tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 24, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
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 want to bring tax hikes into this conversation and insist that we have to raise taxes on the american people. i think mr. cantor has made it clear these conversations can continue if they take the tax hikes out. secondly, what i said a few weeks ago after we were all down to the white house. i said that if we're going to
meet the president's side, to come to an agreement by the end of the month, he needs to engage. the president is going to have to engage. host: yesterday, speaker of the house, john boehner. harry reid in "the washington post" article. joining us on the phone is lori montgomery. she has the front-page story in "the washington post" and is also available online. what is next? what happens? guest: i do not think we know yet. the white house put out a statement from joe biden that they stand ready to meet again. i think the white house is suggesting it is the next move
for republicans. john boehner clearly said it is the next move for the white house. they need to talk and figure out where they are headed. there is clearly an open channel of communication between the white house and capitol hill republicans already. john boehner met privately with obama on wednesday evening. obama is talking to mcconnell. we are calling this an impasse, but i do not think anybody has disengaged. host: let me read you one sentence from the statement issued last night by vice- president joe biden. we keep hearing "balanced approach" when it comes to reducing the debt. "this includes domestic spending, defense spending, mandatory spending, and loopholes in the tax code's." what do the democrats want on the table and what are the republicans saying no to? guest: the democrats want any
kind of revenues. i do not know what the number is. house democrats are looking for $400 billion in taxes over 10 years. it goes beyond loopholes. they're also looking at limiting capping, but the statement from joe biden seems to suggest that the white house is willing to settle for ending a variety of tax breaks. there's a huge array of things to choose from. democrats have focused on subsidies for oil and gas companies. they have talked about a special preference for private jet owners. they have talked about their preferential treatment of income earned by hedge fund managers. there are any number of things you could choose. it could be valued at any number -- any sum of money you could
pick. the odd thing is that republicans are starting to come around to this point of view, at least in the senate. we just saw a vote last week on subsidies for ethanol. mitch mcconnell voted for it. senator lamar alexander is telling people around the halls of congress that there are dozens of subsidies in the tax code that need to be gotten rid of because they are wasteful and we need to pay down the debt. it appears there's some kind of compromise. it is sort of puzzling. republicans are hardening their stands, rather than seeking to engage on it. host: lori montgomery, let me share another story with you from "politico." guest: that is true. the announcement from cantor
came at the exact moment that nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and james clyburn were at the white house telling obama what they wanted in taxes. it's my understanding that they laid out this package of $400 billion in revenue. they were told that the president supports that goal. they might not be willing to go up to $400 billion, but they are not talking about some change. they seemed to be reassured. host: we are talking to lori montgomery of "the washington post." you have the july 4 recess and we have this deadline set by treasury secretary geithner that says congress needs to act on raising the debt limit on or before august 2. if that is the deadline, how
does congress get there? guests: because we do not know the next up, we do not know they get there. next week was going to be behind the scenes communications who were not necessarily going to be in town, anyway. i think we are looking at a few days or maybe a week of quiet communications. after the july 4 holiday, i would expect someone would come out and tell us where things are headed. once they get back to july 4, they need to get this thing written into legislation. there will be fights over that. then they need to start assembling the votes. that will not be an easy process either. the sooner they get to a product that all of them can link arms and start selling, the more comfortable the markets will be. host: lori montgomery from "the washington post thank you --
"the washington post." thank you. brad is joining us on the line for republicans. the question, what is next? what's your recommendation for congress and the president? good morning, brad. caller: hey. good morning. i would like to talk about the debt, but i would like to tie in the crisis in libya. in libya, why doesn't this make sense to the united states? the president alluded to this. participating in an international grouping -- our ability to build capacity is vital. it will save a lot of money in terms of defense spending over the next decade.
host: stay on the line. i want to tie in the headline we alluded to. the headline from "the wall street journal." "u.s. says muammar gaddafi might flee tripoli." new intelligence showing that colonel muammar gaddafi is considering fleeing tripoli. we bring this story up because the house is taking up two measures today. live coverage getting underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern on whether they cut funding for operations in libya or continue to do so for one full year. either measure passes, it will go to the u.s. senate. brad, you also wanted to talk about debt. he hung up. we will go to carmen in
hamilton, montana on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start. this is so big. when you talk about our debt, $ 14.3 trillion, all the wars we keep going to come of the 800 bases around the world, the fact that the republicans have become a party of no, it seems like a big conspiracy. we're talking about taxpayers' money. why can't americans be -- especially republicans -- have common sense. stop tax breaks for the rich. there's another thing bigger at play. read a book called -- you will see that the bankers on this democracy. we have no democracy anymore. let's start talking about the people getting the power back.
you all have to go in lockstep, because the republicans will not do anything but work for big business. big business has a stranglehold on us because they're making millions and millions and millions of dollars and we are all suffering. there are people out here in the united states that do not even have enough to eat anymore. please don't hang up on me. there's a lot going on in this country that people do not go about. one wore after another, we have been lied in to buy our -- lied into by our presidents, ever since vietnam. when they said there were weapons of mass destruction. there is $14.3 trillion we were lied into. come on, americans. we are a bunch of dukes. we are slaves on plantation
earth. i was told was that we're going to turn this full planet into plantation earth and slaves, in all colors, and all you have to do is have a social security number. host: from our twitter page -- again, the headline from "politico." the story from "the hill" newspaper. they point out that negotiations over cutting washington's debt runs into crisis after the top negotiator walked out of the talks after the democratic counterparts demanded taxes be raised. dramatic developments suggesting the president and the speaker will speak soon.
the president is waking up this morning in pittsburgh pretties at an event at carnegie-mellon university -- in pittsburgh. he is at an event at carnegie mellon university. joining us, nashville, tenn. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think what should be next is that the president needs to stop being mr. goody two shoes, and realize he's taking it on the chin from republicans. the debt between the rich and the poor is obscenely wide -- wider than anywhere else in the world. this is because of the republican policies of holding out for more and more tax cuts for the super rich. all the middle-class and the
working poor have had their wages stagnate. there has not been any rise. the rich and have made out like a robbers. it is time to remove the bush tax cuts for the rich. it is time to increase the number of troops we're bringing home from afghanistan. we cannot afford, in these dire economic times, to continue to fund the afghan war, although, that's the war we should have been fighting in first place. host: thank you for the call. again, are phone numbers -- our phone numbers -- from "the wall street journal" -- pointing out that the talks
were aimed at reaching a budget deal. host: bill king has this on our twitter page. next on the line for republicans is don from california. caller: good to talk to again. i'm amazed when i hear all these talks. we have this war in libya that is supposed to save civilians. what do we do? there has got to be something strange going on with obama.
the white part of him -- he has any of muammar gaddafi -- he has envy of muammar gaddafi. i disagree with the caller who was making a point about the war. libya is a totally worthless effort, all intended to do what? we do not know. the word we need for obama is and totally uninvolved. i'm going to attack. i'm going to tell you on coming on september of 2012. are you nuts? the people need to get together. august 2 is going to be a careful -- is going to be a terrible day. god bless you. i'm sorry for getting worked up, as usual, when i focus on what this democratic party is doing to america.
not going to do anything until 2012 just to get reelected. it's insane. host: don, thank you for the call. up early in claremont, california. dayton, ohio, good morning. caller: hello this is chester. the judicial branch needs to be brought in. wage and credit laws in the united states. this is a debt. this is not about taxation. if you make more than $150 per week, you're supposed to pay 25% of everything over that toward your debt. this is public debt, but it is also private debt. every american taxpayer should pay that debt. host: if you go to u.s. debt clock, now in excess of $14.4
trillion and it continues to grow every second of every day. caller: ok. host: continue, chester. caller: that's what i'm saying. this is a debt. this is not about taxation. nobody in the country paid their full amount to the federal government last year, nobody. they should make a deal with president obama. they should be paying 25% over $7,000, $8,000. how can anybody argue against raising the revenue side? you have no argument, none. host: ok. thank you for the call. from our twitter page.
host: former speaker of the house, the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, reacting to this in her thursday news conference. here's what the california democrat had to say. guest: yes, we want to remove tax subsidies for big oil but we want to remove tax breaks to corporations that sent jobs overseas. the list goes on. i do not know if that's a reason to walk away from the table when we are trying to find a balanced approach. i have been encouraged in the last weeks by the reports of mr. van hollen and mr. cliburn. was at the talks -- was that the talks with the vice-president. in a spirit of goodwill and a constructive way. host: the comments of democratic leader nancy pelosi yesterday on
capitol hill. this thed comment from oblivi vivianne, one of our regular tweeters. what is your take on all of this? caller: i think president obama has put our country in so much debt that the cities cannot get any money from the federal government for their roles or homes or nothing. this is worse than jimmy carter. we cannot even go grocery shopping without high prices at the grocery stores. gas prices have gone up. i do not understand this. we have to start getting out the votes this year for the republicans. we are just going to go more and more in debt with the president, sending more people to work.
good morning. caller: every time you have these callers call in and talk about the bush tax cuts -- it's not the bush tax cuts anymore. i'm calling in regards to these people calling in and all the liberal talking points about the bush tax cuts. really, it's not the bush tax cuts any more. it is president obama's tax cuts. he signed the law into effect for the former bush tax cuts. now they are president obama's tax cuts, but you never hear anyone directing -- anyone correcting that. they need to own up to that. host: thank you for the call. from sasha, "can we have logic
101 class?" and from a viewer in colorado -- to fourth host: linda is joining us on the line for democrats. caller: may i speak? host: please go ahead. caller: why is it the republicans are always on top and the democrats are not? they are second. the second thing i would like to say is debt talks stalled. what is next?
i do not know what you're talking about. thank you for taking my call. host: we are talking about the negotiations that ended yesterday pri congressman eric cantor left the talks, along with senator kyl. the white house issuing a statement that the president and the speaker will sit down to talk about the debt limit. this viewer from new york said, "does the debt ceiling really matter if the fire aspects of the economy remained unsupervised?" speaker john boehner weighing in on all this yesterday. the kiver point between democrats and republicans, revenue and taxes. here is speaker john boehner. >> the american people do not want us to raise taxes. they know we have a spending problem. that's why the republicans passed a budget that pays down
debt over time without raising taxes. we do not have any more time to waste. we will not agree to the president's request to increase the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms to the way we spend the american people's money. as i have said before, the spending cuts must be greater than any increase in the debt limit. these have to be real spending cuts. no targets to push this off to the long term. no more kicking the can down the road. host: the comments of speaker john boehner. again, the white house indicating the president and the speaker had a conversation on wednesday, although, there's no details from press secretary jay carney on the specifics. "the new york times" has this on its editorial page.
"republicans cannot walk away from their responsibility to pay the bills and keep the economy out of crisis." republican line, good morning. caller: yes. i like to know why everyone -- everyone -- everyone has to wait until the last minute until they try to come up with a solution. i believe both democrats and republicans are at fault on this matter.
i think they should both lookout for the interest of the country. host: ok. thank you out for the call on the line for republicans. another tweet from joe ramirez. from page of "the wall street journal." to headlines to share with you. it brought formal investigation into whether google has abused -- above the fold, also in "the wall street journal" -- the story we were talking about yesterday. the u.s. and other countries
releasing about 60 million barrels of oil and 30 million in the u.s. alone. the goal is to reduce the price of gasoline as the summer travel season gets under way. that story this morning on the front page of "the wall street journal." pittsburgh on the line for independents. caller: i think we're having a terrific discussion. i'm a former u.s. marine and professor. i teach in the greta school business. -- teach in the graduate school of business. over the years, i have thought hard about how to help our country and how to strategically positioned ourselves for long- term success.
by 2020, china will have a higher gdp than the united states of america. that is shocking to me. it's shocking in that we have not figured out a way to get along with each other on both sides of the aisle. democrats and republicans, for years, continue to debate without purposeful and meaningful actions that reaches results so that american men, women, children, seniors, everybody, can have a shot at the american dream. that is what it is all about me. $14 trillion national debt. two wars costing billions. 9% unemployment rate, and that has been 7% to yield 9% since 2008 when the recession started. we are in trouble. we are in a major crisis.
the only way we will get ourselves out of this is to understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg. if the trend continues, if the trend continues, i strongly feel our country will be going down the wrong path that will produce the wrong results. i have three points i think would help. i agree with jack welch. he talked about how we can fix some things in our country. he said we have to run it like a business. a business is suffering if they have more debt than revenue. they have to figure that out, or they will go out of business. point two, we need to get out of these wars and stop these engagements with these countries. three, we need to significantly reduce our reliance on foreign
oil. we have the technology. have for years. i hope things improve in our great country. host: thank you. front page of "the new york times" above the fold. "democrats continue to press for part of the $2 trillion in savings to come from moves like phasing out some tax breaks, which republicans have said repeatedly they will not do." cynthia has this point. host: pete is joining us on the line for republicans from georgia. good morning. what is your take on all of this? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.
i believe taxes are poison. they are poison to the capitalist free enterprise system. that's what america is built on. people who cannot stand financial success demonize corporations. they feel that all corporations are evil because they make profits, and they do not take time to realize that they create all the jobs in this country. if you raise taxes, there is a trickle-down effect. that is right. the trickle-down effect by raising taxes -- jobs overseas. corporations can relocate or anywhere they want today. it's a global economy. there are dozens and dozens of countries waiting for these corporations to locate there at about 1/5 the tax rate of america. taxes are poison and they are ruining this country. thank you. host: thank you for the call.
we will have the perspectives of two members of congress, jim mcgovern and tom cole, republican of oklahoma. the house debates two resolutions on libya, to either cut funding for continued u.s. and nato operations over the next year. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern time and 6:00 a.m. for those of you on the west coast. an e-mail, and from d.w. in seattle. and another view were saying -- another viewer saying --
henry is joining us on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to remind your viewers of a couple of things. bernanke begged congress not to reduce spending. two, do you remember the phrase "loyal opposition"? it has almost been forgotten. host: from "the washington post" -- the editorial, "paging dr. coburn >' ."" "the washington post" says --
host: ruby on the line for republicans debt talks have stalled. what do think is next? caller: i'm a 74-year-old grandmother. for years and years, this has been calling on all my lifetime in one way or another. now it happens to be between the haves and have nots. we all realize we have to give a debt. why are they talking about raising debt ceiling? we'll have enough money to pay our iou's and other things. the problem is that the white house gets to decide what we do,
or the executive branch. if it goes against not raising debt ceiling, they will cut the executive branch where it hurts. george bush was a big part of it. all this with obama -- we have been living under a political oligarchy. bigtime politicians, big-time business, and big-time banks. they do not care anything about the little people. it does not make sense to raise the debt when we have $14 trillion and we cannot pay for it. our congress has to say what has to be paid first. we have an of money. the 47% of the people do not pay taxes at all. again, we cannot do that. that would mean that washington, big business, and big banks would have to give up control of money. the fair tax is wonderful. it makes everything even and it takes the power out of the
oligarchy. host: thank you for the call beach,rginia virginia. we talked to that topic with ron paul. the gas issue and the price of a gallon of gasoline is the story today on the front page of usa today -- of "usa today." a path welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. the last lady make a lot of sense. our president, when he was running, promised so many things, and we are still waiting. i remember him talking about nafta and more responsibility. i have yet to see if.
how many years do you go without a budget getting past? he is such a good fund raiser. has notshame that he i used his talents for that, like he did last night in new york city. i guess we're supposed to eat cake while he is out raising money for his reelection. that is an absurdity with the economy tanking. he has such a great talent in raising money. i believe he should, for the next year and half, show good faith and just raise money and donate it to the national debt. maybe that's something he can do. he's not doing anything as president. host: thank you. the caller from silver hill, alabama. from the jump page of "the new york times." next is hugh on the line for
republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the very first thing we need to look at is the problems we have in our country. first of all, we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank. it is killing our economy. we have to have our money based evenly with our gross domestic product. if it is not, then leave the door open for congress to spend more than we are making. if they do that, we are creating a debt. if they do not, we cannot create a debt. we have to look at where -- get back to the gold standard. host: hugh, thank you for the call. sheila bair at the national
press coverage. live coverage on c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. if you missed it, you can also check it out on our website at c-span.org. next is a caller from new york, outside of buffalo. good morning. welcome to the program. democrats' line. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. when president obama data into the tax reforms -- president obama they've been to the tax reforms, that was his first mistake. we have these lobbyists reforms. and fund raising, that lady made an excellent point about fundraising. the republicans are doing the same thing. they are fun raising billions of dollars. host: at last count, 30,000 registered lobbyists in washington, d.c. caller: exactly. where are we represented?
we are not. i'm a grandmother. i'm very concerned for my family and for my grandchildren. we are, once again, doomed to repeat history. president obama has to make a stand and so do democrats. thank you very much. have a wonderful fourth of july, america. host: thank you. the house is in session this week. congress will be out late last week and into the july 4 weekend. tim joins us from michigan. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. host: good morning. dapper,you're looking brother, as usual. host: thank you. what is on your mind? caller: as a taxpayer who has been laid off for 968 days -- host: what did you do before you got laid off? caller: i am a union
machinists. host: how long with unemployment? caller: i have been done with that. thank god for republicans. i guess i should take a job for $8 per hour. i guess i'm lazy. to take responsibility and pay taxes, oh, no, that is over the top. anyhow, i come to the conclusion that the way people vote for republicans, democrats, and then ralph nader voters. i liken that to a housewife who catches her husband with the babysitter. when the husband says, "it's not what it seems. i'm helping her cram for anatomy." the democrat voters says, "that's not what i think, but i love you, anyway, and that's ok.
the nader voter says, "that is fine. you will see my divorce lawyer in the morning, considering the fact that we do not have any kids." that's basically all i have to say. host: ok. where are you in michigan? caller: halfway between hooverville and buffalo. host: this comment -- fred has this comment from new jersey, saying the republicans and supporters think the american public is ignorant. please tell us where all of the jobs and economic growth is that
eight years of bush tax cuts and lack of oversight by republican regulators. steve is a republican, joining us from kansas. good morning. what is your take on all of this? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm proud of mr. cantor and mr. kyl for walking out on those talks. it does not make any sense with our spending so high and are debt -- and our debt so high to send a blank check to this spend-happy. when i do not have money, i have to stop spending money. i understand they are spreading the spirit taxes -- spreading these fear tactics about social security and so forth. i had a liver transplant about one year ago and i collect ssdi.
if they want to stop it, go ahead. if that's what i have to sacrifice to help set this right in our nation, i'm for it, if the republicans will hang tough. obama is in their incompetent or willfully trying to destroy this economy. that's my opinion. host: thank you for the call. the jump page of "the wall street journal" -- if you were saying -- a viewer saying -- cat, you get the last word. austin, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think what eric cantor did -- not that i respect it, but it was a well-placed strategic play.
politics today, especially with a two-party system has become not doing anything was to get into office. it has become a game of chess, where the american people are not in the game. only two people fleeing and we are not part of it -- it is only two people playing and we are not part of it. when we talk about defense spending, are we talking about cutting jobs, soldiers? if you look at how many soldiers we have in the military, that's the middle class. i kind of laugh sometimes when people say we have an all volunteer army. i guarantee, if you ask half of our soldiers if they would rather join the military to go to college or just get a free ride to college, they would just go to college. host: thank you for your call. an obituary we want to bring to
your attention, george m. white passed away this week. along serving architect of the u.s. capitol. the official charged with maintaining the structural and historical u.s. capitol. he passed away in his home pretty was named to the position in 1971 by president richard nixon. the first practicing architect to have the top job. it was also trained in electrical engineering. also, a look at the staff he had been a staff of 2300. the annual budget topping $170 million. the architect of the capitol the way this week at the age of 90. all this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3, we are taking a look at
savannah, georgia. c-span is traveling down there to get a closer look as the people in the history -- look at the people and the history. here's a closer look. >> we are a very unique city, because, number one, we were one of the very first planned communities in north america. the general came to find colony. there was a town plan that laid out squares. we called them squares. some people called them parks. other people call them a number of different things. we called them squares. at the height of the development, 24 squares.
we have maintained that system and we now have 23 squares and we are on the national register of historic places because of that design. we're very proud of that. there are a number of other things that we can take pride in, too. our port has been a leader in technology and other types of things. the first steamship sailed from savannah to england. the first nuclear ship, named " savanna" was a nuclear feat. we have had a number of things. the city of savannah, georgia has a population that, according to the 2010 census, is 55% african-american. during the slave period, is believed that half of the population at that time.
the half today and have then is very different -- and the half then is very different. i happen to be the mayor and i happen to be an african- american. in 1865, that was not even a nightmare of becoming reality. things have changed. host: a look at savannah, georgia this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. we also want to introduce you to the c-span local content vehicle. it's available on c-span.org/ localcontent. beijing in the history and the literary life of these communities -- featuring the history and the literary life of these communities. this weekend, a look at savannah, georgia. we hope you tune in. >> starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 troops of our troops from afghanistan
and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer. >> all the time line on the war in afghanistan answers over 4000 entries online at the c-span video library. p, and, watch, cli share any time. this weekend on american history tv, gettysburg college professor thompson discusses prostitution and the civil war. edwards cox talks about his father-in-law, richard nixon. get a complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history, or have it e-mailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome back to c- span congressman mcgovern.
a lot to talk about. the house taking up two resolutions on libya, one to cut funding and one to continue operations for a guest: full year -- for a full year. guest: the problem with libya is there is no clarity in our policy. i'm not sure what the endgame is. if we get gaddafi, then what? who are the good guys in libya? there's a lot of confusion as to how we get out of this war. i think that's the right thing to do constitutionally. two, i think we would have had a debate, which would have led to more clarity on a policy on libya. right now, there's a lot of frustration as to what we do in libya. host: what it's going to happen today? guest: i have no idea how the house is going to vote. i know there's a lot of anxiety over what we are doing in libya, both democrats and republicans.
it's unclear how it will work out. host: general david petraeus said he would have preferred a slower pullout from afghanistan. we heard from the president, 10,000 troops troops this year and another 20,000. your view? guest: i give the president credit for announcing we need to rethink our afghanistan policy. what he said, a drawdown of troops, 10,000 troops by the end of this year, and the remaining 23,000 at the end of 2012 -- what he announced, in my opinion, is unacceptable and insufficient. a continuation basically of the status quo. we're still going to have 100,000 troops on the ground fighting the same war with the same strategy. i think we need to rethink this. we have been in afghanistan for
almost 10 years. that's the longest war in our history. there was an article in "the washington post" a couple of days ago. he points out that u.s. involvement in world war ii -- u.s. fighting in afghanistan reached that milestone in 2005. we have played a heavy price in terms of blood and treasure. i was listening to the show and people calling in about the debt. if you are concerned about the debt, you ought to want to end these wars. we are borrowing for afghanistan alone. we are not paying for it. host: let me follow up on that. henry kissinger has an editorial that says it is a focus more on exit and less on strategy.
how do you make the cost of the last 10 years, including blood and treasure, worth something, if you do not do it in a way that provides more strategy for the afghan people, the military, and the government? guest: i am not a big fan of henry kissinger. i think he has been wrong on a lot of things over the years. putting that aside, we should be thinking about what the next step is free we should have an exit strategy. walter jones, a republican from north carolina and i, had an amendment asking the white house to give us an exit strategy. it also asked for a new intelligence estimate, so we know where al-qaeda is free we know they're not in afghanistan. osama bin laden, we got him not with 100,000 troops on the ground, but a small group of navy seals in pakistan, not even in afghanistan. the other thing would call for a plan on how to accelerate the peace talks, how to get a
political solution to what is happening in afghanistan. i do not know if that's possible. it's a very complicated place on a bunch of levels. we ought to be working with their regional players. we ought to be working with, obviously, the afghan people, to make sure there are more women and ethnic minorities at the table when we are talking about a political solution to we need to be working toward a political solution. keeping 100,000 troops on the ground for another year, another 18 months, another five years, i do not think that answers the cause of peace. host: general david petraeus said the cia budget is a bargain compared to what we're spending in the military and that the cia will have a key role in a post military afghanistan. clinton also testified on the issue of rebuilding in afghanistan. here's part of her testimony. >> i will hasten to say that we are painfully aware of today's fiscal realities.
i know that it is tempting for some to appeal of the civilian and diplomatic elements of our strategy -- to peel off the civilian and diplomatic elements of our strategy. it would be a terrible mistake. i'm not saying that just for myself, but as the commanders on the ground will tell you. the three surges worked hand in hand to you cannot cut or limit 1 and expect the other two to 60. i believe we are saving money, and much more importantly, lives, by investing now. let's not forget. an entire year of civilian assistance in afghanistan cost americans the same amount as of 10 days of military operations. host: secretary of state hillary clinton. representative jim mcgovern, your reaction? guest: in a big fan of hillary clinton.
i think she's doing a great job of secretary of state. i support trying to help the afghan people in economic aid. here is the condition i would insist on. that is that a go through not the government of afghanistan, leaders, womenl leaders, people have a proven record of not abusing our taxpayer money. one of my biggest complaint about our involvement in afghanistan has been allegiance to this karzai government, which, which, -- karzai government, which is corrupt and incompetent. he has gone to places where he should not have gone. we have seen the stories in the newspapers free we have been briefed on this stuff. we need to insist that any reconstruction dollars that go to afghanistan get there to do what they are supposed to do. i think helping the afghan people rebuild and invest is a
better way to go quite frankly that more of the same old, same old, which is more war. host: we are talking to congressman mcgovern. we will get to your questions in a moment. the other issue dominating the headlines today -- your colleague pulling out yesterday, saying it is now up to the speaker and the president to work out a final deal. guest: how childish to walk out of a negotiation. trying to figure out a way to resolve some of our challenges and deal with the debt ceiling. we need to deal with the debt ceiling in a sensible way because if we do not we defiled on our obligations. i do not know whether my republican friends are deliberately trying to undercut the economy or whether they
just are engaging in a game of stupidity. host: is there some internal gop politics on the issue of taxes? guest: maybe there is. it is just seems to me that when it comes to protecting our economy, we ought to be coming together. enough pontificating, enough partisan politics, enough's speechifying. [no audio] >> who would think the youtube rap video would become popular. ♪
>> this weekend, we will talk to the creators of "fight of the century." >> we are trying to reach people interested in the way the world works. >> sunday night at 8:00 a.mp.m. eastern. >> this weekend on c-span2, a news analyst on his belief that the government concealed the true magnitude of terrorist threats against the u.s. michael spence on how the global economy will change over the next 50 years. and an author recounts secret surgery on a president in 1963
-- 1863. >> i have the honor of representing the great people of the state of florida. i am here in the senate. today, i speak for the first time on the floor on their behalf. >> all 13 freshmen senators have given their first speech on the senate floor. see them at c-span's congressional chronicle. keep up-to-date at c- span.org/congress. >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics and the 2012 presidential race. the visit us at c-
span.org/campaign2012. >> we are having some technical difficulty with the program this morning. we hope to rejoin the conversation with congressman mcgovern in just a moment. the u.s. house is coming in today. they will be taking up a couple of resolutions dealing with u.s. involvement in the nato efforts in libya. we will have live coverage here on c-span. on c-span2 today, the house oversight committee on national security is holding a hearing on venezuela and that will be alive today on c-span3 beginning at 9:00 eastern. we hope to have technical difficulties result surely here on c-span. -- resolved shortly here on c- span.
>> again, we are having some technical difficulties this morning with our "washington journal" program this morning. we have been talking to congressman mcgovern. schedule later this hour, tom cole. the only business in the house is a couple of resolutions dealing with libya expected to get underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern. once they finish their work today, the house is done for through the july 4 week. the senate is in or will be back in it next week. today, a house subcommittee looking at of venezuela and the
>> we are having some technical issues with our live coverage of the "washington journal" this morning. we are going to show you a little bit of today's earlier portion of "washington journal." host: good morning. the house convenes in two hours as congress debates two resolutions. the 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 want to bring tax hikes into this conversation and insist that we have to raise taxes on the american people. i think mr. cantor has made it clear these conversations can
continue if they take the tax hikes out. secondly, what i said a few weeks ago after we were all down to the white house. i said that if we're going to meet the president's side, to come to an agreement by the end of the month, he needs to engage. the president is going to have to engage. host: yesterday, speaker of the house, john boehner. harry reid in "the washington post" article. joining us on the phone is lori montgomery. she has the front-page story in "the washington post" and is also available online. what is next? what happens? guest: i do not think we know
yet. the white house put out a statement from joe biden that they stand ready to meet again. i think the white house is suggesting it is the next move for republicans. john boehner clearly said it is the next move for the white house. they need to talk and figure out where they are headed. there is clearly an open channel of communication between the white house and capitol hill republicans already. john boehner met privately with obama on wednesday evening. obama is talking to mcconnell. we are calling this an impasse, but i do not think anybody has disengaged. host: let me read you one sentence from the statement issued last night by vice- president joe biden. we keep hearing "balanced approach" when it comes to reducing the debt. "this includes domestic
spending, defense spending, mandatory spending, and loopholes in the tax code's." what do the democrats want on the table and what are the republicans saying no to? guest: the democrats want any kind of revenues. i do not know what the number is. house democrats are looking for $400 billion in taxes over 10 years. it goes beyond loopholes. they're also looking at limiting capping, but the statement from joe biden seems to suggest that the white house is willing to settle for ending a variety of tax breaks. there's a huge array of things to choose from. democrats have focused on subsidies for oil and gas companies. they have talked about a special preference for private jet owners. they have talked about their
preferential treatment of income earned by hedge fund managers. there are any number of things you could choose. it could be valued at any number -- any sum of money you could pick. the odd thing is that republicans are starting to come around to this point of view, at least in the senate. we just saw a vote last week on subsidies for ethanol. mitch mcconnell voted for it. senator lamar alexander is telling people around the halls of congress that there are dozens of subsidies in the tax code that need to be gotten rid of because they are wasteful and we need to pay down the debt. it appears there's some kind of compromise. it is sort of puzzling. republicans are hardening their stands, rather than seeking to engage on it. host: lori montgomery, let me share another story with you
from "politico." guest: that is true. the announcement from cantor came at the exact moment that nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and james clyburn were at the white house telling obama what they wanted in taxes. it's my understanding that they laid out this package of $400 billion in revenue. they were told that the president supports that goal. they might not be willing to go up to $400 billion, but they are not talking about some change. they seemed to be reassured. host: we are talking to lori montgomery of "the washington post."
you have the july 4 recess and we have this deadline set by treasury secretary geithner that says congress needs to act on raising the debt limit on or before august 2. if that is the deadline, how does congress get there? guests: because we do not know the next up, we do not know they get there. next week was going to be behind the scenes communications who were not necessarily going to be in town, anyway. i think we are looking at a few days or maybe a week of quiet communications. after the july 4 holiday, i would expect someone would come out and tell us where things are headed. once they get back to july 4, they need to get this thing written into legislation. there will be fights over that. then they need to start assembling the votes. that will not be an easy process either. the sooner they get to a product
that all of them can link arms and start selling, the more comfortable the markets will be. host: lori montgomery from "the washington post thank you -- "the washington post." thank you. brad is joining us on the line for republicans. the question, what is next? what's your recommendation for congress and the president? good morning, brad. caller: hey. good morning. i would like to talk about the debt, but i would like to tie in the crisis in libya. in libya, why doesn't this make sense to the united states? the president alluded to this. participating in an international grouping -- our
ability to build capacity is vital. it will save a lot of money in terms of defense spending over the next decade. host: stay on the line. i want to tie in the headline we alluded to. the headline from "the wall street journal." "u.s. says muammar gaddafi might flee tripoli." new intelligence showing that colonel muammar gaddafi is considering fleeing tripoli. we bring this story up because the house is taking up two measures today. live coverage getting underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern on whether they cut funding for operations in libya or continue to do so for one full year. either measure passes, it will
go to the u.s. senate. brad, you also wanted to talk about debt. he hung up. we will go to carmen in hamilton, montana on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start. this is so big. when you talk about our debt, $ 14.3 trillion, all the wars we keep going to come of the 800 bases around the world, the fact that the republicans have become a party of no, it seems like a big conspiracy. we're talking about taxpayers' money. why can't americans be -- especially republicans -- have common sense. stop tax breaks for the rich. there's another thing bigger at play. read a book called -- you will
see that the bankers on this democracy. we have no democracy anymore. let's start talking about the people getting the power back. you all have to go in lockstep, because the republicans will not do anything but work for big business. big business has a stranglehold on us because they're making millions and millions and millions of dollars and we are all suffering. there are people out here in the united states that do not even have enough to eat anymore. please don't hang up on me. there's a lot going on in this country that people do not go about. one wore after another, we have been lied in to buy our -- lied into by our presidents, ever since vietnam. when they said there were weapons of mass destruction. there is $14.3 trillion we were
lied into. come on, americans. we are a bunch of dukes. we are slaves on plantation earth. i was told was that we're going to turn this full planet into plantation earth and slaves, in all colors, and all you have to do is have a social security number. host: from our twitter page -- again, the headline from "politico." the story from "the hill" newspaper. they point out that negotiations over cutting washington's debt runs into crisis after the top
negotiator walked out of the talks after the democratic counterparts demanded taxes be raised. dramatic developments suggesting the president and the speaker will speak soon. the president is waking up this morning in pittsburgh pretties at an event at carnegie-mellon university -- in pittsburgh. he is at an event at carnegie mellon university. joining us, nashville, tenn. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think what should be next is that the president needs to stop being mr. goody two >> we now rejoin "washington journal" live with congressman mcgovern of massachusetts.
host: we are back in our separate studio down here at the "washington journal." guest: i hope it was not something i said. we need to come together, democrats and republicans, and figure out a way to come up with a budget that actually helps stimulate the of economy. one of the things that the republicans are doing is they seem to want to balance the budget solely by making cuts aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable in this country. it is the wrong way to go. i think we are a better country than that. so, we need to be more balanced. the fact that mr. eric cantor walked out because -- maybe we need to ask the donald trumps of
the world to pay more taxes. tax subsidies to big oil companies -- why the hell are we doing that? the oil companies are gouging the american consumer and yet we are giving them subsidies. it does not make any sense. we are borrowing to pay for this war. pay for them. i think people are getting sick and tired of nation building over in afghanistan investing in roads, bridges, and schools that get blown up. at home, we are being told that we do not have the money to invest in the economy. we should be talking about jobs. host: we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. let me jump to where this all this to go at the end of the day. if the republicans are saying no
taxes whatsoever, democrats are going to say spending cuts and some revenue increases -- where is the compromise? guest: and the economy is in a difficult situation. we are coming out of the worst economy since the great depression. we have a huge deficit and a huge debt. we have to get that under control. you cannot solve these problems by cutting programs that benefit the most needy in our country or going after social security which is a stupid idea or medicare which is outrageous. i do not know what mr. eric cantor and others are stinking, but this notion that somehow we can cut our way out of this is not the case. one way to be helpful here is to end these wars in afghanistan and iraq. we are borrowing billions and billions of dollars that are going on to our credit cards and
adding to our debt. if you want to get serious about reducing the debt, let's talk about that rather than cutting social security checks. i want to believe that we feel we have a moral obligation to try to make sure that people have a decent life here. we should try to lift people up and not bring them down. host: we are talking to congressman mcgovern. we had a slight power problem earlier this morning. we have moved to the studio here on the first floor, but we are back on the air. robert is joining us from connecticut. good morning, robert. caller: good morning. i have a question. i am a registered democrat since i was 21. i am 81. social security is deficit spending. the reason why -- the gentle man
did not say that the the great congress that takes care of us has a stolen $2 trillion from my social security trust fund. i am paying for it now in my third reduction. the difference is being transferred to medicare which our congress has dipped into. what we put in for less, are congress uses it for themselves. why am i paying for the money that are great congress has taken from it because it is causing deficit spending. guest: i do not disagree with the gentle man. i think we have an obligation to respect of the contract that we made with senior citizens when people begin to pay into social security at a much younger age. social security is a guarantee. it needs to be there. over the years, congress has
dipped into the social security fund for different things. we have to make some adjustments so social security is there not just for the gentleman, but my kids, my grandkids, and my great grandkids. social security is one of the most important and successful programs in the country. this notion that somehow we are going to balance the budget by going after those programs and not touch subsidies of big oil companies, not insist that donald trump pay his fair share in texas, not close corporate loopholes -- it is wrong. what needs to happen is, in the short term, the republicans need to understand that in a negotiation, you have to compromise. they may not get everything they want. if at the end of the day we come up with something that enhances our fiscal status that makes us
more economically strong, then that is a good thing. if you believe the republicans are right, elect a republican president. i think it would be a terrible mistake because i think the republicans are slowing down economic growth in this country. the debt ceiling -- this could be eroding our economy. i do not know whether they do not care or they are just being absolutely reckless. walking out of meetings, throwing tantrums -- my kids do not even do that. we need to get serious again. i am not going to agree with everything that comes out of a compromise, but let's do the best we can to try to solve this issue. host: don, good morning to you. caller: good morning, sir.
my concern is two-fold. number one, we have a president who is creating jobs. if we are not going to do anything to return the manufacturing base that creates our jobs to this country, then what other options to we have to tighten our belts? guest: thank you very much and i appreciate the question. the entitlement reform alone is not going to solve our problems. the republicans of disarray medicare as we know it and try to privatize social security again. i think that is a huge mistake. if social security is privatized and we experience an economic crisis like the one we had recently, people have nothing. it is a mistake to believe that
the only way you can solve our budget problem is going after social security and medicare. those programs need to be protected and reform to be more efficient. we need to cut down on abuse, fraud, and waste. i agree with the gentleman that we need to focus on jobs and rebuild our manufacturing base, and i think the president is doing that. i give credit to steny hoyer. he is courting this phrase "made in america." we are trying to insist that money spent in government contracts are on american-made products and at the top of the list to help to find ways to support our manufacturing base so people are manufacturing in the united states and not in other countries. the jobs are the key. it is the answer to our deficit and debt problems. it would be helpful if the new
republican majority would spend at least one day on jobs. we have talked about everything about jobs. they get into a big frenzy about whether we should cut money for national public radio. that is not what people are worried about. they are worried about their economic security and jobs. let's put people back to work. i think the president is doing a good job trying to get this economy back on track. host: biggie is joining us from toronto, ohio. caller: good morning. we could change all of this by taking all of the tax breaks and loopholes out of what corporations pay, and make corporations take 50% of their profits, invest it in jobs in the united states, they can keep
the profits from the new jobs that they create, and once they make a profit, -- that way, the money will stay here and we will make jobs here. cut the gas consumption in this country by 35%. it would be easy to do and there is no problem in doing it. all we have to do is convert all of the pickup trucks in the united states to natural gas because we could put the tanks right in the bins of the trucks and we could cut the gas consumption by 35%. what do you say about that? the guest: in order to implement any of those ideas, you need a congress that will support them. we try to invest in green, clean jobs. we had a bill in the house last year that did not go anywhere in the senate.
there is a great potential out there for job creation. i urge you to pick up this week's "newsweek" with bill clinton on the cover, talking about 14 different ways to create jobs in america. he talks about the empire state building and how they are making it more energy efficient and at the same time creating more jobs. reed is at issue. there are things we can do. -- read that issue. this notion that the government cannot invest in anything anymore i think is mistaken because you have to invest to create jobs to stimulate the economy and create revenue to help pay down our deficit and our debt. i think the gentleman has some interesting -- the other thing is corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. there is something wrong when an
average person has to pay taxes , and then a corporation like ge gets a refund. why don't we all be fair about this? eliminating the loopholes. if you want to lower the corporate tax rate, i am ok with that if you eliminate all of the loopholes so everyone pays their fair share. i think that would be helpful in reducing some of our deficit problems. host: we talked about libya and the debt talks let me bring it back to afghanistan. mike mullen testified on the hill, and one of the questions posed in terms of u.s. and our counterparts in pakistan and whether they are on board with some of the changes outlined by the president this week and its impacts on pakistan. here is an excerpt from yesterday's hearing. >> one of the most important
factors as you well know is the pakistan reaction. i assume that the pakistan situation was taken into account when this decision was made. >> it was. >> what is their reaction? >> do you mean the pakistan reaction or pakistan itself? what's the reaction to the decision to have -- >> i have not gotten in yet. i spoke with my pakistani counterpart yesterday. we made many contacts. we agreed to talk in the near future after he is able to absorb it. from the standpoint of how pakistan does use the future and is consistent across their government, they see a stable, peaceful afghanistan. as a goal, they too would like to be a result of this overall
strategy. seeing is believing. over time, exactly how they view this will be determined on how this works, i think, personally. host: how did you assess the situation in pakistan and afghanistan? your thoughts? guest: i think what the president announced is insufficient. i think we should be drawing down more troops and more rapidly. as it relates to pakistan, one of the problems of this war that we are conducting in afghanistan is we are forcing thousands and thousands of militants into pakistan which is further destabilizing in pakistan. we have a very unusual relationship with pakistan. they have nuclear weapons. we are going to have to work of the complicated relationship. i believe the correct policy we
have in afghanistan is making things worse, not better. we need to rethink our afghan strategy, and we need to figure out a way to have an exit with benchmarks. we need to bring our troops home where they belong. they do not belong in the middle of mountains and deserts fighting in a fallout land in support of a corrupt government. the need to be home with their families. our men and women in uniform are too important to us. we ought to make sure that we do not put them in harm's way unnecessarily. this is a war of choice. host: good morning. caller: steve, thank you for c- span. i want to make three quick points. please let me finish these. number one, [unintelligible]
90% of the opium used in the world -- there have been trillions of dollars worth of lithium that have been found in afghanistan. this is what makes these new batteries green. number three is this. the bush tax cuts in 2001, also medicare part b, all this was put on. how you expect an economy to change when you are doing the same thing? it is stupidity. you took from social security but you gave a payroll tax cut. host: thank you for the call. guest: i agree with the gentleman that we should not have extended the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. on afghanistan, he is right.
it is a rich country in many ways and has great potential. what is in our interest is to encourage a political solution, but i do not believe that the status quo, more war and casualties and cost -- we have paid a heavy cost. we need to make it clear to mr. karzei that we are not going to continue to provide him money and support only to have it lost in corruption. to me, it is unacceptable and an insult to our men and women who are fighting over there for a government of afghanistan that is corrupt. this is a country that is not used to is centralized government. the one that we are giving them is awful. it is complicated but we need to shift gears away from war, more into encouraging a political solution cannot get the regional
players involved, find a way to protect the rights of women and minorities in afghanistan, but we need to end this war. enough. host: congressman mcgovern, you have been patiently toward time. we will get the power situation worked out the next time you come back. congressmen tom cole will be with us in a moment to talk about libya, the debt talks, and afghanistan. we will be back in a moment. ♪ >> at this weekend on c-span2, the belief that the government concealed the true magnitude of terrorist threats against the u.s. michael spence on how the global economy will change over the next 50 years and affect people in developing countries. and an author recounts president
cleveland's secret surgery in 1893. look for the complete schedule online and sign up for alerts. >> i have the honor of representing the greek people of the state of florida. >> all 13 freshmen senators have now given their first speech on the senate floor. see them at c-span's congressional chronicle, a comprehensive resource with information on your elected officials, daily schedules, and video. keep up-to-date at c- span.org/congress. >> c-span has launched a new, easy to navigate web site for politics and the 2012 presidential race with the latest events from the campaign trail, biography intermission, and updates. -- biography information, and
updates. visit us at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome tom cole. we appreciate your time and patience this morning. the house of representatives today taking up the libya issue, whether they will continue fighting or cut funding guest: i am going to vote no on both of the resolutions. i do not support the resolution, but i also do not support the alternative resolution. i think it is very well intentioned, but at the end of the day, it really does boast too much and too little. too much in the sense that we should not be micromanaging what missions the military can
do. congress should set broad objectives and support the military. you can do intelligence operations. that is way too much of a level of detail. it is too little because it really does not stop anything. but the reality is we are going to be able to continue pretty much everything that we are doing right now other than predator strikes in libya. after shooting more than 200 tomahawk missiles, there are not that many targets left. i think the resolution, you know, is designed to make us look like we are doing something, but we are still avoiding the issue at the end of the day. the president is fighting an unauthorized, illegal war. we should support the president. or we should pull the plug. just allowing this thing to continue which is what we are
effectively doing -- it enhances the power of the executive branch inappropriately. host: the republican from iowa joined as yesterday and this is what he had to say. >> there are a lot of members of this congress that when to pull out funding from libya. we can do that. i do not agree with that because we have started an operation in libya. i am glad he pulled our military out of direct engagement with the military with exception of the predators. we are flying support missions, refueling, and we are helping with our intelligence to select targets for other nato operations that are going on. we have an agreement with nato, a nato treaty. i do not want to see congress navigate a treaty with nato for the same reasons i talked about america's resolved. there are a lot the
rearrangement in the world that will take place. eastern europe will take a look at this and say now you pulled out of an agreement with nato in the middle of the operation over libya. america has to be a reliable partner. i think the congress needs to recognize that. host: congressman cole, how do you respond? guest: i have enormous respect for steve. i disagree with him in this case. first of all, you have to go back to the basics of why we are there. the united states was not attacked. no member of nato was attacked. muammar gaddafi is a terrible guy. the reality is, since 2003, he has turned over his weapons- grade material to us and does not allowed al-qaeda to operate within his territory. if you are going to decide to take him out because he is a bad
guy -- why we got into this is a mystery i think to everybody. the reality is we just decided we want to be on the side of the arab street or the uprising. we thought muammar gaddafi was going to fall pretty quickly. it turned out he has an army that even after we pounded it is willing to fight at some level. he has a measure of popular support. the rebels that we have aligned with are not strong enough to bring this to a successful conclusion. i do not think it has been well thought through. it is true that there is a nato operation under way, but again, the alliance was not created simply to police the world. it was created to protect its members. the united states was attacked from afghanistan. it does not make a lot of sense for us to be in libya unless you
are going to intervene politically in a lot of other places. host: i want to talk to you about the budget talks and afghanistan lisa has been patient. thank you for waiting. caller: i am very concerned about my country. all i see is a president who continues to run around congress. i do not appreciate the fact that he has drug us into libya without the consent of congress. i do not know if you are aware of it, sir, but samantha powers has made comments about using nato forces to go in against israel in defense of the palestinians. if you guys are not going to hold president obama accountable for dragging us into a war without consent, what will you
do if he does this in september and uses nato forces to go into israel? guest: first of all, i agree very much with your comments about libya. we have allowed the president to wage an unauthorized war. we are robbing peter to pay paul. we are allowing the president to continue. that is why i do not plan to support these resolutions today. i am not aware of the comments that you refer to. i think it is unlikely that that will happen. i do not think nato has an appetite to do it. nato is having a problem dealing with a country of 6.5 million that has no where near the capabilities of israel. i do not think that would occur. host: tom cole represents
oklahoma's fourth congressional district. rebecca is joining us on our line for democrats. go ahead, please. caller: i am glad to see and hear that the republicans are against going into libya and also wanting us to get out of afghanistan. what authorization it did president bush have to go into iraq which cost us a fortune? now the republicans are so concerned about our deficit. what happened during the eight years at that bush was in as the president? the republicans were running the country and they were spending money as if it was their money. they were spending the taxpayers' money, and now you are so concerned about our deficit and trying to put the deficit on the backs of the people who are losing their jobs, losing their homes, and now you still want to keep the
tax cuts for the rich and give corporate america and all of the bank's all of the loopholes that they have? i think the american people -- the republicans are destroying our country, and we are not as stupid as you think we are. guest: there is a lot to respond to their so i will do the best i can. look, i do not see the libyan question as deficit-related. i think if we go to war, we ought to authorize it by congress. iraq was authorized as was afghanistan. president bush got the authorization just as his father did back in the gulf war. i think that is the right way to do things. i do not think that is what we have done with libya at all. we have engaged in semantics.
i think if you are at the receiving end of that, -- i just disagree fundamentally with what the president has done and how he has gone about it. i disagree that we have not held him accountable in a way that i think we should. in terms of deficit spending, for what it is worth, the deficit was $167 billion with the last congress left office in 2006. that is too big of a deficit but it is not $1.50 trillion the way it is now. we have ramped up spending very rapidly and have put off dealing with entitlements situations. we are approaching a debt crisis. republicans have put their ideas on the table. what we have not had our counter proposals from democrats. they have not put any proposals
for dealing with entitlements on the table. the president's own budget was rejected by the senate 97-0, meaning a got no democratic votes. i think there have been a lot of bob and weave on both sides but more on the democratic side. put some more concrete proposals on the table. i think that is what republicans are trying to do. host: as the former chair of the nrcc, as you look ahead to 2012 for the house of representatives, will the republicans gain or lose seats? guest: i think we will hold the majority. no president has shifted control of the house in the reelection campaign since harry truman in 1948. this is the largest republican majority since 1947. i expect this to be a closer presidential election than what we had in 2008. the president had everything
going for him in terms of numbers. there was a financial crisis on the bush watch. john mccain still got over 170 electoral votes. i am expecting a very competitive election. within that context, i think we basically have the status quo tight election. -- type election. this is a pretty good class of freshmen. the nrcc is very well-prepared. we will have some offensive opportunities of our own. there are some democrat seats that will be available. i think we will hold the majority and run a very close president to raise. i think we have a good shot of taking the u.s. senate. i am looking forward very much to the 2012 election.
host: do you think that the republicans could lose some house seat? guest: absolutely. normally after you have a big game like this, you receded somewhat. in the 1994 class, -- the really neat election was in 1996. we did lose seats in 1996. we lost seats in 1998. we lost one seat in 2000. the enormous gains, sometimes then you settle back to more realistic numbers. that is certainly possible in this case, but again, i think holding the majority -- i think we are very unlikely to lose the majority. host: keith is joining us on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your service. can i ask a question first?
sir, do you know who the first casualty of war was in afghanistan? his name was john michael span. he was a contractor for the cia and was questioning the taliban in a prison. our military took the country in two weeks without a casualty. john walker is about to get out of prison. we are so schizophrenic about this. we need to go back to the art of war -- we need to go back to " the art of war." i believe we do not even need troops on the ground. we have b2 bombers. this slow thing of predators and apologizing every day for civilian casualties, we need to start leveling these governments the first day and apologize for
the civilians and that day and then let them rebuild their own country. guest: well, you know, actually, i would disagree respectively in terms of having troops on the ground. secretary gates and secretary clinton said before the administration was committed to libya and no-fly zone usually does not bring down a government. we did that in iraq for many years. saddam hussein managed to hold power and the same thing in libya. even the active use of forces from the air to engaged libyan forces on the ground, so far, we have not broken that regime. it is not something that you need to worry about militarily. there are times when you need to put troops on the ground. in terms of being careful about our involvement, i think that is accurate.
you make an interesting point about afghanistan. the first five years, there were fewer than 160 american deaths associated with afghanistan. it looked pretty successful for a long period of time. it is certainly much tougher now because the death total is up to 1500. you have to remember that we were attacked from afghanistan. we have an interest in somebody being able to control the territory. we have been more successful there than what people acknowledge. osama bin laden what has been killed. the reality is the taliban does not control the country. they control parts of the country, so we have not seen terrorism reconstitute itself on the ground. there is seven times as many people in school. the a economy is actually better. there is an enormous corruption problem, no question about it. but afghanistan is better off
now. the real question -- the challenge for the president and the congress going forward is everyone wants to draw down. how quickly do you do it? i give the president a lot of credit when he arrived. he tripled the number of troops and fired two generals. he also said very clearly that we would not be there forever, that we were going to accomplish some things and stand up the afghans. he has kept to his promises. we can debate about whether this drawdown is not fast enough or maybe too fast, maybe running the risk of some fragile gains. but it fits within the parameters of what the president told us he was going to do. i think you have to recognize that and you have to recognize that we have a long-term security interest. we have been in afghanistan before. we were heavily involved there in directly. we left and we saw what happened
when we left completely. it was the lesson that we learned after the first world war. we were fighting the same people. we stayed continuously engaged in europe. i think we do not need the level of engagement today indefinitely, but we are going to be in afghanistan for probably a long time. host: what happens next? guest: i think we have it down to the principles now. this is going to be -- president obama, speaker john boehner, and majority leader harry reid decision. it is time for them to get around and negotiate something. host: republican congressmen tom cole, thank you for being with us. for the callers, thank you for being patient. we apologize for the technical difficulties earlier in the program. there are two resolutions that lawmakers will be voting on.
one will limit the use of nato forces for one year and the other would eliminate funding as appropriate by the department of defense for the libyan operations. live coverage to up the morning here on c-span. the vote is expected later in the day. check out our coverage of savannah, ga., this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. you could check it all out on our website at c-span.org and our new local content vehicle. i think you for being with us on this friday. enjoy the rest of your day and have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.
eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and women of the people's house. enable them, o god, to act on what they believe to be right and true and just and to do so in ways that show respect for whom they disagree. in this may they grow to be models and good examples in a time when so many in our world are unable to engage gracefully with those they are at odds with. may the members realize that your congregation is wider and broader than ever we could measure or determine. help them and help us, o lord, to put away in the judgments that belong to you and do what we can to live together in peace. as we approach this next recess, bless our great nation and keep it faithful to its ideals, its hopes and its promise of freedom in our
world. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within the people's house be 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 gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee: please join us in the pledge to our flag. 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 texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> i ask unanimous consent to
revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, later this morning we will be debating and voting on two resolutions dealing with libya. mr. paul: the first one, h.j.res. 68, will be one to endorse exactly what the president has been doing. it doesn't talk about special forces, c.i.a. and unlimited bombing which is what we have to expect. the second one, h.r. 2278, has said to be more strongly worded on restraint from the president and this is where i disagree. i believe the wording is different and it says no funds for ground troops but then it has exceptions and the exceptions are for all the things that we're already doing. so i believe if we vote and pass the second one it will be the first time this congress has given authority to the president for what he is doing right now. so i urge my colleagues to look at both of these carefully.
i have concluded that not only should the first one be voted on but it is very important that the second one be voted down as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, good morning. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: we've been in iraq for eight leers and a long-term cost of at least $8 trillion. those who said we would be in libya for days are now wanting to extend it for a year. it is surreal that we are considering this war at a time when the government is collapsing in debt. those who told us the war in libya was to save civilian lives shifted to regime change. we launched hundreds of cruise missiles and dropped tons of bombs on libya. since nato took over, the u.s.
has struck from the air at least 90 times including drone attacks. but these are not hostilities, claims the white house. so what business is it of congress? we must put an end not only to the war in libya but we must put an end to the thinking that the constitution is a door mat and our constituents must simply bear the consequences of the misguided policies of this administration without this congress having any say whatsoever. defeat the authorization for the war. vote for the rooney bill which limits the war and when we return let's vote for a total cutoff of funds for this wrong-headed adventure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? mr. nunnelee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, president obama executed a shortsighted energy plan and released 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. all while the united states combine recoverable oil,
natural gas and coal resources is 1.3 trillion billion of barrels equivalent. the largest in the oil. we have 40,000 times more american natural resources under our ground than the amount president obama took out of the strategic petroleum reserve. drawing down reserves intended for national emergencies is far from the energy plan we need, especially when we're sitting on abundant resources. president obama must quit blocking american energy production. mr. president, if you want to make us energy secure, if you want to see a thriving economy creating jobs, if you want to free americans from the burden of high gas prices, unleash the power and ingenuity of american energy exploration and do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow marks the fifth anniversary of the abduction of israeli soldiers staff sergeant shaleet from inside israel's borders from the terrorist organization hamas. mr. deutch: for five years they have violated the human rights conventions by denying him contact with his family and visits by the international red cross. now, hamas wants to be partners with the palestinian authority. if the palestinian authority is determined to proceed authority with hamas then president obama must demand that they free the sergeant. israel can never be expected to negotiate with an organization that remains bent on its destruction but if hamas ever expects to have a seat at the table it must show good faith now and immediately release shaleet. we stand here with our great ally, israel. we stand here with allies from europe and throughout the world. we stand with all who believe in and fight for basic human
rights. anyone who can hear my voice knows that shaleet must be released. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, america's third war continues. the president's third war in libya is unconstitutional and it also violates the war powers resolution. even the administration says libya is not a national security risk to america. so why are we at war in libya? because the french want us there. mr. speaker, don't you think we've done enough for the french in world war i, world war ii and even in independento china what we now call vietnam? the cost has been over $700 million to the american taxpayer. mr. speaker, don't you think that money, that millions of money could be better spent
building america instead of blowing up libya? and who are these rebels in libya that we're supporting? of course, omar gaddafi is a tyrant, but we may end up replacing an oppressive regime with an extreme radical regime. now, isn't that lovely? congress should cut off all funds to the president's little war in libya and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. garamendi: it appears this morning and today that the house of representatives and congress will be carrying out its constitutional responsibilities dealing with the war in libya. resolutions will be on the floor. appropriately we will be voting today on whether we want to end, limit or extend. for me i think we have to carry out the u.n. resolution that calls for the right to protect
or the obligation and duty to protect. that's why the libyan situation started. that needs to be completed. i would suggest that the hastings resolution that gives a year is good in that it provides the necessary restrictions on the white house and on the military, end the libya operation and basically puts the united states in a support position. i would prefer that there be an amendment to that. perhaps it will be in a recommendation to recommit. that will be limited to six months. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. there are many issues that we must address in this agust body but it's tragic to note that we've been here for 24 weeks since the g.o.p. took
responsibility and control of this house, and we have done nothing to create jobs. in fact, the majority leader's indicated the republicans have no plans to do anything on jobs through this summer. why does this pose a crisis? because in the midst of all of this, a number of merges are coming into fruition. in particular, the united continental mentaler. we've already had an announcement -- continental merger. we've already had an announcement that houston will lose 1,500 jobs and no response from united continental. in fact, united had a recent collapse of its database or system and caused massive shutdowns and clogging of the system where passengers were stuck in airports because they couldn't get their planes off the ground. when we have mergers with no restraint and no oversight we have a problem. so jobs are necessary to be created and there needs to be oversight of mergers like continental and united so that
communities like houston and elsewhere can't lose jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a piece of american history and to pay tribute to the americans that created it. 2011 marks the 50th anniversary of the international harvester scout, the first scout built out of american ingenuity and steeled, rolled off the assembly line 50 years ago in fort wayne, indiana. literally drawn on a napkin in a kitchen table. my good friend from virginia, mr. donnelly, and i will talk about the iconic story of the scout. we talk about the stories of
the people that keep it alive. people respect our history and believe it is worth preserving. the scout reflects the exceptional american personality. ingenuity, thriftiness and a can-do spirit. it was built in the heartland of indiana. honoring our history reminds us of what we were capable of together in this great nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, -- mr. mica: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on transportation and ways and means be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2279 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2279, a bill to amend the internal revenue code
of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49, united states code, to extend the airport improvement program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is engrossed, read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. petri: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed, h.r. 2279. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 28, and when it adjourns that day it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on friday, july 1, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 328 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 48, house resolution 328. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, house joint resolution 68, authorizing the limited use of the united states armed forces in support of the nato mission in libya, if called up by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or her designee.
all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one, 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. and two, one motion to recommit. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 2278, to limit the use of funds appropriated to the department of defense for united states armed forces in support of north atlantic treaty organization operation, unified protector, with respect to libya. unless otherwise specifically authorized by law. if called up by the chair of the
committee on armed services or his designee. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate overwhelm. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, house resolution 328 provides a closed
rule for consideration of h.r. 2278 and h.j.res. 68. the rule provides a total of three hours of debate in this chamber on this vitally important issue of u.s. military operations in libya. the rule also provides the minority with two separate motions to recommit with or without instructions. mr. speaker, it was in this week in 1788, june 21 of 1788 that the united states ratified its constitution. that constitution that still serves us so well today. in that constitution our framers made clear that the power of the purse belongs here and here alone. here in the people's house. here on capitol hill. on that constitution made clear that the power to declare war arrive here and here alone.
on june 3 of this year, by a vote of 268-145, the house of representatives passed a resolution asking the president to make clear what his intentions are in libya. asking the president to come and consult with congress, to get congress' permission to seek our authority to prosecute those hostilities in libya. we received some information from the white house since then. we have gotten a letter from the white house since then. we even have classified documents since then, but what we have not had since then, mr. speaker, is an opportunity for the american people to make their voice heard on this important issue, because after all this isn't an issue for congress. because as a congressman it's not about my voice, it's about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that i represent that i bring here to congress. and those people's voice have
yet to be heard on this libya issue. operation odyssey dawn in full operation now since the month of march, and the people's voice has still not been heard. but today, mr. speaker, the rules committee as one of the longest standing committees in this u.s. house of representatives, first constituted in 1789, the rules committee is making that opportunity available with these two resolutions. mr. speaker, my hope is that the people's voice will be heard today. that these hour upon hour of debate that we have today, these two very different choices for where this country goes that the american people will for the first time have their voice heard on the question of libya. as you know, mr. speaker, when we come back in july we are going to take up the f.y. 2012 defense bill. we'll take up and start considering amendments when we return. we'll again have this opportunity to have our voice
heard because, mr. speaker, there is an entire gradation of options we have here. are we going to declare war on libya? are we going to allow the president to continue what he's doing in libya? are we going to shut down funding for troops on the ground in libya? are we going to shut down funding for libya altogether? these are the questions the rules committee has made available today and next week -- two weeks from now that this house will be able to have its voice heard. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- new york rise? ms. slaughter: to bring up the bill. i ask unanimous consent that i may consume such time as i need. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: appreciate it. first i want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time. mr. speaker, we are considering matters of war and peace today. on sunday our nation will be engaged in military action in libya for 100 days. the actions taken by the
president have a great impact on the constitutional role of congress and the role of the united states abroad. taken together these are among the most important issues that we as members of congress will ever consider. these are the very debates scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades to come. given these fundamental issues, the american people deserve full and thorough consideration it should be afforded to all legislation introduced in the body with committee hearings and debate followed by an open and regular process in a thoughtful debate by the whole house. in 1990 when i was first here, the body considered a resolution regarding matters of war and peace. at the request of president george h.w. bush, both chambers of the united states congress engaged in a debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in the persian gulf. i have vivid memories of those
debates long ago into the night with the issues being debated in committees, marked up by both parties, brought to the house floor for final debate before the american public. on that particular measure, concerning the persian gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 members spoke. it was one of the most thorough airing of our constitutional obligations that i have witnessed. in exchanges that can only be publicly accessed and viewed today, members of the house and our colleagues in the senate engaged in an intelligent, enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, dangers, necessaryities of passing a resolution authorizing american troops to engage in military force overseas. it was accompanied by an overriding sense of duty to our country. a belief that congress would reach a decision based upon a
thoughtful and prudent vote of its members and reflection of a common interest of all its citizens. as the stories wept back on the debate over the persian gulf, they can clearly see a vibrant democracy. a democracy that is engaged in robust debate. in a democracy earnestly working together for the best interest of its people. two decades later, we stand in a room that's imbued with this history where that debate took place, but we avoid robust debates that preceded us here today. the way in way today's measures are made change the dignity and tradition of this body. today's resolutions about our actions in libya have been rushed through the house of representatives. they were written behind closed doors through neither committee hearings or markups. the two resolutions are being sent out in a single closed rule following an emergency meeting of the rules committee yesterday
afternoon. the process by which these measures received through the rules committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that we are being asked to vote for here today. late tuesday night, 10:00 i believe, we were given two resolutions for emergency meeting on wednesday. they were added as emergency items to our afternoon meeting, but when we got to the rules committee they had been pulled from the agenda. it wasn't until 9:00 p.m. wednesday that we received the text of h.r. 2278. yesterday we were notified that the rules committee would meet on this new and unvetted bill along with one of the original two resolutions less than three hours before the meeting began. we now stand on the house floor being asked to vote for a closed rule. we will then be asked to consider two resolutions of historic proportions with no
ability to shape and adjust the measures to reflect the true will of the house. mr. speaker, i regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through congress and i apologize to future generations who will look back on the work we are doing today to try to understand the time. quite simply the legislative process matters. historians, scholars, and future members of congress will look back at -- to today to see how their forebearers shaped this contry. in the case of the resolution of the persian gulf, they'll see how a democratic process thrived whether one agreed with the resolution or did not. shamefully in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a dysfunctional, democratic process. one that has committed a disservice to the american people, to the dignity of the house of representatives, and the future of the united states. by avoiding a true debate on one
of the most important issues of our time. for these very reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no on today's rule and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a gentleman who has great reference to the united states constitution, the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this rule although i have a lot of complaints about how we deal with the issue of war. this is a debate that should have gone on four months ago before the war was started, and if we had done this properly, we wouldn't be bringing it up quickly. no committee work. no discussion. no chance for amendment. but nevertheless i will support the rule because at least we get a chance to talk a little bit about what's going on in libya. we have two resolutions that will come up under this rule. the first resolution generally i understand most individuals
aren't too keen on this because it's an endorsement, rather expolicity endorsement of the war and i obviously would be opposed to h.j.res. 68. my greatest concern is about h.r. 2278 because the way i read this resolution is that it essentially grants the same authority that we grant in the first one, because we say that no funds can be used, deny the use of funds, but how can you deny the use of appropriated funds when they are using funds that weren't appropriated? it's so redundant. the funds were never appropriated so yes, it's a good statement. you don't continue to be illegal is what we are saying. but what i'm concerned about are the exceptions. all the exceptions are the things they are doing. like search and rescue, intelligence gathering, renaissance, surveillance, refueling, operations planning, and doing everything except pulling the trigger.
we are legalizing that. i believe that h.r. 2278 is the first time that we in the congress are making a statement that we are granting authority to the president to pursue this particular war. so i am in strong opposition to that resolution as well although i understand the other side of the argument because it says denial of funds. but the resolution actually says that the main reason, the author of the resolution said, the reason why we have the exception is to protect the integrity of our contractor agreement with nato. in the resolution the resolution says we have to stop the funding because we don't want to support nato's war. so it's totally inconsistent. makes no sense whatsoever. but it reminds me of the war powers resolution. after the vietnam war, we didn't want to get into that kind of war anymore so they come along to congress and with great good
intentions design the war power resolution which legalized war for 90 days. that's part of the reason why we are here. here we are going into the fourth month, dealing with a war powers resolution. there's a simple solution to all this. and that is obey the constitution, don't allow our presidents to go to war without a declaration of war, and we wouldn't be facing this problem of this debate to actually -- that actually gets a little silly on restraining the president. yes, we should. we should exert ourselves. we have the prerogatives and obligations. we have avoided it. it's time to stand up for the rule of law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. . ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank -- i thank the gentlelady for yielding, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the
hastings resolution and in support of the rooney resolution. this morning's paper, "new york times" says this is a dangerous resolution because it would allow financing only for american surveillance search and rescue missions, planning and refueling and would halt drone strikes on attack on libyan air defenses. it would damage the american credibility of nato. mr. speaker, i think the nation's credibility, that is to say the promise to go to war, ought to be backed by congress, ought to be damaged. we've been fighting for seven years in a situation where congress has nothing to do about the decision to impto war or not and the president is becoming an absolute monarch. and we must put a stop to that now if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic. this country was set up to be a reason lick with the basic questions of war and peace
addressed by this congress. because of the bombers coming over, we lost a lot of that people. we seded it to the president. the fact is there was no imminent threat to the united states. the secretary of defense said that. there's plenty of time to negotiate with the arab league. plenty of time to go to the u.n. there should have been time to get -- not consultations with congress but authorization from congress. the absence of that authorization, we have to put our foot down now and say no. if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on american military intervention unless congress is aboard for the ride, good. that's a good thing. the power of the presidency -- and i'm not talking about this president. as was said by charles james fox in 1780, the power of the crown, in this case the power of the president, ought to be diminished.
the question to go to war or not ought to rest here. it's time to put our foot down now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i am pleased to recognize two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: i thank my colleague from georgia for yielding time. i rise today in support of this rule and of h.r. 2278, a bill to prohibit funds for continued u.s. military involvement in libya except for operations involving search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ariel refueling, and planning. in 2007 -- arial refueling and planning. in 2007 the junior senator, barack obama, confidentially proclaimed to "the boston globe" this comment.
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 act -- an actual or imminent threat to the nation. end quote. however, now that he is not attacking political opponents, that -- that stance has proven inconvenient. prompting one of his many, many flip-flops such as his vote opposing to raise the debt limit. regardless of one's position on the constitutional powers of the president's -- president, commander in chief, or the congress to declare war, the legislative branch unquestionably yields the power of the purse. this bill represents a proper exercise of that power, pure and simple. the bill does not leave our military personnel in danger of circumstances without the funds or supplies they need. it does not require precipitous
withdrawal since without a ground presence there is nowhere from which to withdrawal. the bill simply denies u.s. taxpayer funding for what the president calls a kinetic activity but what the world recognizes as an ongoing bombing campaign in libya. it is for these reasons and many more that i urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support h.r. 2278. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: 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-on discussion about how we are to proceed. we are basically going to have two options. both of them with inadequate discussion.
i guess we're down to that point now where we have no more alternative but to use the one hour. so here we are debating this issue at this moment. for me, there's a very important principle that was enunciated by the united nations which was the obligation to defend and protect, and that was the basic rationale with this country moving forward with the libya operation. yes, the president should have come to us earlier, should have come to us at the beginning and allowed the congress to carry out its constitutional obligations. yes or no? but here we are, the obligation or the right or necessity to defend is very important. that's why we're there. we need to provide the president with the necessary powers to carry out that obligation in a very limited period of time. we will see that this afternoon or later this morning with the hastings amendment. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york.
ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased that the house has the opportunity today to have an actual serious debate on the war with libya. like most americans, i'm disappointed in any argument that says we are not at war. i believe that argument shows contempt for the constitution and for the executive's co-equal branch of government, the united states congress. how can this not be war? if another country launched aggressive air strikes against the united states, you better believe we'd consider an act of war -- consider it an act of war. does anyone remember pearl harbor, 9/11? we definitely considered those acts of war against our country. to say the bombing of libya does not rise to the level of hostilities flies in the face of common sense. mr. speaker, our nation can't afford a third war. the ones we're already fighting are bankrupting us morally and
fiscally. this congress must reassert our power of the purse and not fund an unauthorized war. and today we must send a clear message. the american people and this congress will not support perpetual war. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dreier: i thank my friend from lawrenceville for his particular stellar management of this very important rule, but i have to say, mr. speaker, that it sadens me greatly that we are here on -- sadens me greatly that we are -- saddens me greatly that we are here on the house floor to debate this. we are in the midst of a celebration. the celebration is described as the arab spring. we saw a few months ago a young
merchant in a small town in tunisia very, very distraught over the fact that a government official came and took his scale away from him and took it to the government office and he went back and asked for it, and when he made that request he was denied it. and he basically said he'd had enough. so this man chose to set himself a fire in this square of this tiny town in tunisia. as we all know that launched what has become known as the arab spring. the economist magazine very appropriately said that one of the great developments that the arab spring has brought is that we have now seen those so-called barbarians in the arab world, in the muslim world move towards
self-determination. many people in the west and in other parts of the world very arrogantly said there's no way in the world those people could possibly make great strides towards political pleuralism, the development of the rule of law, self-determination. but in fact we saw beginning with this one very sad act people throughout the arab world in not only tunisia but egypt, bahrain and, yes, in libya demonstrate their frustration over authoritarian dictatorships that were actually undermining the potential of the people of each of these countries. and so that's why, mr. speaker, it saddens me greatly that we are here today doing it is we're doing. why? because we should be in the midst of a celebration, a celebration of these very bold
and dynamic steps that are being taken throughout the arab world, and why is it that we're here? we're here because what has been described by members on both sides of the aisle as -- i mean, i just heard my friend from new york describe the actions of this presidency as being the act of a monarch. mr. speaker, i think it's very important for us to look at recent history. if we go back to the 2006 election, the republicans lost the majority in large part because of the war in iraq. democrats and republicans alike acknowledged that. there's an important distinction that needs to be made. if one goes back and looks at the action that was taken by president bush, he chose to come to this congress. he wanted the support of the american people through their
elected representatives and senators to be behind his effort. we all know that he reached out to the united nations, built a coalition, and there was lots of trove. there continues to this day to be trove. the congress has been involved in every instance, not every but many instances in the past. we know, as my friend from grandfather community, north carolina, had just said that president obama, when he was a candidate in the united states senate, his campaign for the presidency in large part centered around this notion of bringing home the troops. we had his speech night before last on dealing with afghanistan and his notion that we were going to bring these efforts to an end. i would argue, mr. speaker,
that as we -- i said should be in the midst of celebrating the arab spring, we probably would have had when one thinks about the actions that took place in libya, we probably would have had, mr. speaker, pretty broad support here in the congress for the action that was taken by the president. if there had been an early authorization of this. now, it is as i said very sad that we are here now because i think democrats and republicans alike acknowledge that this has been very, very poorly handled. now, mr. speaker, i don't know if there is -- mr. woodall: i'd be happy to yield two additional minutes to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: thank you for yielding. i said as we look at this, mr. speaker, i think we need to recognize there are very other troubled spots in the world. we just today had gotten word of thousands of syrians who
were fleeing to turkey because of the barbaric acts that have taken place there. and so i think as we look at the great positive steps that have been taken in the arab world, we need to make sure that the united states congress and the president of the united states are in this together. there should be consultation and authorization to deal with this. and, mr. speaker, i got to say that as we look at this rule itself, i really am absolutely stunned, absolutely stunned at the kinds of things that i heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. . as my good friend from new york knows, as we began debate on this, we had complete compliance with the three-day layover requirement. we have these measures before us. i say to my friend from rochester, mr. speaker, there was not a single amendment
offered in the committee on rules to deal with this. not a single amendment offered and in fact one of these measures is offered by a republican, the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney. the other is offered by a democrat, the other gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. and so when i think about 3:00 in the morning on june 26, 2009, we had begun on 2005, june 25 of 2009, we began the debate on this horrible idea of cap and trade. and it was 3:00 in the morning that i was sitting upstairs with my rules committee colleagues, mr. speaker, and dropped in my lap, still hot because it had just come off the copying machine, was 300 pages of an amendment that we reported out force --
mr. woodall: two additional minutes. mr. dreier: at :00 this is morning we were handed this measure. what we have before us as again complied with the three-day layover requirement, not a single amendment was offered, and there is a proposal offered by a democrat and a proposal offered by a republican. and so, mr. speaker, i have to say that i believe that this rule is one that does allow for a free flowing debate. it allows for an opportunity to consider this. and it's not as if we haven't been engaged in this discussion for a long period of time. my friend from cleveland is here and he has played a very, very constructive role in leading the charge on this over the past several weeks as he often does. and i believe that our ability to continue this debate is an important one. again, mr. speaker, let me just conclude by saying, it sadents me that a time when we should be celebrating the fact that there are people in the arab world seeking the opportunity to enjoy
the kinds of freedoms that we have here in the united states of america, that the president of the united states has chosen to go it alone without recognizing the very, very important responsibility of the first branch of the united states government. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: the right to protect civilians has more of-- morphed into the right to change regime and destroy civilians. the situation is positively orwellian. it's all going wrong. even early supporters of the war are changing their minds. i quote from al jazeera a couple days ago. italy's foreign minister and the outgoing head of the arab league have called for a halt to hostilities in the war-torn african country. members of parliament were told
on wince that suspension of military operations in libya was essential for humanitarian aid. and the arab league chief called for political solution to the crisis. the sentiment was shared by the italian foreign minister who called for urgent humanitarian aid to trapped residents. he said the people in those areas face a dramatic humanitarian situation, and added that a suspension of hostilities would also avoid consolidating a division of libya between east and west. he said he hoped the european council in brussels on thursday would highlight an end to the fighting in libya as a practical solution. the question is, mr. speaker, will congress rush into the breach here? while our allies are headed to the exit. h.r. 2278 by million rooney would immediately prevent the administration from engaging in direct offensive hostilities in libya and it ought to be
supported. now the resolution isn't perfect. it doesn't end the war in its entirety immediately, but it does make clear that the united states will not take over the war as european support continues to diminish. i propose an amendment with representative amish of michigan and others to the defense authorization bill that would eliminate all funds from military operations in libya. i urge a vote for this bipartisan amendment when we come back after the recess. h.r. 2278 and the kucinich-amash amendment, if we want to end u.s. involvement. do it in two steps. first step vote for h.r. 2278, second step vote for kucinich-amash when we come back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady. i thank the speaker. i stand here this morning as someone who has opposed the iraq
war and consistently opposed the afghanistan war upped both republican and democratic presidents. i think it is foreign to stop the politics this morning and recognize that mistakes were made by presidents of all political parties. the war powers resolution that is now being debated as being unconstitutional by my republican friends has a strong purpose. it is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the constitution of the united states, assure the collective judgment of both the congress and president will apply to the introduction of the united states armed forces in the hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly going to occur. now we have republicans suggesting that the war powers resolution is unconstitutional. what do they want? this is a political game. i voted for mr. kucinich's resolution and the republicans had the opportunity to also vote for mr. kucinich's resolution. this is to embarrass the
president. now, i agree with the underlying sentiment that this was handled badly. and that there should have been consultation. now there is an opportunity for authorization. we need to debate this not whether it is president obama but whether or not there is a collaborative effort between nato and the arab league to address this hostile situation in libya. and frankly i don't like the politics of this. the politics says it's ok if the republican president but not ok if it's mr. obama. i am interested in preserving the integrity of this constitution and have consistently voted that congress has a right to declare war. but we are now engaged in a consultation process. and i hope members will engage in the debate on the basis of the right decision to make. i am against war. bring the troops home from afghanistan. end the war in iraq. but right now this should not be republicans against democrats on the question of whether or not we are in a collaborative effort
with nato on this issue of libya. we are attempting to save lives, take the politics out of it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i yield an additional minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentlelady. i went to the libyan embassy at the very start of this horrific crisis and stood with the libyan ambassador that resigned and called for the resignation of general gaddafi. today i continue to call for the end of violence and abuse against the libyan people. we have to address this question away from the cloud of politics. we must adhere to the constitution. congress' right to declare war. i can't understand this now backside debate about the war powers resolution. being constitutional. for some of us we believe that the contents of it insist that it is. so my point to my colleagues is,
the kucinich resolution was on the floor and every republican had the opportunity to vote for it. why we are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had, i believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this administration and president obama. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say i absolutely agree with the gentlelady. this is no place for politics. and that's why as mr. kucinich has led this effort time and -- after time after time. he's had tremendous support from the republican side of the aisle. this is not about republicans and democrats. this is about the constitution of the united states. this is about the 911,000 people i represent back home. this is about the people's voice of being behind the president. as the chairman of the rules committee said, this shouldn't be a time for division, this
should be a time for unification. i absolutely agree with my colleagues who are concerned about the debate happening today on june this. the time for the debate -- 24. the time for the debate was march 18. the time for the debate was before this got started to begin with, but we have been put in this box, mr. speaker, and we have a constitutional responsibility to find our way out of it. we have on the floor today under this rule, two opportunities, two opportunities to make our constituents' voices heard and i encourage a strong yes vote for this rule so we can bring those opportunities to the floor. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time of the the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, who -- let me just reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. ms. slaughter: i see ms. lee is back. i'm happy to yield two minutes
to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. and for her leadership. and for the very important debate. this morning let me just say this debate i believe should have taken place at least two weeks prior to the war in libya. the war powers act specifically forbids armed forces from engaging militarily in foreign lands for more than 60 days without congressional authorization of the use of military force or declaration of war. and we should really make no mistake about it. we are at war in libya today. and we have been actively fighting in the gaddafi regime
in libya since march 19, which is 97 days ago. no one in this house now would defend the deplorable actions of colonel gaddafi and the decades he has spent repressing the libyan people, but no one should fail to recognize the actions we have taken in libya since march 19 amount to a war. missile strikes, naval attacks, bombing of strategic military targets. all of these actions would be a declaration of war if a foreign country launched such attacks on any country, including our own soil. we have committed $1 billion and thousands of service men and women to a new front. and regardless of one's position on our involvement in libya, one point is crystal clear, this debate should have happened before we launched a war in libya. now, on march 30 of this year i
joined with representative woolsey, honda, and grijalva, and waters and we sent a letter to speaker boehner urging him to bring forth an authorization of the use of military force in libya and stressing the need for a robust debate and vote in line with our congressional prerogative and indeed obligations. unfortunately -- may i have another two minutes? ms. slaughter: i would be pleased to yield another two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional two minutes. ms. lee: unfortunately, the speaker did not grant our request and we find ourselves here today debating this important constitutional issue well over the 90 days after hostilities began. so you'll have to forgive me if i'm somewhat skeptical about the political motive behind the floor actions that are scheduled today. because we really need to recognize, understand that this is serious business and it should not be politicized.
this is not about this president or any president. this is not about politics or isolationism. this is about the war powers act and the constitution. it's about standing up for this body and our important role in one of the most solemn and one of the most important decisions that we make as lawmakers and that's the decision to declare war. now, unfortunately, this resolution from my colleague, mr. rooney, before us today has many exemptions that are very broad and of course falls short of ending this war. i have some concerns that i would like to discuss later in terms of some of the limitations and exemptions. in terms of making sure that this does not broaden the war with these exemptions. and i hope that today we stand up for our