never then involved in politics before now. i will let you in on a little secret -- i never have been, and i am not going to be the favorite candidate of those in the washington to wall street court or -- court or of power -- corrior of power. i will be funded by working people who will find out that $50 and $25 a month contributions can take us from hope to higher ground -- $15 and $25. [applause] governor huckabee: rest assured if you want to give a million dollars, please do it. [laughter] governor huckabee: i know most of you can't. i will ask you to give something in the name of your children and grandchildren. i walked away from my own income to do this, so i'm not asking

you for a sacrifice i'm not willing to make. i do not have a global foundation or a taxpayer-funded paycheck to live off of. i do not come from a family dynasty, but a working family. i grew up blue-collar, not blueblood. i ask you to join with me, not just a lie can be president, but so we can preserve this great republic and someday so that your children and grandchildren can still go from hope to higher ground. [applause] governor huckabee: i still remember well when my dad took me to the dedication of the newly constructed boat ark like, a few miles from here. it is now name for dr. lester sykes, my best friend since

third grade who is here today. i was a -- eight years old and my dad said, "son, the governor is going to come and dedicate this new lake -- and i'm going to take you down there to hear him make a talk -- because you may live your whole life and you may never get to meet a governor in person. " [laughter] [applause] governor huckabee: had my dad lived just four months longer, he would have seen me do more than be a governor. he would have seen me become the 41st -- 44th governor of my state. [applause] governor huckabee: i always wish he could've been there and maybe spent at least one night in the governor's mansion, a place he never thought he would get close to.

i always wanted to deal that he did see that moment -- to feel he saw that moment on the best seat in the house. [applause] governor huckabee: and i hope that he is able to watch in january of 2017 when that bashful little kid from the orange brick red house on 2nd street is sworn in as the audience it president of the united states. with your help and god's we will make that journey from hope to higher ground. god bless you, thank you very much. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ school bus driver

♪ looking at the promise of a promised land ♪ a one kid dreams of fame and fortune one kid pays the rent one could end up going to prison one just might be president only in america dreaming red, white, and blue only in america we all get a chance, everybody

gets to dance only in america sun going down on an l a freeway newlyweds in the back of a limousine a banker's daughter all they want is everything she came out here to be an actress he was a singer in a band they just might go back to oklahoma and talk about what could have

been only in america dreaming red and white, and blue only in america we all get a chance everybody gets to dance only an america ♪ only in america where we dream in red, white and blue only in america where we dream as big as we want

to ♪ [no audio]

[no audio] >> the former governor of arkansas, mike huckabee announcing he will seek the republican nomination for president, making that announcement from his hometown

hope, arkansas. we will be taking your phone calls. a number of calls on the line -- let's take a quick look at an article from cnn, mike huckabee running for another white house bid, talking about his political career. and his second presidential bid casting himself as a guy with small-town roots who can relate to the economy and security concerns of average american families. it seems perfectly fitting it would be here that i announce i am a candidate for president of united states of america, he told a roaring crowd and hope, arkansas. on the line, tennessee 10, what did you like, not like? -- tim. caller: i like everything about

him. he is no-nonsense. he has character. he has honesty and i do not think you could find a better man. thank you for taking my call. host: paul in ann arbor, michigan democrat. caller: mike huckabee is a liar and all he wants -- he -- all he wants is to give tax breaks to the super rich. host: let's look at some tweets -- david drucker governor my copy pages replacing income tax with national sales tax. chris elizabeth says it was solid by huckabee, he is a gifted speaker.

huckabee is a blast from the past, just like hillary, time for a fresh face. we are taking your phone calls. paul and tricia, republicans -- is this paul or tricia? caller: tricia. we are thoroughly convinced that we will be voting for the future president of the united states. caller: my copy. --mike huckabee. and we will financially support him. in his campaign for the president. host: why is that? caller: we believe what he believes and. that the hope of america will bring us to the highest ground.

host: some of -- some echoes of his campaign slogan -- hope and bringing them to higher ground. he talked about his father not imagining he would be in the governor's seat and becoming governor of the state of arkansas and making the announcement from his hometown. margaret, clearlake oaks california. you are on the line for independence and others -- where do you stand on what you heard from mike huckabee? caller: thank you. i appreciate mike huckabee trying again -- i believe he will win. he is speaking from his heart and experience. no, he is not a young guy like marco rubio or the other one but, his beginnings are just like mine, very humble and i was able to work very hard and earn

a decent wage at a young age and do the american dream. my children were fed clothed and i appreciate this country and mike huckabee does to. we need a leader that loves this country. and mike huckabee is that man. host: teresa, winter haven, florida, republican. caller: i so agree with what he has to say. our country needs to go in a different direction. i feel like he has the best plan -- i have watched him on fox four years and i agree with pretty much everything he says. i think he has a good, moral character. i certainly will vote for him. host: what makes him stand out

in the crowd from the other republicans? caller: a lot of it is the belief in god, and he wanting to be fair to everyone. racism did not come into fact in his speech. he wanted everyone to be equal. he was not trying to take a bunch of money from the super rich and give it to the poor people who do not pull their weight. there are many jobs out there they just do not want to do them. host: thank you for the call, join us on twitter and also on facebook we have a couple of comments. one says we need someone who will protect the american people and get jobs back to usa soil, huckabee is who we need, he will

not sell the american people out to big corporations. chuck says, another fearmonger, using our political contest as a marketing tool to expand his media exposure, shameful. taking your calls jim from anderson, indiana. caller: mike huckabee cannot get elected, but we need people like him. i am a neither -- i am a registered democrat -- i'm not a republican, i am a neither. host: why do we need people like him? caller: because he is a man that can't get elected -- that is unfortunate. host: christopher, baton rouge louisiana, a democrat -- what do you think about what you heard from mike huckabee? caller: i'm a black conservative

democrat and i'm not completely sold on hillary clinton, i do not believe your party obligates you to a candidate. one thing i would like to hear from mike huckabee is not only what his approach to broaden the republican party, but to try to win democrats and independents over. if he believes in common sense conservative american values, he should not have a problem trying to connect with middle america. the problem is, we need to see the vision, more than just what you will do it away with with the obama administration that has hurt minorities, but what is your alternative plan for each and every problem that barack obama has brought us for the past six some odd years? that is something i need to hear from all candidate. host: thank you for the call. republicans line, mansfield ohio, janice. caller: hi.

i am so excited. this is the first time i have been excited in 6, 7, 8 years. he is a christian, a very truthful person, honest. very moral character. being a christian at this time it will be important. i feel excited comforted by his words. like he said, i hate to say this, i do not have -- i have hope in this guy and i have been following him. he has had his tv program. that shows a lot of what person -- what a person is made up. i am thrilled about it. he has my support. god bless america. host: yesterday we heard from a couple more people got into the republican side of this race for 2016 -- ben carson who announced

from his hometown, detroit and carly fiorina who released a youtube video. we will be hearing from one other candidate, the other side of the aisle, hillary clinton she is going to be talking in las vegas, we will have her at 5:45 p.m. eastern time and you can tune in to c-span for that. let's look at a couple of tweets from c-span chat -- when i present come our veterans will not be left on the street and in waiting rooms. one of the comments from my company --mike huckabee's announcement. i cannot remember any other gop announcement that broached the va scandal. the club for growth you with mike huckabee surprises me, every time it rears its head this time to the tune of $100,000 in early state at. he is referring to

advertisements that will be running in iowa and south carolina on the heels of mike huckabee's announcement dealing with his raising taxes in arkansas while he was governor. another call from fargo, north dakota buddy on the independents and others . line. caller: i like a lot of what i heard. he brings a fresh approach -- he is not the standard political washington insider which we have had enough of. i love his idea about term limits. that is something that any candidate from the republican party should champion. make it happen. host: do you think he would have leverage to work on that? caller: he should do if he is president, he should have leverage.

as a party, you need to incorporate and embrace that idea, because it is something that, across america, we are sick of the career politician, and this would take that back to what the founders intended it to be. one of your callers had an outstanding point about what will he do, he has not said. to broaden the party to other demographics -- in 2016, 20% of the voters were 30 years of age. -- 28%. what is his message? he says he is a smaller government guy, which i cannot imagine most of us in america aren't, giving what we see. host: sorry to cut you off.

we wanted to get to a couple more calls. jack from quincy, massachusetts, democrat. caller: he spoke about a one term -- we had a governor called mitt romney and he was the governor for 4 years and he nearly wrecked the state. he took money away from the cities and our tax rate doubled. but they do not call them taxes when they are republicans, they call them fees. he had a show on fox news, this man has no credibility at all. he should not be running for president. thank you. host: one more call -- nate from rollins for, new hampshire -- republicans line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that, i thought it was a great speech, i like the guy a lot. i am behind him.

i like one of your other callers who said how enthusiastic she was about hearing him and so was i. i thought it was great about getting rid of the irs. i am very excited right now. host: we will leave it there and the phone lines will be open tomorrow morning, "washington journal" everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. this afternoon, 5:45 p.m. eastern time, we will hear from hillary clinton in las vegas speaking to students at rancho high school about her ideas of immigration. saturday c-span will be in south carolina, covering the freedom summit, an all-day day event, join us at 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and that evening it :00 p.m., jeb bush will be the commencement speaker at liberty university in lynchburg

virginia -- 8:00 p.m. president obama made an announcement of a personal change, who he is nominating as his new chief of staff -- joint chiefs of staff and the vice chief of staff. let's take a look. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and vice president of the united states, company by secretary ash carter, ambassador susan rice, general joseph dunford and general paul soma. president obama: please everybody have a seat. good morning. we are blessed with the strongest military the world has ever known. yes, our system of equipment and technology and logistical capacity is unmatched. what makes us the best, the

reason no other nation can do what we do, is our people. patriotic men and women across our country to step forward raise their hand and take an oath to defend our nation. it is our men and women in uniform, and their leaders, who make our armed forces the very best. among our military leaders, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military adviser to me and my national security team, including vice president biden, my national security adviser, susan rice and our secretary of defense ashton carter. in recent years, i have been deeply grateful for the service of our chairman, general marty density and our vice chairman, admiral sandy with health. they will complete their terms later this year. i will have a chance to say nice things about them later.

i can tell you that they have been outstanding. i could not have asked for a better team. today, i am proud to announce my nominees to be the next chairman. general joseph dunford and the next vice chairman paul silva. i want to thank marty and cindy for being here, -- marty and sandy, we are grateful for all you have done and we will pay tribute to you in the months ahead. i have relied on you both, your advice, your counsel, your judgment, as we have navigated the challenges of recent years commanding our common mission in afghanistan to leading the international coalition to destroy kiesel, -- isil. fighting ebola in west africa and strengthening our security alliances from europe to asia and every step you have been

critical to our processes and i have valued, not only counsel but your friendships. at the same time, marty and sandy have helped guide our forces through difficult fiscal times, especially sequestration they have stayed focused on readiness and training and modernization. today, there are more opportunities for women in our armed forces. for tackling the outrage of sexual assault which has no place in our ranks. we have made progress in large part because of leaders like marty and sandy, have made sure we are recruiting and training and retaining the best fighting force on the planet. i look forward to honoring marty and sandy and taking them more fully with their outstanding contributions to our nation. there are other things we will miss, we will miss marty's incomparable singing voice. he will not be singing today.

i will put my request in early for a final number at your farewell. on behalf of myself, our entire national security team and our armed forces, thank you. and we are grateful for your family service. [applause] my choice for the next chairman of the joint chiefs, general joseph dunford is one of the most admired officers in our military. a native of boston he is the definition of boston strong, the son of a retired boston police officer and marine veteran of korea. joe oliver in his father's footsteps and has to stay with -- distinguished himself through 40 years of military service. he estimated marines in the field -- has commanded marines in the field during the invasion

of iraq, he led marines in the charge to baghdad. given his combat experience, i was proud to nominate joe as the command -- commander of american coalition forces in afghanistan. i have worked with him, i have been impressed by joe, from the situation room, where he shaved our enduring commitment to afghanistan. -- where he shaved -- sgaohaped. i trust them, he gives me military advice based on experience on the ground. we have achieved key milestones including the transition to afghan response ability for security and elections any drawdown of u.s. forces. joe is a proven leader of our joint force, including our troops in afghanistan. who he served christmas dinner

to. he is one of our most highly regarded strategic thinkers. he is known and respected by our allies, by members of congress on both sides of the aisle. and my colleagues across our government. he is tireless. his death carries around a voice recorder to keep up with his commands and new ideas. he just began his service as commandant of his beloved marine corps, so i appreciate your willingness to take on this new assignment. the only downside in my book is, as a white sox fan, there is yet another red sox fan who i will have to be dealing with. i want to thank you and your wife ellen, for your continued service. paul silva, 35 years of syria -- service as a pilot and a commander. he earned a reputation as a force for change and innovation. i understand that when it was time to deliver the final c-17

to the air force, he went to the carpet and help fly it himself -- the carpet and help fight himself. he is committed to the partnerships -- supplying our joint force around the world in operations large and small to supporting and keeping safe our diplomats and a busy personnel over -- an embassy personnel overseas. he was clinton's advisor during the first year of he understands that our military, as powerful as it is come is one tool that must be used in concert with all the elements of national power. as a graduate of the air force academy, paul is especially grateful to the economy because it is there he met his wife, who also served in the air force. thank you for taking on this next chapter.

joe, continue to call for a range of challenges. we must remain relentless against al qaeda and push back against isil and build moderate opposition in syria. we have to stand united with allies in europe and keep rebalancing our posture as a power. we have to invest in cyber attacks. as commander-in-chief, i will look at you for your honest military advice as we meet these challenges. so we can preserve the readiness of the voluntary force, keep faith with troops and military families and care for our wounded warriors. this is work we have to do together as a nation.

again, to joe and paul and your families, on behalf of the american people, thank you for your continued service in the nation. i urge friends in the senate and i know i will not have a problem with jack reed, to confirm these remarkable leaders right away keeping our military strong, our nation secure, and our citizens safe. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [applause]

>> in about two hours, a senate hearing on precision medicine, a way of preventing and treating disease eighth on individual patient's genes, environment and lifestyle. that is scheduled to start and we will have it live for you here on c-span. a road to white house coverage by hillary clinton las vegas. speaking to students about immigration policy starting at 5:45 p.m. eastern time. >> here are a few book festivals we will cover on spring -- in spring. we will visit maryland for live coverage with martin frost, as well as senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod.

we will close out in new york city. then in the first weekend in june, we are alive for the chicago tribune, including our three-hour live in-depth program with lawrence wright and your phone calls this spring on c-span two's book tv. >> in february, president obama asked for authorization to use military force against isis. last month, a panel of law professors and writers discussed presidential war powers and the role authorizing operations. this discussion ran about one hour and 20 minutes.

in the days after 9/11, congress enjoyed a session enacted in 2001 authorization for the use of military force to respond to the attacks on 9/11. since 2001, this authorization has provided a statutory basis not only for the confident guest al qaeda and the taliban against afghanistan, for a global

conflict against al qaeda as well as associated groups including offshoots in yemen somalia, and most recently isil. this framework provided a basis for a wide range of counterterrorism, military operations including interrogation and targeting. in the so-called war on terror a were president obama himself has said, like all wars, must end. recent developments prompted new attention on the scope of the president's war powers in the role of congress authorizing use of military force. those events include the drawdown of u.s. forces in afghanistan, which provided indisputable boots on the ground and armed conflicts since 9/11 and the rise of new groups like isil that threaten regional stability. this past february, president obama submitted a proposal for a new force authorization.

as we will discuss tonight, it is notable for what it includes, limited ground combat operations and for what it does not include. in many ways, the united states is at a crossroads on questions of resin to war powers and authorization and actions in the coming months will shape the course of future responses to the issues for many years to come. tonight we will be exploring many of these questions including the authority of the president to respond to the use of force as commander-in-chief. the role and responsibility of congress in responding to new threats. whether the nature of new threats like isil require us to rethink traditional conceptions of the war powers and the

optimal ways that the powers of the two coordinate branches should be exercised. we're fortunate to be joined by a distinguished panel of experts. i will go ahead and introduce the panelists to you and they'll speak in order and after that we'll have time for questions and answers. i would ask in advance, if you have a question, please come up to ask a question. lieutenant colonel is at the department of law at west point. he is a u.s. army judge advocate deployed to iraq as the chief legal advisor to the combat or date before being assigned to west point, the lieutenant colonel served as deputy chief of the international law division at the u.s. army, europe.

a distinguished career in academia as well as on the ground. the lieutenant colonel will be followed by ryan goodman, a professional -- a professor at law school and coeditor of the widely read and influential security blog which focuses on civil liberties and national security. he formally taught at harvard law school, where he was a professor of death professor of human rights and the human rights program. he is a member of distinguished boards, including the american journal of international law. and director of the human rights program. he's a member of many distinguished boards and american journal of international law and department of state's advisory committee at international law and foreign relations and published widely at academic journals and elsewhere and his book socializing states which he co-wrote had the certificate of merit. then we'll hear from julian. distinguished professor of law.

focuses on the relationship of international law also conducted an academic research on a wide range of topics including china's relationship with international law. he's received many honors including membership in the american law institute. he's the co-author of the u.s. constitution and has written numerous academic articles, book chapters, simposiums, as well as writing in numerous popular journals from the "wall street journal" to the los angeles and "new york journals from the "wall street journal" to the los angeles and "new york times". his blog is read by thousands worldwide. we're fortunate tonight to have such a distinguished group of experts.

i'll turn it over to them and they'll speak in the order they were introduced and we'll move into the question and answer portion of the segment. i think i get it go first so jonathan thank you for the introduction and thank you for having me. i have to give the standard d.o.d. disclaimer. i'm here in my personal capacity so any remarks are not for west point.

i'll give the lay of the land and the framework on the law as it exists and then turn it over to professor goodman. so our topic is presidential war powers. any time you talk about presidential war powers you have to start with the basic concept that in our system the president any time he uses force has to have two legal justification. internationally we're talking about primarily the u.n. charter.

the u.n. charter article ii .4 sets the standard that states do not use force and that's the baseline and gives us exceptions. the primary exception is resolution or acting in self defense and then under self defense you have several different types of self defense. so, that's one legal justification that the president has to have. we can get into that tonight if anybody wishes to. the conversation leads in that direction. in my sense as in regards to isis that's not as controversial as domestic legal justification which is the second the president has to have. so that's probably going to be our primary emphasis tonight.

i will talk about what are those potential legal justifications and then get into what are the specific ones he's relying on in the case of isis. any time you talk about the legal justifications you start with the constitution. congress the way the constitution divides the war powers between the two primary branches of government, congress and the president, the congress has the greatest number of lifted powers in this area, so they have the one power to declare war and the power to punish offenses against the law of nations and have more greater list of actual powers that relate to the national security area as compared to the president. so his primary president is the

commander in chief's clause. it's very straightforward and the president is the commander in chief but doesn't give us details of what that includes. we know or most people are relatively confident it includes some power to defend the nation. we get that from the indications and then -- the way the president has acted over the years since the founding of our government many. so that's his primary power. he relies on a general foreign affairs power. we know he has the power to make treaties. we know that he has the power to receive ambassadors and appoint them and from that we derive a general idea that the president has the power to execute foreign affairs. that includes some ability to use the military. the president is the chief and that alone is a grant of power that can he use in this area. so those are the way the powers are laid out generally in the constitution. most people are relatively comfortable saying that. founders intended congress to be involved in this area particularly in war powers than they are today than the way it was originally drafted. over time we've seen this evolution of power towards the president. why has that occurred? for several different reasons. primarily the president is an actor. he has the ability to act independently. where congress has to muster the will of 535 people. so that's often a problem. so what often happens the president acts and congress even where many of them may disagree with his use of power may muster up the political well to check him. when we have seen over time is like i said is power evolving toward the president. doesn't mean that the congress is no longer important at all in this area, right? they still have a significant role to play.

primarily flowing from the idea that they are the branch of the government that will supposed to declare war. that's become obsolete but yet we have modern day equivalents of that. so there's definitely certainly still a role for congress in determining when we use force and the president is always on stronger ground if he can act. he can say, look, i have the power to do this whether congress is with me or not as a back-up but the president always looks to have the support of

congress when he can to act. so, in the particular instances, specifically with isis but in lot of our conflict what is the stat khoer authority that the president is relying on. it's primarily the aumf from 2001. it was passed right after 9/11. it gives pretty broad power but it's in specific regards to 9/11. so it says the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist that's occurred september 11, 2001.

you can see the intent of correct me if i'm wrong in that language was focused clearly on the terrorist attacks appropriate force against on 2001. yet the president has relied on that for many of uses of force that we have seen like places like yemen and somalia and he's relying on that for use of force against isis. that's the basis that he's currently relying. there are other authorizations out there. there are others specifically for invasion for iraq in 2003. the problem with that one however is it was specifically directed at the threat created by saddam hussein. there's been talk -- it says that the president can use force to end threats coming from iraq is the basic language.

it was clearly directed at saddam hussein and the threat here isn't coming from iraq. you can make the argument it does apply. the other political implication is that that would link president obama with the president bush's policies and the invasion of iraq which he has separated himself over the course of his political career. although that one has been thrown around, that's not the one that the president seems to be primarily relying on for his use of force. and then of course the problem with 2001 is it was directed as those forces directed in 9/11. that's somewhat problematic given that we know that isis is in conflict with al-qaida which is the force that we link with

9/11. but the administration would argue that, well, icy flows from al kaied da in iraq that we were fighting there from 2003 until we left in iraq and therefore it is an associated force. you can see just from the language it's kind of problematic and we're now 15 years later and the president is still relying on this aumf. that's what has led the president to ask for a new d at umf. oh, by the way, the president made a speech a year or so before before this -- the conflict with isis arose in which he said the president -- i the president and future presidents need to stop relying on aumf.

he says it can't last forever. he's using that very same aumf. you can see the problems that arise from that. that's pushed or encouraged the president to ask or request this new aumf the one he proposed and has got this specific language in it and gives him some interesting leeway that professor goodwin will talk about. i want to orient you about what he's asking for. he says as the president is authorized subject to limitations to use armed forces of the united states as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate against isil or associated persons or forces. if you go down further he has some restrictions. it does not authorize armed forces in crime combat operations. it's not previously used in documents. what is an enduring offensive ground operations and he says

the authorization shall terminate they years after the date of the enactment. unlike the aumf of 2001 the president's proposing this this one includes a built-in determination date. that's the final thing i want to talk about from my perspective. what would be their role in the discussions? i don't speak officially or personally from the official position but i can talk to you about what the military wants in any operation as they want clear objectives of what they are expected to accomplish and two they want operational i don't speak officially or responsibility. can i imagine the leadership in the department of defense thinks that three years is problematic in and of itself because it's arbitrary. so i can imagine that -- can i say it's likely the leadership and the department of defense will not participate in the public debate on of defense thinks that three years is problematic in and of itself because it's arbitrary whether it should be or not be passed because that would go against civil military relationship, the idea it's in charge of a military. as a cultural matter generally the military leadership doesn't participate in this debate. what they probably are doing behind the scenes, both with the president and with members of congress is talking about

operational flexibility and the concern that's this idea of no enduring offensive ground operations is a limitation and more specifically they're concerned about this idea of a 3-year limitation, all right? so my sense is that the impact that will have it will just make this harder for this to go forward. because if the military leadership is telling the president they're concerned about this and maybe the president says okay i got it and this is still important for me for various reasons but they're talking to members of congress and saying, this is the concerns we might have and that will influence some members of congress and may influence them as to whether or not this goes forward or not. these are the considerations and that's the general layout. so i think with that i want to turn it over to professor goodman. professor.

professor: thank you, that's a terrific overview. i think i'll drill down on amuf. just to give a sense of where we're an at in terms of what's happening on the hill, two things to think about, one is drilling down on the concerns that the 2001 amf don't authorize current operations that are on going and that's the deep program. there's been i think i'll drill quite a lot of bipartisan statements on the hill especially when representatives from the administration come before congress saying we really aren't buying this theory that isis is somehow underneath the hill especially when representatives from the 2001 aumf. because it was about the attacks on 9/11. governments argument is not what some people think which is that the notion isil is an associated force of al-qaida central but rather than isil is a successor of al-qaida.

so that helps because the administration says, okay, even if there is fighting between the two groups it doesn't matter because we're not saying they're in association in a battle against the united states. rather isil was ineffective and broke apart and now is an independent group but they've taken president mantle and they are the true inheritors of bin laden's campaign. that's the argument. partly the presumption is that they were unified. it was a little bit and clear even in the first years in 2003 when the united states was fighting al-qaida and iraq what the relationship was because al-qaida and iraq was not following the command and control of al-qaida central. this was a lot of in-fighting until they broke a part. some people say what about the name? it was called al-qaida. there was a name that they ascribed to them. they did it in some sense to try to tell the public that these groups were related and that saddam hussein and the situation in iraq was related.

but that was our u.s. and forces to the name to the organization. there's one open question were they ever unified before they broke apart. the second one is their organizational goals. does isil or did it have the same organizational goals as al-qaida. one of the reasons they split apart is because our u.s. and forces to the name to the organization. they had ambitions and didn't pose a threat to the u.s. homeland and there's been no evidence of imminent or likely threat against the u.s. homeland. when the group formally was al-qaida iraq, when they withdrew they stopped attacks. there was no real threat, even to the point of summer of last

year the white house sent a letter to speaker boehner saying we no longer need the 2002 amf because there is no threat. some people cited the beheadings of american journalists. it started happening after the u.s. started its air campaign, not before. so it can't be a justification for the air campaign. so there's an inherent weakness which nobody heard of before and this concern about the relationship organizationally between isil and al-qaeda central and their organizational goals as to whether or not they have split apart and still fighting the fight against the united states.

with that, the concern is that if the president is not acting under an existing stat authority then he's not acting with support. everything colonel said i would agree respect the president is stronger both as a constitutional legal matter but political matter. because troops on the ground want to know that the american public and congress is behind them. so that some statements that are being made by members of congress, senator cane made it this week, how can we have people sacrificing their lives in iraq and syria in the u.s. armed forces and congress isn't doing its job which is to come forward and vote on this authorization and design it how they see fit and give that kind of support and approval for the president's operations. recently on the hill, just in the last 24 hours apparently there is a letter circulating on behalf of the democrat and republican member of the house

intelligence committee representative adam shift and republican representative tom cole asking boehner to please put this to a vote so congress can step up. i think that kind of goes to the question that we have for to us night on this panel and just kind of an important quote i'd like to try to take out of that letter where they say, quote each additional day undermines our authority and role in matters of war and peace. if we refuse to debate a resolution on the question any nation faces we see a power that the framers delegated to the congress. that's the chief concern that operates behind the scenes as to whether or not we'll see congressional action on the white house proposal.

that said, i do have some deep concerns about the white house for those all. the first one i want to highlight is the definition of associated versus -- associated forces. for the first time what the white house wants is congress actually ratify the notion we won't go to war one entity but what ever its associated forces are. currently it operates under the framework under the 2001 at umf it might be in the arabian peninsula in yemen but that's what they have given. the words associated force don't appear in the 2001 atumf. i think it would be good. it would codify an existing practice. one thing remarkable is a conspicuous omission of the element of the test. the united states has been operating for several years and what jay johnson the former counsel of the department defense said other organizations

that join the fight alongside the principal group similar to the way the terminology is used it -- that's the definition we've been operating under which gives a lot of justification to why the united states have been in conflict with al-qaida and another organization operating out of yemen that joins the fight. what is conspicuously absent is the term cobelligerency. in fact what the administration has said without this cobelligerency test there is a concern for slippery slope. maybe they aren't connected in a cobelligerency cooperating with isil but organizations that might pop up and assert they are

also operating under the brand of isil. that's a concern. because it doesn't seem to fit the standard but the administration is already invoking those kinds of far flung groups. second concern is even if you apply the same test isil is not like al-qaida. they're organizationally very different. i'm some sense at peace with the ways they used the associated forces test over the past 14 years. it's fairly narrow. for the first time it really listed an exhaustive list that it considers to be an associated force i would say it's fairly narrow but that's because

al-qaida had a high standard for anybody becoming an associated force. isil is considered to be a more populous movement. they say lone wolves who want to stand up under our banner can. they're opportunistic. they're working with the bathists. it's part of the reason they have territorial success in iraq. it means a bunch of other forces, individuals that might associate with them. the last is following kind of thought. i think it's very likely that congress isn't going to enact an

authorization for isil. in that scenario the united states government will be acting under the 2001. it does not need the authorization. they would like congress's buy-in. they have the authority under the 2000 aumf. so in the status quo it's not something we need to worry about just for the draft language. but in the status quo, we want to know the answer to the question of do they think they can apply force to wannabe organizations and the like or do they in fact use the jay johnson standard. the second point i wanted to highlight is also something the colonel touched upon which is the sunset clause. just a couple of thoughts. i wouldn't call it a termination

date. because the idea is not that they would terminate. the idea is that congress would get a second vote. if there is a three year time frame, three years from now congress should be back at the table reauthorizing and tailoring the authorities according to what the situation is at the time. some say that congress shouldn't be involved because isil morphs and these organizations change rapidly and that's why congress shouldn't authorize but i think the fact that the organization morphs and the conflict is almost unpredictable the degree to which it morphs, the added reason not to determine nate authorities but reup authorities. that's another indication of they're american forces would know they have the public behind them. one argument against having a sunset clause is it sends a signal of weakness to the enemy. they think we are only in it for

three years. if we say we are unafraid to have a re-up in three years, that sends a signal of weakness. just to wear another hat, a great political science scholarship has a finding that democracies wage and win wars more than non-democracies. this actually sends a stronger signal to be enemies because you have to justify your actions to the public and then build support. it says the more democratic states are, the way they wage wars, they think is important because it requires numbers of congress to justify to themselves and then inform the public about why the war is justified. the last point is there is a curiosity in the white house's isil aumf.

it says nothing about the 2001 amf. that is a logical. if the u.s. administration says it is operating under the 2001 amf and doesn't need any authorities and the plate on top and isolate amf for three years, let's say it terminates, and the white house will just go back to the two dozen one amf. it defies logic. you can just revert back and continue along. the best answer seems to be that you need to have a sunset for both or neither.

the last thought is whether or not it is appropriate to have an authorization for force. it is actually a part of the dna of our constitution. the thought is that we in some ways already have sunsets on authorizations to use force. it is in the appropriations clause of the u.s. constitution. congress cannot appropriate funds for longer than two years. hamilton writes that the purpose behind that was to have a buy-in from the congress every two years. a part of our structure is understanding we want congress at the table. from the congress every two you kind of lost that sensibility.

>> thank you for allowing me to join a very interesting and important topic. and join this panel on this topic and to all of you for coming here in such grade whether. -- great weather. i want to take a step back and look at the same issues that professor goodman discussed. but, from a broader, constitutional perspective, try to locate where we are from a broad, constitutional discussion and come back to some of the more technical detail issues that professor goodman addressed. it is also campaign season for

the 2016 presidency already. it is worth thinking about where are we going forward with this. what will the future administrations do any various scenarios? i want to open with a quotation from someone who is a teacher and a practitioner in the area of war powers of constitutional law. his name is barack obama and he says "the president is not have the power under because addition to unilaterally authorize a military in any situation that does not involve being an actual or imminent threat to the nation." that statement is from the 2008 version of president obama, not the 2015 version. candidate obama's view of the war powers as expressed in that statement while he was a candidate, which i call the congressional list view of war powers, is incorrect. the strongest evidence that this strict view he offered is incorrect is that he himself has abandoned this view in his actions as president.

this is important for setting the precedence but also any broader perspective as we go forward in trying to understand the allocation of what powers are under the constitution. let me begin by outlining -- building on what the kernel explained, what i call the two views of how war powers allocated under the u.s. constitution. i want to give a little more detail. i will call the two views congressionalst -- the congressionalist uses the primary use of military force to congress.

it does allocate many more powers over military and foreign affairs to congress than the president. the main basis for this view is in the text of the cost of tuition. congress has the power to declare war, raise the army and navy. congress has the primary responsibility for managing all aspects of the armed forces, including the ultimate decision as to whether to use the armed forces in some sort of military action or armed conflict. this view has many adherents. many legal scholars. in opposition to this is what i would call the presidential ist view which is that the president has an inherent power to deploy american armed forces in a war or armed conflict even without specific congressional authorization.

it offers a different reading from the constitution. it holds of the commander-in-chief power gives the president the decision of how and when to use the armed forces including and a conflict. the definition of war primarily serves to give formal notice that the u.s. government will treat a foreign country as an enemy under foreign law. that is not about controlling whether or not military force will be used by the u.s. the president view also is enjoyed by many legal scholars.

it enjoys a lot of support and the practice of presidential administration throughout history. the difference is not as large as it is sometimes seen. even the most extreme presidentialist agrees congress has the power to fund or not find ella terry action. the most -- military action. the difference between the two views boils down to according to presidentialists argue the president can choose to use armed force if necessary to further the national security interest of the u.s. even in the absence of actual or imminent attacks. this leads me to my second point.

while present obama campaigned as a congressionalist he has embraced the presidentialist view. especially in libya in 2011. the men military action of the u.s. during the administration has been in iraq and afghanistan. in 2011 when the u.s. and nato allies intervened in the libyan civil war, there was no such specific authorization and president obama did not seek an authorization from congress. his department of justice offered legal counsel issued a legal opinion which rejected the view and defendant would be an action as a constitutional exercise of the presidents

inherent powers to use military force. it is worth noting this opinion did not claim the libyan civil war constituted an actual threat to the u.s. in this opinion, the assistant attorney general rejects the congressionalist view. accordingly, the absence in immediate self-defense interest doesn't mean the president lacks military authorization. the opinion what on to advise the president to engage in unilateral, military action to protect national interest like preserving regional stability and supporting the un security council's credibility and effectiveness.

libya is not the only case of the administration to parting from the congressionalist view. president obama was careful to state he believed he was already possessing the constitutional authority to strike syria for the use of chemical weapons. in a similar posture and current discussions over actions of the islamic state. last summer, the administration suggested a could justify the use of force in iraq under the president inherent powers.

one example was the presidents action to protect and click minority trapped on a mountain in northern iraq surrounded by isis forces. at that time, the thought was there was no articulation under the 2001 amf. they were humanitarian justifications which were linked to the presidents inherent powers under article two. the president has evolved as legal position on the isa lacks in to embrace the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. that is a very difficult legal argument to support. i suggested is a reason that it is not rolled out there is authority under the constitution separate from the 2001 amf. it has not ruled out the

possibility that article to could provide legal justification for some if not many military actions the u.s. is currently taking against isis. the rationale for the 2001 libya intervention is still out there and can support a constitutional basis for u.s. action against isis. let me conclude with a third point. even though i think -- we can see there is a solid, strong textual and historic basis for the congressionalistt view. i will offer some reasons why i don't think it is the best reading of the war powers. i don't think the textual, historical case for the congressionalist view --there were doubts about giving the

entire power of initiating action to congress. that is why the initial draft changed the phrase ke more to declare war -- make war to declare war. the historical practice weighs heavily in favor of the congressionalist view. it is only specifically authorize the use of military force a few more times. the us has use military force abroad without congressional authorization and estimated 215 times. but is usually without congressional authorization. these range fromery small actions to large actions like the korean war.

historical record shows the main actors who interpret and apply the u.s. constitution are the congress and president don't necessarily embrace the strict congressionalist the. as a functional and practical matter to can inherent to a congressionalist view seems impractical as the world largest military and power and economic power. we have national interest in every corner of the globe and are subject to more diverse stress. the variety of possible military conflict from combating terrorist to shooting pirates to preventing humanitarian catastrophes to confronting other large military powers seems to support the strict congressionalist view not being practical in today's environment.

even if we abandon this view there's much room for debate over the exact scope of the presidents and then empowers. the administration has given itself a substance of limits by saying that although the u.s. can use military force without congress, that force cannot amount to a war. what is a war versus the use of military force? it is a fuzzy definition. the bombing in libya was these of military force. other categories of actions would not amount to war. it is hard to figure out exactly what the line would be. administrator has offered a clear definition. -- not offered a clear definition.

this is one way we may adopt a presidential the. the president can act independently without congress until it engages in what a war is. international law definition of war means every action. that is one way in which the administration has tried to cabin the power that it has claimed for itself. i think while there are disagreements on what constitutes a war, i think there has been evolution in the obama administration toward the presidential view of how war powers are allocated. given the current debate over

isis, the president has thought congressional authorization while pointing out it doesn't need it. it has adopted a very difficult to support interpretation of the 2001 amf. even without that, i think there is different conception of the presidents role in defining when and how to initiate military conflict on behalf of the u.s. i believe the conversion of barack obama from a strict congressionalist to a strict presidentialist is understandable and welcome. i hope they recognize the weaknesses of the congressionalist view before they wholeheartedly embrace it. thank you.

mr. hafetz: thank you all. let's jump off from the professors distingu -- distinction between war powers and his argument that -- or his case for presidential war powers. i will frame the question this way -- so, for lieutenant colonel mayor more coming you talked about clear objectives and flexibility as the key objectives operationally which might be in conflict with one another.

i've wondered whether the model of presidential war powers over congressional war powers is more amendable. would be easier to carry out or balance those two clear objectives and flexibility as opposed to the congressional model. would be easier to have those two things of military once if we followed the presidential model. professor goodman, you have an incredible professor goodman, -- professor goodman, i wanted to know whether -- does this debate support in your view professor coos version which is that the congressional approval is salutary and beneficial for

reasons but not required. and that being born out by the context of the last 14 years and the current debate. >> it is much easier to respond to one boss than two bosses. certainly over our history, what typically the military seeks as far as guidance and what it needs to do. i believe that it probably enables or supports the idea of enhance presidential power. if the president is limited, it limits the military.

professor goodman: i want to do dive into that part of the discussion and suggest maybe the military might benefit from shared powers in a sense that one of the items that is lacking from the white house dropped authorization is the objective. when the question that has been raised is what are the objectives so we can know and measure against whether or not we are succeeding. that is something the congress can force the administration to give to the public as well as the military. a certain sense of what the objective is and why you want authorization to use force. what do count as success? is it pushing ifo back over the border so it is constrained inside syria? is it defeating it?

is it defeating it to the point it no longer poses a threat to a iraq, the u.s.? currently, we don't have that under the presidential system. on the second question with respect to does the authorization to use force on the second question with respect to does the authorization to use force suggest something about the notion that the president can act even without it? i don't think so because i don't think the administration -- julian said they are not uncomfortable with their iphone -- isil argument. i think they are accountable. if they aren't, they should be. the kind of questioning secretary kerry as i do undergo for example, makes him uncomfortable because it is not such a great legal argument.

i think it is why they have resorted to the statutory authorities. they don't say we don't need this from you because of the constitution, they say we don't need this from you because we got it in 2001. president obama has made bad legal arguments to try to force himself to force the argument that is actually operating under congressional authority. some of the arguments with respect to the resolution and libya was because this administration has embraced the war powers resolution more than others and said we meet the resolution because it doesn't rise to the level of hostility which are stretches of legal arguments but i think it stretches because he is not unapologetically embracing a strong commander in chief presidential model.

he is trying to fit within congressional statutes. they could have come out with this strong article to authority but instead, it was like they were interpreting congress's restrictions on moving people out of guantanamo to be consistent with presidential powers so there was more like a statutory interpretation. once again, trying to wrap themselves in the idea they're acting within congressional authority. i think julian listened a lot of points in favor. march 2009 in litigation for claims coming out of guantanamo, the federal judge require the administration to give its legal rationale. i don't think there accountable at the time. in a brief, an important moment in which the president said he was not claiming commander in chief authority.

he was only claiming to operate a 2001 amf. there was at least that kind of countercurrent we have to take into account if we have an interpretation of what the administration has done. i think it is a mixed direction. >> before returning to the audience, if you want an opportunity to respond. >> i am suggesting there are different levels or degrees of congressionalism.

in 2008, it was neat for the present to say here was his view, it was very simple. my near a point -- narrow point is that from what i consider an extreme position president obama took in 2008, that position is gone in the sense that extreme position, which is that he cannot use military force about congress unless there is an eminent threat to the u.s., that is off he table. -- the table. his administration claimed what i consider an extreme congressionalist position. i don't argue he is in any way an extreme presidentialist. he has moved from what i think to be the extreme congressionalist view.

it is the view shared by a lot leading scholars and many politicians. that view is not supportable. it is not practical. no modern president -- and i predict any president who enters the office will not follow that extreme statement he made in 2008 that the president cannot use military force about congress unless there is an eminent threat. enemy does it just he argues that if congress -- i don't mean to argue that if congress comes later and tries to restrict the president -- i don't think that is a good view. the point is that congress can restrict the president but when they don't ask, the view is that article to authorizes the present use military force even without a specific congressional authorization. there is an narrow argument i'm making but i think it is a fair one given not so much to practical issues administration has been wrestling with but the

broadbrush claims we are not all about executive power. it is a more complicated view. that is the point i'm trying to make. i don't disagree that -- like all administrations, it is not consistent. good ministration is often made very difficult, maybe even wrong legal arguments under statutes because they don't want to make the obvious article to argument in another context i would suggest he is a full presidentialist. >> i would like to open it to questions from the floor.

please come to the microphone if you have any questions. please come up to the microphone. yes. the one to your right. on the stand. >> a special referee to the state supreme court. carnal talked about enduring -- we have been in germany, japan korea for 70 years or so.

are those considered enduring operations? >> we are there based on treaty. and of course, the nato treaty. >> you haven't spoken of any specific war powers authorizations during the korea and vietnam areas. if someone who wanted to put an end to the vietnam war -- a member of congress -- introduced a declaration and talents congress devoted up or down and congress declined to declare war on north vietnam while we were in multi-operation, what would -- military operation, what would happen? >> it is not unreasonable for the president to declare that congress is infringing on his

independent executive authority. you could get to a broader discussion of this idea of presidential power is you cut into a situation where congress is going directly contrary to a military operation the president he willmilitary operation the president tries to participate in. >> i don't take the view congress cannot restrict at all. i'm suggesting congress doesn't always have to initiate it which i think some people talk about a lot. i am less troubled by the war powers than i am by the view the president can't ask -- >> it would have delivered to the nation and the world and the enemy -- is this working? that the congress doesn't want it even at the president does whether or not the president has the authority. thank you. >> thank you.

come on down. >> before i have my question congress did do what the previous questioner asked in 1971, repealed the resolution and neck claimed under article two he had the right to continue the war. i have a question for the professor. in 1991 and 2002, both president bush's sought congressional approval and obtained. would that have been unconstitutional or constitutional? >> as long as congress doesn't specifically defund or ban them from acting, i think it would because additional to initiate

-- being constitutional to initiate military action in those cases. there was a declaration of war introduced. that is my view. congress can come and say you have to get out like they did in vietnam but i am not sure i am with nixon on that. in the terms of launching military action, the president can do so. >> there are virtually no limits in presidential war powers? >> congress can stop them. every two years, congress goes on a funding bill and they can and have restrict or power if they choose to. certainly under the funding clause and even through the war powers resolution or other statutes it passes after the fact to limit operation.

my point is not about initiation of military force. history suggests the president has very broad power in these of military force. >> does professor goodman agree? professor goodman: i think there has to be some limit. i think if we are saying taking the nation to war, i think having congress the power to declare war as part of the idea even if we don't have declaration, we have authorization to use force. there is a residual authority to act in defense of the nation. against something like an imminent attack in which there is no time to go to congress. in that situation, one would think after a certain time when there is no longer imminent threat and it will be a long-term commitment by the

nation, that is when we want congress back in. >> [indiscernible] >> the only question is one other element -- i am not a constitutional law scholar. there is the other question which is that congress affirmatively appropriated funds ended the appropriation count is authorization? i think it might be some of the background game the administration is playing now with respect to isil, which is even if congress doesn't get its act together to approve an authorization at a certain point, the administration will be asking a large amount of funds. they ask for funds to arm rebels

and carry out the operation. congress has implicitly given some form of authority. sometimes we're taking the most extreme conflicts and cases. i would not have a problem thinking -- >> [indiscernible] he did think he had the authority. why they usually go to congress is not legal, it is practical and political. i agree that it would be better in every way for congress to authorize the use of military force, especially if it is substantial and before it happens. they do so when they think they

will be engaged for a long time or need funding. they're more likely to seek the authorization. my point is that as a legal matter, the president has the power to initiate the use of military force even if it is not in response to an actual attack without congress. >> in the context of the invasion of iraq, however you regard whether president bush needed congress approval before hand, presumably the war power resolution would have kicked in and acted on a traditional use of force where u.s. ground troops were introduced into hostility. the question is if we are looking at the war powers

through the conflict of the 21st century and whether it is legal or practical, a president is going to want to seek congressional buy-in before massively committing american troops to a long-term conflict over seas. the conflict seems to be himthe conflict seems to be increasingly the exception. a new conflict raised with limited use of troops and more with the use of drone strikes. another message of conducting armed conflict. the question is is the congressional buy-in fading as a result of the realities of armed conflict today? >> that was part of my argument. to some degree, i think congress will always be deeply involved

through funding. as a footnote, i think one of the reasons the obama administration became embedded with the 2001 amf is because they were worried about the war powers resolution. even if they believed they had the inherent authority to go into iraq and syria, that goes out after 60 or 90 days and i don't believe the president can override the statute. unless congress doesn't stop him, he can initiate the force. >> no president has succeeded the constitutionality of the war powers. the administration argued that libya wasn't a violation of the war powers act but it seems it

was a violation of war powers. it certainly seems the congressional view is more consistent with the founders of the presidential view is more consistent with reality today. it is more practical and more consistent with modern warfare. >> i would like to ask if any member of the committee would support the proposition that the authorization by the congress of the funding for specific activities proposed by the administration in syria or iraq or otherwise would the impending war powers proposal, could be read constitutionally as a de facto organization of the force that has been requested.

>> the administration has always put forward that is one of his arguments as to why these of fours is permissible and supported by congress. >> in this case, there is a debate in the committees that focuses on a change in the and that -- a change in the structure of the defense budget pretty much to get past problems of sequestration but the result would be under one proposal, a much more focused allocation of resources. does that make a difference?

>> i suppose it could under the theory the clinton administration used. if you do have specific appropriations for the ongoing operations, under that theory, yes. but, i'm not supporting the theory. the other concern might be if you have forces on the ground, maybe congress by appropriating funds rather than taking that funds is trying to attack the troops. -- protect the troops. it is not a signal they approve of the operations but rather with those kinds of facts on the ground, they have no choice but to try to support the troops financially but that should not be read as them supporting the

political matter. there are some competing concerns of how you interpret it. the war powers resolution itself in terms of an assertion of congressional authority say appropriations shouldn't count. >> thank you for that answer. one follow up. it is striking that the administration picked three years as its sunset date. the length of the congressional appropriation cannot exceed two years as was mentioned by one of the panelists earlier. do you have any idea why three years was chosen? >> i don't. >> i don't know why three years in particular but i do think they wanted it to be a determination made by a future congress and the next president. with enough time, they did not

have to raise to a decision. -- race to a decision. why exactly three years? i am not sure. >> there was some consultation with the military. i am sure they would have said we don't want this limitation but if you are placing it -- there was probably some consultation of what the various options were and how lumpy -- how they might imply military thought it might need to accomplish the missions or objectives as they currently are. >> may i keep going? >> one final follow-up and we will wrap up from there. >> i haven't heard anyone describe any coherent argument other than the ones considered. deriving from the congress has justification for an activity. -- for inactivity.

is that because we were considering other issues or is it because nobody has heard a coherent argument? defending inactivity. >> can you clarify what you mean by inactivity? >> why congress won't vote for it? >> yes. >> there is never going to be complete -- you still have the funding issue. they have to continue to fund the military and operation. they will never not have any activity. >> the administration may not be excited to vote it down. there is a political split in congress. some people think they want tougher limitations. some of the critics in congress

are not that they don't want to authorize it, they just out want to authorize this one. if you cannot build a coalition, it is a simple political reason. why does congress not act? it is usually because they are divided and cannot agree. >> to further that line of thought, the chair of the senate foreign relations committee has said at this point, he doesn't have democratic support for the president's authorization because of the lack of limitations in it. he is unwilling to pass an authorization among party lines because of the signal that sends. it is more of a political argument than a constitutional one. the signal it sends to isolate -- to isil and potential allies. who knows where you are pushing

the blame. the second part is, why should i pour so much political capital into this one the administration says they don't need it? the administration says we really need this from you as an additional authority we don't have. maybe they can justify that but if the administration says we just want to hear from you but if you don't do it, nothing will change. he said, i am a person to make a difference. if it will not make a difference, why?

>> the public pressure building when the issue first came up has dissipated somewhat, which relieves pressure on the actors in light of what julian and ryan pointed out. i wanted to thank our panelists for an incredibly rich discussion of this important topic that goes to fundamental questions about our constitutional structure, the role of the president and congress in challenging and changing times. join me in a round of applause for our panelists. [applause] thank you all for coming. >> coming up next, president -- thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> been about half an hour, the sum health committee will convene for a meeting on

precision health medicine. that hearing scheduled to start at 2:30 eastern time. you can watch it live right here on c-span. live throat of the white house coverage with remarks by hillary clinton in las vegas, speaking to students at rancho high school about immigration policy. tomorrow, a senate appropriations subcommittee will hear the 2016 defense budget. ashton carter and general martin dempsey will testify. watch that life at 10:30 a.m. eastern tomorrow. elton john testifying on global health programs before a senate subcommittee. rick warren as well. we will have that live tomorrow on our companion network c-span3. >> remarkable partnerships come iconic women. their stories in "first ladies,

the book." -- remarkable partnerships, iconic women. >> what she was wearing, what she was doing, what she looked like -- >> she takes over a radio station and starts running at. how do you do that? >> she exerted enormous influence. she would move a mountain to make sure her present was protected. >> looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series. learn about their lives come ambitions, families. -- lives, ambitions, families. filled with lively stories about fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house

sometimes at a great personal cost, often changing history. and illuminating come entertaining and inspiring read. -- illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read. >> next, a look at how the presidential race is a shaping up early in the campaigning and a look at the growing republican field. host: it has already been a busy week when it comes to campaign 2016 and the road to the white house. we are joined by shane gold marker and linda feldman. feldman who covers the white house. of the three republican candidates who joined the race this week or will join when my cut of the makes his announcement, -- when my cut of the -- mike huckabee makes his

announcement -- who will have the biggest impact? 8 they all bring something to the table. the battle with hillary clinton is joined in that fashion and she can strike at hillary in a way the other republican candidates cannot. carson is the only other african-american and we saw him in 2008, winning the iowa caucuses. mike huckabee is an old face. the question is whether he can capture that evangelical vote and do really well. host: who of three fiorina carsons and huckabee are the other candidates most afraid of? caller: i think there isn't a question that huckabee