mr. garamendi: how much? mr. tonko: $131 billion. mr. garamendi:? a queer? mr. tonko: yes. contrasted with $161 billion cut from medicare. mr. tonko: you have to provide tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and mindless handouts to oil companies sitting on historic record profits, this year alone, we are at about $36 million in profits. if we have done this mindlessly for a century's worth, why would we continue that and put at risk a program that will be celebrating its 45th anniversary in a few days? why would we do that when the quality of life for the many, many, the masses of medicare eligibility, are putting -- being put at risk for the far fewer who will get the millionaire, billionaire tax cuts and oil handouts? mr. garamendi: it's about choices. it's about where do you stand? do you stand with the seniors and medicare and the benefits they need to survive? or do you stand with the big oil companies? look at the way the votes come down on the house floor. over the last five months, we've seen vote after vote after vote where the democrats have suggested we eli

mr. garamendi: mr. cicilline, it does not surprise me at all that you have a passion for this issue. you come from part of the united states that really started the industrial revolution. the northeast. and your state in particular, the industrial revolution started there. and over the years it gave great strength to this nation and it was the manufacturing that providing the economic underpinnings for the growth of the american economy. unfortunately your part of the state, perhaps for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with national policies, began to lose its industrial base. but with your representation and your passion for this issue, i have absolutely no doubt that once again the northeast will find the resiliency and the right national policies to rebuild the manufacturing base there and across the rest of the nation. we're already beginning to see it as a result of the stimulus program and some of the specific laws that were built into that program are now rebuilding the manufacturi

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i rise a point of order because it violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. it contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unfunded mandates, although there are many in this resolution, 2021, the

mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield. mr. kingston feather let me yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> i reclaim my time. if you would, allow me to speak for a second. states and counties and cities have figured out they don't have the money to spend. america's got to figure out, the federal government has got to figure out that we in fact have to cut spending. i hear this all the time that we have a debt of $14 there will an a deficit of $1.4 trillion, we hear the same arguments but we never hear how are we going to do it. other than one gentleman that said, we need to raise taxes. that's the answer to all our problems. that is not the answer. the answer to our problems is really about using the dollars that we have. spending them efficiently. and looking at ways to maybe work harder with less. i will tell you as a sheriff, we had to cut our budget and worked harder with less. and you know what? the federal government doesn't believe in that. the federal government believes that how we solve a problem is to throw mor

mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. i: i thank the lady from new york, mr. speaker. we are later this morning going to be engaged in one of the most important tasks of congress and that is what to do about war. unfortunately, the administration -- and i think they would agree to this -- didn't adequately engage congress in the process running up to the beginning of the libya conflict and insufficient during the course of it. we are now in position where we will be making decisions today about how we want this nation to proceed. whether we want to proceed with a full-on war, a limited or a much more limited activity with regard to the support of nato in the libya fight. unfortunately, all of this is now being rushed upon us in the last day just before the break for the fourth of july. the amount of time to debate this on the floor is far too limited. it would have been our preference on the democratic side to have a more discussion along the lines that the gentlelady from new york discussed in her opening comments, a full

mr. garamendi: would the gentlelady yield? mrs. lummis: i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all remarks should be addressed to the chair and not to each other. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. there steams to be a little uneasy this this chamber. in january, of 2009, we were losing 775,000 jobs a month. then the obama administration and the democratic congress enacted remedial legislation and we stopped losing 775,000 jobs a month. we have gained 1.5 million jobs, but unfortunately, state and local government had to lay off 1.2 million people because we didn't give them enough to prevent that. but we did reverse the result of the bush policy of eight years which was 775,000 jobs a month lost. don't forget in 2000, in the presidential election, the great debate was, what should we do about the $5.6 trillion? bush got elected and enact d the bush cuts and said they would stimulate

mr. garamendi. california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. garamendi: the distinguished chair of the budget committee spoke here a few minutes ago. he spoke about a moral obligation. an interesting definition of moral obligation, an obligation to maintain the benefits that the insurance industry has, an obligation to maintain the subsubsidy that the american taxpayer gives to the richest industry in the world, the oil industry, billions of dollars a year, an obligation to maintain the tax benefits to the wealthiest millionaires and billionaires in the world. apparently that's his definition of a moral obligation. we have a different definition on our side of the aisle. we have a definition on our side of the aisle that says, it is the obligation of this society to provide medical care to our seniors. our republican colleagues see their moral obligation as terminating, ending medicare for all americans who are not yet 55 years of age. say it any way you want, but that's precisely what your budget does. it terminates medicare. is that your moral

mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker and members, apparently the house has debated for more than almost 40 years now the war powers agreement or war powers law. what we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that and put it into position. there are four reasons. first, there is a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place. the united nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the united nations, by nato, by the arab league and the most unusual situation asking for support of the european and the united states in an arab country. finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. the resolution does that. it provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time, and, therefore, it is in order and it appropriately p

mr. garamendi. tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker and members, apparently the house has debated for more than almost 40 years now the war powers agreement or war powers law. what we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that and put it into position. there are four reasons. first, there is a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place. the united nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. secondly, this particula intervention is supported by the united nations, by nato, by the arab league and the most unusual situation asking for support of the european and the united states in an arab country. finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. the resolution does that. it provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time, and, therefore, it is in order and it approiately puts the congress, b

mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker and members, apparently the house has debated for more than almost 4years now the war powers agreement or war powers law. what we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that and put it into position. there are four reasons. first, there is a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place. the united nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the united nations, by nato, by the arab league and the most unusual situation asking for support of the european and the united states inn arab country. finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a veryimited way. the resolution does that. it provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time, and, therefore, it is in order and it appropriately puts th

mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. farr. each piece of legislation that passes the house is really a reflection of our values. it speaks to our heart, it speaks to what we care about and what's important to us. this particular bill does that in a way that more than ever highlights values. is it about children, about infants? or is it about tax breaks for the very, very wealthy. is it about safe food or tax breaks for oil companies and subsidies for ail companies? is it about those people around the world that are hungry, and the food for peace program that provides them with enough food to be able to survive and to live? or is it about a continuation of very fat, unnecessary farm crop subsidies? it's about our values. it's about what we care about and what we think is important. and if there's anything that's important in life, it's food. it's the ability for our youngest children, i was on this floor not more than two hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old, out there in america, there are hundreds of thousands

mr. garamendi.ro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker and members, apparently the house has debated for more than almost 40 years now the war powers agreement or war powers law. what we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that and put it into position. there are four reasons. first, there is a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place. the united nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the united nations, by nato, by the arab league and the most unusual situation asking for support of the european and the united states in an arab country. finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. the resolution does that. it provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time, and, therefore, it is in order and it appropriately puts the congre

mr. garamendi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral and undersecretary, thank you very much for your service. i know that you worked long and hard on extraordinarily difficult challenges. and it's much appreciated. i want to just confirm, i think i heard you say, admiral mullen, a moment ago, that the mission remains a counterinsurgency mission. is that correct? >> that's correct. the strategy is a counter insurgency strategy. >> thank you. >> and that involves all that was just said just a moment ago, all of the clear and hold and all that goes with it. in other words, nation building is very much a part of this. >> it is -- from my perspective it isn't a very part of this. it is a counterinsurgency strategy focused on as the secretary laid out limited objectives. which is what it's been and what the president talked about in his speech in 2009. >> the notion of counterterrorism, that is to focus on the terrorists wherever they happen to be around the world, is -- seems to be secondary to this mission in afghanistan. >> i thin

mr. garamendi: this bill is taking to one more step. first, the repeal of the affordable health care act with provisions in it to protect americans from the repatience appetite of the health insurance companies, providing protections. republicans would repeal that. and then the next step, which we just saw recently in the republican budget, the termination of medicare for those who are under 55 years of age. what are they to do? and for those who are already on medicare, a significant serious reduction in the medicaid program that provides essential funding for those seniors in nursing homes. will the assault then end? and here in this bill to protect the american homeland security, a deeming of the republican budget which clearly terminates medicare? is it never going to end? are we never going to step forward to actually -- to actually put in place legislation that will assist americans to get the america that they need? step one, way back. repeal the affordable health care act. give unraised opportunity to the insurance companies to

mr. garamendi: america's intervention in libya was initially based on the international community's responsibility to protect a mandate agreed upon in the wake of the horrific rwanda genocide. this important international doctrine calls for the international intervention in a country where a government is unable or unwilling to protect its civilians or is actively assaulting and killing inhabitants in that country. i agree with this doctrine, and america's initial response to the gaddafi threat to wipe out a large segment of the libyan population. for three months the u.s. and nato have engaged in military action. at this time it is unclear if the mission is any longer one that fulfills the responsibility to protect doctrine or if it has changed into a larger and/or different role. given the continued military action and the lack of clarity of the u.s. mission's goal, i support resolution 292 which requires the administration to provide information on the american military diplomatic and humanitarian activities in libya and seeks clarity on america's objective and a strategy for that goal. i yield