>> uh-huh. >> as we've learned from the recent economic downturn, concentrations are not good for financial institution port foe owes -- portfolios -- >> by concentration, you mean one product? >> correct. >> okay. >> adding business loans to the portfolio diversifies the portfolio and reduce the big concentration and in my opinion enhance the safety and soundness. ..

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, yesterday, the administration made an announcement that i believe will strike most of my colleagues and the americans they represent as a confusing

breach of common sense. two administration levels claimed -- two administration lawyers claimed that u.s. military involvement in libya is not in breach or calls for a war powers resolution. in other words, they believe that our activities, military activities in libya do not require a war powers resolution. they say because the united states is not engaged in a state of hostilities in libya. this puzzling assertion seems to be undercut by the very report that the administration sent to congress yesterday, which makes it clear that the u.s. armed forces have been and criewmably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses to operate armed predator drones that are attacking qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect libyan civilians and to provide the overwhelming support for nato

operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling. now, i korea that actions like these don't amount to a full-scale state of war, but i would certainly grant -- that i am no legal scholar but i find it hard to swallow that u.s. armed forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country doesn't amount to a state of hostilities. unfortunately, this only adds more confusion to our already confusing policy in libya. our policy objective as stated by the president correctly is to compel qadhafi to relinquish power, and yet that is not our military objective. the administration claims to have turned the operation in libya over to nato, an alliance in which the united states makes up three quarters of the collective defense spending, as secretary gates recently pointed

out. the administration sought the blessings of the united nations, the arab league and nato before using force in libya but still has not sought a similar authorization or statement approval from the elected representatives of the american people. that's wrong. the result of all this, i hate to say, is plain to see in the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the capitol in the house. there is massive and growing opposition to continuing the u.s. involvement in libya. there has already been one piece of legislation passed that binds the president's authority as commander in chief, and there could likely be a vote soon to cut off funding for the entire operation. in short, the accumulated consequences of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in congress against the administration's policy.

i take no pleasure in pointing this out because although i have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in libya, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in libya. qadhafi was at the gates of bengazi. amid all of our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we can't forget the main point. in the midst of the most ground-breaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the middle east, with qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of bengazi, with arabs and muslims in libya and across the region pleading for the u.s. military to stop the bloodshed, the united states and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that qadhafi had promised to commit

in a city of 700,000 people. and by doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on qadhafi to give up power. yes, the progress towards this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than i and others would like, but the bottom line is this: we are succeeding. qadhafi is weakening. his military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. nato is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. the transitional national council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and although their progress is uneven, opposition forces in libya are making strategic gains on the ground. i know that many were opposed to

this mission from the very beginning and i respect their convictions, but the fact is whether people like it or not, we are engaged in libya and we are succeeding, so i would ask my colleagues is this the time for congress to begin turning against this policy? is this the time to ride to the rescue of the man who president reagan called the mad dog of the middle east? is this the time for congress to declare to the world, to qadhafi and his inner circle, to all of the libyan who are -- libyans who are sacrificing to force qadhafi from power and to our nato allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are, is this the time for america to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to

see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim. these are questions that every member of congress needs to think about long and hard, but especially my republican colleagues. many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged president bush over the iraq war, how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull america out of that conflict with far too little care for the consequences that their actions would have on our friends, our allies, our interests and our moral standing as the world's leading power. we were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the white house. last week, qadhafi wrote a personal letter of thanks, a letter of thanks to the members

of congress who voted to censure the president and end our nation's involvement in libya. republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant or trying to limit an american president's ability to force that tyrant to leave power. the goal for all of us here in this body, democrats and republican alike, should not be to cut and run from libya, but to ensure that we succeed. in the very near future, senator kerry and i along with a senior bipartisan group of our colleagues will introduce an authorization for the limited use of military force in libya. the administration may assert that we are not engaged in hostilities in libya, but the senate should go on record as authorizing these operations. we are in a state of

hostilities, and the only result of further delay and confusion over congress' role in this debate would be to continue ceding the initiative to the strongest critics of our actions in libya. we plan to introduce this authorization soon, and i would urge the majority leader to schedule a vote on it quickly. the senate has been silent for too long on our military involvement in libya. it's time for the senate to speak, and when that time comes, i believe we'll find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of maintaining our current course in libya, that supports us seeing this mission through to success and that is willing to continue standing in the breach with our allies until the job and weekend schedules and

your in box. nd schedules and "washington journal" continues. host: representative dennis coos image, -- kucinich of ohio, he was part of a group that filed suit against the obama administration because of the u.s. operation in libya. this is the headline from yesterday. a lawsuit filed against obama on the u.s. operation in libya. congressman kucinich, why did you follow suit in several court? guest: ne constitutional issue has to be brought to the federal court if they are -- any constitutional issue has to be brought to the federal court if you want to get any issue resolved. in this case it is our contention that the president of the united states violated

article 1, section 8 of the constitution when he proceeded to order an attack against libya absent a vote by the united states congress. furthermore, we say he violated the statute of the war powers act which requires him to come to congress within 60 days for approval once initiating possibilities. we also say that even though the president had approval of nato and of the u.n. security council, those two institutions cannot trump the united states constitution and the fact that the president has to come back and get approval. finally, peter, the issue of cost. where is this money coming from? we have not appropriated money for this war. and what the united states of being in the so much fiscal difficulty, it really becomes imperative we raise the issue of this -- the cost of this war and others. host: how is your loss a different from john boehner's letter to the president saying in five days you will be in violation of the war powers act.

guest: i am glad to play a role in bringing the bringing forward his action. i think he did do the right thing requiring the president to come forward with information, which, frankly, he should have done back in march. where we are now is this -- this lawsuit is the only way that we can reset the imbalance that has occurred constitutionally, where the founders and the beginning intended the war powers be placed in the hands of the people's representatives, the congress, and not in the hands of an executive, who, when we were under england, could wage war wantonly at the expense of the country and the people. what happened is this administration and others, frankly, decided to appropriate the war power and therefore create a constitutional challenge. this lawsuit is really aimed at trying to reset our system of checks and balances, and attempting to restore congress's right foot wall as a coequal branch of government and to make sure we are not prosecuting wars

willy-nilly around the world at a time of great turmoil and at a time of great financial distress. host: congressman kucinich, do you know what federal judge will be looking at the case? guest: i don't know. host: can help take action on its own -- on its own? can congress take any action to prohibit the u.s. from being part of the nato forces in libya? yuko yes, you can cut off funds. giglio -- guest: yes, you can cut off funds. there have been initiatives to limit the extent. no ground troops in libya, for example. we need to know we are moving toward the place that that might be necessary. but in the meantime, this constitutional issue looms above everything because the competition is the roles we play

by. and if we ignore the constitution, it is not only at peril for this moment but it sets precedents about what shall be the united states policy in yemen, sudan, in syria, any place around the world. we cannot be global cop. we have to realize there are limits to power. and will also do have some things we should start taking care of, like getting people back to work, helping people say their homes, making sure everyone has health care, protect the retirement security and making sure our children have a chance for a decent education. these are the kinds of things we need to focus on. but this constitution, which i carry with me, if we don't pay attention to this, if we don't contemplate the wisdom of the founders in dividing the power within the government, then we are in danger of losing our country. so this is not a small matter. host: there was a support --

report about military and cia drones taking out al qaeda personnel in yemen. does that come into play in your court decision in the sense of military action against a sovereign country like that? guest: yes. if we decide that we can take that fickle finger of fate and hit the button and 8000 that the -- 8,000 miles away and in separate someone, that is an astonishing use of power to be able to do that. and one can say, well, okay, there are no troops on the ground. look, if you don't have that person pushing the button, the drone doesn't operate. if you do not have a drone and there is a person sitting in the chair, nothing happens. we have to realize that technology has changed the rules of war. and the extension of our power still fixed within the constitutional imperative that congress makes the decisions

whether or not to protect another country. we cannot continue to escalate these wars. we are in danger ring -- i believe, peter, we are endangering our country so that is why i go back to the constitution and the coalition that includes some of the more liberal and more conservative members, really are a testimony of the fact that there is a broad base of support now for taking a different direction. i think the american people by and large want us out of libya and i think the american people by and large are fed up with the escalation of war around the world. we can't afford it. and there is this question of the constitution. host: finally, congressman, before we go to calls, do you see similarities between the obama administration's actions and the bush administration's actions? guest: president bush did come to congress for approval to attack iraq back in october of 2002. i laid out the case why it was wrong and why i felt there was no proof that iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. but he did come to congress.

president obama did not feel he needed to come to congress. that is why we need to go to court. article 1 established the congress. article two establishes the executive, the president, and article 3 establishes the judiciary. in this case we are going to the judiciary and saying, look, this is a constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. it does article one, section 8, really mean only congress has the ability to declare war and can the president basically override the constitution of this? host: we are talking with congressman dennis kucinich, who led a coalition filing suit in federal court over president obama's policy in libya. members of the coalition -- roscoe bartlett of maryland, dan burton of indiana, a democrat of massachusetts, a republican of north carolina --

got to say, that it is a coalition when you get john conyers, ron paul and denver and on the same team. guest: the american eagle spread its wings over the capitol -- it needs two wings to fly and. host: the first call comes from north carolina. don, democrats' line. caller: good morning, peter. congressman, it is an honor to speak with you. just quickly let you know where i am coming from. i am for medicare for all, strengthening labor unions and the dream act. my seven questions are -- what do you think about the news that came out that gaddafi is running out of money and maybe we can get him, that we are close to

getting him out of there? my second question is, what do 112do youchaka fatah's hr 5, a debt-free america tax plan -- what do you think of chaka debt-free american tax plan? guest: i am not familiar enough with his proposal to be able to discuss it. whether or not colonel gaddafi is running out of money it is beside the point. my question is, are we running out of respect for our constitution? host: and this tweet for you, congressman. does not our treaty obligations, and nato, factor in to the libyan action? guest: nato's treaty obligations under nato, they did not trump the constitution of the united states. if you look at the treaty, it

observes that all member states have to go back to their fundamental basis of legal transactions, their own individual constitutions. nato was not created as a vehicle by which the constitution of the united states or the constitution of any other country could be nullified. our constitution takes precedence over the nato treaty and, frankly, over the u.n. security council. host: the next call comes from palm springs, california on the republican line. hi, dennis. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. we basically all saw this coming. basically getting in and out of libya and handing over to nato i thought was very far-fetched. we are a strong power and a force in the military -- it was

not going to happen. we all saw this coming. representative, could you explain to the viewers of c-span what the lawsuit would ultimately achieve, besides more bad pr for the president and the democratic party? could you give us a reasonable time line on how you are going to pursue this, how long you are going to pursue this? host: got a point, thanks. guest: we are asking the courts to rule that the constitution requires that the president has to come to congress. so, in fact -- in effect, it would be rolling the action was illegal. the whole point of the lawsuit is to reset the balance within our government, which is now imbalanced because our chief executive and other chief executives have determine for themselves the power to declare war, which the founders of a nation said should be in the hands of congress.

so, we are trying to get the court to rule on that. as far as the public relations aspect of this, this isn't anything you do to appeal to a gallery. the constitution, which i take an oath to defend, requires that at this moment in the history of our country, we have to protect that constitute -- constitution i am not doing it for some kind of publicity stunt. host: if the federal judge rules in your favor, what happens? guest: the first thing we have to do is get standing. in 1999 i was the second on a lawsuit. host: for kosovo? the court ruled that

the congress has the power. if we get standing this time, i thinks we are on course to resolve one of the great constitutional issues of whether or not any president -- it's not just about this president -- i would prefer to keep this almost impersonal -- whether any president has the ability to take this country toward absent the approval of the directly- elected representatives of the people. he is not directly elected. he is chosen by electorates in the electro college. founders had been used to be able to determine that those who are directly elected, to have faith in their hands. this involves the lives of our men and women sent to a theater where they might be put in jeopardy in one way or another. this is a very callous important

moment. if the court is willing to entertain it. what we hold in this lawsuit is that this relates solely to congress. the founders were very careful in describing in article one, section 8, the whole range of responsibilities that congress has. one of them is the power to be able to take us into war.l -- -- war. we hope the court will decide to take the matter. court iny did the 1999 will get you had no standing in kosovo? guest: we are saying that anything executive engages in with congress is a political question. this goes to the heart of something that is written in the constitution. we are trying to get a decision as to whether or not the federal courts believe that when the

founders put that language into the constitution under article one, section 8, saying that the congress of the united states has the power to declare war as well as the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. this is quoted right from the constitution. the article says that the congress shall have power. so it empowered an institution. is this foundational document. that is what i am going by. that is what we are hoping that the court will understand this is more than a political question here this is the question of the viability of our system of checks and balances. host: dennis kucinich is our guest. chris in rockville, new york. caller: i'm little nervous.

i consider the president is our commander-in-chief and that he has information that the rest of congress does not and that if he had to go to congress to get permission, nobody can agree on anything now, how would we ever get anywhere? it seems like you are leaving or democratic party lately, mr. kucinich. thank you. guest: i am a democrat, but i am a constitutional democrat. the constitution, article one or rather section 2 of article 1 says the president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the united states and of the militias of several states if when called into the actual service of the united states. so congress determines whether you go to war. we have to understand why the founders made the distinction.

it did not want the president to be the individual who would not only say we are going to war, but to say that before you go to war and congress has to make that decision. at that point the president who has this moniker of commander- in-chief, then it really achieves its full effect. >> congressman kucinich, i was going to the second question that was asked of you, do you foresee another presidential run and what is the status of ohio redistricting and you're talking about moving to washington? guest: i am not a candidate in 2012. i hope to continue my work in the house of representatives. ohio is in the middle of redistricting. it's been reported that my district will be substantially unchanged. i may have to look elsewhere beyond ohio and i am looking beyond ohio, not precluding

running in ohio. there are other areas in the country where i have had a pretty good response for the work i have done behalf of working men and women and on behalf of peace and on the environment. i will see. i don't really know yet. i don't know where i might end up. i hope to continue to serve. i don't have the final choice on that. it will be a to whatever if constituents we have. >> what is your take on the obama administration going into its third year? guest: a little bit too close to wall street and to the pentagon. not enough focus on getting people back to work. 14 million americans out of work. that's a national disaster. if the private-sector does not create jobs, the public sector

as a moral responsibility to do so. i'm looking for that leadership from president. i hope to be in a position where i can support president obama. what i'm looking do here is what is he going to do about protecting people's jobs and retirement security and medicare and medicaid? these are fundamental issues that have to be regarded. what is he going to do about this penchant for american involvement in other nations' affairs? i want to see more about what this white house is doing. did he inherits a difficult situation? yes, but it is is now. i'm willing to support him. i need to see something done about the jobs situation. host: dennis kucinich is our guest. chris in london a, england, on the line. caller: two comments.

i find it hypocritical of the u.s. in libya not there to protect civilians appeared to dictate which group will govern the country. second, it's hypocritical that they are even in libya because when the united states went into iraq and afghanistan to removed the taliban and sadaam hussein, they killed hundreds and perhaps thousands of civilians and there was ofnato or united -- there was no nato or united nations to say anything. this idea of protecting civilians is a farce. guest: i agree. i've raised the issue about civilian casualties in libya and afghanistan and pakistan and iraq. most people would be shocked to learn that years ago a study in the lancet said there were over

600,000 deaths in iraq over the course of the year. joseph stieglitz extrapolated on that in his book and came up with some figures, that there could be a number of deaths in excess of what that report indicated. we are at a point where we have to start thinking of the consequences of our actions. to say that there is such a thing as humanitarian war, the civilians being killed as a result of our intervention are hoping for peace as well. we have a real obligation in the use of military power. i have a great deal of respect for those serving in the institution of the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard. those of us in civilian authority have to be very careful before we commit those men and women into combat and be

have to take care to observe there will be consequences for the people and the nation's who are being visited by our actions. host: this is an e-mail for you, congressman. yesterday it was said on cnn that the courts will likely not will in your case because they don't like to -- guest: is a very good constitutional analyst. we also have an analyst who is our attorney, also a commentator on constitutional law issues, as name is jonathan. we feel that if we get standing, that we can win, but the court has to say at last that congress does have a position here. constitution protected from any executive who

decides to appropriate for himself in the future the power to wage war? this is a very serious question that relates to whether or not our nation is going to be safe. whether or not america will continue to remain a democracy. or whether we will become something else as a result of more and more power in the hands of a single individual. host: mlk wants to know -- guest: something more than that. i propose that president bush and vice president dick cheney should be impeached for not telling us the truth about going into iraq. i did not do that with any great enthusiasm. iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11.

iraq did not have capability of attacking the united states. we have waged a $3 trillion war against iraq that we will be paying for and the people of iraq will pay for with horrible casualties, destruction of their nation. i would say, i led the effort in the house of representatives and right from the beginning in challenging the bush administration marching towards war. this is not a partisan matter. whether it is a republican president or a democratic president, this constitution has to survive and prevail. i am a democrat. i like to support my democratic presidents. i am not going to shirk my duties to uphold the constitution if i feel that someone who happens to be a democrat is going beyond what

the constitution permits for a chief executive. host: another e-mail for you, congressman kucinich. guest: it does, but it still does not trust the constitution. the un security council cannot determine for the united states when we go to war and neither can nato. this constitution has presidents over all of it. that's what this discussion is so important. these are the first principles. when the founders came together, they were not talking werenato or the un -- there were not talking about nato or the u.n. these principles were designed to america big a to adapt in the future. here we are in 2011 deciding whether or not the founders when

they drafted the constitution and said congress shall have the power to declare war, that statement that and did not mean some executive later on determines that he or she can appropriate that power and that's ok. no, it's very clear that based on their experience dealing with the king of england that they did not want to repeat that experience in having an executive or a monarchs waging war without any consent. host: lawmakers suing to end the u.s. role in libya, this is the front page of the wall stre -- of the washington times. roscoe bartlett is a republican from maryland. dan burton, from indiana. michael capuano, of maryland. john duncan from tennessee, --

all the congressman filing suits. also, would you consider running on the united ticket with ron paul, that's in an e-mail. guest: on foreign-policy we have been closely in alignment. i am not. running not. i am not running for president. what i cansee continue to do it to continue to insist that congress' rightful role as a directly elected representatives of the people is affirmed through our constitution. host: a tweet --

the next call comes from safety harbor, florida. mike, a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. representative kucinich, a pleasure to talk with you for the second time. first, i want to thank you for being a true american and not a partisan. your job is to serve the people and not to play partisan games. you are obviously doing so. your track record speaks for itself. it would be a sad day when you're not serving the people anymore. if you moved to florida, you would have plenty of support. we have been betrayed by obama. i don't think he has done anything different from george bush. he does not have my vote. i see the ron paul votes in my future.

i am a democrat. i voted for al gore, john kerry, obama. hopefully, it will be ron paul. i'm disappointed in obama. it's not the direction i thought our country would go. guest: it is important we look at what is happening in washington in the last few years as a lesson about where the levers our control are in our economy. i was against the bailout. i saw wall street gaining more and more momentum while people were losing their homes and their jobs and their retirement security. and wall street has extraordinary influence in our government. that is a fact. it's because of money and the economy, and main street is not getting enough attention. the 2012 election will really determine -- determined by

whether or not people on main street feel that they are getting some of the benefits of the country, that they are getting a chance for jobs and decent wages, but they're getting a chance to protect their retirement security, and getting a chance to have decent health care, getting a chance for their children to have a good education, the pair environment is being protected. all these issues will be brought to the forefront, including others. the 2012 election has not been decided yet, by any means. i do hope that the administration, which is in its third year, will have the opportunity to address some of these pressing economic issues with solid programmatic choices. it's not going to be sufficient for us to say if the republicans will not let an agenda be passed. it is important for democrats to propose solid economic reforms and then we have to debate. we cannot just say the republicans are doing wrong by medicare. they should not be massive

amount with medicare, bucks we have to say what's we stand for and come forward with proposals and then we can restart the debate. host: in new orleans, eustice, on the republican line. caller: congressman, you sound conceited and you don't sound like you really want to help our administration in the next election. the things that you are saying, a lot of people are saying, it does not really make sense. it is confusing, what you are saying about medicare and it seems like all the negative stuff the republicans are saying about the president, you are saying the same thing. are you a true democrat? guest: i don't know if you have listened to the whole program, but i have led the effort to create a national health-care

system. i work with john conyers on that. i have been a leader in trying to make a transition to a new place where we can create jobs for all, put america back to work with good paying jobs, be -- by rebuilding roads, water systems, sewer systems. i have been leading the fight against illegal wars. this has led me to become a candidate close to the democratic nomination. i am a democrat, but not a democrat in lockstep with the white house. we have to maintain in congress a certain amount of distance so that we can make our own decisions. that is what our constitution does. created by article 1 of the constitution is congress and the executive, the president, is created by article 2. i have said nothing this morning that would be disparaging of barack obama. i take issue with his economic policies which tend to favor

wall street. that is a fact. if it were a republican president, it would not be any different. but it means as a democrat i have the right to have a president with a solid job creation program. there's still time to do that. there's still time to put america back to work. that is the issue, domestically, get america back to work. help increase the level of wages, help create jobs security, do something about the trade wars that are causing jobs to be shipped out of the country, do something to temper corporate america that's like an octopus reaching into periods and destroying communities for profit. if we have to remember why we come into politics. it is not just to promote a party. i am a democrat and i have supported my party's nominee every single time. but we also have to say when we are in advance of election what we stand for and aspire to that and root for that. host: back to the issue of

libya and your lawsuits. this is a tweet. host: what authority do you see the president having if your lawsuit goes through? guest: you can find the data on the web site that they have put together. they pointed out that as of may 5 the united states 12,909 people, all countries involved in nato coalitions, involved in the libya action, 3500 came from the 90 states. of the aircraft, 309 total. 153 from the u.s. of the aortie aircraft, 2000 of those are from the u.s.

the cruise missiles, 248, and 228 from the u.s.. we have airplanes dropping bombs. if someone dropped a bomb, if another country dropped a bomb on a u.s. city, what we call that war? if another country flew into our an attack weapith plane, would that be seen as threatening? we have been the dissipating in the bombing of libya. orwell wrote about the inverted meaning in 1984 in which peace was war and war was peace. we have to be careful we do not degrade this meaning of war and just say that it is a kinetic

action. this is war. it pertains the meaning of war to mean that someone can -- if we change the meaning of war to say that we don't tablets on the ground, then how would you explain prom harbor on december 7 many years ago? was that war? of course, it was. it is a war in libya. in the federal