american pharmacists in the country, and we have a number of programs, including law and business, where we provide opportunities for our students to come and learn in a smaller environment as some of the major university environments host: that we now have. -- that we now have. host: elmira mangum is the president of florida a&m university. we go live to our lines. if you attended one of them please dial in at 202-748-8000. all others, you can call in at

202-748-8001. you can join the conversation on twitter. let's talk a little bit more about the science part of this and the math part of this. what is the role of stem education at florida a&m? guest: the role of stem education -- we offer environmental science courses in nursing, a doctorate in nursing. it is to prepare our students for the global society. the world at large is looking for more scientists, more engineers for people to solve problems across all spectrums of our society. in the majors that we have and the educational offerings in science prepare our students to be global citizens and solve problems that are globally related, especially our sustainability institute that i started when i arrived at florida a&m usery -- at florida a&m university.

so that we can create solutions and prepare critical thinkers to create innovations to solve world problems. science has always been a part of where we create knowledge and we expand ourselves as a society. that is what we are doing here at florida a&m. we have merged science with social sciences, and our arts and humanities, to create solutions that affect people and the lives of people understanding that there is a need to integrate the technology with the lives and the behaviors of people. host: what kind of majors are you talking about that you think , that texas a&m thinks, helps solve global challenges? guest: well, we have majors in biotechnology and biochemistry and physics, and computer information and science. our pharmacy program is designed to provide delivery mechanisms for drugs to our patients.

in nursing, we use technologies to deliver different treatments to patients as well. and we find solutions in our agricultural community agricultural engineering, to provide ways for us to understand how plants, how our food supply grows, especially as it relates to the changing climate that we have, understanding that we have food safety as part of what we are teaching our students in being able to understand that industry and prepare students for jobs to address the needs of society. so it is more of a global and interdisciplinary approach to education that we provide for our students. host: so does florida a&m get research money from the state and federal government to pursue this stem education? guest: we certainly do. we get in excess of $55 million per year for research activity at the institution.

we get resources from the national science foundation, from north from nih. we have over 29 patents now from research that has been funded by various federal agencies. we are involved with the cdc and investigating ways to prevent diabetes in early stages. we are working with national organization department of energy and creating solutions, working on solutions for the ied's, the weapons of destruction that our soldiers will face in war. we are heading up an effort, in fact, that is being funded for 13 hbc'u's, and we are the lead organization in looking into problems of that nature. host: what do you think sets you apart when you are asking the federal government to consider florida a&m?

what sets you apart from other universities that are also vying for this grant money? guest: i think what sets us apart is that we offer an educational opportunity to students that are underserved, and the fact that we have invested in their education, it provides an opportunity for them to become more socially mobile, and it is a great leveling factor, education is. we take the students that many other institutions have selectively, based upon admission criteria, not admitted. we train them, we prepare them for service to this country, and providing them an opportunity to compete for the same research, resources, and also have the same experience. that is a great way for our country to diminish the inequality i believe that exists in our educational system today. host: let's get to the calls our first year for president

myra mangum of -- president myra mangum -- presidents elmer a mangum -- l myra mangum. caller: how are you doing? what plans do you have on expanding the university as far as its landscape, commercial -- recruitment, and getting involved with the alumni associations, to make those claims for the landscape, and the buildings to get built. you have students with the stem programs and the cambridge programs, and there recruitment status is of course -- you have more broad students to choose from. so with the talent increasing, how do you plan to reach out to local alumni associations and expand and build for our university expansion? and once again, may i add

florida a&m is the number one hbc university in america. they produce the number one student in america. thank you very much for the opportunity. host: before you go, it sounds like you attended. caller: yes i am a proud graduate of the class of 2008. host: what was your major? caller: public administration and political science. host: and what are you doing today? caller: i am currently doing my private corporation status doing some things right there, and books and all that stuff. i am looking forward to my upcoming election, 2016, for the mayor of cocoa. so get ready. we will have a lot of students in brevard county, miami county

all classics. thank you, greta. host: all right. president mangum? guest: yes, i love to talk with graduates. our presence on social media has increased. i have a twitter account, and i try and engage our students. more importantly, i tried to -- and what -- i try to -- and what we are doing, we are inviting members of the community and across the industry to our campus to talk with them about majors. we are going into communities. we go into the high schools. we go and we talk to them about majoring in science technology engineering and math and also expose them to the opportunities available here at florida a&m university. we invite students to workshops,

the programs in the summer to expose them to higher education. and also, our various alumni associations -- our alumni across the state of florida and across the country and all regions are recruiting students to florida a&m university every day. they recruited by sharing their stories about their education and their experiences. many of them are attracted to us because of the environment and the caring nature that we have. but because we are aimed at helping them reach their full potential, i would like to call us dream makers. we are trying to steer our students into the highest forms of higher education, to the research realm -- to the research level and the phd level, connecting them with internships and jobs to help them pursue and choose a major and career path that would satisfy them for years to come. we are interested in lifelong learning, in satisfying their every need through our educational program and exposure

to different industries and different professionals. host: today we are at florida a&m university, talking to their president, dr. elmira mangum. color, you're next in portland ohio. caller: graduates that we recognize the names of? and what about the arts, particularly jazz studies? host: did you ask -- guest: did you ask for graduates that are named that we are proud of? dorothy sherell, one of our heavy supporters. we have bernard kinsey in the arts that is on the west coast. we have john thompson, chairman of the microsoft corporation.

we have in the arts areas many names that i could just call off . we have majors everywhere. we have people in congress. our congresswoman that kind was women from florida, corrine brown -- the congresswoman from florida, corinne brown. frederica wilson. we have a lot of people all over the state and all over the country. host: by the way, according to your website, $127 million in endowments as of june 2014. you mentioned john thompson donated $5 million and $50 million in grant and research funding. caller: good morning, dr. mangum for it i first want to congratulate you on your victory with the state legislator and standing around when there was some serious conversation about splitting our engineering school . i would like for you to speak about what made you stick your

heels in the ground and really come to that for when you were early on at the institution. what experience do you have that prepared you for a fight like that, when our engineering school was attacked. guest: my goal when i arrive to was to make sure that we provide every opportunity for our students to be successful in a global and international economy , and engineering is something that the united states is projected to have a shortage of in the years to come. so in my first 48 hours, when the proposal to separate the school of engineering came, i knew immediately that that was something would disadvantage the opportunities available to our students, and so people say they think it is digging my heels in the ground and standing my ground, but the goal was just dan for the students -- was to stand for the students to make

sure that we have the programs that they need, and that we are able to prepare them going forward. so engaging with the members of the state legislature and florida state university was an important part of us moving forward, being collaborative and working in cooperation. there is room enough for all of us to educate our students in engineering and any other area, in fact. there is no lack of opportunity and no lack of need to meet the educational needs of our students, and i think we can work together to make sure that we achieve those goals. host: the caller also ask about your education background. what about your education background made this fight important to you? we just want to know for our viewers -- you have a bachelor of -- and a dr. of philosophy in educational leadership and policy from the university at buffalo. go ahead. guest: those are the degrees, of

course, but my passion is one of service, and also my belief that education is a right and not a privilege. so through my work with the education that i obtained and also my experiences in working with major institutions of higher education, i understand the importance of the exposure and the importance of educational opportunities. so working in planning and budgeting, which is where i have been in higher education whether it be at cornell university, which is where i immediately came to florida a&m from. as well as the university of buffalo and the university of wisconsin -- all of my efforts in higher education for the last 30 years have been in planning for educational opportunities and making sure that the resources and the tools that are needed for our students to learn and grow are available to all students. at florida a&m university, that

was my passion when i arrived to make sure that we continue to provide those opportunities. i saw engineering is one of those areas that was critical and that remains critical to our advancement as an institution of higher education. host: president mangum, thomas is next in cincinnati, ohio. go ahead, thomas. caller: let me start by saying that i think racism is one of the worst things that ever happened in this country. but i struggle with the fact that in the 21st century it still seems to be accessible -- acceptable to have black colleges. to me it seems to be a case of reverse segregation. i grew up in the 60's where white schools were busing children in, in order to segregate -- in order to desegregate schools. i do not understand why this seems to be acceptable today and i just do not understand it. host: dr. mangum -- we will have her jump in.

guest: you said historically black colleges. when historically black colleges in america were formed, there were no other places for african-american students to study. if you look at statistics today many of the historically black colleges and universities -- in fact, all of them -- are integrated institutions, just like you look at the predominantly white institutions -- they are integrated. but none are predominantly anything. the predominantly white institutions remain predominantly white, and the historically black institutions -- many of them, not all of them -- remain predominantly ask reag african-american. opportunity should not be shut down based on the fact that an institution serves primarily minority students, african-american or other students. we are in the business of educating all students, and all of our doors are open.

we understand that selectivity creates disparity in terms of a mixture of students from all races. it does not mean that we should not continue to provide the educational opportunities for all of our students. host: what educationally attracts white students and hispanic students to your university, specific to your university? guest: the students that are attracted to florida a&m university are attractive because we offer an affordable and acceptable education. the quality of education we provide is comparable to any other institution. it is a matter of preference with regard to where you like to study and getting to know the faculty. many students choose students with 40,000 students or 50,000 students because they want to be in an environment that those institutions provide. but at florida a&m and other smaller universities, students choose to learn and go to school

in places where they feel comfortable and where they can realize their dreams. we are all supportive of freedom of choice. host: ryan in silver spring. you went to hbcu? where did you go? caller: i went to hampton university. i want to congratulate dr. mangum as her appointment as the head of florida a&m university. thank you for the work you are doing there. my question is in regards to south carolina state university, and their proposed shutdown. i was wondering what your thoughts were about that what your thoughts were about how that might affect south carolina state university and hbcus's in general. i will take my response off-line. guest: thank you for asking that

question. it is an unfortunate state of affairs when a state-supported institution does not have adequate resources to continue to provide or deliver on its mission, for a variety of reasons, which i'm not aware of all of them. but i do believe that as long as the state of south carolina is sovereign, that it has an obligation to support its institution and provide education to the students that they decided to admit and committed to when they admitted them to that institution. so i do believe that south carolina state should continue to provide the education and deliver on the promise that the state of south carolina made to the students when they opened their doors and admitted them to that institution. host: ok. shrewsbury, massachusetts. sean, on our line for all others. good morning to you. caller: good morning, l mira. i have conflicting feelings as to what you do.

i think that by associating with a group that calls itself historically black colleges and universities i feel as though you are perpetuating a radio -- a racial difference. i do not believe in black history, i believe in american history and the history of other cultures. i do not appreciate what you do. have a nice day. guest: thank you. host: do you care to respond further, president mangum? guest: it is important to understand what history means. it does not mean that because we do not like it, we get to erase it. as a historically black college and university, we need to make ourselves historically black. it was a decision that was made and it is a history and it is part of our history. host: we move on to dylan in sturgis, south dakota. caller: yes, ladies. i appreciate the president of

the college for everything that she has done in her life. i am a veteran from vietnam. when i was back from the anon, we were all together -- black brothers brown brothers. we made it through together. i do not know why the society cannot be that way. i see our black president, and i do not even want to go there because i just -- i do not agree with a black college, a white college come this kind of college. i think everybody ought to be together like the president said there. i was wondering what kind of opportunities you had for disabled veterans at your college. host: ok, dylan. guest: thank you for asking the question and making those comments. florida a&m university has a program for veterans, and we are establishing a veterans affairs office on campus for programs to

invite veterans to our campus. this past fall we became the first purple heart university in the state of florida, and we also became the first purple heart historically black college in the state of florida or in the country. our purpose and our program for veterans evolves around making the same opportunities for them as we do to all of our students and providing additional support services to help them transition into college and also into the workplace. part of an initiative that we have underdevelopment now deals with farming and establishing small farms in an area in florida that we are working with the veterans organizations to help some veterans start small farms and get into small business opportunities. we are a veteran friendly campus, and we have rotc. in fact, we have produced more

officers in the military academies in this country. with regard to his question with regard to race being a historically black institution our institution is open to all students and we have a variety of students from a variety of different backgrounds, including from several countries and nationally as well. florida a&m is a very welcoming environment, and i would encourage people to investigate us. look on our website and see what we are doing. we are a very diverse campus. host: and the c-span bus has been on a tour of historically black colleges and universities, starting this at the beginning of this month, and we will continue this week visiting historically black colleges and universities. today is the campus of florida a&m university area talking to dr. elmira mangum. i want to ask you about a visitor that you will have to your school today, the transportation secretary

anthony foxx. why? guest: well, he has done a tour of the state and having town hall meetings and engaging our students across the state of florida. we have our sustainability effort, and we are looking to the department of transportation to work with them. they fund many of the students that we have. we have fellowships. they come from the department to work on roads and also bridges and work with transportation solutions. facts, they fund some of our faculty to develop solutions to transportation problems across the spectrum, so we are excited that the secretary has decided to visit and engage with us in his tour across the state of florida. host: we have about five minutes left to go with his conversation so we will have you all call in. the phone lines are open. we have divided the lines this way. if you attended a historically

black college or university come you can call 202-7 48-8000. all others dial to 02-748-8001. where did you go to school? caller: i went to moorestown college in georgia. i wanted to say how valuable my education was at college. i view it as the same as someone who graduated from harvard. the quality of education i got i received there, gave me opportunities i would not have had anywhere else. getting a college education was an opportunity i could not have gotten at harvard or any of the other schools at that time. the theme was a haven for all hungry souls. i had one, and i am so grateful that there is any bc you still in existence that someone like

me had the opportunity to attend. guest: thank you. host: calvin, you are next. go ahead, go ahead. guest: that is the story of so many of our graduates because they provided opportunities where they may not have been opportunities in other areas to have the students explore and learn. we would have our students remember that we were there for them, and as we continue to provide opportunities for low-well students as well as the underserved students, you may know that over 66% of the students that we may have admitted into our institutions come from all told comes under $40,000. we provide opportunities for students from low wealth communities as well as in communities where they do not have the opportunity to pay for education to have it affordable and successful.

host: how do you get the low-wealth student into your university? what do you offer them specifically? how does it work? guest: by keeping tuition low first of all, and providing support services to them when they come. we provide opportunities for tutoring, for remediation if necessary, and support services to ensure their success throughout their attendance at our university. we also provide grants and scholarships for high-performing students and as recently as this past fall, for our students that choose to come that is not quite have a merit-based scholarship but are on financial aid to take out loans what we are doing now is to try to work with them. if they graduate in four years we are providing a strong finish award for students. we encourage them to take on higher education as a goal.

when they complete it, they will leave with an award that gets them money in their pocket to transition from school to work and also help them pay down those loans that they received. host: how much money? guest: this past fall and graduation we distribute nearly $250,000 in awards for students that graduated within four years. host: calvin is next. did you go to florida a&m? caller: i most certainly did. proud graduate of 1992. i am white, and i am glad you segued into the property issue. dr. king and even in the civil rights movement, they talked about poverty, and it benefited me as well. it was great. they welcomed me with open arms. they have programs. they do not just leave with

whatever your nationality might be at your at -- at the university. they are very inclusive. when we talk about historically black colleges, you're talking about the history and the foundation, and you can learn from those types of settings. but i want to ask our great new president, what are you doing to still continue to add when you bring in other nationalities and other races? it is such a blessing to speak with you, mrs. president and i hope you do a great job. host: before you go, why did you decide to go to florida a&m? what was your major? caller: my major was in the communications area. my pastor was part of the church of god in christ, which is historically african-american, so i had a segue into it. but also, florida and am offered

such opportunities. i was able to get scholarships, and it helped with my education. i got a quality education even with the funding that they helped with and through the circles of all that they did. they reached out. they were hands on. it made a huge difference and impact, that they really cared about you getting an education. host: all right. dr. mangum? guest: thank you so much for sharing that. what we are doing now is living and learning communities. we are providing lectures in the dormitories, having an environment where students of similar interest are able to cohabitate in specific areas and they can learn and study together in various groups. we are getting our students opportunities now expanding our opportunities, i should say, to study abroad. we are taking students to

various countries -- to brazil where i am working with an alliance to get more students to florida. and to the united states giving opportunities to study in brazil and other countries across the globe are it i have a passport initiative, where all of our students who come to florida a&m university, to study abroad. one of the ways that we have that is that we have sponsors to provide a passport. if the opportunity comes to study abroad, that they would have that opportunity and we are expanding international outreach. we are also expanding our outreach into communities across the state and across the country to make sure that students of all races and all -- to get an affordable quality education in florida. host: dr. l elmira mangum president of florida a&m

university. we want to thank you for allowing us to talk to you today. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for the opportunity. have a great day. host: thank you. so our c-span tour of historically black colleges and universities continues tomorrow, and we will be at tuskegee university after that. to finish up today possible "washington journal," we will go to open phones. you can discuss any of the topics that we discussed today. her publicans 202-748-8 -- republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. for independents 202-748-8002.

we begin with "the wall street journal" -- "egypt strikes islam estate in libya." "the president has been urged to follow his lead and take the necessary measure to grow back the growing profile in libya despite the situation on the western border. u.s. defense officials said that the u.s. had a long-standing military to military relationship with the egyptians. the egyptian possible -- the egyptian's -- mr. obama wants a three-year authorization for the use of military force but does not impose a geographic limit on u.s. operations against the islamic state. several prominent lawmakers have said the authorization should

geographically restrict operations to prevent a u.s. president from expanding american involvement. egypt's foreign minister announced he would travel to d.c. to participate in a three-day antiterrorism summit. mr. obama will speak at the white house on sunday. president obama will be talking along with secretary of state john kerry and homeland security secretary j johnson, also talking about this. on the same story, the front page of "the new york times." "u.s. intensifies its effort to blunt the isis message. there will be a new plan they will announce at the summit that is expanding a tiny agency to harness all of the attempts at counter messaging by much larger federal departments related to

the pentagon and homeland. the senate would coordinate and amplify similar messaging by allies and nongovernment agencies. they would pose the islamic state. riverside california, oliver we are in open phones this morning. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: how are you doing? i called because i listen to you guys all the time. i have a comment about what this is all about. i spent 25 years in the military. i was there during the korean war, the war in vietnam, and headed out before the war in the middle east. and if you think about it there are some things going on that people should consider. first of all we talk about this war on terror.

nobody mentioned the fact that the united nations cannot even put up a definition of what terror is, because the united states and israel will not let them do it. host: sorry, i-5 thought you were done. we go to miriam in boston. hi miriam. caller: hello. yes, my question is -- hello? host: we are listening. we will put you on hold her let's go to mark in tennessee, a republican caller. are you there? go ahead, in tennessee. caller: i would just like to say that in 2008, at the 2008 state of the union obama made the

comment that he could not make any changes that would benefit the 50% -- i'm sorry, the 98% of one wealthy americans by regulating corporations spirit he said he could not do that because the banks and the corporations control the democrats, the republicans the supreme court, and they were stopping him from making any laws. this is when the democrats controlled the white house, and they could have made laws that obama wanted. and then the white house press secretary -- i cannot think of her name -- she made the comment of how israel, of how the jews should leave israel. she was kicked out of the white house. later on she went to "playboy"

in an interview and said the jews control the white house. i just want to say that since the opening -- since the beginning of when obama became president, everything that he went to regulate was controlled by jews. host: ok, you are making a broad assertion about when group of people and you have no evidence or facts to back that up. that one group of people controls every aspect of this government. another issue to discuss is "the wall street journal" headline -- "ukraine truce unravels quickly over strategic town." the piece deal that came in on sunday is now looking very fragile as the hours tick on between the ukraine and russia. also this morning, front page of "usa today." here is the headline.

"lies still haunt armstrong." a $10 million panel, the launcher -- the largest such sanction in american history against a single individual. "in a 2-1 decision, the panel ordered the disgraced cyclist to pay the money to sca promotions a dallas sports insurance committee that paid armstrong's bonuses for winning the tour de france." another story in "usa today," the army is looking to ease its transgender policy. "the decision to discharge transgender soldiers from the army would be made by a top senior civilian official." last week the army for the first

time agreed to allow hormone therapy for a service member chelsea manning, a transgender soldier convicted of divulging national security secrets to wikileaks. manning, previously known as bradley, is serving a 35 year sentence." you are on the air, cheyenne. caller: i want to make a comment with regards to the usa and its focus on foreign policy. i think if we had more of a -- i think it would be a defense mechanism in places like the middle east -- and in places like where isis is growing. where people are poor and earn less than a dollar a day. we could say we would give you food if you would come and help us. he will take that offer.

i think the united states, a country that is usually the leader in world politics and whatnot, i think if we were to help increase u.s. aid, that would in a way protect ourselves and decrease the chances of terrorism growing. i just wanted to comment on that. host: in arlington, texas, an independent caller. you are next. caller: thank you so much for the call, and i watch regularly as always. i heard this comment from the israelis, that they want to push us into the sea. host: where did you hear that bill? caller: you hear it all the time. if they are so hated that much, how is it that isis keeps them in a bubble and does not participate in all this?

yet they are declaring war on the surrounding countries? host: ok, jane in oxford, north carolina, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to comment on the segment you had last week when you had grover norquist on, and he was talking about republicans around the country who had cut taxes, and how well they were doing. i just wanted to clarify that a little bit. in missouri -- i mean, in kansas, the governor cut taxes and he has a huge budget deficit. in wisconsin, they cut taxes or they had a huge busty deficit. in my own state of north carolina, they had a huge budget deficit. i just wonder, how much evidence do we need to show that cutting taxes does not create jobs and it does not grow the economy is? i have one quick comment. in europe, when they had their recession, they took the

republican approach in america and they cut spending huge. there economists took triple digits. now they are doing what president obama did. now they are introducing a package to try to get their economies back. in kansas, standard & poor's downgraded their credit rating because they cut taxes and had so much revenue shortfalls. host: all right, james. we are in open phones. you can weigh in on any public policy debate that is happening here and elsewhere. one of them is the debate over the keystone xl pipeline, whether or not transcanada, that company, would be allowed to build part of that. transcanada taking out full-page ads in the papers this morning. this one from "the new york times." it is also in "the wall street journal." what do these workers have in common?

mike at a wind farm in maine matt at a hydroelectric station in vermont and angelo in a ravenswood station in -- they are all helping bring clean energy to the united states. for 13 straight years, they say transcanada has been recognized as the dow jones sustainability index, a world leader in north american energy infrastructure. transcanada has long been committed to the environment and being part of north america's energy future. a full-page ad this morning. as the role -- as the debate continues in washington. another debate on capitol hill is over homeland security funding and whether or not republicans should continue to block the funding for the agency

over the president's decision to take executive action on immigration. as we told you earlier this morning, texas judge put an injunction on the president's executive action. another headline from "the washington times" -- "gop urged to shift tactics on homeland security bill." congress will return off every 23. the deadline for funding the agency is on february 27. randy in hyattsville, maryland a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: doing well. caller: i had two points to make. one was the concern i had over the limited number of candidates running in the 2016 election. i am tired of hearing about the clintons and the bushes being the only viable candidates.

in west virginia yesterday, a train derailed carrying oil, and several cars exploded. i am just concerned that if we have a pipeline stretching 1000 miles across the country, that that would just open the united states up to all kinds of dangerous situations. host: what do you think of carly fiorina running for office? here she is, featured in "the washington times" as one of their newsmaker interviews. she says -- it says that she wants to shatter the last glass ceiling. one is the nomination, and the other is a 229th -- 225-year period of the sign that says men only over the oval office. caller: she is extremely

knowledgeable about tax policy, and she definitely fights for the middle class vis-a-vis the corporate interests. host: ok. also in 2016 politics, let me show you the front page of "the new york times." "2016 ambition seen in bid for wisconsin cuts." "a steep hill in the university of wisconsin campus is a bronze plaque honoring the university system's lost a mission to benefit the entire state by promoting a look service and a search for truth. some that in one phrase, the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state. the mission statement, known as the wisconsin idea, has been established by graduates over the years. scott walker, a second term republican, presented a budget this month proposing to delete

some of its most soaring passages." he is a 2016 campaign contender for republicans. and governor christie plans a new hampshire push in the early primary states. go to michael, from maryland, a democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to call in and say one thing i appreciate about you is that when people call in with nonsense, you really call them on it. i like that. host: victoria, hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a comment personally for you. host: ok. caller: i was wondering -- how do you do this show when you barely listen to the people that call in and give you their opinions and thoughts? host: ok, and why do you say that? caller: i mean, you are will --

we are watching your show, and you did just hang up on a guy. host: all right, whoever is dismissed, the host has to make a decision as to when a comment becomes inappropriate, when someone's statements cross a line and a split-second decision to move on, and to have a conversation go on to the next voice, and also when someone has made a point, to go on to the next caller to get in as many different voices as possible in this conversation. madison heights, virginia, an independent caller. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on the president of the university. she did an excellent job. i want to make reference to one of the callers talking about history. i did attend virginia state university.

i was so happy to attend there. and going to avs you, you can be a big fish in a little pond. whereas if you went to harvard you would be in a big pond with a lot of big fish. so you may not be as well recognized. i as well wanted to comment on israel and netanyahu. the first state of israel was established in 1358 bc. netanyahu -- there is no way he can be a true jew. thank you. host: that does it for today's conversation. we will of course be back tomorrow morning for more. 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thank you for watching. enjoy the rest of your tuesday.