of the congress. he did get the arab league. he did get the united nations. he did talk to the french and the english, b he didn't talk to the people's house, the congress of the united states. and the president did not have the authority to do this. now,he reason i support the kucich resolution is it sends a clear message to the white house that cannot -- they cannot do this again. they cannot unilaterally go into syria or the ivory coast or any place else without talking to the people who represent the -- the congress who represents the people all across this country. the president should not have done this. and the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the kucinich resolution, which i co-sponsored. i'm a co-author of it. now, i am going to vote for the boehner resolution because it does send a signal, but it does not solve the probm. the only way to solve the problem is to let the president know you cannot, should no, and will not be able to do this again. the speaker pro temp

support of the congress. he did get the arab league. he did get the united nations. he did talk to the french and the english, but he didn't talk to the people's house, the congress of the united states. and the president did not have the authority to do this. now, the reason i support the kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the white house that cannot -- they cannot do this again. they cannot unilaterally go into syria or the ivory coast or any place else without talking to the people who represent the -- the congress who represents the people all across this country. the president should not have done this. and the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the kucinich resolution, which i co-sponsored. i'm a co-author of it. now, i am going to vote for the boehner resolution because it does send a signal, but it does not solve the problem. the only way to solve the problem is to let the president know you cannot, should no, and will not be able to do this again. the speaker

is the end congress six legitimate? you have to show a cost shifting is akin to the cost shifting that occurred here. >> before you move off that -- you say they could not do it because of the cost shifting t? the cost would be borne by the national government other than those by actually have insurance? why isn't that enough? >> the power that congress is asserting here is one in which literally they were dealing with money comes out of one person's pocket to pay for another's. whether or not cost shifting to the government make qualified maybe a bit more attenuated change of causation. the other problem with the end -- >> morrison rejected cost shifting. >> i don't think they did. that was about the attenuated cause of causation. >> they rejected it. >> because it was attenuated. this court accepted cost shifting -- >> let's go back to long-term disability. i have difficulty understanding why that is different. >> with the act that congress enacted, you have the question about the needs. judge marcus, you have said tha

we say that the congress and the president act together. can't come up with a 1% requisite, then it's across the board. >> across the board, without regard to -- you're not going to pick between defense, social security, medicare, medicaid? >> that's correct. here's the thing, so you know, that's a big stick for the congress. so the congress and the president must work together to make sure that we cut up with the cuts so we don't have to touch those programs. >> just so it's clear what you're saying, about two-thirds of government spending is in the entitlements and defense, what you're saying is two-thirds of that $143 or call it $100 billion, roughly, $100 billion in year two comes out of medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense spending? >> what we're saying is if the congress and president fail to act and make the 1% requisite cut, it would be across the board. if the congress does a half a percent, it would only be a half a percent across the board. >> that sounds eminently reasonable. you're a little bit copping out saying, w

the introduction of u.s. armed forces in a statute drafted by congress. if that language along or works -- >> just in general, if you are engaged in a vietnam-type military operation, which i was, you have certain support elements providing in direct assistance to the people putting bullets on the battlefield. i really don't see any distinction here because in the vietnam environment, i was a journalist in afghanistan, i was a journalist in beirut. not everybody is a trigger- polar. the definition between aircraft that are revealing the bombers or conducting intelligence activities or surveillance is an artificial distinction. >> nobody is saying something replicating vietnam at this moment would not be -- >> i'm not talking about vietnam. i'm talking about afghanistan or beirut -- same thing. >> i think you make the most important point of all -- these are points of judgment. in your role in the navy, you made that judgment. it is not a mechanical formula. whether the mission has been shaped this particular way in this particular setting with this particu

the u.n., and nato. those are not substitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from georgia, member of the foreign affairs committee and also a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it is a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congress for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. unfortunately i b

the congress of the united states didn't do it. let me tell you why bluntly, because both leaders in both houses were unwilling at that point in time to do it. and we have to, let's be honest about this -- >> i am being very honest. >> you're not being honest -- >> i have the ability to express my opinion just like you do. >> and to use facts just like you do. if you want to get into a debate about this right now i'm glad to do that and i would like -- >> senator, you're not letting me finish my point which is that you're saying the president violated the process here and didn't come to the congress. he did come to the congress. he sent us a letter requesting us to do the authorization and we didn't do it. that's the simple fact here. moreover, moreover there's a constitutional question here because in paragraph b of the war powers act it says that the president shall terminate any use of the united states armed forces with respect to -- where a report was submitted, unless the congress has either declared war or enacted a specific

the congress has not provided authorization for the involvement of the u.s. med 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 some

is the end -- is congress legitimate? you have to show some sort of cost shifting and can to the cost shifting that occurs here. -- akin to the cost shifting that occurs here. >> therefore they could not do it? the cost is borne by the thannal government rather by those who actually have insurance. why is that not enough? >> the power that the congress is asserting is one they were dealing with. money comes out of one person's pocket to pay for another. whether it may qualify might be a bit more a chain of causation. >> some have rejected it as a requirement. >> not at all. i do not think they did. that was about this. >> i realize they said it was there. at the end of the day they rejected its as shown. >> because it was attenuated. they accepted cost shifting. i am having difficulty understanding why this is different. >> it will depend on the findings congress enacted with respect to the end. then we have a question about the means. you have said that congress is entitled to a substantial difference. i do think that the

the u.n., and nato. those are not substitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from georgia, member of the foreign affairs committee and also a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it is a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congss for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. fortunately i belie

the new congress has not done anything. if it was up to the republicans in congress -- and you can look at it from the state to the congressional level -- if you are a union worker, forget it. they do not even consider you a worker. they blame all the problems on union workers. and that tells you where the republicans stand in this country. guest: i am a republican, am proud to say i am a republican. i promoted the transportation and stimulus bill. i know it provided jobs. i am proud of what we have done over the past two and half years to put americans to work, through the stimulus money. we are going to push hard for congress to pass a transportation bill. it is a very bipartisan way to put americans to work. transportation has always been bipartisan. when i served on the transportation committee, we passed two bills with over 380 votes, and a lot of people have gone to work as a result of it. i have no doubt that if congress can pass a transportation bill, it will be a jobs bill. host: you first started in the house in 19

he don't have to tell the congress. r sad he has taken that position. >> we will get back to the question of consulting congress. first i want to ask you about a point senator john kerry raised. he is chair of the foreign relations committee in the senate and raised the point if congress wanted a say in this, they actually had a chance. listen to this. >> you're saying the president violated the process here and didn't come to the congress. he did come to the congress. he sent us a letter requesting us to do the authorization. and we didn't do it. that's the simple fact here. >> he's saying congress dropped the ball at the very beginning. do you acknowledge that congress could have done something and didn't? >> well, they could have done a lot more sooner, that is true. they shouldn't have waited 90 days. they should have immediately let the president know he was violating the war powers resolution. i don't know why he is talking about appropriations. he has no appropriations for this war. so he doesn't have the money an

then came the war powers resolution. and congress decided that it would give a little of that constitutional authority to the president for a period of days until he justified his action before congress. we can argue whether war powers resolution is constitutional or not, but any event congress has not led america to war in libya. the president has. the president made that decision. and as james madison, the author of the constitution, said to a letter to thomas jefferson, i paraphrase, it has been the history of peoples that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war. and that's why our constitution prevented kings and dictators and even presidents from leading this country to war. it must be authorized by congress. but now we find ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no on this resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national s

in the white house did a response to congress today and they sent a nice little letter saying that basically they're not in violation of the war powers act because libya isn't really a war so we don't have troops on the ground nato is leading the operation so it can't possibly be in violation of the war powers act what's your take well it's an example of orwellian speech obama administration when the secretary of defense was testifying before congress mr gates and was asked if you threw a. missile into a new york city is that what he basically said of course i mean if livni was doing what they were going to live yes you have course they would understand that was were also they're they're they're caught in this kind of legal paradox if it's not war then we are committing murder because it's only war that makes on the side legal so if we're not fighting more than we're killing people without justification we should be prosecuted ourselves for war crimes moreover the president has already filed dated the constitution of the united states plainly shooting war without any authorization from congr

if congress wants to gain the rules, congress is going to gain the rules -- game the rules, congress is going to game the rules, and they do. do not blame the rules or the cbo, blame the congress. that is who did it. the congress did that to them period. >> the particular example you're talking about, cms as well as cdo in its baseline estimates -- cbo in its baseline estimates had very similar cost estimates. what the actuaries said was that the payment mechanism for providers was going to be reduced by about 1.1% per year often to the future, which would make medicare payments to providers a lot lower than those from other payers, private sector pay years, and that overtime, were there not fundamental reforms in the delivery system of health care -- which there could be -- brought about by this pressure and other pressures -- this was unsustainable, probably. some providers would stop serving medicare beneficiaries. there would be an access problem and there would be a political reaction to that. we have seen that in a sustainable growth rate adjustment to the session -- to physicia

you say the president disagreed with congress. speaker boehner says he wants an answer tomorrow on whether the office of legal counsel agrees with this assessment of the president. you say you're not going to get anywhere legal assessment to congress. what happens in a deadlock but that? who wins? does the president went quite >> the important it is not about who wins in terms of partisan politics. it's about as the -- [inaudible] >> we are continuing the mission and our participation we continue to consult congress on questions than they have them. we've agreed on the legal analysis that was yesterday to congress. and now the process moves forward. again, as i think i answered in a response for my week, we would support a vote on the revolution, looked for by the bipartisan resolution by senator mccain, kerry and others. and so we continue. the important thing is we understand what is happening in libya come in the tremendous progress we've made, the fact the president has done exactly what we said he would docome again to some de

and the vietnam war shortly thereafter. congress asserted its constitutional authority to rein in richard nixon with the war powers resolution there's a new law that lets the president commit the nation to war without congress but only for sixty days. it's still a pretty generous handover of power of the executive branch one that in my personal opinion is clearly unconstitutional and should be rolled back by the supreme court that's a little old mother rant it was an affront to nixon however who vetoed the war powers resolution basically saying he was going to play ball with any of these new restrictions on the power he and his recent predecessors have claimed in the oval office. of congress overturned a nixon's veto and passed into law these new checks on presidential power that our founders never. ten to the president to have. from that point on after sixty days a president must ask congress for permission to continue a war. so now the sixty days are up in libya is president obama going to cons. know. the white house wrote a lette

small scale plus the last threshold were even if obama were to go to congress so the most likely have a little trouble securing a vacuum this would land him with yet another war on his watch and expose his foreign policy and by partisan wrangling muscle charnel for cost our. ok i do it to david first in denver before we talk about the policy and patients always with look at the legality of it and that's one of the reasons why we've asked you to come on the program so i'll ask you is president barack obama in violation of the law in violation of the war powers act sure he's an obvious violation of the war powers act is the introduction said. the war powers act which became law in one thousand nine hundred seventy three says that within sixty days of introducing u.s. troops into combat except in a situation such as when the united states itself is attacked the president must receive approval from congress the president. should've done that immediately the soon as the decision was made to go into libya he should have started making the case to the american people and to congress and inst

for the exact same reasons that the congress vote red jet stream change in the 1990s democratic congress exactly the same reasons that the president clinton... >> rose: the 1990s regime change in terms of iraq war one? >> no, no. >> rose: when iraq invaded... >> no, late 1990s well after the first iraq w. the democratic congress, house, and senate pass red jet stream change legislation. clinton signed it, agreeing with it, and it was the policy of the united states that saddam hussein was a regime that should be changed. that was the policy of the united states. >> rose: that was one thing. it's another policy to overthrow. sdup >>nd you say why and i would say for exactly same reasons t congress passed the resolution authorizing the president to engage in the war with iraq. the that the u.n. passed 17 resolutions. there was an absolute conviction on the part of our intelligence people, on the part of the president, on the part of the congress, the leading people in the congress who saw exactly same intelligence that in fact saddam hussein's contentions th he had nuclear weapons... >> ro

the urgent question before you is not one of law, but of policy. congress provided support for nato's mission in egypt, insuring that gaddafi does not regain the upper hand. so, in closing, i esthetes a quick and decisive action to approve resolution 20 to provide congressional authorization for continued operations in libya to enforce the purposes of security council resolution, 1973. only by so doing can this body of firm that the united states government is united in its support of the nato alliance and the aspirations of the libyan people. thank you, senator. i look forward to answering your questions appeared >> that was the state department's harold call from an earlier today. the committee is coming back at two o'clock 30 p.m. to mark up the resolution, which will likely authorize and probably limit the role in the middle operation to drive muammar gaddafi out of power. they will reserve my and -- resumed at 2:30 eastern. we will have coverage. surely after his statement, he was spoken to about the war powers said, and the timing of the presence noti

which is that the president is the commander in chief of the united states military and it is congress that has the power to declare war so congress makes the decision about whether there will be a war and then the president is responsible for the details of the conduct of the war ok leslie it's very interesting i mean people don't call these things wars anymore so i suppose that's the kind of wiggle room for the president as an enemy this is a humanitarian intervention quote unquote and we might want to talk about what that really means if it's double speak and if so but is this is this what obama is doing is saying it isn't this war powers act simply doesn't apply yeah i mean i think it's very complicated there's a lot of law that's governing this particular intervention and of course as you know the security council resolution one thousand nine hundred eighty three is the most important arguably that's really governing this particular intervention so i think it's a tricky it's a tricky maneuver but i mean the other the other thing that's not been mentioned is that this was handed ov

the introduction of u.s. armed forces in a statute drafted by congress. hat language along or works -- >> just in general, if you are engaged in a vietnam-type military operation, which i was, you have certain support elements providing in direct assistance to the people putting bullets on the battlefield. i really don't see any distinction here because in the vietnam environment, i was a journalist in afghanistan, i was a journalist in beirut. not everybody is a trigger- polar. the definition between aircraft that are revealing the bombers or conducting intelligence activities or surveillance is an artificial distinction. >> nobody is saying something replicating vietnam at this moment would not be -- >> i'm not talking about vietnam. i'm talking about afghanistan or beir -- same thing. >> i think you make the most important point of all -- these are points of judgment. in your role in the navy, you made that judgment. it is not a mechanical formula. whether the mission has been shaped this particul way in this particular setting with this particular risk

then, he said, when it comes to an impasse, the congress has the means at its disposal to have its will prevail. now, on these classes, it may be tempting to think that there's a winner and a loser. i think when congress does not push its constitutional powers and gets the document it needs for a thorough investigation, that there is a loser, and the loser is the public. it's constitutional government, and it's a system of checks and balances. in 1982 president reagan, i think, set a good framework for these document fights. he said historically good faith negotiations between congress and the executive branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege. and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches. at the present time, you have a subpoenas, and as you said in your opening statement, subpoena is not satisfied when you have to have committee staff travel to the justice department to sit in camera and look at documents that are heavily redacted. there's no way the committee can signify its constitutional

the house convenes in two hours as congress debates two resolutions. topic, libya, to cut off funding for any combat operations. while debate on c-span getting under way at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. lawmakers waking up to this "the wall street journal" headline. muammar gaddafi may flee the capital of tripoli. the president talking jobs and the economy at carnegie-mellon university. sheila bear at the national press club this afternoon, one of her final public events before stepping down. the headline from "the washington post" -- "gop declares an impasse." the story is by lori montgomery and we will be checking in with her in just a moment. our question, what is next? host: this morning from "the washington times, the photo of congressman erick kanter, who said he will not participate, because taxes remain on the table for democrats. this reaction yesterday from the speaker of the house, john boehner. >> i talked to the majority leader about these talks for the last several months. i know the frustration that he feels when democrat members continue to wa

we should take it of the hands of congress. less form an independent advisory board and have them do it the price controlling and circumvent congress. what this simply means is we are going to do hardcore price controlling which leads to rationing which will lead to medicare providers dropping medicare. that means seniors will not have access. we want to get rid of that. if we are going to extend solvency, it should go to medicare, not to other programs. we should not trade one government program to go to another. how many tons of we heard that about social security? sector -- rationing does not work. we believe that at the end of the day there will have to be a bipartisan solution. the sooner you do it, the sooner you do not have to it that benefits for anyone about the age of 55. people who have already retired under this program, do not change their benefits. they were made promises the government should keep. if we do this soon, we can keep our promises to people who were 10 years away from retiring. it is very negotiable. i

then came the war powers resolution. and congressit would give a little of that constitutional authority to the president for a period of days until he justified his action before congress. we can argue whether war powers resolution is constitutional or not, but any event congress has not led america to war in libya. the president has. the president made that decision. and as james madison, the author of the constitution, said to a letter to thomas jefferson, i paraphrase, it has been the history of peoples that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war. and that's why our constitution prevented kings and dictators and even presidents from leading this country to war. it must be authorized by congress. but now we find ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no on this resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national security intere

the congress overwhelmingly overrode the president's veto. there has been a lot of questions from my colleagues about the constitutionality about the war powers act. some of my other body said it's not not constitutional. the fact of the matter is, it has never been tested in court and never gone to the u.s. supreme court and as a result, the war powers act is the law of the land. it's the law of the united states of america. and it is intended ks as i said before, to clarify the constitutional powers of the president of the united states. now the president of the united states, mr. obama, decided we ought to go into libya for humanitarian purposes. there is nothing in the constitution that gives him the authority to do that unless he has the expressed approval and support of the congress of the united states. when president bush was the president and he went into iraq, he first consulted with the congress. when he went into afghanistan, he first consulted with congress. president obama said because of the time elements and the time concerns

then came the war powers resolution. and congress would give a little of that constitutional authority to the presidenfor a period of days until he justified his action before congress. we can argue whether war powers resolution is constitutional or not, but any event congress has not led america to war in libya. the president has. the president made that decision. and as james madison, the author of the constitution, said to a lettero thomas jefferson, i paraphrase, it has been the history of peoples that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war. and th's why our constitution prevented kings and dictators and even presidents from leading this country to war. it must be authorized by congress. but now we find ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no onhis resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national security interest of the

and the 111th congress. tarting my third year. based on the information presented, i thought i would have supported that. based on what we know now, i do not think we should have gone into iraq in the first place. host: this is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: again, i think congress has not lived up to its constitutional duties and responsibilities of holding the president in check. the constitution clearly lays out that the congress is the one to declare war. you are right. for ticket, that has not happened. host: -- for decades, that does not happen. caller: i have an accounting entry that can save us or add something like $390 billion to our balance sheet. the treasury has something like 262 million ounces of gold on its books that is valued at $42 an ounce. why not market to market, which is roughly 15 or 20 an ounce right now. congress has the power to do this. secondly, i have a question regarding the federal reserve. it offends me that the federal reserve seems to have one of its primary fu

and the 111th congress. i am starting my third year. based on the information presented, i thought i would have supported that. based on what we know now, i do not think we should have gone into iraq in the first place. host: this is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: again, i think congress has not lived up to its constitutional duties and responsibilities of holding the president in check. the constitution clearly lays out that the congress is the one to declare war. you are right. for ticket, that has not happened. host: -- for decades, that does not happen. caller: i have an accounting entry that can save us or add something like $390 billion to our balance sheet. the treasry has something like 262 million ounces of gold on its books that is valued at $42 an ounce. why not market to market, which is roughly 15 or 20 an ounce right now. congress has the power to do this. secondly, i have a question regarding the feral reserve. it offends me that the federal reserve seems to have one of its primary

for the better partf the past decade, congress has been working to update our patent laws, to ensure that the incentives are framers envisioned when they wrote article 1, section 8 of our constitution remain meaningful and effective. the u.s. patent system must work efficiently if america is to remain the world leader in innovation. it is only right that as more and more inventions with increasing complexity emerge we examine our nation's patent laws to ensurehat they still work efficiently and that they still encourage and not discourage innovation. the core principles that have guided our efforts have been to ensure that quality patents are issued by the p.t.o. in the first place and to ensure that our patent enforcementaws and procedures do not create incentives for opportunists with invalid claims to exploit while maintaining strong laws that allow legitimate patent owners to enforce their patents effectively. h.r. 1249 addresses these principles with regard to ensuring the issuance of quality patents, this legislation allows third parties to submit evidence of prior art during th

that is why the debt train is the only other train getting out of congress. this is why you have the talks revolving around the debt limit. >> thank you. i'll come back. i'll reform 16 -- 1963, last year of the baby boomer. not a single one of your plans pencils me in. >> talk to steve liesman about that. >> thank you for having me. i was born in 1964, which i always claimed as being the last year of the baby boom generation. now i've been corrected. it's wonderful to be with all of you and with congressman ryan, i want to especially say thank you to al simpson for the incredible work and leadership that he has shown. i wish you were still in the united states senate. but he's not. i might start with congressman ryan end which is the need for a thoughtful conversation about all of this. because i'm mystified by the conversation that's going on in washington. mystified. somebody who hasn't spent their life in politics, half of my career in business and half at the local level of government. no constituent of mine at the local level would ever tolerate the conve

>> well, the continental congress gets into a lot of trouble during the revolution. they start printing their own to fund the war. they are -- they need money. there's really no options for them. they are isolated like a british blockade, can't tax the states, they start printing legal tender currency which becomes inflationary and amount sinks of revolutionary efforts. >> no addressing of the thousands of different types of currency? >> well, what happens is when they sit down to right the constitution, the memory of those all of those colonial currencies and more vividly, the crisis with the continental currency means that virtually money of america's leading men advocate paper money. so the constitution explicitly prohibits states from printing their own paper currency. >> what happened to owen sullivan? >> owen sullivan is tracked down and executed in 1756 in city hall park. >> who were the vigilantes? >> in this period, law enforcement is primitive and amateur. if you want someone who is willing to do what it takes and travel across many jurisdictions to find a

in a way it's the majority in this congress now, the pro-life majority in this congress that has given the american taxpayer the voice of conscientious objection to federally funded facilitation of abortions. i'm grateful that this congress now has this majority. i'm grateful that they put this vote up again today and there have been multiple in this new congress that express the very sentiment that i've just expressed. so i'm expressing it, mr. speaker, my gratitude to the house of representatives. and my commitment will continue forward down this theme until we can one day see an end to the ghastly and ghoulish and gruesome procedures that sometimes described as women's health services. they are not and they're not good for women's health either, mr. speaker. so then i would -- i would transition into the second amendment that i offered last night, the vote was rolled on until the last couple hours here in the house of representatives and that was the event -- the amendment that addressed the pigford farms issue. now, this issue is about the class action lawsuit that was filed by a g

it is taking them off the doll. congress is trying sang, at this point you cannot afford the individual mandate. we're going to put you on the state one. again that is based on the assumption that there is universal coverage that tries down the insurance clause. they subsidize people for these health care exchans. that number was set on the assumption that the health care costs would be driven down by conscripting young people to engage to their detriment which were dry everyone else -- >> healthy people c still buy catastrophic coverage. >> i do not think -- i still think of a 31-year-old as young. they cannot buy a catastrophic insurance. what they call catastrophic is not anyone's normal idea of a catastrophic coverage. you have to have the health benefits of the savings act. there needs to be a number of benefits. the deductible includes the three primary physician visits per year. getting hit by lightning in a serious disease, what most people think of catastrophic. that is not an option available. that is part of the c

>> i think the question was raised spent i'm sorry? >> congress' powers to upset and to screw up a particular trial is certainly there. but there is a particular line that i think i'm aware of in the case law that if there is an attempt to interfere with, or help convict or, you know, someone, that that would raise serious due process question. >> okay. so there are inherently, you know, some limits on congress otherwise unfettered right to seek access to information from the executive branch. this might be one of those cases. >> very rare. >> but is it not also relatively infrequent that congress seeks this kind of information when they're in fact is a pending investigation or a criminal trial? is a frequent that congress brushes that aside and seeks to subpoena information nonetheless the? >> question again, please. >> well, how frequent is it that congress chooses even when there is a pending investigation, ongoing criminal open investigation, nonetheless to subpoena documents that may be related to that investigation? i'm under the impression

the u.s. congress rebukes president obama military intervention in libya by refusing to authorize it but lawmakers stopped short of cutting off funding for the campaign. the former finance minister and hosni mubarak's ousted egyptian government has reportedly found shelter in britain despite being convicted of investment back at home there is growing anger among egyptians over a london stands which have supported the revolution overthrowing the old regime. and more and more israelis are lining up to immigrate opting for the e.u. or america the accuse the government of failing to make their country a safe place. now and join me for more in around fifty minutes time before that unit is here with all the latest for us news of course and we'll be hearing about the dream of a first ever grand slam title is that it closer for. yeah ever a bit closer he can never get to the final step though coming marina but wouldn't you love to win wimbledon he's into the fourth round that means the second week a lot of ten

when the founding fathers sat down and defined what this congress had the power to do. i don't think they wasted words. and those who will look at article 1, section 8, clause 11, will see that congress is given the authority to declare war. it is one of the most awesome responsibilities given to congress. but it was clearly given to congress so the founding fathers said we would represent the feelings of the people of america, the people whose children, sons and daughters and husbands and wives would be called into combat, and we will make the decision will this american go to war? the president's commander in chief has authority to defend america and americans but when it came to combat and war congress was given the responsibility. throughout history many presidents honored that clause and have come to congress asking for the authority to proceed to war. probably one of the most notable and historic was franklin roosevelt who came the day after pearl harbor. in december of 1941, hobbled up to the rostrum in the house of representatives and declared a day that would li

the. u.s. congress refuses to authorize president obama's military intervention in libya but stopped short of cutting off funding for the campaign. they backed the revolution so why are they sheltering the guards gronings the u.k.'s under fire as a top official wanted in egypt for fraud is ordered leave living in london. british transport or european passport is a doorway to opportunity. and pulling out of the promised land more and more israelis are considering immigrating accusing the government of failing to make their country a safe home. it is not i am in moscow you're watching r t joshie the u.s. congress has refused to grant president obama also already to continue the military campaign in libya but the very same lawmakers have turned down a motion to cut funding for the american action in the country the votes are being seen as a largely symbolic as the white house says it doesn't need congressional approval for the mission he's got it should count as more from washington d.c. . the resolution a

the states. we cannot trust congress to do it. there is no historical record that would give us confidence that they would go forward. we cannot allow the situation to risk being unresolved. it will take down the growth and future prosperity. i propose that congress grant the president temporary emergency authority to freeze spending at current levels and in have up to 5% and up to federal spending until such time as the budget is balanced. as the example of the effect, if we're able to cut or the president is able to impound overall spending, we could balance the budget by the year 2017. just 1% each year between now and 2017. i know that government can cut spending. i cut spending in real times for the first time in our history. we did this with priority based budgeting. we set a record for a veto. it took a veto and a union strike but we got it done. we did not close our schools, we did not empty our prisons, we cut spending where it needed to be cut and we can do the same in washington. in pounding the money should be a last re

the court ruled that the congress has the power. if we get standing this time, i thinks we are on course to resolve one of the great constitutional issues of whether or not any president -- it's not just about this president -- i would prefer to keep this almost impersonal -- whether any president has the ability to take this country toward absent the approval of the directly- elected representatives of the people. he is not directly elected. he is chosen by electorates in the electro college. founders had been used to be able to determine that those who are directly elected, to have faith in their hands. this involves the lives of our men and women sent to a theater where they might be put in jeopardy in one way or another. this is a very callous important moment. if the court is willing to entertain it. what we hold in this lawsuit is that this relates solely to congress. the founders were very careful in describing in article one, section 8, the whole range of responsibilities that congress has. one of them is the power to be abl

the commerce clause. commerce clause. if they say congress cannot regulate, then on the grounds that it is not interstate commerce, i wondered what the limits are in future cases. >> thank you. i want to take this opportunity to thank all of you lawyers. this was very helpful to us. it was a very difficult case. it will certainly affect all of the citizens of our nation. thank you very much. we are in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on tomorrow "washington journal" the center for american progress on legal challenges to the affordable care act. the president of the national association of manufacturers and a look at nation-building efforts and that getting rid of afghanistan. this begins live at 7:00 a.m. span.n c- >> this weekend on american history television, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a panel reflects on ronald reagan. there are wrist during -- restoring civil war. calf's -- civil war photographs. you can also give their sche