>> and coming of this hour, we will talk with virginia congressman randy forbes about that house resolution on libya. and your congressman charlie rangel joins us to give his perspective on the federal budget talks. mr. baker, representative rangel and other house democrats met with president obama to discuss -- yesterday, representative rangel and other house democrats met with president obama to discuss the debt ceiling. host: good morning, it is reddick ahman june 3, 2011. -- it is friday, june 30, 2011. the president is traveling to toledo today to a chrysler plant to talk about jobs and also success stories. and we're going to look at the economy this morning.

it has been a mixed week of indicators. the stock market has had some challenges. we learn to that manufacturing is down in the u.s. people are raising concerns about the economy. we thought the best thing would be to listen to you, rather than listening to analysts and economists. are you changing your spending habits? are you delaying retirement? or are you finding opportunities that you would like to tell us about. -- that he would like to tell us about? here are the phone numbers. they are on the screen. the u.s. economy, what impact has it had on your life? we asked peter kore, economic edgecomb -- economic ladder from

bloomberg -- the economic editor from bloomberg. the jobless numbers, what is the significance of it this time around? >> it is always one of the most mcginn members the government puts out, but at this stage of the recovery probably more than ever because people want to know whether what technically began the summer of 2009 is stalling out or not. bloomberg has a survey of economists and we have 89 people in our survey. the median forecast is for a payroll growth of 169,000 jobs. if that is true, that will be the smallest gain in four months. that is not a healthy number, not even enough to keep up with a growing workforce through population increase.

and if it were to fall from 8.9% to 9%, again, not a healthy number. we will find out with the labor department report, but that is the best take that might happen. >> would you -- guest: -- host: would you talk about manufacturing this week? guest: manufacturing is a bright spot. the u.s. is growing in manufacturing more than the rest of the world, particularly asia. i do not know about china or not. we have had a lot of growth in manufacturing. factory growth was down by the biggest percentage since 1984.

we had another on a number on factory orders yesterday that was also negative. manufacturing, we are hoping it will lead us out of the reception -- recession and is not clear how long -- how strong the recovery will be. host: 1 washington will continue to debate over this debt ceiling -- washington will continue to debate over the debt ceiling. what affect the decisions made about the debt ceiling have on the economy? guest: just yesterday, moody's said it might downgrade the u.s.'s credit rating if congress does not raise the debt ceiling. when interest rates are low, it makes it easy for consumers to borrow, to pay for college

education, invest in their businesses and even hire people. if the credit rating goes down, interest rates will go up because creditors will demand a higher return on their money for an increased risk of default. it is a quite small risk of default, but any risk makes people nervous. host: thank you very much. we are going to move to listening to the c-span audience all around the country. after all, we need to understand how this is affecting folks living outside of washington d.c. and thank you very much for setting the stage for the conversation. peter coy of "bloomberg business week." our question is the state of the economy and whether it has caused you to make changes in decisions in your lifestyle. let's go to annapolis, judy, a

democrat. caller: i would like to say that i have been employed during the entire downturn of the economy, but these gas prices are really, really affecting my finances. gas is just really, really too high for working people. also, you know, i am concerned about what congress is doing in washington d.c. and what they are doing all over the country because i think republicans are doing things that are not becessary and they should no doing what is necessary to improve the economy and bring jobs back. everybody needs to get involved and do what is necessary. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i work in accounting. host: is the company doing while overall? caller: i think so.

host: thanks for the call. let me throw in another couple of good news stories. here is the "miami herald." also in the "washington post" -- but there are some good stories in the paper today, for example, the lead in the "usa today." that is one that is good news. and in the "financial times"

about the shale gas industry in the u.s. let's stop there and go back to calls. clinton township, mich., dorothy, you are on the air. caller: good morning. the way things have been going there is not anybody die know in my area -- anybody i know in my area in the suburbs of detroit that is doing good. everybody is struggling in some

form. if things do not get back together, we are doomed. i do not see us getting out of this any time soon. i am really, really frightened about our future. host: the administration today is going to toledo, the president, to a chrysler plant. what effect have you seen of the government involvement in the auto market? caller: be honest, i was disappointed with the bailout. and when it happened, it did not do me any good. i got my car repossessed because of a leafy, not because i was behind on my payments. it -- because of a late fee, not because i was behind my payments. there was a chrysler. -- it was a chrysler. i do not care about the bailout, to me, this is wrong.

i do not know what else to say. host: thank you for your call. let's put a few stories on the table about the bailout. the and "detroit free press" -- let me have a couple of other stories here. the open or financial times" tells us that -- the "financial

times" tells us -- also this from the open " washington times" -- from the "washington *"

we're going to spend more time on the "washington journal" trying to understand what the status of things is and helping you parse through some of these things. let's go back to calls. topeka, kansas, lawrence. caller: i had to bring one of my children back from college. they are raising the rates are here in kansas and it is getting pretty tight. you can see the housing market has been affected here in kansas, in topeka, where there are a lot of houses and deed. -- empty. a lot of people are keeping their old cars and fixing them

up. i work for the railway. i fear they are selling our auto industry and manufacturing to other countries. they sold 50% of chrysler to , which is italian. i just hope they do not try to embezzle any money out of the real way retirement -- the railroad retirement. they have tried that before. host: that me ask you about your daughter. you said she has come back from college. does that mean she will not be studying right now? she is going to take some losses on line to try to

study. i have another daughter in the military and another daughter doing and in turn. -- doing an intern. and they are all struggling to make ends meet. we are helping them as much as we can. prices are going up and gas is going up. for all of the people out there, i just hope we get through this ok. all we can do is pray about it. host: thanks from topeka, kansas. next caller, donnie, from massachusetts. caller: it has not impacted me much because i buy what i need and i deny use my credit card. -- i do not use my credit card. i have a car payment that has been paid off for years.

through your own budget you have to cut back. you have to cut back and take less as it comes. host: so, your message is to cut back and lived conservatively. donnie, from massachusetts. another story is told roads. -- toll roads. that is similar to of stories we have and other local papers about tolls going up overall.

and a front-page story today talks of moody's. meridian mississippi, next up is janet, a democrat, asking about whether or not the economy has affected your household. good morning. caller: good morning. absolutely. one of my customers was diagnosed with a large liver cancer about two years ago and he was let go from his job

shortly after diagnosis. i had one job for a few years and i got laid off after having it for a month. if something does not come along -- the gas prices have gone up and our savings is depleted. host: what kind of work to you do? what are you looking for? caller: i went into something i normally do not going to. i went into dog grooming. i took a dog grooming thing and i went to work for a business. host: you took some additional training to get into a new field in search of a job? caller: yes, i could not find

anything else, so that is where i did. host: what are you looking for now? and what are the prospects in meridian? how was the economy? caller: there are some people that seem to be doing well. then there are those of us that are not. after my husband got sick, everything went downhill. and we had a good savings account, or so we thought. after two years, it just bottoms out. host: good luck to you. caller: i am putting in job applications, hundreds of them. you are even lucky to get an interview. they just dropping in anything new. -- just are not putting in anything new. host: good luck to your family. thanks for calling to share your story with us. the front page of the "washington times" has a similar

story.

next call is from texas, ann day is an independent. -- anna is an independent. caller: i will give you a very brief overlay of my family. it is complicated, but nothing what you are describing. host: ok. caller: i earn $1,200 per month. my dad worked all of his life and his check is $700. he had a small business in east texas. my will -- my mother ran an employment company. she died thanksgiving with $400. i became disabled and i have a

disabled son with birth defects. he and i both get $674. we fall in at about 500% below poverty. and of course, we live in texas, a very rich state. it and medicaid is run by the state. we are on at social security, which is run by the government, so the two do not work together. the reason i wanted to tell you my overlay here is because it is very important. and when i watch c-span, a lot of people do not even have cable.

i have it now because i have turned off the internet. i want to watch it every day. if you do not have a cellphone, which i am calling from -- is prepaid. but if you do not have cable and you cannot watch c-span, you are cut off. you have for people in texas living in the middle of -- minimalist hud housing and all of a sudden they have no way of staying in touch. they voted every four years and when they voted in 2008, they came in with their message. and then two years later they have the people that came in, the tea party people with their message. i have had people coming in and saying, obama has had his chance

and we need to move on. we are going back on food carts. my mother has died, so for the three of us, it is $380. when my mother got cancer a year ago, i left my hide affordable affordablemy hudd housing and took care of her. i took care of her even though i am disabled and i have cancer. my dad has dementia and i cannot put him anywhere. i can are leaving get him the service that he needs. i will just run my -- i cannot even get him a service that he needs. i will just run myself into the ground like i did with my mom. host: thanks for telling us your story. that is anna indexes.

we're talking about the effect of the economy on your household. have you lost a job? have you changed to new work? we will be here for 45 minutes altogether. clarksville, va., good morning. your on the air. -- you are on the air. caller: with the gas going up and everything -- we are 70 years old. it is just me and my husband who live here. i get a small retirement check and then i get 154 trawlers social security. and he gets -- $154 in social security. and he gets a small social security check. now that the gas has gone up so much we can on hardly go

anywhere because we cannot afford the gas. and the food has gone up so much, we have gotten to where we cannot afford any food. i have not bought any need since i do not know when. host: the so, you have two retirement checks -- so, you have two small retirement checks and the social security income. thank you for being a part of our conversation. next up is carl, chicago, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think the president is doing a pretty good job. when he came into office, our economy was on life-support. he stabilize the economy and got things going in the right direction. he said when this happened that it was not going to, say, get

better overnight -- that it was not going to get better overnight. it is going to take time. republicans have done everything in their power to kill optimism in this country. they have worked against the president this entire time. they are sitting on more than $two trillion in cash, businesses, and they will not hire any more. -- they are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash, businesses, and they will not hire any more. there has to be optimism and people trying to work together. unfortunately, republicans do not want to do that.

you see what they are ready to do. they are ready to step you in the back, that is what they are trying to do to this president. you read the story about retirement age. that has been 30 years cannot coming. -- 30 years in coming. i saw that coming. republicans killed of retirement for people. -- killed off retirement for people. host: thanks so much for your comments. next, helena, montana, walt. caller: thanks for taking my call. my concern was that i mailed my

two senators several months ago about a formula -- i e-mails my two senators several months ago about the formula used force or security and i was wondering how people feel about that. -- for social security and i was wondering how people feel about that. the formula is different from other retirees in the government. host: are you living on social security right now? caller: we are living on social security and a small federal retirement. both of us. host: and have you made any changes based on the economy? caller: yes, we have. we have to be very careful what we buy. and we live in a rural area in montana. we go to town every week or week and a half with the price of gas. host: are you changing what you buy when you get there?

caller: yes, we are. the we have to cut back substantially on the things we buy. host: have you talked to your senators about the social security framework? caller: yes, we are, and i understand they are considering doing the formula over for security. host: thank you for your call. yesterday, john zogby released a new poll. we wanted to show you this poll about the effects of the economy on households. that is john zogby. it also, we made reference to manufacturing numbers out this week. manufacturing numbers fell to 53.5% in may.

employers added 30,000 jobs in may. 38,000 jobsg at -- in may. we are looking at the new numbers right now. good morning, next caller. caller: two things that i was very angry about when my mother passed away that medicare put a $63,000 lien against for a state -- her estate. i cannot give any information about what this $63,000 is for. my mother worked all her life for that house and now it is gone because we did not have rights to anything. i just do not understand that. i am determined that if i saw anything wrong, then i correct

it. i am on disability for my epilepsy. i told him about the fraud that i caught and what was done about it, which was absolutely nothing. and getting a letter from him, it stated that one of the businesses -- because it was two businesses that were charging four things. one was the transportation service charging an ambulance fee, and i had not been in an ambulance. the other was charging for an appointment that i have cancelled. he wrote me a letter that one of the businesses thahad admitted that they did charge for services the i did not receive.

and i am like, well, that is a felony. this has affected me in the past because the transportation is different now. even the workers, we do not even have caseworkers. host: let me jump in. we have to take it too deeply into personal stories. -- we hate to take it too deeply into personal stories. here is an e-mail.

the impact of the economy on your household. the next call is from lakewood, washington. good morning, jeffrey. caller: thank you for a chance to be part of this conversation. if i could, i would like to ask an open question. i am concerned that the recovery of the economy is really read calibration -- a read- calibration -- re-calibration.

we can easily split this country into the top half and the lower half. the bottom half of construction and manufacturing will continue to be very slow with a lower standard of living. and my last point is, should the baby boomers be responsible for paying down the $14 trillion in debt that they have accumulated over their lifetime before they check out? host: and what is your answer to that question? caller: i think the obvious answer is yes, if we're going to be read calibrating. i think america and the chinese will be the top two economies in the world and we will have to learn how to share and a long and things like that. as far as before -- as far as the top half, it is 50/50. we will all have to do our part to take care of this problem.

like a divorced couple, their lawyers say, you do not have any money left and you have to do this soon. that is what the democrats and republicans are like. host: are you a baby boomer yourself? caller: no, i'm in an awkward clause, the under 55 class. the conversation seemed to be all about me. if i am in the lower 50% as far as taxes. i have never owned a home and i have always voted republican. 45 is a bad place to be in america. it looks like we're going to lose everything. we have got to pay for it all, and in the meantime, we got to wait for this argument to be over with. host: and did you not own a home by choice?

caller: well, a lot of different reasons come into play. a lot of personal choices, but just the fact that about the time that as of late bloomers instead of baby boomers -- the fuss late-plumbers instead of baby boomers, down and quit doing rock and roll and drugs, the economy was coming undone. i had 11 years in the military before making about $26,000 per year. the housing market went berserk and we have no way of -- $30,000 per year is not going to qualify for a $250,000 home in any market.

it just worked out for a lot of americans at first. pretty expensive to pay off now. a lot of us 45-year-olds are the ones that are going to have to pay. let's start talking about it like it is a serious problem and quit arguing about our great- grandchildren step. gedebt.-grandchildren's let's talk about medicare, social security, other programs like food assistance. there will be a lot of people, including 25 million illegal immigrants that are going to not be needing ways to take care of their families. host: i have got to jump in. i've got a lot of callers. thank you for posing questions for people. jefferies final question, about the baby boomers and leaving

dead behind. the next is john. good morning. caller: the guy from northampton and the guy that just finished calling are both right in a way. this country has been in this dilemma before. in 1837, i think, when we were dependent on cotton, the market almost hit the floor there. let me get my thoughts together here. the man was right from marsden. we have been in the situation before and i think we can get out of it. sometimes we have to take a step backwards to get two steps forward. host: thank you, john.

yesterday, mitt romney made it official with his announcement. he is now a declared candidate. >> i can tell you i have learned from the successes and failures. turning something around, turning around a crisis takes experience and bold action. and for millions of americans, the economy is in crisis today unless we change course. it will be in crisis for all of us tomorrow if we do not. host: the fate in freedom coalition will have live coverage -- faith and freedom coalition will have live coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. let me show you what it is all about. the faith conference may be a different -- difficult bridge

for candidates. coverage of that event today on c-span, today and tomorrow. next call from illinois, bruce, a republican. good morning, bruce. go ahead. caller: it is the first time i have been able to get through in the year and a half i have called. we have been seeing our city water fees go up, our state license fees go of, and taxes,

of course, are still going up. my health care, as dick durbin said, is continuing to go up and will continue to go up about $550 per year. by the end of 2012, we will have $8 trillion for the deficit. three or four budgets in a row with 3.8 trillion dollars along with the $6 billion that bernanke has added. and the stimulus and the tarp will be over $8 trillion and they keep blaming bush for it. it is getting really old. that is all i have. host: thank you. walter, a democrat. caller: i want to make a common sense point. didn't the republicans just go into congress and encourage the

president into giving a $700 billion tax cut to the rich by using unemployment checks, which is food, clothing, and shelter for the average working people? my point about medicare is, i know there is a common-sense way to save a large amount of money on medicare. i will demonstrate by using myself and two other individuals as examples. i will say thank you when i'm done. i am a retired disabled veteran. i received $656 per month from social security. $116 is taken out of -- from medicare about 18% of my pay. it leaves me $480 per month to live on. i understand everyone who gets medicare gets paid $116 per month, and that is ridiculous. the one that example is someone who makes to one of $50,000 per year, 18% -- $250,000 per year

from 18% of which would be $45,000. another person makes $1 million, and they would have $820,000 to live on. both of these people should pay their own health care and not burden medicare unnecessarily. social security was not set up for the rich. they can take care of themselves quite comfortably. host: thank you. here is a tweet from emma. next is beaver dam, wisconsin, william, a republican. please, hit the mute button on your tv. we are getting feedback. caller: what i really feel bad about is all our representatives in congress a

couple of years ago voted themselves a substantial raise and turn down a race for zsa zsa security. -- turned down a raise for social security. these guys can get in trouble and still wind up with their pensions. i know some doctors who now that they are retired think that medicare is the best thing around, even though woulthey wod not take it previously. host: thank you. next call from pennsylvania. caller: i am 75 years old and my oil had gone from 9000 -- $900

per year to $3,000 per year. just that alone. but we do not have leadership. i do not hear one congressman saying, let's cut our pay. let's face it, all they do is run for office. social security, very simple. a guy takes $400 million from exxon. and all of ballplayers and commentators, and everybody taking $1 million. they could get rid of the income tax law and go to a flat tax. in 1998, they did an actuary that says we could have paid our debt down in a short time frame. can you imagine not paying income tax? the economy stops growing.

there are a million and one things we can do. if we do not have leadership. host: we have only a few seconds left and it is going to go to cragen maine. -- craving in maine. caller: the last time i got on was a 1983. i started a business and i want you to know that in the last three years it is literally the worst economy i have seen in my life. i had seven employees, all of whom had their health care paid by need. my company closed $7 million in my second year of business and i have never, ever seen an economy so bad. i do not know where people are coming from where they can even say that the economy is good. the real-estate market is destroyed. everything about this economy is in free-fall. and i hear a person after

person on c-span and "pillaging rich people." i started out my life very poor. i did not steal or she to get it. -- or cheat to get it. can i ask you to do something, c-span? have a show where all you do is talk to small business owners, people who mortgaged their vows to start a business. people who had to sit at a bank in a credit line and then paid back credit line and mortgage their life against their business and if they lost their business they were basically homeless and then they built it from nothing and then they hired employees. i played -- i paid my employee'' health care for almost four years. it cost me almost $20,000 per month for those employees and i

had to cut it all because i could not afford it. i fired and had to lay off six people just in the last year. i cannot tell you what that is like when you have to tell somebody that you are laying them off in a small business and they have been with you for years and years and both of you are crying because you just cannot do it. host: i apologize. we are over time. craig, please join us more often. randy forbes will be with us in just a couple of minutes. our focus will be on libya and the u.s. involvement there. if we will also be talking about afghanistan and iraq. later on, charlie rangel will be our guest at 9:00 a.m.

>> he was known in the day as czar reed. >> during his three terms as speaker of the house, republican thomas reed changed the structure of the house. >> he was in pure and as the tyrant because he overturned a a a long -- he was impuned in the house because he overturned a longstanding custom in the house. >> you can also download this and other q&a podcast, one of our many signature podcast online at c-span.org/podcasts. this weekend on c-span3, eileen shanahan reports on her sex discrimination suit against the paper.

and we will look back 50 years of america's failed attempt to overthrow the castro regime at the bay of pigs. get the complete list at c- span.org/history, or have id e- mail to you by pressing the alert button. -- have its e-mailed to you by pressing the alert button. c-span pose a congressional chronicle has ey to find information about your representatives. this weekend on "book tv" on c- span2, live coverage of printer's row literary fast. also from chicago, in-depth with

a live studio audience. fine schedule information online at booktv.org. "washington journal" continues. host: and on your screen, randy forbes, republican. it is a member of judiciary and arms services and the armed services committee on readiness. thanks for being here. guest: thanks for having me. host: the hell house this -- the hill house this in the paper. what would this do? guest: mr. kucinich wants to have a resolution that would

have them out of libya in the next 15 days. mr. banner would say, -- mr. boehner would say, congress has not given you permission, but we want to give you time to make your case. across the board, most members of congress believe that the president did not go through the proper channels in launching action in libya. they are very upset about that. what is up for debate is the course of action of what to do about that. host: is this a debate between congressional and executive branches? is this a strategy there? -- is this about the strategy there? guest: i think many members of congress feel that this administration in many situations have taken -- has taken a stance that the ends have justified the means.

either have a declaration of war, is this a the statutory authority to use military force, or to find some way that u.s. forces were under attack or under imminent threat. i think most congressmen, republican and democrat, realize that if they do not bring this to a head, we are not looking at just libya, but all of dominoes that could take place afterward. the second concern is that we have already spent $663 million and we are spending $2 million per day. and the administration has not given us a focus on tuesday, this is where we are going and this is what the endgame is going to be. a lot of people are saying they're worried about who we are fighting in libya. some people are very concerned that we are defending some rebels who actually helped kill

american soldiers in iraq and that is very disconcerting. host: is it possible based on what you already know that those questions could be answered satisfactorily? guest: i think so. but one of the things i think we will find today is that i think we will find mr. kucinich's resolution is a bridge too far because we cannot pull the rug out from under our nato allies once we have gotten involved in this marriage. but i do think it will pass mr. banner opposing resolution and tomr. boehner's resolution say that we need information. if we give them that opportunity and they do not do it, we have power in our committees to ask tough questions and say, we have to find out this important information. it is too important to people

across the country now to have id. host: is there a mixed message coming from congress? guest: and always have a mixed message between house and the senate. i can never justify what the senate does or explain how they havpacked. the but because they may take a course of action -- or how they act. but because they may take a course of action that i do not understand, we have reaction to it. we need some answers. host: will you develop the line of argument about the support of nato partners? how could you see that unwinding if you do not want to send the wrong message? guest: the key is that once nato has fallen into an operation like they have in libya, we want to make sure that we are not saying, ok, in 15 days we are pulling out and leaving you on your own in that particular operation. it could sends a clear message

if we are saying, we want to have a role of law and we want to make sure the president is complying with battle rule of law. i do not think that is a bad message at all. host: in support of the opposition of libya, what have you learned in your committee about what the prospects are there? guest: a lot of people feel this is still a very volatile situation, as you know. we are far from being over with the situation in libya. the biggest concern that people have is the concern that we do not know who we are fighting for. we know that these rebels were literally training and -- we know that -- were these rebels literally training and actively fighting against our soldiers? we do not know at this point and

time. we do not -- that is why we need to be cautious. host: we will move on and talk a bit more about afghanistan as the conversation continues. but we want to get to phone calls. you can call the numbers on the screen, and also send us a tweet. and you can send an e-mail as well. the phone call from miami, antonio. caller: good morning. i am a cuban-american and i see things different than the way you people see out there. we need to stop policing the world and keep our soldiers to defend this country right here. and that way, when we have our soldiers down here, we have better chances to survive. we are sending our children to

get killed out there and spending our money. our money, we do not have too much of it. china is taking it away and every minute of the day. let me tell you something, i am afraid. the same way we lost cuba, i am afraid we are on the way to lose the united states of america. guest: antonio raises a couple of good points, first, that we should not be policing the world. i certainly would agree. the second thing that he mentioned, that our soldiers defend the u.s. i just got back from afghanistan in the last two weeks and i can tell you across the board, every soldier, man, woman, looked them in the eye and they firmly believe they are defending the .nited states fro at one of the big questions in

the world and in congress today is what we're going to be doing in libya. i think we will send a clear message. most people probably agree with antonio that we should not be in libya and we certainly should not have gotten there by the mechanism that we did host: there is a lot of traffic coming in on twitter. let me just read this tweet. will we have boots on the ground? guest: we have passed a resolution that we will not have any boots on the ground. whether the administration complies, we will talk about that. in the armed services committee, i ask this question, i said, i someone launched a tomahawk missile into new york tomorrow,

would we consider that an act of war? and the defense secretary said, absolutely. and i said, if they launched it into a no-fly zone, would that be the case? and he said, presumably. host: next phone call, david, a republican, good morning to you. david, you are on the air. the caller: thank you, c-span, and thank you congressman. i want to thank you for keeping this issue alive. it is an economically ridiculous act and libya. the first and i would like to ask you to consider is to initiate peace proceedings for the criminal behavior of our

president for not complying with our law. i cannot stomach listening to you say after you have done such a great job calling out the president that we cannot pull the rug out from nato. leaving in 15 days is not a problem. it is a drain on our society. when you transfer your parliamentary powers to executive authorities, we all live under a dictatorship. please, sir, if you could respond to it in teaching obama and say do not we cannot pull out the rug from nato. guest: first of all, our country is a huge crisis. we are stretched out in two legitimate wars that congress has authorized. we are fighting in libya right now. we have economic concerns across the country.

i think most people do not want to go to anything that approaches impeachment proceedings nearly at this particular point in time. when you said that you took issue with some we could not pull out the rug from nato, it is not so much of nato but our allies. it does agree to say that we can get out of there in 14 or 15 days. i can only tell you from the military expertise we have been given that it would be a very difficult task for us to pull out in 15 days. i meet with them every day. i do it behind closed doors where they can be honest with me. i agree with you that we should be out to libya -- out of libya. i do think we should not try to get out of there in 14 days. we ought to give the president an opportunity to make his case,

which he has not done yet. i think we -- we need to get out on a timeframe that does not leave our allies in the lurch as we do that. host: another point of view from chris on twitter -- chris, there are some people who would agree with you. i don't think we should commit to a war unless we have the mission well defined as to what we are going to accomplish. sometimes that might be able to be done without the commitment of ground troops. secondly, we should never do any kind of act that would lead us into a conflict without going to the constitutional procedures to do that, and that would be to comply with the war powers act and have congress declared war or give an authority to do that.

host: the next call from north carolina. caller: i have a strange view of the world, so bear with me. i believe that, as an overview of the american people, we want to show our power but we want to show them we have a kinder machine gun finger. the bush legacy, the obama presidency, i see them as one. they both had the same common goal. a look at it from this point of view right here. you do not have to respond. here is the point. bush and obama have a corrosive effects that can be seen as good in a way because you have to look for the silver

linings and be proactive because, the point is, we all need to be stressed in a way so we become the best people we compete. in the libyan case, we support these people and then when they want to show off to everybody they are a country and we have to let them know that you are not. we are not untouchable either. we have all of these resources and we need to make sure that we do not spoil our own people so what we are using them for is to run around the world and putting stress tests on people. host: barry, thanks very much. guest: barry, i think you raised two good points. there is good in bed with every individual in all of us in every institution. if you look at george washington, he had strengths,

weaknesses, and sometimes it was the stress that brought out the great qualities of leadership that he had in him. whether we are stressed or we are not stressed, we have to make sure that when we take action it is well thought out and has a strategic plan that can show the rest of the world that we operate under some rule of law. i think the concern that many of us have with libya is you cannot look at that is a foreign policy and then explain how we enter what we do on to the next country in the next country and thereafter. the second point that i would say is the world will constantly be under stress. the united states cannot react from every single stress part because we do not have enough resources to do that, so we have that where we are reacting it is in the interest

of the national security of the united states. host: there was an interesting story in "politico" today. host: does congress have zero or fatigue? guest: i think the country has war fatigue. we have become a nation -- we expect to have results in six runs or six hours. it where we create our meals, we want them fast. nobody would've never predicted early on that we would be in afghanistan as long as we were in afghanistan or as long as we

were in iraq. no question that it has taken a toll on our resources and our military. when you go to afghanistan, you see a mixed bag of tricks. i travelled across their two weeks ago. almost every man and woman that you talk to is fighting in afghanistan. they feel that we should be there. they tell you how important it is and what would happen if you did states leaves. i think the united states is running out of patience. a contestant has an incredibly corrupt government that we are working with. -- afghanistan has incredibly corrupt government that we are working with. both forces are looking at this time table to turn over the reins to the afghans for security. i think that is the optimism we have a. host: there are other stories

here, suggesting that we should trade ground forces for a smaller number of specialized personnel to be a fact of their. guest: i think the key to afghanistan is not just what our troops are group to be doing. the key is to continue to train the afghan soldiers so they can take over the security of their country. that is happening. i went to the training camps and watch them, and their soldiers are getting betty liu -- better every day. host: who will pay for it when they take over? guest: i think that is a good question. the united states is going to continue to be paying a part of that bill, but we hope a smaller portion of that bill that we are paying right now. the key to that is to change

what we see in the government in afghanistan. at the top levels of government, huge amounts of corruption. i believe very strongly in freedom and the rule of law and transparency. i a lot trying to sell afghanistan. but i will tell you this. there are two concerns that we have. if we pull out, what happens to the extremists in pakistan? does that strengthen them? and that the second thing is everything that we have invested in the contest and goes by the wayside because we were now willing to get to 2014. host: help us understand two stories. taliban, al-qaeda pursue peace deals. this is today n "the guardian."

britain and the united states is pressing for sanctions against taliban figures to be lifted later this month. guest: i think the big question you have with the taliban and al-qaeda is can you believe what they say on a piece of paper? i will tell you this. in afghanistan, we see some of the former taliban members and others who are finally saying i have had enough of this fight and want to try to find a way to get back into some legitimate activity. i think we should continue to keep those doors open. we would love for al-qaeda to lay down their guns and see it taliban not want to overthrow a democracy in afghanistan. we should continue those negotiations. i will not hang all of my hopes

on that though. host: for congressman forbes, fairfax, va., a republican. caller: yes, good morning, susan. i think the president has it shown some restraint in terms of what the united states is doing in that libya. i do not think the president is of violating his duty. there was a gentle man calling about is impeaching president. what is more disturbing is the action taken by the speaker by inventing benjamin netanyahu to come to the unit states deliberately. what the speaker is doing really is he is playing the role -- he is serving the power of the

president in terms of foreign policy. congress, by inventing benjamin netanyahu, -- congress is absolutely running this country into a dangerous territory. you should be us ashamed of yourself. guest: first of all, the great sent about our country is a week and have discussions and we can disagree, and i disagree with the role that congress had. first of all, when you talk about the president haven't restraint, it is not -- the war powers act says you can not commit ground forces. it does not say you can commit acts of war as long as you have restraint. it says when you do that, you have to have either a declaration of war which is decided by the congress of the

united states, or you have to have a statutory authority. thirdly, our forces have to have been under attack or under imminent threat of attack. then of those three things presented themselves. just because the president had "restrict," it does not mean it was legal to do what the president did. the congress of the united states does have a role in being able to find out what is going on in the world, foreign policy, the policies of the executive branch, because of congress has and the purse strings. that taxpayer money is under the control -- should be under the control of the united states congress. as far as the speaker inviting benjamin netanyahu, i am glad he invited him. i think we need to have more people give their impressions. he was warmly received by both parties in congress.

host: the next call is from new york. caller: good morning. i have a comment about -- you guys have pretty much covered everything i want to talk about. as far as getting out of afghanistan, i think we are a dangerous position if we start negotiating with people that we absolutely cannot trust, such as al-qaeda, and the taliban. as far as getting out of afghanistan, i have had friends who have been over there and have seen the situation. the impression i get from a lot of them is that although it sounds good to say that they are doing well and getting more professional, by and large, my friends have been telling me is that they do not really have a sense of anything higher than a troubled system. i just don't think we can operate in that capacity over

there since we have -- it is almost like we are trying to impose our system on them, and i think not a lot of them want it. guest: victor, you are right in that it is a huge challenge, one of the big challenges that you have. most of the afghans that you recruit in the military, we forget sometimes that it is not shared jet -- it is not just their basic principles, but they are not even literate. only about 12% of them are illiterate when they come into the military. sometimes you have an average of the first grade reading level from those soldiers. they are natural born fighters. they do a good job in fighting once they have been trained. you have both of these roads that are convergent. on the one hand, you have some huge progress that is being made, a lot of professionalism,

and things are beginning to change. on the other hand, there are big cultural differences that women never overcome. it is going to be a huge challenge tuesday which of those ends up prevailing in afghanistan. host: harry, good morning. would you hit the mute button on your tv? caller: i agree with the caller from virginia. he is right about this than with benjamin netanyahu. i think the jewish lobby told our speaker to invite him. i am appalled when we talk about the afghan government being corrupt. i feel all of our congressmen,

senators -- they all take lobbyist monday -- money. they were responsible for the invasion of iraq. it is all about saddam hussein' about what happened to the buses in tel aviv in the 1990's. the one thing i cannot understand is why did they do why does israel want -- is a the banking system? guest: i have to start with your basic premise. i remember years ago when i played on a little league and i remember when i coached my children, sometimes you lost the ball game and sometimes it did not come out like you wanted it to. certainly when we see people not

liking decisions that congress make -- i think the charge may be for you to totally appreciate is there are a great many of individuals in congress who fully believe israel has been one of the strongest allies for the united states and they have been a huge part of us in terms of intelligence, weapons systems, being there consistently for us as an ally. i think many of them were concerned when the president started dictating to is really is that they needed to move back the lines in 1967, lines that would put everyone within 60 seconds of a missile attack. i think when you are talking about the prime minister coming to the united states to speak, i do not think that was bought off by lobbyists. it was a great many people in congress who believed israel is a strong ally of the united states. i agree with that.

i began in college and riding my thesis on the mideast crisis, and that was the conclusion that i came to. host: next is a springfield, missouri. jeff is a democrat. go ahead. caller: yeah, i am calling about medicaid and all of those issues. and my son is autistic. he was born 19 years ago. at that time, the rate of autism was one in 1500. now the rate is one in 100. obviously, the pharmaceutical companies are doing something wrong. our government is allowing them to do this. at the same time, his ssi check has been cut. they have cut my son's pay in half for no apparent reason other than new laws. i do not understand any of these

new laws per that they cannot be explained to me by the people. while the government grows, the small working-class man looking for work is just out in the wind. host: jeff, thank you for the call. you have a couple of minutes left. that the hear your thoughts about all the meetings on the debt limit debate. guest: i think one or two things americans are looking at right now is regardless of whether you think we should do more spending or less taxes, the american people understand that we just cannot keep spending 42% or keep borrowing 42% of every dollar that we are spending. many people are concerned about the operations in libya, but what they forget is we have been funding the chinese every single day, $73 million in interest on this debt. we were paid -- and the result

of that has been in the 2010 for the first-time chinese had more ships in our navy -- than in our navy. one of the primary reasons for that is all we are spending more money that we are taking in. at some particular point in time, you have to come back to the table. i think how we do that, susan, is going to be a huge challenge. i think the president is locked in on one plan and republicans are locked in on another plan. if you look at medicare, right now, if you are able to live of yourself, nothing is going to impact you based on either party. but if you are under 55, you are going to have a situation where you have nothing because medicare is going to be

bankrupt. that is the congressional budget office that said that. do we let all those individuals get to that point and let the rug to get pulled out from under the? let's put up a plan about how we think we can save medicare. what are the democrats going to put up? someone has to put a plan of there that says how we get this spending under control so we are not borrowing 42% of every dollar we are spending. host: we will go to a call from scranton, pennsylvania. mike is a republican. caller: i find it troubling when people are appalled by the prime minister from the only democratic country in the middle east coming over to speak to us while other dictators seemed to get a free ride like syria, iran, -- did the administration

ever come to congress to get approval for the actions in libya? host: there is going to be a vote on that topic today. guest: the answer was the president has, after 60 days, made a request for approval to congress, and that is one of the things that is generating this activity right now. i think he will find congress doing what is appropriate to do. the problem is, saying, mr. president, we have not given you our approval, but we want to give you a reasonable time to make your case. please give us this information so congress can look at it and see whether or not the analysis is proper so we can determine whether to get that approval or not. at the end of the 14 days, if they have looked at the

intermission and determined they should not be in there, they should have a resolution of some sort that says we do not approve of your actions in libya. at this particular point in time, mike, we do not have that information to make that decision. host: the last call is from maine. good morning. you are on the air. caller: hi. i am wondering when we are going to get out of afghanistan. hello? guest: could question. based on what the administration has done, based on what the military is doing, we now have a 2014 timeline to turn over security in afghanistan to the afghan army and to the afghan government. both sides are working very, very hard. i can tell from the beating i had with general petraeus a

couple of weeks ago in afghanistan. our forces and their forces are committed to meeting the 2014 deadline. what i can honestly say. and tell you is i can make an assessment that says we will make that 2014 timeline, but i can tell you that that is the timeline that everyone is looking at at this particular point in time. host: there are two resolutions, one by the speaker determining action in libya. we are going to take a quick break. the final test of this morning, charlie rangel of new york. ♪ >> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that

medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> several times today, this has been an historic occasion, whether or not it will be an historic occasion is i think a subject for the judgment of history. >> this week marks 25 years of televised coverage of the u.s. senate. c-span2 was carried in a little more than six and a half million homes. what's that first day or any of the hours of senate coverage online at the cs been a video library. it is all searchable and free. it is washington, your way. this weekend, live coverage from the printers row lit fest.

also, from chicago, a live studio audience. eric posner. find it schedule information online. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, maps, and assignments. and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: new york congressman charlie rangel of new york back at our table this morning.

thank you for being here. i wanted to get your take on what happened at the white house yesterday on the debt ceiling. guest: it was a real, solid communication. we had a very serious problem. we were not getting much cooperation from the majority republicans as they were insisting on destroying the medicare program. and, of course, older americans are very concerned. they have no clue about what the substitute would be. we received assurances from the president that the social network of our great country will not be destroyed in order to balance the budget. there were the assurances that we wanted, and this was the confidence that we gave to our president. host: medicare trustees says at

the system is set to go bankrupt even earlier than predicted. how is it possible to preserve medicare as it is structured right now? guest: i think we have to take a look back a second. if we do not deal with this immediate problem, if we do not worry about it now, we do not have to worry about what will happen with medicare. the president of the united states took into consideration every aspect. experts were brought in from all over. medicare, and the protection of medicare, the expansion of medicare was a key part of the program. $500 billion of duplication was provided. even more important than that was the fact that the whole idea of bringing down the cost of

medicare is to make certain that, one, which prevent people from getting sick, and two, the way we reimburse providers is based on the quality and the value of the service that they have given. that is what the president's medical program is about, including medicaid and medicare. host: some people argue that as long as you have a fee to serve as model, those costs will escalate because there is nothing to clamp down the provider from ordering tests or whatever. how you keep the costs of the medicare program and medicaid from escalating and costing more to the taxpayer over time? guest: we have had several pilot projects. if there is something that the democratic majority missed, if there is something in the plan that does not answer the question specifically that you

are asking, it would seem to be the majority should be able to say let's fix that. but if i remember the testimony that some of these committees had in the house, how do you restrict over-building or preserve the quality of care and avoid people sending patients are around in order to increase the amount of money that they get, as long as you going to have fee for service, their income has to be based on the number of procedures as they call it they give to a p atient. keeping patients well will help fiscally. if hospitals new, there was something wrong with that picture, they give you ideas of what they can do to avoid the

repetition of the services that are not needed, give it a try. we have to give it a try. the testimony is there. i must say that the questions should be asked -- i am just saying you are going to destroy obamacare. if you come into office saying this is the last time we are going to hear from the president, our mission is to destroy him -- here we are now in may, we are not even talking about jobs. everything we are talking about is dismantling services to people and avoiding increasing revenues at any cost. it is mad. it is insane for intelligent people lot to be able to discuss what the solution has to be. what is it? reduce spending and borrowing and raise the revenue in order to bring some sanity to this great country moving forward. host: so for you, there is a

twin description. guest: there is no vested political interest in this. all they are concerned about is our country survives with credibility fiscally, and sick people get the basic care that they deserve and work so hard for in this country. host: but the economists do not get a vote. that is why it is important to understand your view. guest: i get to vote. it reminds me how many people are out there that really do not know what this vote is all about. i do not think there are a lot of americans going to sleep at night wondering if we are going to raise the debt ceiling. especially the jobless people, i do not think they are concerned about whether or not we will have a default on obligations

close to $15 trillion. it seems to me there is a group of people out there that do not vote who have a massive influence on how we vote, and i am talking about our spiritual leaders. you may say that is a heck of a reach for a politician, but i do not think so. there is nothing we are talking about in this debate that is not very true in nature. i would just like to believe that we are talking about the miracle of raising a child. we should protect that child's life in order to become an adult .riti you have to respect the outlets. you are not supposed to cut health care away from them. if you talk about preserving what god and nature has given to us to have an environment to feed people and to have pure

water, these are the things to me that, if we could hear from our religious leaders and say we are now in getting involved in politics, but you have a basic obligation, the human side, and that is not just the united states of america. i think the whole world depends on what we do. host: we have been waiting all morning for the new jobless numbers. here they are. employers added 54,000 jobs in may, the fewest in eight months. the unemployment rate has risen to 9.1%. do you have a reaction? guest: the longer people believe that we have no clue about what we are doing and how we are going to get there, the longer people have invested in the united states of america believe that it is possible that the ceiling might fall on us, the less likely they are to make

investments. this is true of wall street that has had the ability to raise a trillion dollars but yet they have not releasing the need to invest to create the jobs that are necessary. it is a vicious circle. we have to have people working. we have to concentrate on jobs. we have to have people have confidence in our market so our smaller businesses can have the ability to hire people. if they are not hired, then they are not buying, and this thing gets worse. i think we owe it to the investors of the united states to bring a more positive look that politicians are more concerned about the welfare of citizens then they are of who is going to win the political battle. this has been forecast. the president and economists have said it is going to get worse before it gets better.

we have a rough problem, and both of us have to give. we are not going to be irresponsible and reckless and allowed this thing to get worse. a host: i am anxious to get callers. let me take a couple calls. this is your first visit back since your ethics procedure. i would like you to talk about that after a couple of calls about what you would like people to understand about that experience. george, go ahead please. caller: good morning. i am concerned that when you refer to small businesses in light of the economy the way it is now, we are talking about taxes. i think both the democratic party and the republican party needs to work together to see how taxes are reduced across the board. period. no question about it. anything that will bring this economy it to the brink of

disaster, which is a continued spending and waste in government -- i appreciate your position because a lot of folks that become part of the government and were there for many years forget about making payroll like some of us do. there is no bank loan and us money, so we have to raise our own capital, save it, and use it to hire people. we have to spend our own money in order to fund our businesses. we get taxes from our first year of business, you take 30 percent out, where do we put that money back into our business is so that we can find it to keep growing. host: what kind of small business do you have? caller: it is a technology business. guest: we need you more than ever to maintain that our leadership in the world. technology is where that investment has to be.

to have small businesses and encouraging people to come in at what level they to come in is where america has been in the past. no one can challenge the fact that we can and should reduce the rate of taxes that we have on individuals as well as corporations. we talk about it. we had hearings yesterday at the ways and means committee and everyone agreed that 35% is too high and we cannot compete with people who continue to do that. but the same token, they agreed to in the tax code, there are trillions of dollars of waste that are there, preferential treatment that was given to given to oilntives to give a companies and yet we are not even asking for a fairer tax.

taxes under the corporate structure are lower than they have ever been since the 1950's. if we reformed the system, we could encourage small businesses, the heart of our recovery -- we cannot wait for the multinational corporations to bring that money back from overseas and create jobs here rather than abroad, but we can give incentives to provide for small business to get health insurance and to provide it for their workers, to appreciate expenditures that they make, and provide every incentive, because the heart of america's economy is not big business. it is small business. it has to be people that are working to be able to buy the goods and services that you have it. tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. if you eliminate the unnecessary credits and waivers and deductions and preferential

treatment, we can get to a rate that will allow you to be competitive. everyone agrees. host: the next call is from texas. walter is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is the second time i have gotten in. i think a lot of these problems are the president's problems. i am a democrat saying that. the president had the opportunity to get out of afghanistan when he did not have a partner. he had a chance to say, listen, i am going to stand -- i will extend the tax cut for people making less than $250,000, and he did not stand on that. he led them all go through. he couldn't let them expire -- he could have let them expire. he did not do that.

this all could have been avoided had he just took a stand and had some backbone. i am just disgusted. thank you. guest: i do not blame you. i think the whole country was disgusted. i do not think this is a time that we can say what would have been. if we did not get involved in vietnam, if bush did not take us into iraq, if we were not in afghanistan, if we did not have these ridiculous tax reductions, we would not have the deficit. if the wars that bush started were put on budget, we would not have had to go to china at to borrow the money. you can blame who you want. but what do we have to do about it to fix it now? now is the time to come to get there and make certain that we are strong enough to be able to have debates as to whether or not we should pull out of afghanistan. i do not think we should have

been there in the first place, but that is not going to help us resolve the problems that we are facing today. host: someone on twitter asks the following question. guest: they told us that if we were to consider reducing the corporate rate to allow them to be more competitive, that instead of keeping the money overseas where they do not have to pay american taxes, that it would be willing to invest in the united states of america. they said by investing in the united states at a high corporate rate, they actually lose money. the full committee, republicans and democrats, a reformation of the system. everyone asked the question -- if we reduced the rates and

closed the loopholes, would you accept that these loopholes be closed and not look at it as a tax increase for people who do not pay their fair share cholesteric they said that they would. the president has to put his foot to the fire. we save money. we have a more equitable distribution of the burden of government, and there is no question that the tax structure now encourages our multinational companies to invest overseas and create jobs overseas rather than having the jobs right here in the united states of america. host: our next call is going to come from new york city. i would like you to talk about your own ethics situation in congress which is centered around your own payment of taxes. what is the message that you want to send to them about that

experience? guest: that the tax code is too damn complicated. the truth of the matter is it was a political time of the year where you could take a member of 40 years with legislative experience, not a blemish on his record that served his country well, say that he committed no crimes, no act of corruption, no self in richmond, but he violated the house rules. as a result of that, the timing means we have to show him that we mean business. at the end of the day, i think that what you learn from it is, one, never ask to be investigated for 20 years as i did, two, a small piece of property that i had a foreign country and did not pay taxes on it -- actually, taxes were paid each and every month and each and every year. they were paid to the government

in the dominican republic. i did not receive any income. whatever in, was received went to reduce the mortgage that was there. had my accountant been more attendant, i would've had no tax liability at all in the estate of america. people like to say that i was convicted of 11 counts of violating rules. charlie rangel trying to raise money to help minorities in the city college of new york to be able to compete intellectually and academically and having a school that would train them for public service. to be able to make a contribution back to this great country. when they looked at it, they said did you do this on official

stationery? i thought what was doing was official. two, did you not put stamps on this postage? i said no. it is official. why should i? did you get other people to help you in the office? of course i did. i thought it was official. anyone would have to tell you that it is totally unfair to take one event n to stretch it to cover eight. at the last day, by the end up with a new attorney. they came up with a new sink in the ethics committee and said we do not have to bring witnesses for any of this. they had what they call summary judgment. two and a half days without a witness and what people were saying, and the record indicates we have to get rid of charlie rangel before this congress

concludes. due process was never a consideration of what happened to me. i have written a book, and quite frankly, that is kept me going to such an extent that nothing has happened in my life as terrible as what happened in 1950. since that time, it is not just the fact that my life was saved or speared, but have had a contributions to the ways and means committee, a public servant, reelected by my constituents, and 80% victory after the incidents occurred. and on your program, which clearly indicates i still have a contribution to make it to the congress and to the country. it was a bad experience. based on my life, i really have not had a bad day since. host: a very quick, and for you

-- a very quick comment for you. how is your working relationship with your colleagues? guest: extraordinary. as a matter of fact, i would really encourage those people who know any member of congress ask what do you really think about charlie rangel. it is very moving the number of my republican and democratic friends who wished that this would never have happened. a waiver, being a political climate, they did not want to be in a position to explain their support for me for fear that it may be misconceived as not being the highest ethical standards. i want to make it abundantly clear. those of us to get involved in the public and tell them we expect to be treated on a higher ethical standard than most people -- i do not think it is plain to say that you have just been on treated fairly.

the record will have to speak for itself, and the record is there. i committed no crime. i was not trying to enrich myself. i violated no rules intentionally. it happened at the wrong time, and they brought it up without a hearing. they did have a hearing, except that i was not there. host: let's get back to your telephone calls. new york city, thank you for waiting. you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. every time i hear about medicare,i blow up. the republicans -- paul ryan and his republicans love it. they don't give a damn about people. i live in new york. you change plans every year

for medicare. you give a barrage of all different plans coming in. you can go to a diner and it will tell you about the plan. ok. i don't go. i have been told by various administrative administrators where i go. i have been told i have a daughter that works in it d.c., a corporate health-care lawyer, who does not deal with the medicare side, but i have heard about various things through her. i am 73. i worked until 67 and a half. i knew the plan i was going on to. a medical advantage plan.

host: is the bottom line that you do not want medicare to change? is it too complicated? caller: i am sorry. i am furious. at the bottom line is, you have to be very, very highly sophisticated to do what paul ryan wants to do. he is going to give youa voucher and you're going to opt for your -- glenn host: let me interrupt you. we want to get an answer. the current medicare system is already complicated as seniors get vouchers. guest: she is lucky that almost the entire new york city delegation agrees with her. we do believe that no one that reaches a senior age, especially

at 80 years, can be shopping around with a voucher asking an insurance company to cover us when we are the people who are vulnerable. i think that the american people -- even those people who want to say they want to keep big government out of medicare -- they recognize more and more that this is an issue about americans. whether a republican, democrat, or conservative, we have to preserve medicare as we know it. i hope that spiritual leaders would recognize that health care for infants and aged people, please, no matter what political persuasion you have, call your congressman and tell him what you honestly believe about our national responsibility to poor folks, sick folks, education, housing, shelters, and all those things that regard to the lesser of our brothers and sisters. host: the next phone call is

from idaho. tim is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your comments. number one, it just seems like, you know, all i hear is that elected officials have been complaining about social security and medicare and they say it is costing too much. it is going to bottom out. prior to this, and they knew what was going to happen, and they did not take action against it. number two, you know, obamacare, i think it is appalling that calling it obamacare is disrespectful to our president. he is a great president. like you said, he inherited a lot of what is happening right now. i am retired military. i go to the va.

while in the military, it was basically a socialized medical program. i in 61 years old. they take care of me and show me dignity and respect. you know, everybody is required to have automobile insurance. why not everybody have medical insurance? take the insurance companies and limit the amounts they can charge these people. if they are taxed, the immediately raised their rates. they make a profit. all of these ceo's and corporations make a profit, but it is not trickling down to small businesses and the people. guest: let me thank you for the service that you have provided our country. i would hope that all veterans do not believe that they are getting good medical treatment get in touch with your congressperson because we owe them, especially those who

fought for our country. let me make it abundantly clear. a social security, medicaid, and medicare expenses have nothing to do with the deficit we are facing today. it is true that we will be reducing expenditures, but that is not why wwe have this deficit. it is the fact that we went into a war that in my opinion we should not have been involved in, where we got troops all over the world, and god knows if it was not for oil we would never have been involved in afghanistan or iraq. the whole issue as to what we are not paying off the interest on our debt is costing us -- the interest goes up the longer we have this. you are right on target. we can protect our people and make sure health care and

education is out there, and we can have a fair rate of taxes if only we reform the existing system in to give confidence to the people that we borrowed money from -- investors -- to let them know that we are alive and well and have a domestic differences, but at the end of the day, we are going to be secure financially and responsible to our obligations. host: we have about two minutes left until the house comes into session today. david is an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for your military service. you princes of politics -- look at your rings, your cufflinks. do not u -- don't you feel entitled? all of you politicians, i think, everybody ought to be voted out. you have been there too long.

guest: this great constitution of hours allows you to say that. unfortunately, the community that was raised in and still live in, over 84% of them thought i was the best person that should represent them in the united states congress. i have to respect all americans. i would hope that you understand that. but thank you for your compliments about my service. i hope to continue to serve. host: you are corn to be the last one this morning. caller: thank you for your service, mr. rangel. i just wanted to say that i agree with you, that we need to be helping the less fortunate and loving they labor. i am sure that jesus was a democrat. i am going to get some t-shirts

made and then say that. i think the last election reflects one thing. the citizens united case allows to be politicians to be bought legally, and it looks to me that they got in there and bought a whole lot of freshmen, people that did not have their own minds and brains and programmed them. we are running out of time here. what do using about the campaign finances? guest: i think is wrong. it is unfair. this is not a democrat or republican thing. it is whether or not the average american hopes and dreams that they can serve and get elected in politics without having to go through the sources mentioned by barbara. i do not want to overstate the

case about spiritual leaders, but there's a lot of morality involved in what we are trying to decide today and i just hope that the silence you hear from religious leaders and not speaking out on the issues of war and peace, the economy, health, education, i hope that i do not get myself in any more trouble, but i do hope we hear from them. host: we detest speculation that we might have the first $1 billion election coming up. guest: i think we should be decent and i think we need to recognize to the rest of the world and what $1 billion can be used for. this is what every great nation should be known for, not just bring each other down politically and charge the economy $1 billion for it. host: how will you vote on libya resolutions?

guest: i will be voting for the president to explain to us, which i really thought he should have before invading libya, which is to, when you are putting young people in harm's way and they have not been subjected to a draft, it is morally wrong to do that. the congress should be involved. host: and how to live coverage of the house of representatives. have a good weekend. we give you thanks you have been our help in decades' past and will be our hope for years to come. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and women of the people's house. send your spirit of wisdom as they face this day with difficult decisions to be made, work to be done, burdens to be carried and light to be lived as best they can. keep love's banner floating over all of us as we walk in the way of those who act with justice, love with mercy and

walk with humility before you. help us to fashion our desires, our duties and our deeds in accordance with your will that we may labor for a better world filled with good people who labor for the well-being of all. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within the people's hos this day be done for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu. ms. chu: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, this morning's announcement of an increase in the unemployment rate indicates yet again the president's economic policies are failing american families. the out-of-control spending is killing small business job creation. sadly, more than 14 million people are still without jobs and the average price of gasoline is almost $4 a gallon. the president pledged to reduce unemployment to 8% and failed. he pledged to skyrocket energy costs and he succeeded. this is a failure of leadership on job creation and gas costs. american families are at risk. earlier this week the president asked congress to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion with no meaningful reforms. reforms are needed because

american families need jobs. and the president's request was defeated in a bipartisan vote. house republicans presented the cut-and-combrow congressional plan. it's a commonsense plan. first, cut spending. then the economy will grow. that's how you create jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. chu: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. chu: house republicans are trying to sell america's seniors a house bill of goods. republicans claim that seniors won't be impacted by their plan to end medicare. that simply isn't true. what's true is that insurance bureaucrats will be placed in between seniors and their doctors. what's true is that a senior in my state of california will be forced to pay $6,000 extra in out-of-pocket expenses. then, once the republican plan

to end medicare takes full effect, those out-of-pocket expenses will double. imagine our seniors being turned away at the pharmacy. imagine seniors having to reach deeper into their wallet after a doctor's visit. the g.o.p. plan to end medicare is unacceptable. we must keep our promises to our seniors. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. berg: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berg: i rise today to honor the countless -- as thousands of north da coatans fight to protect -- dakotans fight to protect their families, they've filled sandbags, provide food for volunteers and shelter for those who have been displaced by flooding. this is truly been a team

effort. working together with senator conrad, senator -- mayors and federal officials to ensure that north dakota receives a vital support to fight this flood and rebuild as soon as the flood's over. i commend state and local officials and the north dakota national guard for the tremendous work that they have done. working tirelessly to prepare for this flood and quickly responding to those who need help. and most importantly to the tens of thousands of volunteers who embody north dakota's spirit and showtimes -- in times of hardship that they'll pull together and get the job done. again, thank you for all the volunteers and our hearts go out to those who are fighting with the flood. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents are wondering when the house majority will hear their cries. don't end medicare. in fact, a recent cnn poll showed opposition to the road to ruin budget that ends medicare's highest -- medicare with the highest amongst those being senior citizens at 74% opposed to the plan. in addition, the voters in the 26th congressional district of new york recently made their voices heard when they elected representative kathy hochul to be the newest member of budget. the republican budget threatens to end medicare. they know under their plan anyone under the age of 55 will be forced to save an extra $182,000 just to pay for their future health care costs in retirement. that number rises to a startling $400,000 for those in their 30's. these statistics are even more astounding when you consider the billions of dollars in tax breaks republicans have given away to our country's

wealthiest individuals as well as big oil companies. enough is enough. if republicans are serious about protecting our nation's seniors, they would work with us to strengthen medicare, not end it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans are doubling down on their plan to end medicare, voting this week for a second time on their road to ruin budget that ends medicare. republicans instead should listen to the will of the people who overwhelmingly oppose their medicare plans and instead work in a bipartisan way to address deficits and strengthen medicare. the republican budget more than doubles costs for future generations and puts insurance companies back in charge. according to the c.b.o., in 2022, the average senior will see their costs increase by more than $,000. and the republican budget --

$6,000. and the republican budget reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole, increasing the costs for the four million seniors that fall in the coverage gap by mohr than $40 billion over the next decade, including $2.2 billion in 2012 alone. it eliminates the wellness benefit. the republican budget has the wrongs priorities and makes the wrong choices for seniors and middle-class families. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 44. house resolution 294.

resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution h.res. 292, declaring that the president shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the united states armed forces on the ground in libya, and for other purposes. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. section 2, upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the concurrent

resolution, house concurrent resolution 51, directing the president, pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove the united states armed forces from libya, if called up by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or her designee. the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by representative ros-lehtinen of florida or her designee and 30 minutes controlled by representative kucinich of ohio or his designee. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to its adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, is recognized for one hour. mr. scott: thank you, sir. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. pending which i yield back the

balance of my time. all time yield sd for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . house resolution 294 provides for a closed rule for consideration of two measures, house concurrent resolution 51 and house resolution 292. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: this rule allows for the consideration of house concurrent resolution 51, consistent with the war powers act and provides for an alternative measure introduced by the speaker of the house. i support the speaker's resolution and the ability to have up or down votes on both resolutions. this approach is consistent with the speaker's and our conference's goal of a more open and transparent process, allowing the house to work its will on both resolutions. members can vote for one of the

resolutions, both of the resolutions or neither of them. the underlying legislation addresses the administration's actions in libya. mr. speaker, on march 19, 2011, president obama ordered u.s. military intervention in libya as a part of a multinational coalition. well, over 60 days later -- let me say that again. over 60 days later, the president has still not asked for nor has he received authorization from congress to commit troops to such action. mr. speaker, article 1 of our constitution states that congress and only congress has the power to declare war. this point was made best in 2007 by then senator barack obama who said, and i quote,

the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. just in case we missed that, the current president got it right in 2007. when he was a senator. i want to quote him one more time. he said that the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. . while the united states must play offense in the war on terror, and we should not have to wait for threats to materialize before acting, it is not clear, it is simply not

clear, that libya posed a threat to our nation that justified the use of troops. the united states troops. it is untea nible -- undeniable that gaddafi is one of the most notorious terrorists of our time and the world will be a better place when he is gone. but at the same time there is no shortage of dictators who should be removed from power. assad is butchering his own people as we speak. iran under ahmadinejad sponsors terrorism around the world. he persecutes religious minorities, and is working to develop a nuclear bomb. moreover, the president has not outlined the purpose or the scope of our action in libya. is the objective of the removal

of gaddafi from power? if so, who will replace gaddafi? and what assurances do the american people have that the alternate will be any better -- alternative will be any better than gaddafi? house resolution 292 accomplishes four objectives. first, it establishes that the president of the united states, president obama, has not asked for congressional authorization for a military involvement in libya, and that congress has not granted such authority. second, the resolution reasserts that congress has the option to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the united states armed forces, including such activities in libya. third, the resolution requires the president to provide within 14 days information to congress which should have been provided from the start.

fourth, the resolution reaffirms the vote that congress took just last week that says that there should be no u.s. troops on the ground in libya unless they are there to rescue american troops. it has been unfortunate, very unfortunate that our president has made this resolution necessary yet at the same time we are mindful that the congressional action must consider our responsibilities to our allies, including those that are currently in harm's way. america keeps its promises. we keep our commitments. and we stand by our soldiers and our allies. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from south carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last week the house spoke quite clearly on the question of libya during the debate on the f.y. 2012 national defense authorization act. by a vote of 415-5 on a bipartisan amendment offered by congressman conyers, the house voted against u.s. deploying ground troops in libya. so the house has clearly stated its position on u.s. military operations in libya. but that vote did not touch upon two serious matters, each very much connected to the other. first is the fact that the president did not seek a congressional authorization for u.s. military engagement in libya in coordination with our nato allies, nor did the leadership of this house insist on one or pursue one. second, under the war powers

resolution, the president has not sought the authorization of congress during the required time period to maintain u.s. armed forces and military operations in libya. simply put, under a war powers resolution, the president must obtain congressional authorization for military action that lasts longer than 60 days. if congress does not authorize military action, the president must withdraw troops within 30 days. the 60-day authorization deadline expired on may 20, and the 30-day withdrawal deadline expires on june 19. therefore the congress now has the responsibility to call for the end of u.s. military operations in the absence of a clearly defined authorization for u.s. military operations in libya. last night, mr. speaker, the rules committee considered two resolutions. one offered by representatives kucinich, burton, and capuano which clearly addresses the violation of the war powers

resolution and would require the withdrawal of u.s. forces from military operations in libya. if passed by the house and the senate, it would have the force of law. the other, offered by the speaker of the house, is a simple h.res., a nonbinding resolution, a document which is simply advisory in nature and relevant only as a statement of the house. which reprimands the president for failing to seek proper authorization for our military operations in libya, asks for reports to provide the house with necessary information regarding national security interests and costs of libya operation, and then does nothing . nothing, mr. speaker. it again shirks the responsibility of this house and this congress as a whole to either take up and pass an authorization for u.s. military operations in libya, or pass a resolution requiring the withdrawal of u.s. forces and an end to u.s. military operations

in libya. mr. speaker, it's easy to complain, it's easy to lay blame, but it takes leadership to own up to our own responsibilities and take appropriate action. and it takes leadership to handle this process in a ponce way. frankly, mr. speaker, this process does not do that. the republican leadership rushed their resolution through the rules committee without any hearings and without any markup, violating the three-day pledge to allow people to read the bill. so much for the new open house of representatives. this would be sad, mr. speaker, if it weren't so important. war is a serious issue. whether we are sending unmanned droughns, armed jets, or american soldiers into harm's way, war must be debated and considered by the congress in a responsible manner. the republican leadership, however, is not treating this issue the way it deserves to be treated. this debate deserves better, quite frankly. the american people deserve

better. i urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. just one clarification, the concurrent resolution 51 does not become law. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina -- make that three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: i'm honored to be here with the newly elected freshman member, tim scott. i appreciate his leadership on the rules committee. the people of south carolina are proud of his service. the people of the first district of south carolina are noted for their strong support of the military, and they elect members to congress, like tim scott, who work for a strong military and strong national defense in the

tradition of ronald reagan of peace through strength. in the first district the congressman has the citadel, the military college, the naval weapons station, in fact i actually grew up there adjacent to u.s. coast guard base. we know the value of a strong military. personally in fact congressman scott's brother was the command sergeant major at landstuhl, one of the largest military hospitals in the world in germany. his largest experience and family connection, we know that tim scott is for a strong military and understand as i do how important it is that military force should only be used when it is in america's vital interests. i have the perspective of being the done of a world war ii veteran, a flying tiger, i served 31 years in the army national guard. i have four sons currently serving in the military. i want our military to be used properly.

when the president's right, as he was, to follow the advice of general david petraeus, to add troops, the surge in afghanistan, the resulting success that we see in afghanistan today, when the president is right, we are happy to support him. but this resolution is very important because we have not seen from the president of the united states, there has been a failure of leadership in regard to explaining why military forces are being used in libya. i'm very pleased with the resolution. the key point that the american people need to know is declaring the president shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the united states armed forces on the ground in libya. to put troops on the ground i believe is highly irresponsible. a case has not been made why this is in america's vite allege interest. we know there is -- vital interest. we know there is great conflict

as to who the rebels are. what are these rebels? are these al qaeda elements that are attacking the gaddafi forces? the gaddafi forces themselves? what would happen if we got involved with troops on the ground? these issues need to be resolved. on behalf of the american military, on behalf of the american people, and we urge through this resolution that the answers be provided to the american people, to the american military, to our allies, why are we there? what is america's vital interest? so i urge support of the rule and commend the freshman congressman from south carolina for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: again, just so we are all clear here. under the war powers act if a concurrent resolution is passed, demanding that these -- troops

are removed from a particular country, then they will be removed. if you believe the war powers act carries any weight. i believe the war powers act is relevant here. that's what the resolution by mr. kucinich does. what the resolution, my friends in the republican leadership, has drafted does is nothing. your resolution doesn't even have to go to the senate. it won't go to the senate. it directs the president to do a whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, he can ignore because this bill doesn't mean anything. what this is, let's be clear about what this is, this is a way for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to cover their backsides. to be able to say to their constituents, we did something tough on libya. let me read to you how tough the language is in the bill that the speaker of the house has drawn up. all the tough language. sounds good except when you look a little bit more closely, you

realize this is an h.res. which doesn't mean a anything. so if you are into symbolism, if you are into therapy, vote for the boehner resolution. if you are interested in action, if you are interested in actually living up to our responsibilities as lawmakers in the united states congress, then i would suggest that you look at the resolution that mr. kucinich has drafted. so you can talk all you want about how this is -- the republican alternate here is somehow meaningful, but it really isn't. but again i shouldn't be surprised, no one should be surprised here because most of what they have done says they assumed control of the congress has been meaningless, symbolic. whether it's dealing with health care or jobs, which they don't want to talk about, or you name it, a lot of it has been mostly symbolic. i think on the issue of war, we should take it more seriously.

and be more honest with the american people what we are doing. at this point i would like to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, what we are confronted with today is not primarily a question of foreign policy or even war policy. we are presented with a question of constitutional law and of the prerogatives of the united states congress. shall the president like the king of england be a dictator in foreign policy? shall the president have the unfettered right to take this country to war without so much as a by your leave from congress as the king of england to do without authorization from parliament? the authors of our constitution answered that question in the negative and they said, no. we don't trust kings, we don't trust executors to make decision to go to war. we want that to be the

prerogative of the people as represented by the congress. a whole series of presidents since world war ii have forgotten that. starting with harry truman and the korean war, and lyndon johnson in the vietnam war, right up to the president. now, there are -- right up to the present. now, there are reasons for this and i'll speak to that later. i'm going to vote for the boehner resolution but i'm also going to vote for the kucinich resolution. the boehner resolution is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't deal with the basic problem. the boehner resolution says the president has failed to provide congress with a compelling rational based upon u.s. security interest and united states military activities. that is true. frankly i do not understand why we are in libya. the boehner resolution then says the president shall transmit to the house of representatives all kinds of information basically saying why we're there. that's good. should have done that before he went there but it's good we demand that information now. .

but then the boehner resolution stops. he gives us reasons. maybe they're sufficient and maybe they're not. and then it says findings. the congress has not provided authorization for the involvement of the u.s. armed forces in libya and congress has the prerogative to -- can i have another minute? mr. mcgovern: yield an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: to withhold funding for the armed forces including activities regarding libya. that's also true. but so what? it doesn't direct anything. it doesn't say -- it doesn't say that -- what the president did was outside his powers. it doesn't direct that the activities stop. it doesn't do anything. and i think we should do something because if in this situation we do not reclaim

congressional powers i can think of no set of circumstances under which the president can go to war without going to congress first. no set of circumstances and that turns the constitution and the intentions of our framers and the intentions of our whole constitutional law system on its head. i urge a yes vote on the boehner resolution and the kucinich resolution which unlike the boehner resolution does something about the situation we find ourselves in. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. denham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. denham: thank you. you know, this could not be any more serious. it's important for us to debate what our service members are doing in foreign conflicts. and the war powers act, it is

important to make sure that the president understands from congress exactly what we are willing to do with our american troops and where we're willing to fight. but i do agree. he has to give us his reason. in desert storm we knew why we were there. we knew what our role was. we knew what our goals were. we knew what our exit strategy was. these are the very reasons that we're locking for before we appropriate funds, before we put our troops at risk, before any boots go to the ground, before this conflict escalates any further, before a new government comes into play. we expect these reasons to be given to us. we expect the president to do his job, to show leadership, to address congress and explain why he is committing american service members. so this is very serious. it is a -- it is very serious

and long overdue. the president should have came here first. he certainly should have came here within 60 days. it is long overdue. it is very serious. and the time to demand answers is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i hear a lot of talk on the other side about the boehner resolution requires the president to do this, it directs him to do that, he must do this, he shall do this, but the way you have presented this in this h.res. form the president doesn't have to do anything. let's not fool the american people that this is meaningful. at this point i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: this could be no more a somber debate than what we are doing here today,

and i thank the manager, mr. mcgovern, the gentleman from south carolina for recognizing through the leadership of our house that the american people must be engaged in the constitutional duties that have been set out for the three branches of government. under the constitution the war powers are divided between congress and the president, and among other relevant grants, the congress has the power to declare war and raise armed forces while the president is the commander in chief. the commander in chief can relate his or her duties to article 2, section 2. it is generally agreed that as commander in chief role gives the president the power to utilize the armed forces, to repeal attacks against the united states, but there has long been a challenge, a controversy over whether he or she is constitutionally

authorized to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or congressional authorization. so here we are today indicating that it is important for the commander in chief no matter how much respect there is to be able to respond to the call of the congress. there is now two resolutions that swirl around the violence and horrific acts in libya. compounding the problem is the continued violence and assault on the people of libya. so for a moment let me focus on general gaddafi to ask him the question, is he reasoned and does he recognize that the slaughter of his people must stop? the president of south africa engaged in peace talks with general gaddafi and many of us thought that the white flag would be raised and that there would be an opportunity for resolution. we see that not coming.

so my message to general gaddafi is to stop this senseless and violent war, to allow your people to accumulate the privileges of human dignity. that is to be able to live in peace and hopefully to secure democratic rights for themselves. but at the same time we in the united states cannot stand by and watch as violence proceeds, we must have procedure, we must have process. i believe the boehner amendment gives at least some tracking as to what you're asking the president for. but i still quarrel with the debate and the request he of whether that's enough. i'm supporting this rule so we can move forward to begin to debate this question of the war powers resolution, and it is important that the branches of government understand you cannot roll over the constitution. the constitution does not allow us to ignore the supreme court's decision. it does not allow us -- can i

have an additional 30 seconds? it does not allow us in essence to ignore the responsibilities of congress. i rise today to support this debate and to support the premise that congress must declare war. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the chairman of our committee, chairman dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on this management of this extraordinarily important rule. i want to begin by saying i was listening to my friend from worcester. i want to express my appreciation to him for his institutional commitment. the recognition of the preeminence of the first amendment rights.

mr. kucinich, democrats, republicans alike, recognize that the president of the united states under article 2 and article 1 has the responsibility, the responsibility, mr. speaker, to in fact engage the united states congress. now, i think a little clarification may need to be made at this juncture because as i listen to debate, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion. people often talk about the war powers act. mr. speaker, there is no such thing as the war powers act. there was a war powers resolution that passed that does not have -- does not have the power and the strength of enacted law. similarly, mr. kucinich's resolution, which we will be considering, and this rule makes in order, is a measure that will not have the force of law. yes, it is true that it is an

h.con.res, meaning it will be considered in the senate as well, assuming it passes this house, but it does not have the force of law. and no one, mr. speaker, should try to make that claim. similarly, the h.res. that mr. boehner has offered, which i personally believe is nor responsible because the notion of our calling for withdrawal within two weeks is something that virtually everyone has said cannot be done. that's why i believe that mr. boehner's resolution is a more responsible one than the one offered by my good friend from ohio. but it, too, does not have the force of law. so as we proceed with this debate, i think it's very important for us to recognize that the terms that are being used need to be used correctly. and i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: just again, since

we're -- we want to make sure everybody has the right terminology correct and we're clarifying the record. this h.res. that mr. boehner has introduced that my friends on the republican side are touting as something substantial, gives the appearance of doing something when in reality it does nothing. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i'll yield to the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. dreier: let me say that the characterization that my friend just said of mr. boehner's resolution would also have to apply to the resolution offered by our friend from ohio. we're talking about resolutions here. we're not talking about measures that have the power of law. this is not an act. these are resolutions. mr. mcgovern: i reclaim my time. mr. speaker, regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman claims his time. i'm sorry that the gentleman has such a low opinion of the war powers resolution. but i think it carries more weight than he does. but, again, i'd say to my colleagues, what mr. boehner has -- has proposed here has all this tough language in it, requiring the president to do

this, directing the president to do that when in fact if we pass this the president is under the obligation to do nothing. at this point i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for throw minutes. andrew andrews i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. because the constitution vests the authority to declare war in the congress, i oppose the administration's decision to dispatch american troops into hostilities in libya without coming here first. i think that was an error. but because i take those constitutional obligations very seriously and because each of us should take them very seriously, i oppose this rule and the underlying resolution from speaker boehner. i find it ironic that at a time when the institution is trying to assert its rightful constitutional place that the

speaker has proposed a resolution which is wholly ineffective and purely symbolic. this resolution per sues a grateful important objectives in a rather frivolous and ineffective way. if we believe that the conduct of a military operation is inappropriate for the country, there are tools available to us under the constitution. each one of those tools, whether it involves ceasing appropriations or other remedies, requires the consent of both the house and the senate to be -- and the senate. to be effective we must be bicameral and to be bicameral we must put something on the floor that would lead to consideration by the senate. the boehner resolution by its own terms does not do that. so the question the members ought to be asking themselves here, whether they're for or

against the incursion in libya, whether they think it should cease or continue is, what is the effect of passing the boehner resolution? as a practical and legal matter, the effect is nothing, nothing. all of the items the president would be directed to do, any of the steps the president would be prohibited from taking are meaningless if the boehner resolution passes because the boehner resolution does not contemplate being considered by the senate. so i would offer this to members that if there are looking for a resolution that in fact has effect and meaning, mr. kucinich's resolution has real effect and meaning because it is a do exercise of the constitutional authority of the congress. the speaker's resolution, which i take certainly in good faith,

has none of that effectiveness and none of that practical consequence. so i would urge a no vote on the rule precisely because of the principle of congressional authority. if you believe that we should exercise our constitutional authority, then let's really exercise it. let's put something before the body that has real and practical meaning. i would urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. they continue to call house resolutions frivolous and meaningless. my good friend, mr. mcgovern, himself just last term had house resolution 217 on global security priorities resolution. in fact, the house needs to position itself so the american people understands what this house is trying to convey to the president of the united states. . the fact of the matter is this

president continues to do things that he said as a senator is against the constitution. we are making sure this house and the people who voted in this house are represented in the public forum. i yield, mr. speaker, three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about our constitution and specific role that it grants this congress. my constituents back in the third congressional district of south carolina know that i carry a united states constitution with me every day. and the first time i spoke on this floor it was to read a portion of this great document. specifically i read the article we are talking about today, article 1, section 8, clause 11 the enumerated power of congress and the congress alone to declare war. our founders did not give that

right to the executive branch. they invested that responsibility with us. previous congresses have delegated some of that responsibility with the war powers resolution. that's what's being used by this president. but i think time has come for us to have the debate about the wisdom of that and the constitutional obligation our founders defined for congress. over the past few years our country has seen a renewed appreciation for the constitution. a recognition of the wisdom and divine guidance our founding fathers had when they crafted this sacred document. the constitution lists our rights. these rights given us directly by god but also contain some mechanisms to protect our rights from being trampled upon by man. among the most important of these protections is the separation of powers. seeing firsthand the tyranny that can arise from a corrupt centralized power, our founding fathers sought to divide that

power, to divide the power of government into three independent branches that serve as checks on one another. mr. speaker, we in the congress need to know, what is the national interest at stake in libya? the president cites humanitarian needs. regional stability. supporting the international community as his justification. i do not believe these are reasons -- that these reasons suffice as national security interests. we did not go into libya with a clear, obtainable objective. the risk and costs do not appear to be fully analyzed. as the president said, we would only be in libya for days not months. we have been there days, as a matter of fact we have been there 73 days after we got involved and we still don't have that answer. we doesn't know who we are supporting. we don't know whether we have a viable end game. we don't have a congressional declaration of war or authorization of force. yet this president chooses to continue toing risk american

lives, american service men and women and continues to spend that american treasury at the whims of the united nations. this president should not be able to simply have wars of choice. he said this action in libya would be limited. our troops have once again as always performed admirably and done the job the president gave them to do, but we now have to do ours. mr. speaker, the constitution is very clear. only congress has the power to declare war. if this congress allows our president to make wars of choice without the rule of law to guide him, we will be just as guilty in not upholding our constitutional obligation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: my colleague, mr. scott, talked about the fact that i supported house resolutions in the past. and therefore we should have more respect for the document that mr. boehner's put together.

i have no problem with h.res.s. they state where -- they state the views and the beliefs of members of the house of representatives. but what i have a problem with is anybody coming to the floor and holding up the boehner resolution and saying it does something that it does not. what the boehner resolution simply does, it expresses the views of congress. even though it says, it doesn't require the president to do anything. he doesn't have to do anything if this thing passes. the other thing i want to say, going back the distinguished chairman of the rules committee came on the floor here and kind of pooh poohed the war powers resolution as if it were another resolution. quite frankly i'm stunned by his characterization. it's astonishing to me he would come on the floor and say such a thing. the fact of the matter is the war powers resolution is a joint resolution of congress, passed by the house and the senate.

it was vetoed and then it was overridden. it has the power of law. it is not just a mere resolution. let's not put this on the same level as what the speaker of the house has brought to this floor. two different things. and what mr. kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that congress has under the war powers resolution. this is a -- serious stuff, this is important stuff. if we get our terminology straight, we ought to get it straight. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rushed, hyper partisan process we are watching today on a very serious issue of war resolution. it is absolutely a given that congress has a role to play in terms of the president's actions, that it should be scrutinized, and we should have

the opportunity to weigh in on it. and our armed services committee has been meeting on a regular basis, holding administration officials' feet to the fire on those very questions. we had one yesterday. the fact of the matter is, though, just because congress has that right to weigh in doesn't mean that we should pass a resolution for resolution sake. batting average of congress in terms of rushed resolutions, frankly, folks, is not very good. the gulf of tongin resolution was rushed through -- tonkin resolution was rushed through congress and we know today that historians have uncovered the fact that misinformation was presented to congress. the iraq war resolution in 2002 was rushed through this congress with bad information and we are now seeing today language which is drafted literally overnight being presented to the members of this body and being asked to weigh in on a deliberative fashion. this is a polemic we are voting on. this is not a carefully balanced

bipartisan process which the people of this country and the people who wear the uniform of this country deserve. if you read the statement of policy, it is devoid of any of the leadup to the president's decision, which included a resolution by the arab league on march 12 to impose a no-fly zone. the u.n. security council on march 17 to impose a no-fly zone, and on march 1 the united states senate voted unanimously, not 51%, not 81%, not 91%, 100% in support of a no-fly zone. a republican and democratic bipartisan resolution calling on the president to do exactly what he's doing today. now, again, there is no question 70 days is a long time -- 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: additional 0 seconds. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. is longer than certainly it was originally presented to this congress, the fact of the matter is this resolution which was drafted on a partisan fashion is

so disappointing to the people who care so profoundly about whether or not the decisions on war and peace are actually going to be deliberated, debated and voted on in a serious fashion are left with this truncated process that is, again, almost an insult to the people of this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. when you look at what we are doing here today, the gentleman to the left got it wrong. the bottom line is that members of the house of representatives have a choice. they can do one of two or three things. they can vote for house resolution 292 or they can vote for concurrent resolution 51, they can do both or they can do neither. the fact of the matter is to trivialize or belittle the process we are taking on behalf of the american people ought to give us cause to pause and ask

ourselves who is playing the games? we want the president of the united states to abide by the constitution. you heard democrats and republicans agree this morning on one clear fact. he didn't. and that's why we are here. i yield, mr. speaker, five minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for -- from south carolina for yielding time. i want to say from the very beginning that mr. mcgovern and i don't often agree on issues, but we do agree that this is a very serious issue that we are dealing with today. and yesterday in the rules committee all of us dealt with this in a very serious way. mr. speaker, we live in the

greatest country in the world. a major part of what makes us so great is that we are a nation of laws and not of men and our rule of law is based on god's laws and our constitution. indeed, each one of us in congress takes an oath to uphold the constitution when we take our office. the president and vice president as well as members of the cabinet do the same thing. we are here today to debate a rule and two resolutions related to the inattention of the president to the constitution and i dare say that none of us takes any joy in this, but we feel compelled by our dedication to our founding document to do this because we love our country. by doing all of it we can to safeguard the constitutional powers granted to congress, we are doing our part to keep the united states great and strong. mr. speaker, i want to be very clear about what is not at issue

today. this debate is not about our troops. we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our men and women in the military and their families. the troops do what they are sworn to do, what the law requires them to do. obey the orders of the commander in chief. the troops are doing their duty. by refusing to get congressional authority, authorization, for military action in libya, it appears that their commander in chief is not. the constitution was designed to be a check on the power of our government. hence the term enumerated powers. each of the three branches has very limited powers with congress having its own unique role in powers. one of which, an important one of which is the power to declare war. my focus this morning will be on the abrogation of the constitutional and stat torial responsibility by the president in regard to his actions on libya. in other words, the

authorization to use military force is given to the president by this body and none other. and it is in accordance with our constitution that we are here asserting our sworn constitutional duty and telling the president he does not have the support nor the authority that he claims to have in order to continue military operations in libya. i often urge people to orwell's book "1984" because the language used by president obama in particular on the libya issue to muddy the waters is so reminiscent of the language used in that book about a country where the government controls everything, including the minds of the people, partly by the use of language that is completely distorted. mr. speaker, i have read the letter that president obama sent to congress. he should have come in person to make his case, but even then i doubt that we would agree to continue operations in libya. the letter that the president

sent us does not even begin to comply with the requirements of the war powers act. let me read parts of it and enter the entire letter into the record, mr. speaker. here's how the letter begins, on march 21 i reported to congress of the united states pursuant to a request from the arab league an authorization by the united nations security council had acted two days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by deploying u.s. forces to protect the people of libya from the gaddafi regime. as you know over these last two months the u.s. role in this operation to support the security resolution 1973 has become more limited yet remains important. here's where i want to get into this convoluted language. thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, i wish to express my support for the bipartisan my support for the bipartisan resolution