tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 24, 2014 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
our colleagues have been helpful in speeding up the process of approval to put this into patients. i wish we were further along. dr. anthony fauci and others working with cdc and other partners in other parts of the world are trained to make this our highest priority. people's lives are at risk. host: there was extra money to fight ebola. extra money for an artist -- an organization that is trying to speed up the therapeutic development. vaccines are preventive but for people who are infected, vaccines are not going to help for their you needed treatment. people have heard about this cocktail of three monoclonal antibodies which were shown in an animal model to be protective
we want to be able to see how that works. seven people have received zmap as part of a compassionate use effort, including those first individuals we heard about who were airlifted to emory hospital in georgia. we really don't know with just seven individuals treated whether this works and individuals are not. those were the only seven doses that existed trade -- existed. for technical reasons, that's not trivial. these antibodies are developed in a tobacco leaf program. that is how the factory is put together. turndoesn't necessarily into something were you turn the crank and you have lots of it. there are two or three other therapeutics that are also potentially promising, but none of them have been in human trials.
we have a big push as well. as far as nih, we did not receive additional dollars. that goes through to december 11. clearly whatever happens after hope for additional dollars. this will cost a lot of money. >> we are talking about ebola and other topics here with the national institutes of health and its director joining us for that conversation this morning. funding for 2013 is 2014 enactedion, was 30.2 billion and the 2015 request from the white house is about $30.4 billion. the national institute of health was founded in 1887. it is the world's largest hospital dedicated to clinical research. it has a little over 23,000 unique patients in 2013.
your questions, your comments a.h.the director of n. -- the numbers are on your screen. william is up first in vicksburg, michigan. thanks for hanging on the line. i'm from mississippi. i want to say thank you for c-span for allowing me to comment on the subject. freemason. i don't want you guys to lie about things like health. i love to help the people. it is one of the things i love to do. if you guys are funded for this
ebola operation, then you guys put forth the most effort to it. if you would reach out to the other cities or countries or states and ask them for funding, if they won't if you funding, ask the other people will they find you. the first thing is the country of america. if anything happens to america, then i believe the whole world --just out of [indiscernible] >> are you preparing for an able outbreak in the u.s.? guest: it would not be shocking if someone with ebola got off a plane in the next few months. this is such a large outbreak in west africa.
our public health system is really excellent. such an individual would be rapidly identified and isolated. we would make sure that kind of quarantines and took place. i think the caller is also suggesting that we do need to lean on other nations to help in this situation. the u.s. should not have to go it alone. organization is a major convener of all of those countries that are trying to help here. 's involved, of ngo and i want to give a shout out to doctors without borders. we have all got to work together on this. you mentioned all the statistics about nih. it's important for callers to know that most of our money is not spent in bethesda. it goes out in grants, 85% of
those dollars, to our best and finest universities and research institutions. when you hear about a breakthrough that happened at stanford or the university of chicago or mississippi or wherever, it is very likely it is biomedical research and it is funded by nih. let's go back to the situation with ebola in the news broken out yesterday. the "wall street journal" has these numbers. the cdc's worst this estimate of cases in sierra loan -- sierra leone. this 1.4 million, this is if nothing were to happen. it does not take into calculation what the president announced recently, with more money and sending soldiers, sending the military down to liberia. guest: we have many people who are doing this kind of modeling, and they come up with somewhat different answers. it does look quite frightening
when you are on the next potential curve, which is what is happening in liberia. over time, you can see numbers very fast into this kind of category of over a million. but we want to stop that trade the president's announcement, which i was very heartened by and involved lots of input from different parts of the government including nih, was to make a bold step to try to put in place efforts to stop this outbreak from going further. that includes asking the department of defense to set up in rapid fashion here. 1700 ads in liberia, so those individuals who are infected or are thought to be exposed can get the kind of treatment and isolation they deserve. that will not be enough. we also have to have a plan which is being actively pursued about how do you handle individuals who are potentially exposed outside of the stream and units. we will not have enough space for all of them to comment.
lots of work being done on that. the countries where this is happening, libera, -- liberia, sierra leone, their leaders increasingly affective with engaging with their community and what to do. the u.s. has an interest worldwide, trying not just to be soldiers to the world but also doctors to the world. we are pulling out all the stops to do what we can. host: an independent caller from clarksville, indiana. i want to thank your first for putting himself in harm's way in dealing with these issues. we have some things out there that they still have not yet spoke off. what bothers me is it is taking so long to get a handle on potential answers to questions.
is there any way to cut down, is to cutnything we can do down the timeline in fighting these? do we have to analyze them after so many deaths before we get the idea that maybe this is important? very sobering question, and one we are all struggling with. even for the first couple of months, it looked like it might've come under control. by the summer, things started happened that were alarming. it is really quite challenging, given the already difficult circumstances in these west african countries as far as public health systems which are in many cases quite rudimentary to mount an effective effort. that has made this ridiculously
difficult, the fact that the outbreak is happening in the cities is making this much harder than previous outbreaks, which has mostly been in rural areas and more easily contained. it was kind of the perfect storm. i share that caller's sense of urgency, and maybe sense of frustration about how hard it has been to really get on the ground every kind of resource we think is needed, but i'm heartened by the steps that have been taken in the last couple of weeks, especially by the u.s. government. theo need more partners on international stage, and i'm hoping more of them will step up to the plate as well. this is an international worldwide public health emergency. no one should hang back if they have resources to contribute. host: i want to introduce another topic to introduce another topic of his conversation, and that is security at labs. it is a story that has been in the news recently with lab agencies, not just your own, but cdc and others across the
country. here is "usa today" yesterday. nih done since these reports have come out about mice being infected with the virus ?imilar to ebola escaping guest: we are taking this very seriously. this is an issue we really need to attend to in order to maintain public trust. important to point out that although there have been surprise discoveries agents that have been around for a long ,ime, decades in some instances no individuals have been hurt as a result of this. there has been no risk to the public. at the same time, recognizing it is possible for things to slip through after many years of people coming and going from an institution. we are in the midst of doing a
thorough sweep of every freezer, every cold room, every refrigerator, every shelf, every drawer to make sure that everything is where it should be. we have asked all of our to doe institutions the same. it's a good opportunity to take a full inventory. i would not want anyone to be is aed that somehow there really serious risk to public health as a result of this, but it is prudent for us to be sure our houses in order, and that is what we are doing. guest: is there enough money separated out for security? i think so. universities have many obligations. one of them is security. we will put in place today a new
recommendation. that will be announced later on today, how they should pay attention to bio security issues in relation to research that might potentially be used for nefarious purposes by those who have mal intent. universities are struggling right now. nih is struggling right now. maybe i should point out that nih and all its grantee institutions have lost about 25% of our purchasing power for research over the last 10 years. that is putting pretty serious stress on the system. a lot of great science we would like to do is being slowed down or even stopped as a result of this 10 year decline. it's rather ironic, when america has led the world in biomedical research for about 50 years that we are now slipping in this regard when other countries are coming up very fast. that is bad for the potential of medical advances, bad for our economy.
hoping that very soon, decision makers in congress will figure out a way to turn this corner and bring us back into a stable support for this remarkable engine of discovery, which is biomedical research in the united states. who has oversight over these federal university labs? is it the government? guest: yes, we do. everyone of our grantee institutions, in order to receive taxpayer's money to do research, have certain obligations about responsibilities they have to follow. they have institutional biosafety committees that oversee this issue of biosafety that have been in place for a long time. they are strongly in a place that ought to provide a lot of confidence that these institutions are very much taking care of the issues. host: we will go to michael,
independent caller. good morning. dr. collins, i was wondering, with all the good help we do about the world, when are we going to remember the 3 million people here that have hepatitis b. lettingis real slow on that out. they let everything else out. no side effects. it is for first responders. couse.0 for a 90-day -- course. they use federal money -- taxpayers money to come up with this drug. the insurance companies are turning this down. you have 3 million people in this country that currently are
nonresponders. you have a proven cure for this disease. or this disease yet i have no pro 3 million people -- out of the 3 million, how many people are not going to be able to afford this, whether insurance companies are turning them down to buy the medication, and the next step is a liver transplant? i'm 58 years old and i will not have a liver transplant. guest: that's a troubling story from our caller. there is a lot of excitement right now about the ability to cure hepatitis c with these new compounds that have just been pushed through and approved by the fda. i'm deeply troubled that the caller is not able to get access to that because of the cost. there's a lot of discussion about the cost. even though the drugs are
expensive, it's very expensive also not to be cured of hepatitis c and such things as a transplant cost more than the drug. i don't know exactly the caller's situation, but i would think in this circumstance there ought to be a plan by the drug manufacturer to make this available to those who otherwise can't somehow find the resources or don't have the insurance to cover it. i don't know how to handle this on the air, but i would encourage the caller to get in touch with the company and ask if there is some way to get access if the insurance is not providing coverage. host: we will go to fred in jacksonville, florida. democratic caller. i'm confused. about 10 or 12 years ago, you made a movie. dustin hoffman, morgan freeman. all these people was in the movie. that you got the white doctors out and cured them, but
left the [indiscernible] behind? it doesn't make sense. i'm not sure about the relationship to the movie. that was an opportunity to raise consciousness about the fact that there are these new viruses emerging all the time that place potentially worldwide communities at risk, and something we should be working hard to anticipate, develop therapeutics and vaccines for. the two individuals that were airlifted from liberia, that was something that their inanization wanted to put the resources to do. that was not taxpayer money that was responsible for their traveling to the u.s. and being cared for. u.s. citizens are entitled to ask to come back in the country if they need medical care.
happily, both of them recovered with the care they got. there are now thousands of people in west africa are infected trade there's no practical way to move them out of the space where they currently are. the big effort now has to be to provide care for them there in the country, and that would apply also to health care providers, many of whom have been affected and hundreds of them have died as a result of a bola. -- ebola. the big push has to be to get things on the ground in liberia and sierra leone to treat those who have been infected and reduce the number of new infections. waldorf, maryland. independent caller, good morning. caller: my question is about the zmapp. are you guys making more? is this what they were using to treat the people who came back?
also, these troops that are sending, are they going to get the vaccine before they go? guest: the vaccine is not ready yet to be delivered to anybody. onet now it is in phase trial in healthy volunteers to see whether it is safe and whether it generates an antibody. the troops who are going to set up these 1700 beds are not able to have access to that. in terms of zmapp, this is a where these are antibodies directed against the ebola virus but generated using whichmbinant dna factory, happens to be tobacco plants. tobacco plants have increasingly been used for that purpose because they have the machinery to turn out proteins. it does not scale easily. was notuction of zmapp
anticipated to be needed on this scale anytime this year. at the moment, we're in a bit of a bind. what [indiscernible] is trying to do is find other ways to make the zmapp antibodies in a different kind of system such as is used in biotechnology for other purposes. unfortunately, there is no solution that is going to provide large numbers of doses of this in the next few months. it is going to take time. host: john still, new york. democratic caller. myler: thank you for taking call. dr. collins, i have a few a lot of the public has been exposed to the difficulties by way of movies and fictional accounts. from what i remember, when you have an outbreak like this in , it is difficult at
best. it sounds to me that we have blown off a lot of our lead time. we were doing research, but we were not willing to expend the resources to actually develop the kind of things for a bola and a number -- ebola and a number of deadly viruses that could crop up anywhere in the world. my questions are, what measures are being taken to facilitate how much trust, show the public have in vaccines developed? can we see things going to legislation like the patriot act that protects eli lilly from possible litigation if they fail to produce safe vaccinations and cures and treatments, and what do we have in terms of backup to prevent this from becoming a worldwide epidemic?
some people are very worried about avian flu, many people have been discussing. thank you. guest: a lot of questions. let me try to take them quickly. in terms of confidence we ought to have in containment, a huge challenge in the circumstances that now afflict west africa. the department of defense is sending resources to put in place 1700 beds. but it is very challenging to come up with a strategy which requires a so it is an public education so people know what to do. critical issues about people affected, burials of people who died whose bodies turn out to be infected. do not touch and do not wash. a huge effort is underway to achieve those kinds of strict public health measures. it is challenging indeed. in terms of what we're doing in terms of other parts of
outreach, this is a huge priority. you mentioned the possibility of a flu outbreak. we worry about that about h5n1, which has been there for south east asia. it could potentially turn out to be a worldwide effort. we're working on a universal flu vaccine which would be effective against all flu strains and we believe we are in a pathway to get there. we would be further along if nih had not been in a circumstance of losing more purchasing power. this takes a lot of time and effort but we have not been able to move at the pace we would really like to. this is a wake-up call about the consequences of having those limitations when there is really a serious risk of worldwide illness. host: how much of your work is focused on preventing illness and how much is focused on treating illnesses?
guest: it of course has to be both. vaccines are an incredible contribution to the world. if you look at the way that has prevented countless deaths, from childhood illnesses and such things as influenza, it is worth every penny. the people still get sick. we want to have something to offer them, whatever the illness is. we put a huge amount of effort into therapeutic spirit we work as part of the ecosystem, basic science researchers funded by the government, doing things that would not get done by the private sector, but we work with our partners in biotech and industry. this vaccine for ebola, we would not be able to promise we could scale that up and have thousands or maybe tens of thousands of doses without that kind of partnership. host: a full-page ad in the "washington times" this morning from peta with the picture of an
infant monkey, and it says, nih, millions spent scarring monkeys and making them depressed and drunk. stop it now. what is the policy about using animals for the research you do? guest: a good question. animals are essential for many of the things we are trying to learn about how to prevent and treat human diseases. we cannot do things with human patients ethically nor would we necessarily ask them to be involved in some of the studies that can be done on animals, which give us great insights, whether it is diabetes or heart disease or heart -- or alzheimer's. there are particular concerns i think when those animals are close relatives of ours. i want to point out we recently made a decision pretty much to scale back or maybe even stop altogether research on chimpanzees.
after extensive debate, we have the potential of small colony of chimps we would be for the kind of research that can only be done with chimps. when it comes to peta concerns, they are also pointing to other monkeys where they are concerned about the way in which animals are handled. i want to reassure people this is done with intense oversight by a variety of groups that look at protocols to make decisions about whether the results of the research are justifying the kinds of studies being done. there is a great deal of attention to avoid pain and suffering. but reasonable people will still disagree about whether we have that balance right. host: let's go to harriet, a miami beach republican caller. caller: two questions. first, there was a study not long ago that showed the possibility that ebola was airborne.
have you done any follow-up research to see whether that is true? my other question is, there is a magazine put out and sent to i believe everybody, every hospital about the nih and i wonder how much money the taxpayers are paying for the nih pr magazine. guest: to take the second question, i am not familiar with any. there is a small publication published by the national library of medicine that highlights things happening in research that you might find in a doctor's office. it is a modest budget and an opportunity to inform people about things that are happening they might want to know about the terms of medical research and implications for health care
. there has been a lot of discussion about, is it possible the virus could become transmissible by the airborne route, which would be a dangerous development. one animal study was actually quite different than anything you could imagine happening in humans that suggests the possibility of that. frankly, i think the experts looking at that say that is not likely to happen in the current circumstance for humans with any serious possibility. the other concern is the ebola virus is mutating, as many viruses do. a lot of copies of the virus have a chance to change properties. we think it is unlikely those changes would make a big difference in transmit ability. -- transmissibility. it deserves close watching and the best solution for the risk is to end the outbreak at the present time, we think airborne transmission is extremely unlikely to develop.
that is good thing. you do not want that to happen. host: a lot of questions this morning about ebola in the news. before we let you go, remind our viewers the role nih plays in the medical research community. guest: it is the largest supporter of biomedical research and the world. the research is funded by grants we give to institutions all over the country, as well as what is done here at the is the campus has been over the course of many decades the reason why lifespan have been increasing and deaths like heart attacks and strokes on the wane -- we're making great strides against cancer and all kinds of conditions. this is a noble institution with a noble enterprise. it is a privilege for me to serve as its director. i wish it was more widely known about in the public. anybody who looks at the mission of the accomplishments, the trains, the -- dreams, the vision of what
can happen next, if we really pulled out all the stops and applied all the resources we need, would be truly excited about the promise we have here for dealing with a whole host of diseases that currently cause a great deal of suffering. host: dr. collins come up next we will talk to patricia grady, the head of nursing research there. why is this important, to focus on nursing and having the research there? guest: patricia grady, as the director, can no doubt tell you a lot of exciting work they are supporting. we have 27 institutes and centers at nih and we're trying to cover the entire landscape of biomedical needs. nursing is a critical part of our health care system. they also have great ideas about the way the system could work better. she will tell you more about that. that is part of the integrated whole that covers the waterfront from basic science to translational science to clinical trials and everything in between.
we're doing everything we can to make the world safer against disease, to come up with strategies for treatment that people just really need. host: a big thanks to your and your team for letting "washington journal" to come out to nih. it's a privilege to be on c-span. thank you. a legal debate surrounding president obama's strategy againstisis. the michigan state university president looks at public policy issues that affect higher education standards and the role of the big ten conference. your phones, facebook comments, and tweets you can see -- tweets. look at our primetime
schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, president obama speaks to the united nations general assembly about combating isis and american racial tensions. on c-span2, the recent ebola outbreak in west africa. , jim webb speaks at the national press club about a range of political issues. held a discussion this week about current national security threats and the iranian nuclear program. panelists also talked about russia's dispute with ukraine, and the importance of the nsa surveillance program. this is an hour and a half. >> last week you wrote, fear is .ack when we put this tennille -- panel together, we probably
would have said there was no role in national security. that has changed a bit. there is panel consensus that it will not play a big role. but can you describe what you are seeing in the polling and whether or not there is a percolation period six weeks before the election for it to have an impact? >> i sort of look at what happened over the year as an art that goes this way, the country and the obama administration are bumping along with the president kind of in sync with american public opinion on the question of the summer, which was whether we want to get involved in syria and iraq. his answer was no, and the american people's answer was no. that is where things were until one thing happened. there was a release of the
beheading video of james foley. that event grab the attention of the american public. there was more attention paid to that event in the terms of the attention, more than trayvon martin, more than the obamacare rollout. more people paid attention to the beheading video than anything we tested for the last five years. it was a galvanizing moment that changed attitudes. when we asked should the u.s. be militarily involved against the islamic state a couple weeks ago, the answer was 61% of the people said yes. slightly higher among republicans than democrats and independents. there was a sense we have got to do something. i think there is still limited appetite. when we ask people if they want to be more or less involved in world affairs, the number that
the u.s. should be involved had ticked up since the spring but not a lot. the reason we have all said amongst ourselves is we talked i don't believe this question of what is the u.s. role in the middle east, what if the proper strategy against the islamic state, army will be a huge midterm election because both parties are deeply divided on this. you look at the vote in the house last week on authorizing training the syrian rebels, for example. conservative split amongst themselves, liberals split amongst themselves. the black caucus was split. there's not a party position for the democrats or republicans. it's very hard for parties to gain traction on an issue like that. keg ofpolitical powder involvement -- rachel, you mentioned that national security, it is possibly a good thing that is not a big part of debate in the midterm elections. explain why. >> i would love for national
security to play a bigger role in general. the american people should have a say. but our congress is not now organized for the american people to have a say. it is highly gerrymandered. that is pushing districts to the fringes in the way the votes are being jerryrigged is similar. you get a veterans affairs boat with a iraq sanctions vote tacked on to it. pull troops out of iraq vote with a funding vote stuck together. the whole reason these votes are being structured so that an attack ad can be written later against whoever votes for or against the vote. as long as we have a congress in which you know that if you vote on a serious national security issue there are going to be attack ads at the midterm and you will be hurt in the polls, you are not going to get in
serious thinking or debate. the politics of this issue suggests to me that we need to pull back on how politicized it politics.e can change i think we have eight more years until [indiscernible] again. >> that debate cannot wait eight years. the move against the islamic state for the purposes of this is using an authorization for an old war that the president declared over for a new war. act, and thes to president seems to agree on that. when are we going to get that debate? --before congress can act [inaudible]
[indiscernible] present obama is deeply committed to a process, some kind of meaningful dialogue with congress. the congress is not there, literally. the question becomes as things develop on the ground in the next six to eight weeks, the president will fill increasing pressure to go alone just because of logistics. the real question becomes, what happens after the midterms? --s the congress go to work we have not heard the white house formerly -- formally endorse it. does the president have
enough authority to act right now? >> i think he does. to jerry's earlier point, before the beheadings the american people -- the two major "usa 48% people, the economy was the top insert followed by health care, the budget deficit, 38%, education, 31%. immigration was at 14%. the beheadings were enforcing mechanism. ingress planned to be session only 12 days after the summer legislative recess. the beheadings compressed the calendar in terms what the president can do and what congress wanted to do. what congress really wanted to do was pass a short-term extension of the budget and then get out of town and focus on the elections. i would take a little the difference with rachel's point.
the congress does not want to take tough votes is not a new concept. districts are more gerrymandered than before. if you look back at lincoln's time, they avoided votes because it was too politically difficult than and it has not changed since. go further, we will have to have a debate about who we are actually fighting. even an important citizen might be very confused without a scorecard of who are the threats. i would like to bring tim starks in here. you had clapper and the intelligence committee briefing lawmakers about what they considered were dangerous threats, pressing threats to the united states. >> you are right. the very difficult for
average person to keep track of these groups. it's difficult for the intelligence community to keep track of these groups. people might forget that al forebear ofq is a the islamic state group that has become such a big threat. the bipartisan policy center is going to be releasing a report that has a chart of where all these groups are. 2008say that looking at compared to now, al qaeda and its affiliates are operating in 16 different countries, which is double what it was in 2008. that includes wildcards of groups that could pop-up, or if there is a big deepening of a --flict in israel-palestine [indiscernible] was getting a lot of attention this past weekend. that is the one the clapper said was in the vicinity of dangerous
. theod number of experts, chairs of the committees will say that is one we need to worry about. ofy have a track record trying to carry out these attacks on the united states, and inspiring them among homegrown terrorists in a way that other groups don't quite have since 9/11. that is another big one. there are a variety of other -- some of them are weakening, but they can be revived. it goes back to the point about the islamic state. >> you pointed out last week that the action against islamic state may inspire these groups to step forward in an opportunistic way. talk about that. you took the u.s.
officials, they worry about the islamic state to some extent. in terms of near-term danger, one of the things they worry about more of the groups you are talking about, but also the fact that they may have an incentive they did not have a couple of months ago to man a strike. is sucking allte the air out of the extremist world. qaeda in running al the arabian peninsula, you suddenly have a need to prove your relevance, you're still here, you still matter, how do you do that? maybe you pull the trigger if you can on a big strike against the west. maybe not necessarily here. you make the point, we are still around too. that is a legitimate concern. it is also a testament to see how much the islamic state has changed the game in a short period of time. you raise the question of who are we fighting against.
there's also a question of who are we fighting with against the islamic state, and do people see the threat the same way? this disagreement here as to whether the islamic state poses the greatest threat or not. that is part of the confusion that has everybody feeling nervous. that is clear in that polling a new get a sense of just listening to the conversation on the hill in the last couple weeks is that to the extent americans had decided steadily over the last seven years that the threat, the 9/11 threat against them and the homeland, that has receded in the last month. >> would be beheadings be a most significant driver in the uptick? >> yes. based on the public all in, you can't see a similar spike. you see it drift up and down, the fear factor, but nothing like what happened in august. fear, youe a spike in
have multi-pronged threats, a congress that is not debating. congress has given way to the sitting president on the war action for a generation now. aren't we experiencing a slow-motion constitutional crisis? [indiscernible] the same constitutional crisis we have been experiencing since unilateral dishes making -- decision-making. at least for the moment, the president has plausible if not self-evident statutory arguments today. the president has suggested that authority to go after isis for the moment can be derived from ,he statute congress has entirely because isis is the successor to al qaeda's legacy.
implausible. the moment when this becomes a real constitutional crisis is when you have a thread for which there is no plausible statutory authority, -- threat for which there is no plausible statutory authority. that could easily happen. >> you are releasing a paper later this week on the varying views on the right, on whether the president should seek new authority. >> we are releasing a paper on isis and whether or not an isis aumf would be appropriate. the reason that most were actions happened in a specifically designed aumf -- we break out the five constituent parts of that and say if the congress is not convinced of the
president possibly go arguments, 2004isis grew out of the [indiscernible] even though he is dead, there is this break from the core al but you cannot make the case, then congress needs to -- the president should be proposing and amuf. it is a must read. when you read both of them together, you really get a good sense of what is happening in the legal academy. he gave a speech at my alma mater on constitution day, and how thed about constitution is under stress because ofst decade
the various machinations from the bush administration and the obama administration. he gave various examples. there is some merit in that argument. i agree with steve's point as well. it is worth stressing the very different constitutional question we are grappling with today versus 5, 10 years ago. the question is not what happens when you have a president legally defy an act of congress on the grounds of statutorily unconstitutional. the question is what happens when you have a president who is convinced that some force needs to be used to quell a threat to the united states, where congress apparently agrees, where there seems to be more than the majority in both houses cannothere they just get their heads together whether for political reasons or logistical reasons or for other reasons unknown to us. that is the constitutional crisis that worries me, which is not when you have congress
saying one thing and the president saying something else. when you have complete agreement among the political branches that a refusal to do with the constitution requires, which is at some point to pass new legislation. >> i might take slight disagreement with you on that. there might be instances for action -- there is still such a great division within the democratic party and republican party that is easier for congress to not do anything. it is easier for them to say, let the president go right now unless something gets out of hand and they don't like what he's doing. issue of congress willingly ceding authority to the president is interesting. it is in the interest of constitutional dynamic. we had a story today that this would be the most do-nothing congress of all time, unless they pass 100 bills in the lame duck session.
it is interesting how much you see a president go to congress and say, i want something, and till he starts taking about ramifications of congress saying if we don't like it quite a way he way youquite te do --there was a period of time in which the cia wanted to be more open about working with congress. asked him, what do you think about the authorization bill that is coming up. e very privately use curse words to describe how much he did not care. something subtle but interesting happened in the last few weeks in regard to the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch. came out andma said, it think i have the ability to act here. but i invite you in congress to please authorize something, get with me here, do something.
the executive branch -- some of us have been doing this for a long time and the tendency of the executive branch is to say to the legislative branch, stay as far away from me as humanly possible. please go away. he did not say that in this case. he said, please authorize something so there is a sense we are moving together here. they did not really. andauthorized training arming the syrian rebels with no dollar signs attached. that is a different dynamic between the two branches. 1999 congress had [inaudible] the vote was a tie. 216 to 216. we are not talking about a has the -- house that had resolution before. >> biscuits to jerry's earlier point about the interesting polling where the american people were saying, we want you
to do this and when the president did this, they did not reward him for it. the american people are looking for a government that can do something successfully abroad. they are worried they are not going to see it. you get this funny back and forth where they say, we want you to do something that we don't really believe you're going to succeed and we don't want to fail again. that is an even bigger than theic dynamic constitutional dynamic, this loss of faith in the american government to act effectively from both parties. >> part of the reason that happened, which i give credit to the president for doing because that is a healthy way of signaling to them, let's work together, is because of what happened last year on the serious situation -- syria situation. like two teenagers trying to figure out who is going to ask the first one out on a date. he did not really want to put forward and aumf proposal and
congress did not want to reward him by doing one. what would happen if it was an election year -- who knows. i is very clear to me that saying what he said, he's very open to and aumf. i think they realize there is this vigorous debate in the legal academy, and they are widely open. >> it was a speech last may, not this most recent may but last may where he said the same thing. old one.epeal the >> -- and to repeal the old one. >> not long after, defense officials testified to congress, we are good with a aumf as it is. it is certainly a very different situation than last year.
--no surpriserice there. can we go back to august of last year? did obama make a mistake in asking for that vote? can't do business as usual, very forceful was his speech. >> it was a pivot point. almost everything that happened in administration foreign policy is to some degree or another judged against the backdrop of what happened that week in august. the white house doesn't like to hear that, but i think that is true here. it's true in terms of relations with congress. it is probably even more true in terms of the way people abroad see the u.s. and see the obama administration. done withresident has the islamic state coalition building is starting to pull
back some of that. it was a big moment, and it did affect lots of things that happened in the year subsequent. >> having been involved from , there were not the votes. they just did not have the numbers. they did not want to bring it to a vote. they do not have the numbers because the constituent was running against that vote. i don't member the numbers for every single senator -- remember the numbers for every single senator. it was overwhelming. there wasn't a beheading video at that point. you eventually have to go back to the american people if you are a member of congress. >> you did say the american people are uncertain there would be a successful -- that we will have a measure of success. i want to go back to something written about. coalitions can fail
. what is the prospect of success with this coalition? privy to the classified documents on this one, and i really hope that it looks better than it does from the outside. from the outside, most militaries are not set up the way our military is, to actually protect the people in the country and the territory of the country. based on that, we give them money and try to train them, but their fundamental purpose is different than what we want them to do. that is a real problem. >> absolutely. we'ref these states dealing with, you would have seen a lot of confidential information about, are you any more confident? >> this is not a partisan issue. we note -- need the coalition to win. one thing we have not talked
about here is leadership. a president, any president in needs to regroup, needs to reassess the people and needs ar her clear vision for the next two years. this is one of those classic cases in point where the president needs to leave -- lead. .e needs to lead there's a lot of different types of folks voting. that is an opportunity, i think. put together the right type of winning legal argument, political argument for us to win. the administration needs to be more forthright, honest and direct about who this coalition is and what they're going to do. it's going to be very hard, because there will be things they can't talk about red -- about.
americans are used to turning on cnn and the next day seeing the crosshairs and bombs going off. we are not seeing that. we are like, what the heck is going on? there is an emotional aspect here that people are not getting what they are hearing. steve, do you think we need a new legal framework on partners? >> yes, but -- >> we allude to this before with the kind of countries we are talking about in listing in this coalition against isis. when you talk about the assad regime in syria, we talk about iran, how do we feel comfortable that the fact that the enemy of our enemy is suddenly not so much our enemy? if we need a new framework, it would be good if we can exert some leverage and put strings on the aid we are providing and the support we are seeking. we need them at the moment,
perhaps as much as they need us. as long as that is going to be true, it will be hard for us to impose conditions. that will create a very bad structure where the kind of support that we need, especially in the middle east, will come from and improve our human rights efforts. i think they are going to exact as much leverage as they can. we are in a weak position. we need it but i do not think we are going to get it. , hehen obama backed down said he was dispatching john kerry. with our partners in peace. , he kerry this morning seemed to be describing the islamic state as a state. that they controlled territory
they have, a funding flow. >> i don't know. whether the u.s. government is on the precipice of recognizing it is a dangerous proposition. , is going to pissed off that territory that is claimed by another state. i can't imagine we have recognized the islamic state. sovereignty, right to act in self-defense. hail't know if america has in some kind of moved to a recognized statehood or we were focused that this is a group we are going after, not because they are a standard terrorist group, but many groups control wide swaths of territory. territory changes the game.
it gives them more security from action by other countries. i don't know this beginning of anything other than a nomenclature change. people are not being able to see the normal atmosphere and imagery of war. maybe that was carried trying to create that. >> the consequences are so dire. to draw an analogy, this is the one bridge linking would not cross. they would never recognize the confederacy as a country grade when you do that you confer legitimacy. >> talk about the practical effects that are partners in jordan and turkey. seeing a lot of reaction. this is in your wheelhouse. not a lot of time to
make an effect of pushback to ease this crisis? >> the refugee crisis, we are seeing it now. suddenly it is real to us. this started years ago with the syrian war. it has been a serious issue in lebanon and turkey, the destabilization of those states is quite real. there are little boys and girls growing up in those camps. seeing on their tvs? their parents hopeless in the face of something. the more years they are in those camps the more you are going to see a generation growing up with this normality. we know now not just the emotions but the brain, brain science is telling us the
violence that causes in people. impulse control. you don't want generations growing up in refugee camps and not being able to work, and seeing that. we are going to see that for this generation. we want to deal with this soon. from a been trying humanitarian perspective. more.l need it >> what kind of a drain is that on a country like jordan? >> i have no idea. i am not jordanian. i can only imagine from what i have seen and what i talk to my friends in the military am i have served for 23 years. at is debilitating. if you look at the people in the and week, it makes katrina the numbers of people fleeing new orleans look like not much. at orere being shot
afraid american isis groups were going to come after them. i share rachel's concern and agree with what steve said. i don't think secretary kerry meant literally that they are as state. i think it was more of a .olloquial expression >> talk about has any of this had purchased on lawmakers? problem?of the refugee of what ourig part future expenses might be. in addition to the humanitarian impact there is a sense that this is something we are going to the wrestling with. we are already talking about $75 million. when weagon said started wrapping this up, the crisis can add to these kind of
costs. when seery was out of control, now that it is even worse and spreading, it is going to be even more of a problem. >> tim is right. there is something bigger happening here. the combination of the refugee crisis and the fact that isis swaths of territory great huge countries are being changed. the border between iraq and syria does not exist. the demographic of lebanon has changed. the demographic composition of syria is a mess. none of those states as we are speaking now and overtime are going to exist the way we ago,ht of them five years 10 years ago. what are the consequences of that? the adult states of the region need to step up. the real countries, egypt,
turkey, iran, israel, saudi arabia. countries that are pointed have functioning governments are inng to have to step in and what form that takes i don't know. they practically are not existing in the form we have always thought of them. >> there are several bitter ironies about this situation. he wanted to get out of iraq now we are back in iraq. saying that his predecessor, the incumbent had put two wars on a credit card. we are doing that again. do you want to talk about how unsustainable that is? back after theme elections, once they get back in the house and senate with the new congress, that is going to be a very major component of
what happens when we are looking at the overall budget. the defense budget. the mandatory cups. when you have this attempt to move everything back into the base pentagon budget, that is being reversed. it may have to be. to the arguments as to why it has to be. he is going to be doing a war on a credit card. nationale many security issues. we are going to move on to them. i will go back to jerry on this one. do people in these administrations acknowledge the --sident may wind up being [indiscernible]
>> i am not sure it is right. i think what the general said last week, which got mangled in the translation, he said there has to be boots on the ground if you're going to roll back military, which is what the islamic state is. i don't have the american boots. just somebody's boots. that is where we are right now. he can maybe somebody else? there is skepticism. that doesn't mean the answer is no. >> the adult states in the region, the syrian free army is up to the job? >> i don't know. >> if you need -- if any of you have discerned an answer, let us know. about other manifestations, and the politics.
you have written about the possible political realignment on the issue of privacy. how lester's attempt at a wasback on data collection an indication of a possible emerging new alliance. i think everybody had something to say about that. point, goes back to the one of the things that i was pushed off the radar was surveillance. was was an issue that sparked by the snowden revelations. there was clear impotence for some change. it wasn't the good old-fashioned left-right divide. one of the things we saw was a not unpredictable of my men between libertarian wing republican party and the liberal wing of the democratic party. -- towasn't 02 d fund
defund. actually more divided. this is a possible moment that hasn't happened yet. has that hasices lifted into the distance. xt spring congress is going to have some sort of surveillance reform. we are going to have to have some legislation come out of congress. the house has passed the usa freedom act. the senate has a bill. the real question is is there going to be a meeting of the minds before this congress goes home? be different said that comes back will be pushing for the same deal. the real question is is it going to be democrats or publicans?
or the liberals and libertarians? against the more conventional parts the parties. we will see. >> to you think this is a political alignment and get something done? >> i think things are moving so quickly we have no way of knowing read when steve wrote it he was right. then you have the beheadings and isis. you have these things that are happening. you see for example the libertarian wing of the republican party pulling back on their statements, their desires for certain policy. you see rand paul's lawsuit against the nsa on hold. it serves a political purpose. what is going to happen is, god forbid any terrorist attack ifpens here in the country,
it doesn't, you're going to have a renewed sense of realism, that we needed some form of surveillance. let the adult in the room. we have to do something. we need some form of boots on , not usnd in iraq probably for now. but who? how do we that these folks? are we any good at it? we saw what we did with iraq and afghanistan training afghan national army people. we had green on green, blue and green. all sorts of insider attacks. that is going to happen and dampen the spirit of what we are doing. we can't let it quench the resolve to get it done. >> there is one option we have not talked about.
the courts. you talk about the rand paul lawsuit. the urban arguments -- there have already been arguments to the 215 program. they are largely overlooked in colorado. possible the more they drag their feet on these matters the more the court may be pressed to some action. i'm not holding my breath the supreme court is in a hurry to restore privacy protections. it was no greater a liberal than chief justice roberts who wrote caseajority opinion, a about searching cell phones, how much different the data is that howtore in our cell phones, the technology changes the private skin analysis. if the court means that,
congress may drag its feet long enough to leave no other place but to jump in. >> before then we get a multiplicity along the way. when you will get a decision for the next couple of months. here in d.c., there is going to be argue later this fall. by next spring we will have two circuit court opinions. we will have a district court opinion on 702. it is on a percolate and take a while. go theress really does narrow route, to look at 215, the courts may finally fill they can do something. i think that the district court split on the fourth amendment question. i assume both of the appeals courts are going to resist.
there is a narrow way out. , was never authorized. that fits nicely with congress having to reauthorize the statute. >> if someone calls me for foreign national my data is collected. >> the question is, where is it happening? is it authorizing certain intelligence agencies, to mass collect information going through foreign servers so long as they were targeting non-us persons.
so they probably are picking up your phone calls accidentally. >> given the talk that we have spoken about foreign threats, fear of terrorism, is it possible that once again busy concerns will be overwhelmed by it? wave of concern about with the younger generation doesn't share many privacy concerns. it will be interesting is see where it goes. a lot of issues are being overwhelmed by talk in , and the immigration debate has not gone away. certain subsets of the population, it is important. that issue is still very real. i was in dallas getting mike lane rebooked and the woman behind the counter was talking honduras.oris, --
she was with the church. that was the issue people in texas are thinking about. they are notues, going away. congress has been kicked the can for a long time. they are going to have to take those issues that the. one of a broad analogy, the things we're looking about is what we know about violence. if you have cartels fighting each other and a government comes in and fights one of them, you don't does weaken the one cartel, you start violence between the cartels. everyone wants their turf. you start a succession crises. you get more violence. you have state on cartel violence. human test of ties -- you the cartel violence.
i think the american people are going to notice just they way they notice what was going on at our southern border. they were scared of the border states. >> the problem hasn't gone away. .asn't faded as a concern child migrants. like immigration? it has not aided. if you ask people what they worry about the immigration worry is high. it comes and goes. there is a tendency in washington to conclude two months ago that congress wasn't going to deal with it so check it off the list and put on the back burner. the polling suggest that is not the way america looks at it. it is on their minds. that is not to say there is consensus about what to do. the country is almost as divided as washington.
in terms of what do we worry about? >> do lawmakers worry about it? happens ifl be what the senate changes control kind of question. just to give you a sense of how things can change. it would have been a easy prediction to say they are going to run new. -- brand-new. coalition got vocal, it got to the point briefly in july before the isis an islamic state issues become a big deal, there was an amendment on the floor, 30 house republicans voted for it. i don't know that would be the same if they came to the floor today. i goes the question of what happens if the senate changes controlled. the bill would be very different
than the one they were looking at recently. there will be a different emphasis on terrorist travel. that might push it further. the way people might change on surveillance reform is so interesting. the senate is more conservative on the notion of being going after the nsa bill. the senate has more traditional national security worries than the libertarian house members. >> there are material differences between the usa freedom act that passed the house and the version introduced by senator leahy. those differences were down in favor of private savard --
private civil liberties. concerns ando the they much more superficial manner. i think that is going to be a loss. it means legislation is not going to accomplish much. >> do you agree? >> those same concerns may not be around. it may be 10 down. name.e with the i think it is silly. the only institution that is better is the pentagon. that when you are talking about the immigration
piece, use all jeh johnson testify. folks were asking, how many people from not south america were crossing the border? agree that there were folks from yemen and other countries that he came across. there is no evidence that isis is trying to come into mexico and pay a coyote today. there are 3000 plus americans who have passports, and western americans who can just come in. we have sticky look at the reforms. that the be right
house version prevails. you might see the leahy bill have legs. i think it is way too early to tell. >> the fact that we're even having this conversation, that we are on to what happens in the spring underscores just how all-inclusive isis has been. i would never have thought the bill wouldn't be done by the midterms. a agenda item number one. it look like the reason why senator leahy had spent all bill wasgning onto a to get it between the midterms. isis has taken over the politics of national security. peoples amazing how much have come to a basis at the same place. andcan hardly get lazy feinstein on the same page.
all of a sudden they were moving close to each other. to othermove on hotspots. secretary of state kerry was lauding the achievement in afghanistan unity agreement. are we overselling? you would have to ask the copresidents that question. i guess i would cynically answer everything that has been promised in afghanistan for 12 years have been oversold area i'm not sure why this would be different. the administration had of you, there was a reason for it. anything that followed president karzai was going to be an improvement. if that is your standard, this is progress. it is progress compared to what seemed possible a couple weeks ago.
i think the hard question now begins. what is the understanding about security arrangements? will it exist? if it does will the u.s. act on it? those are questions that now start to be discussed. say, talkoing to about afghanistan. his son is a close friend. i hope this works out. he has good reason to worry. the best case scenario is a frozen conflict in a and a stand. you give everyone some time to breathe. you can start getting a functioning government. he wrote the book literally on fragile states, a thoughtful man
. she makes some shrewd political , which he needed to do to win an election. if anyone can do it, he can. i don't believe in putting our eggs in the basket of a champion. we need to look at how do you shake institutional arrangements with status enforcement agreements to ensure peace? is history of these things that conflict can break out over time. >> it sounds like optimism in that. i'm glad we have it. let me just throw this out to everyone. has europe and the u.s. reached the limits of their restraint on vladimir putin? should we be worried? no. i don't think we have reached the worried -- i don't think we have reached the limits.
should we be worried? i guess. >> what is your view on where we are at? he has played in opportunistic game early in the summer pushing forward on that. we are distracted and politically frozen. should we be worried? asked 50 people walking down the street showing where the ukraine is on a map most couldn't pointed out. people understand beheadings and videos. people understand terrorists events. i don't think people how that putinf a concern about being put in and doing what he was designed to do. reach out and grab more
territory and protect his people. part of that will, the fact that that is true will motivate congress. congress is interested in this. now realizes what he is about. the congress has realized what he has been about. question tohese in me, i don't know where it is going to end. sanctions point where aen they are so extreme have law and intended consequences. i don't know how far we can push it before they say back off. there are there a rainy and equations. -- there is the iranian equations. >> the shootdown was the spark got ignited the powder and
folks to pay attention. it got the american public's attention for four days. it got the european attention for longer. ,he question is going to be what is your going to be? are we going to follow us and what europe is going to do it is an even more fraught question. i think it is rare to see the dutch get exercised by anything. i thought that would have been the moment. aggressive events from russia. wechsler, that comes from how dependent is europe is on russia. it is easy for us to be ahead of your. one of the interesting things,
how republicans are talking about it. they are about ukraine as an example of the failure of the president's leadership. -- there is saying a narrative about the president being a failure. they can use this as a checkmark. thingsink the surprising is the way europeans have not headed for the exits on sanctions. food and created a golden opportunity for them to do that. , theeates a cease-fire terms that he dictates. he said here is a cease-fire. the europeans don't do what i think they would do, let's back off. maybe it is not enough, but it
is harder for it is for us. but they did. i think by standards of european behavior in similar crises that is pretty good. >> i agree. >> the other interesting thing, the energy debate. big new energy state with gas and oil, to exports of oil and natural gas. we have all sorts of issues grief can we export this? what europe decides to do with its energy equation, how much it wants to stay dependent on russia now that it sees how russia is using it. that is going to start playing him. our politics and european politics. opponent, they have introduced their bills. they were trying to outdo each other on energy.
>> use literally see the fracking and mining going on as you drive down the road. >> rachel talked about the problem gerrymandering. the one place that is not an issue is the senate. they find colorado, in these senate races down to the wire. are we going to see once i tried to raise national security or civil liberties? >> before we throw it open to questions we have the matter of iran. by november we are supposed to have a deal or not have a deal with them. what happens then? it is anybody's guess. then the elections can affect you in a big way. let's say we have a deal.
there will be a push by the administration to reduce the sanctions we have on them. that probably will be pushed into next year if that is the case. seehere is no deal you may an immediate lame-duck push to put some sanctions on iran. the president promised no deal. we are going to sanction them. if the republicans take control what the president wants next year gets much harder. nobody wants to be seen as the people who eased up on iran. it is a position that is much less popular with republicans. things that the iran issue could come in next to the
general issue of the defense budget, the top things that we are dealing with with the 114th congress. >> i'm struck by the decided lack of optimism that the administration announced. of people put it below 50-50. the real question is what then? you inevitably have to move further down because everybody has said that is the alternative. you have to do it. congress we more than happy to oblige. the administration is in a tougher spot. there is this isis problem. it is complicated. this even harder. >> you have a really interesting 2016 campaign issue. not going to be a huge
issue in the midterms. it may be a couple of small topics. it is going to be something the congress deals with reluctantly. they are going to have to deal with surveillance reform. they are going to have to fund all these enterprises. the real elephant is how this starts to shape the primary fight and 2016. especially on the republican side. there is going to be a real split between an old school goldwater republican candidate and somebody with more libertarian roots. that is where you could see national security become an issue. >> it is always much more of an issue in the republican -- in the presidential elections. 2002, everybody was thinking about the issue. more or less you have not seen
it be a dominant issue. we have seen in presidential elections. we will see it more. >> that is where the debate should go. >> the american public deserves a debate. i think we are going to get one. it will be interesting between libertarians and goldwater republicans. you will see a similar split on the left. we will get interesting discussion. it will be a pity of the discussion boiled down to care for. -- character. are you tough enough, not tough enough? >> we are in a different world where that kind of strength is not what we need. we need spiderman more than the incredible hulk, a moral light and flexible strength than just beating your chest. i don't know if that is what we are going to see.
as rachel is implying, when you say leading from behind, it becomes a political attack point. it is not a successful one. when you articulate a new policy it does get dangerous. >> it does. the -- i do agree with steve. and up to the summer recess will be a very robust time of debate regarding national security. everything from the torture when it comesort, out. i think it is going to come out. you will have the military commissions case.
you will have a surveillance reform. i think you will really know we are in the thick of it if there is an appetite for revisiting the budget control act and the sequester. twice now they have raised the cast but they haven't lifted its. if they want to pull that band-aid off and really look at that and the administration we will see, whether if that happens, then you will know that everyone is all in on this debate. this is the beginning of a long season of debate in washington. i have wanted to remind everyone of 2 things. we are going to have cocktails. i hope you will join us. cq roll call team of homeland
security has produced a briefing which is being gifted to everyone who has come here tonight. we have some time for questions. >> there are microphones on the aisles. >> there is a lady there. pointed around the world and focus on the middle east i was wondering if you would take a few minutes and talk about the president headed and my concern oft it will be a coal asian of ours -- a coalition congress to make budget guys who have played golf. my observation, things are getting more dicey between two them. , beggingas in japan
the folks i was talking to to make nice with south korea. we would like to do something with you. can you come together? you are right. there is not a lot of love between those countries. it is not cutting a lot of water there. we didn't even touch on asia. it is the biggest part of the world. it is quite volatile right now. i would these of christ if i get through my lifetime without a war with asia. i don't see it happening without a lot of massaging. >> thank you for introducing that. let's talk about the pivot to asia. he will leave office with the incomplete. >> i used to be an english lawher before i will to
school, toppers are not good doers. would say there is a pivot to asia? when? circling ourjets jets. chinese expanding exponentially. claims.making editorial they are building. their economy is slowing down. i think the obama administration may not be a pivot, but we need to do that. of the in the front page paper is isis, russia, and this is further support for the argument that we will probably
see a big debate about the defense budget this spring. to refund anded recapitalize from these decades of war. >> susan rice is giving a speech this week on southeast asia. tends to react to what is happening right then. they don't tend to plan long-term. we need to be prepared. others say china is doing a lot of hacking. a lotoesn't seem to make of news. it doesn't mean there isn't some groundwork being laid. there was an interesting division that was saying we need to reestablish jungle combat training because we used to have a dedicated base in panama and we don't have any more. the thinking is we are going to
be in some kind of war at some point with some asian nation. let's be repaired. >> what happens to the pivot to asia? it was an attempt have been obama doctrine, a new way of thinking, and a counterpoint to chinese way of thinking. >> the term give it was unfortunate. everybody will agree on that. it implies we are not point to do this because we're going to do that. slowly supposed to be, shifting resources to a part of the world becomes more important while other parts become less important. called extent dependent something different is still happening. as we end 2 wars in the middle east we can stop paying attention there and start paying more attention here is a nation. people can shift their
thinking. >> i saw another hands. >> thank you. talk aboutn's column a struggle that was going on within the islamic state that helped explain the recent events we have seen in the middle east. he said that was an attempt to define their future. i would welcome comments on that . >> i have spent time reading islamic state literature.
what is really fascinating and a veryicated, there is vigorous conversation going on within the people who are part of the movement about what they mean. why they are different al qaeda in particular. that they haveon embraced as a group that says al qaeda was wrong. attacking thehat west over time would wear down the opponents of islam and he would create the conditions to have a caliphate. the right thing and you stop people who disagree with you. i think that is the islamic state movement grows there are bound to be people who have are went thoughts about, going too fast or too far? we are going to get whacked.
isn't anmagine there interesting debate about the beheading videos. it is hard to know. my point is, there is an interesting public window into islamic state if you just go look at what they say themselves. it reveals a lot. >> i would add, this is not a new phenomenon. if you read andy mccarthy, he birth of thely the predecessors of al qaeda, but of islamal schools assist. wine, those who adhere to some form of violent jihad. isis is the most recent and radical version of that. the other is a version that says no, you don't. you set up currency.
you get more mosques. you send students into various universities. we do it through lawful means. the two are at each other's throats. is what is going on between this side of the debate. >> you can broaden this even bigger. back in the 1950's when the movement got going, it was modernity. why were they not catching up? why were they behind the west? how did they deal with the sense of humiliation and lack of agency? he came up with all sorts of reasons. one way that the arab world was dealing with that was the arab spring was a healthy move in my and toward taking agency saying you have your violent
folks over here, they tried to regain the ball and move forward. they failed. we are going to do there is through democratic means. the pity that that movement and most countries didn't succeed, we and others didn't do quite enough, it was an internal issue in terms of how much they could exceed on their own, one of the cities is that now we are back in a world of hard-core islam rather than another way forward for how to deal with that sits -- sense of humiliation. another. >> a question from twitter. it is a great one. we'll veterans issues play into the midterms? >> that is another that they tried to play out on the republican side as a comp tends question.
are politically popular for obvious reasons. they should be popular. you have not seen a lot of pressure from republicans on that other than another example how this administration is that leading generally. >> it is a heart issue. north carolina has come up a lot in kay hagan's race. if you look at the actual vote the democrats have voted money for veterans and so forth. the republicans of not back those votes. we have vba scandal. it went in different directions. a lot has been done for veterans. it's a hard thing to argue. i get it will make a huge dent in races. you have a couple where you have veterans running. seth bolton wanted absent --
seth bolton won an upset. they will use it as a character issue. >> i don't think that was specifically av scandal. person. political i would say the market has priced that in. for one moreom question. is a gentleman. there is another area, talk about whether ebola is going to be such a destabilizing influence there will be real national security concerns. in they not be as much term issue but i'm curious if
people have thoughts about what they long-term might look like. >> it is an issue in one race already. mark pryor's senate race. he hadn't had where he criticizes opponents vote on the , biomedicallth care defenses. it seemed to backfire. this is going to be an area where there is not going to be a ,trong bush for -- strong push but there is going to be a need for money especially if we tried to stabilize regimes in liberia and west africa. all this is the question is where is the money going to come all of theser crises at once? >> i think some people may try issue it as a wedge or an
on the race. by saying obama is sending more people to africa to fight ebola then he is to iraq. it is silly. it is silly for the simple fact this disease is not society, andcivil a factors, it has magnitude for destabilizing all not just africa, the world. military members spread diseases in the past. they killed tens of millions of people. that hopefully won't happen today. i think the administration is well within their moral right to lend a hand and take a lead role. >> i agree. i was in west africa.
this is going to be treated as an issue of medical need. this is a governance issue. why are people not letting medical officers take their sick? they are not trusting the government. there are good reasons. how we serious about help these governance is is important because this is what bad governance gets you. people who don't trust their governments who start insurgencies and don't let their sick the taken by health care workers. we are starting to see those problems metastasize. the difference between isil and ebola is less than you might think. >> final question to that gentleman. >> i would like to go back to iran. current negotiations fail, you talk to the inevitability of sanctions, which is accurate read what
about the inevitability of war? out.nce is wearing ort is the odds that israel the united states launches an attack on iran? >> but as a heavy question. there is a constant agitation for war with iran in various corners. often on the republican side but not entirely. thing thepretty big president has made here agreed -- made here. been mitigating the fear of war by talking about just how difficult the deal will be. it would be hard. there is a next level of punishing sanctions that are worse than what we have done. we can go harder on sanctions. we can go pretty hard on
sanctions. i think you will see more agitation. we have been talking about the iran nuclear program for decades area how worried we are and how we may need to attack. it is hard to imagine for me. what's there is a legacy question. , thed the otter stories finalists have been chosen for the presidents library site. this is a president came into the presidency with two wars. i think it is now probably clear to him that he is not going to be able to and both of them, not going to be totally out of afghanistan and iraq. he doesn't want to have a third war. he doesn't want the number to go up to the time he leaves. i think tim is right read
anything the administration can do to avoid new conflict on trying to do whatever they can to declare victory and one -- declare victory. >> they valve, promised that iran will not get a nuclear weapon. it may be hard for us to ever know that iran has a nuclear weapon. to get themselves more room to negotiate, they have been harsh in their description how we are not going to let them have a nuclear weapon at any cost. which implies the threat of force. promised to close one,. >> government doesn't always keep their promises that is right. >> you are right. there is no appetite in this administration for military conflict. exertedtion of pressure
from outside forces congress from israel, others, it depends on how negotiations conclude. there are various ways that could happen. the notiond with that we got really close. we are not going to extend. if not for the crazy ayatollah we would have gotten there. maybe we should see a he just dies off. the amount of pressure to do something militarily will depend a great deal on what that in game looks like. understanding and military solution doesn't in the problem. the pentagon called the mogul on strategy. lawn, -- you mow the lawn, it grows again. ground ison the unthinkable. bombing only gets so far.
why start down that road? >> i grew everybody. if there washat any action whatsoever it would not be up to the israelis. we would do everything we could behind the scenes to encourage them not to do that. they are a sovereign state their point act in their own self-defense. leadership has made that clear. i agree. there isn't any appetite three have seen the evolving definition of what sanctions are. pressureeep ratcheting . there is no appetite for war against iran. >> the politics are complicated enough, when it comes to israel. it is a different matter altogether. likes on that -- >> on that piece full note, i
would like to once again congratulate you on the first anniversary. [applause] i would like to thank all of you tonight. i would like to thank all my guests. thank you. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, president obama speaks at the u.n. general assembly. the un security council continues action against isis. a house hearing looks at ways the medicare field process. speaking to the u.n. today, president obama calls on international coalition to fight isis. he called on governments to do more to prevent foreign