members please clear the center aisle members please take their seats for purposes a gentleman from new york arrives madam speaker by direction the committee on rules call up house resolution nine eighty two and asked for its immediate consideration equivalent for the resolution house counter number one eighty  resolution nine eighty two resolved that house resolution nine seventy nine and house resolution nine eighty are hereby adopted the gentleman from new york is recognized for one hour man speaker for the p eight two provides that upon its adoption house resolution nine seventy nine and house resolution nine eighty are hereby adopted house resolution seven nine seven nine recommends that the house of representatives find harriet miers and joshua bolten the white house chief of staff and contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the judicia committee house resolution nine eighty authorizes the judiciary committee to initiate or to intervene in any judicial proceedings to inform certain subpoenas to enforce them  had so many requests for time and i will cut my own time short i simply want to give some reasons why it's important we are here today in my twenty one years of the house i have known there were members who came to congress simply hoping that throughout their career they will always land on the same square not wanting to take a vote at my challenge them in any way not wanting to take a vote that might require explanation fortunately this is the safe square today what we are doing here today is protecting the constitution of the united states of america which all of us are pleased when we come here to raise our hand and swear so to do it is critically important that we protect the powers of the congress of the united states for future generations it would be dreadful is a future president having looked back over the recent events used it as a precedent we have a strong case on the merits and first point i want to make the administration's assertions of executive privilege are weak excessively broad and unprecedented we win executive privilege argument both on legal grounds and our compelling need for requested information aside from prevailing on the merits of executive privilege dispute enforcing our subpoenas is part and parcel of our current ability to perform affective oversight it was we except the white house stonewalling in this instance the house will in the future will not be able to thinks to strengthen rather than weaken the hauser's progress by demonstrating that we are serious about citizens respecting the issuance of validly authorized congressional subpoenas if we can lost and we may be in much more danger than we even we believe there's ample precedent for reporting has prosecuted to initiate a civil action and if we pursue this court of course of action any proves to be legally incorrect then we here in congress where the laws repair can take necessary steps to correct that procedure if we do not pursue this course of action at all we again have already lost there are some who believe that the court will say that indeed we have no rights here if that is the case is that even should be a possibility then i think we have to say that if the justice department much and who was a personal friend i was standing by the ranking member of the rules committee at the time during the funeral the house was in recess subject to the call of the chair under the understanding that we would not come back into session until after the funeral and i was most disturbed and hurt and pain when even though the funeral was still proceeding and distinguished guests were were speaking the bells rang that the house was going back into session and i had to leave because it's my obligation today i have the assignment as a member of the rules committee to be here during this rule i had to leave the funeral to be here today and it's most unfortunate and i'm very very sorry that the day has begun in that  man a speaker today the majority proposes that the house consider a rule that according to the parliamentarian is unprecedented in the history of this institution it will prevent any and all debate on t contempt motions against former white house counsel harriet miers and white house chief of staff josh bolten a contempt resolution is a the privilege to matter because it directly concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of the house chapter seventeen section two of house practice states such a resolution may be offered from the floor as privileged because the privileges of the house are involved the action of the majority today is most unfortunate never before in the history of this house has a contempt resolution one of the highest questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution been treated in such an underhanded manner if this rule is adopted there will be no debate no vote and the contempt resolutions will magically and automatically be here by adopted when this rule is adopt now if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this institution would be to debate the bait and vote on the resolution the majority leadership is subverting the rights of every member of this house at legibly allegedly in order to assert the rights of this house the irony can ask can escape no one there these are the constitutional rights of this institution that are in question and not one member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or vote to have a vote on these resolutions the majority's attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the house will have repercussions that many members may not be aware of so i urge my colleagues to pay close attention because by this action the house majority risks causing great harm it risks causing grave harm and undermining congress's oversight authority for generations to come and here is why the administration is claiming executive privilege and any attempt to force testimony from the president's former counsel and his chief of staff will be fought by the administration of in the courts this could very possibly lead to the court's ruling that congress does not have civil contempt authority for example that the u attorney for example does not have to prosecute criminal citations against executive officials or that the president's senior advisers are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before congress any of those rulings would weaken congress's ability to conduct oversight in the future and a week in congress means a strengthened strengthened executive this is not an extreme or farfetched theory madam speaker administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege privilege for many decades the former attorney general for example janet reno stated and i quote the president and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee because subjecting a senior presidential adviser to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the president himself to appear before congress on matters relating to his constitutionally assigned functions and quote what the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss that could gravely undermine congress's oversight authority the very authoritative the majority is allegedly seeking to protect if congress loses in the courts we could forever disable one of our most important powers the power of oversight and for what in return madam speaker harriet miers is no longer with the administration out of it all silas's no longer attorney general but the majority with its action today risks quite a bit let's remember members will not even get the opportunity to vote on these resolutions today and that's not only uncalled for but absolutely and president members will only be able to vote on this rule once the rule so do the two resolutions and so does the majority's gamble so back in july that committee the judiciary committee cited both mr bolton and ms miers for contempt of congress now here we are eight months later considering these two contempt resolutions but not really just the rule by passing the rule automatically those contempt resolutions will be passed after an emergency rules committee meeting last night so the question is why the rush for some reason the majority feels that after eight months now this is a pressing issue but i can think of a large list of other issues that i feel more that americans would rather we address none more than considering the five is a bill that the senate approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect the united states from terrorist attacks the tragic events of september eleventh two thousand and one taught us many lessons and one of the lessons we learned that day was that our nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism we must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm america and now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community and with the and the majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing th modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the twenty first century is a critically important national priority and i'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree as well on january twenty eighth twenty one members of the blue dog coalition sent a letter to the speaker in support of the senate pfizer legislation the letter states states and i quote the senate five the rockefeller bond legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support the measure should reach the house floor without substantial change we believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can work terrorism across the globe and save american lives here at home and quote man a speaker i ask consent to insert the letter sent by the blue dogs to the speaker and of to answer the extension of this important program is set to expire at eleven fifty nine p m tomorrow night after that our ability to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorists will be severely hampered it's time to make our country safer and congress needs to act today the house should vote on the senate measure and we should do it now instead of debating these contempt motions in an unprecedented and on called for fashion today i will give all members of the house an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan long term modernization of pfizer i call on my colleagues to join with me with you with me to insert into the record from today's new york times time to vote contempt ladies and gentlemen of the house the resolution we are considering today is not steps that i take as chairman usually or lightly  it's been eight months that we try to negotiate nine letters but this is what is necessary to protect the constitutional prerogatives as a co equal branch of government in this democracy of ours i believe the investigation we have been engaged in is an important one and it's not about whether the u s attorneys can serve at the pleasure of the president they clearly can and do but it concerns whether the american people can be assured that their laws are being fairly and impartially enforced by the united states department of justice that's why we're here in order to pursue this investigation we've done what committees in the congress have traditionally done we've sought our documents and testimony an initially on a voluntary basis and through compulsory process only as a last resort the investigation did not began with the white house but has ended up there only after the review of thousands of pages of documents and obtaining the testimony and interviews of nearly twenty current and former department of justice employees we have been open at all times to any reasonable compromise and have been fully respectful and cognizant of the prerogatives of the executive branch as a matter of fact have written the white house counsel on no less than nine separate occasions talked with him seeking a compromise on this matter what i am not open to as the chairman of judiciary is accepting a take it or leave offer which would allow what would not allow us access to the information that we need would not even provide for a transcript would only prevent us from seeking and would prevent us from seeking any additional information in the future that is the only proposal we've ever received from white house coun now some may argue that the stakes in this confrontation and i think that's what's been suggested already are so high that we cannot afford the risk that we might lose well i'd say to them that if we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily lee ignored where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up or tell us that they're not coming where that privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of bases and in the broadest possible manner then we've already lost this is not a matter of vindicating the judicia does not have enough time to pass critical faisel modernization legislation to keep america safe from foreign terrorist today we are wasting congress time on an issue that does nothing to make our nation safer clearly the democratic majority is out of touch with the needs of our intelligence community is placing americans lives at risk on the eve of the expiration of critical intelligence legislation the house democratic majority has chosen to put extreme partisanship ahead of our country's safety apparently the democratic majority cares more about the alleged arrowhead use of a few baseball players and the personnel decisions of the white house than they do about promoting national security last year admiral mcconnell the director of national intelligence warned congress that the intelligence community was missing two thirds of all overseas terrorist communications in danger ing americans lines congress enacted the protect america act to close this terrorist loophole now house democrats are going to let the protect america act expire if the act expires we'll return to the status quo unable to be again any new foreign intelligence surveillance without a court order and risk losing two thirds of all foreign intelligence today we find ourselves at two very dangerous threshold first expiration of legislation vital to this nation's national security the foreign intelligence surveillance act the house democratic majority has let this legislation lapse without even allowing a straight up or down vote on the bipartisan senate bill approved earlier this week by a vote of sixty eight to twenty nine instead of reauthorizing five so the democratic majority chooses to take us to another threshold that of a needless constitutional confrontation in the courts over the dismissal of a handful of united states attorneys we know that the president has the authority to dismiss u s attorneys we know that his executive privilege claims are consistent with those made by previous presidents decades we know that by talking at the executive privilege when mail we risk severely undermining the very oversight authority we would want to protect but most of all we know that emphatically more important than this spat over executive privilege once again we see why congress's approval rating is at a historic low is because a democratic majority engages in extreme partisanship and ignores any privilege ever recognized by any court but the republic can obviously survive a court decision on the narrow question of the exact extent of executive privilege of madam speaker the courts must decide  president cannot decide by out of three the president cannot announce with absolute unreviewable forty what information the administration will provide or withhold the framers of our constitution had just  a war against an autocrat atic king it is inconceivable that they intended to create an executive with the powers that the bush administration now claims and that the minority now supports for the entire history of our republic our course of recognize that congress needs information to carry out our constitutional duties to sod what the law should be to decide what to appropriate federal funds for and that we cannot relax all information that is voluntarily cheerfully provided congress must have the power to require information including information the president does not want to provide information to the president sees as inconvenient or  embarrassing we must inquire into the need for new laws we must inquire into how existing laws are being administered and the supreme court said half a century ago that congress's investigative powers are never greater than when inquir into abuse of authority corruption by federal government agencies manno speaker of the allegations here are very serious does a minority think that these are trivial allegations prosecute prosecut decisions cannot be used to reward political friends or punish in amicus elections have consequences madam speaker but they should never have consequences not in america criminal prosecutions got about political concerns are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law the two resolutions that we are considering will allow the courts to decide these questions of what information congress can require in the in the in the discharge of our constitutional duties it will allow important constitutional questions to be decided as they should be decided in a democracy by the courts i yield back the balance of my time hemming and thank you time gentleman from florida congress i think the congress has a right to ask for receive demand information from the administration but i don't think that right extends to this case i think the idea that we would expect to get information that is dealing with advice to the president on the status of at will employees is a loser for us on the house floor it's a loser for us in court it will set back the prerogatives of the congress and beyond that i think the idea that we're here today as we see the foreign intelligence surveillance act get of less value to us every day because we're unwilling to deal with a permanent solution this is the wrong debate to have at any time it's certainly the wrong debate to have at this time and the idea that somehow if we extend that actively we've done all we could do by trying to extend an act that a bipartisan  group of members of this congress for various reasons said we don't want to extend and then we come back today and we take our time focusing on a contempt charge on two dedicated civil servants is the he pelosi of california gentleman from california is recognized for one minute thank you very much men because i thank the ten lady the chair the rules committee for yachting with my colleagues today is a very sad day for us for more than one reason one reason is though the matter that is before us i had hoped frankly that this day would never have come are that the respectful negotiations that should take place article one the legislative branch and article two the executive branch would have yielded the information that is necessary for congress to make its decisions i thank congress and chairman conyers for his distinguished lifetime leadership of protecting the constitution of the united states we all take that oath of office every single one of us who serves and every person who serves in any civil  civic capacity in our country does so today we are honoring our oath of office with this resolution that is before us again i rise in sadness not in town from taishan this is not a conflict that the congress has sought in fact as the distinguished chairman of the dishy ery committee has indicated the committee has repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation repeatedly making requests that have been ignored or rejected by the white house on completely unacceptable terms the judiciary committee indeed the congress is clearly entitled to this information it involve neither national security information nor communications with the president the president has no grounds to assert executive privilege on the other hand congress has the responsibility of oversight of the executive branch i know that members on both sides of the  take that responsibility very seriously oversight is an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power in this case the politicizing of the department of justice subpoena authority is vital as a vital tool for that oversight today we seek to require the department of justice to bring contempt motions against harriet miers and josh bolten when our resolution passes we hope the administration will realize that this house of representatives this congress is serious about our constitutional role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the documents and testimony at issues i still hold out the hope that they will cooperate but if the administration fails to do so and if it orders the department of justice not to file contempt proceedings we will then through this resolution have the power ourselves to go to the federal court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas the resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue it should not be this isn't about democrats or republicans former congress serve in the republican leadership has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the u s attorney matter is about defending congress not a democratic or republican congress but the people's congress as a separate independent and completely equal branch of government the subject of the judiciary committee's investigation involves serious and credible allegations that federal law enforcement was politicized political manipulation of law enforcement undermined public confidence in our criminal justice system congress must find out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining u s attorneys we must have the information and order to protect against political net manipulation of law enforcement and it must be provided in terms consistent with our constitutional obligations the so called white house offer refused to permit even a transcript of a transcript of any interviews and to permit questions on discussions and required th committee to promise in advance not to seek further information this is beyond arrogance this is hubris taken to the ultimate degree as former congressman edwards again i remind him a former member of the republican leadership in the house said no congress indeed no lawyer would ever agree to such an outrageous demand mr speaker we must continue in our efforts to restore our nation's fundamental system of checks and balances this congress and future congresses must have the ability to conduct meaningful oversight it is the hallmark of our constitutional democracy that has served us well for more than two centuries thank you again mr chairman conyers for your leadership congresswoman linda sanchez chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this issue congresswoman chairwoman that we slaughter for the important work of the rules committee and all of this to the new members of congress on this issue of article one led by john yarmuth article one protecting the prerogative of the constitution of the congress of the united states we thank our new members for their leadership on honoring their oath of office and brad miller an expert on the subject in the congress has been a tremendous resource to us as well let us uphold our oath of office by voting for this resolution my colleagues let us restore the rule of our law let us act to protect and defend our constitution by ensuring appropriate congressional oversight appropriate to russian all oversight and we have come back today to deal with an issue which i believe is one that creates the potential the potential to undermine the power of the first branch of government now as has been said if we look at the potential court challenge that we could see this notion that has been put forward by our former colleague mr edwards that we are in fact a separate independent and equal branch of government could be thrown out the window the other thing that's very sad about today madam speaker is the fact that we are here with an absolutely unprecedented rule never before never before in the history of the republic has there been such a rule this rule actually undermines the deliberative nature of the people's house what we're doing is we are saying that there will be no debate whatsoever no debate whatsoever on these very important to contempt resolutions no debate whatsoever when this rule is adopted we will see those two measures here by adopted meaning that there will be no chance for us to as a house have the kind of debate that we did for an hour up stairs in the rules committee and so we're throwing out the window the notion of participation in a free and open debate and madam speaker the other thing that is very sad about today is that well we were promised one year ago last month a new direction for america a new era of openness an opportunity for a free flowing debate we will with passage of this resolution be on the brink of seeing the one hundred tenth congress and i will say to the distinguished chair of the committee on rules so she is presiding over this madam speaker we will have this congress having adopted more close rules than any congress in the history of the republic are dealing in these days with serious issues and serious people have been considering these issues in committee and we will now consider on the floor this matter has been pending now for over half a year mr man speaker and eighteen eighty five a young scholar wrote an influential book about the united states congress in title congressional government and in that book he offered the following observations about legislative branch oversight and he said this quite as important as legislation is the general an oversight of the administration not any particular administration but of the other co equal branch of government he continued it is the proper proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees the informing function of congress not just informing ourselves but informing the american public as well the informing function of congress should be preferred even to its legislative function an interesting observation many years later in one nine hundred thirteen that young scholar woodrow wilson that came president of the united states who rational oversight of any administration is absolutely imperative to the proper functioning of our government to our system of checks and balances and to the fulfillment of our constitutional duty a president who is forced to answer for his administration's actions decisions and can and conduct is a president who is less likely to  amass power beyond that which the constitution prescribes for his office or to imperil the welfare of our republic form of government and that is the constitutional interest that today's resolution addresses i support the rule before us because i believe in a system of checks and balances in which no branch holds itself above the constitutional objectives of a sharing of authority which the founders wisely believed was essential to protect against the abuse of that authority by any one of those branches the issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed seven u s attorneys in twenty zero six that may be the issue at some point in time but unless we have the information to get to that point such a question will be moot nor is this a partisan clash between a democratic ousts and a republican president rather the basic issue before this house is this whether this body and the committee system which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous oversight can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy controversy as the new york times noted this morning quote if congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas it would effectively be ceding subpoena power it would also be giving its face fast you know a whole it's like it's tattered constance consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial president above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances what profit it a nation if we include checks and balances within our constitutional framework to protect our country's freedom and more importantly our people's freedom if in fact we honor it only in the breach and as bruce fein the constitutional scholar and former department of justice official during the reagan administration has state if congress shies from voting for contempt in this case secret government will become the this is perhaps the most secretive administration in our history that is a danger to our democracy he went on to say that congress will be reduced to an ink blot on the constitutional map that is why every one of us every one of the four hundred thirty five of us who have sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the united states and uphold its laws what a vote for this resolution because it does not matter whether there's a republican president or a democratic president for them to refuse to respond to a subpoena of the congress of the united states and to even come here and claim a privilege which they have not our democracy will be less and i urge my colleagues to carry out the intent and the vision of the founders we are not even allowed to debate nor vote on the content presently but rather on a rule that will self adopt automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of importance totally tried to sweep a bipartisan five as a bill under the rug and today they're trying to throw the president's chief of staff to jail i'm curious to know what happens in the pledge of partnership with republicans in congress and with the president and not partisanship the vote we are going to take this afternoon has been festering since july when the house judiciary committee decided to vote on holding white house officials in contempt this pandering to the left reflected a political and unnecessary escalation on the part of the democratic majority that contempt resolution was approved on a straight party line vote in the committee and today's vote will be the same the threat of losing in court should be enough for this institution to back down from this escalation my concern with the democratic leadership's course of action is that it will likely weaken congress's position in situations where we disagree with the president on matters of executive privilege if the speaker in the house judiciary committee chairman really cared about getting to the bottom of this matter they could have taken the nonpolitical rob such as directing the house office of general coun to file a civil lawsuit in the u s district court for the district of columbia this proposal which i suggested last summer would be a legitimate effort to resolve our issues with the president in an arena where the congress would have equal footing so what's next how will we rehabilitate our image to give the public confidence in the congress i don't think the pressure throwing the president's chief of staff in jail will do the trick it amazes me that the democratic leadership would bring such a divi matter to the floor so soon after receiving accolades for working so well with the minority to pass an economic stimulus package i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this resolution yield back the balance of my time jim in your fact down to the and have a right to claim executive privilege what it is about is does a person in this country have to follow the laws of the united states follow the rule of law follow the constitution and abide by a legally it minister subpoena and i guess the best way to talk about that is is to draw a comparison if under the constitution a person has an absolute right to claim their fifth amendment right against self incrimination so if a person is subpoenaed to testify in a criminal matter they can call the judge up and say judge i think i might have a fifth amendment problem here i'm not going to show up the judge hit will tell them they have to be in court and they have to assert their fifth amendment right after they are asked a question the same thing applies here they have to appear before congress in at least the cert their right before they can claim some kind of privilege otherwise the entire system falls apart well today is a very important day for congress we are taking up a very very important citation unfortunately because we're only able to debate the rule we don't have time to do this let me just try and make a couple of points here very very quickly first of all the question is is this the most important thing we should be doing t is there a time limit on the action of the house of representatives that requires us to act on this today and the answer is no this doesn't expire today doesn't expire tomorrow doesn't expire the next day we're able to do this any time until the end of this congress but what does expire the protect america act it expires at midnight tomorrow we should be doing the nation's business with respect that rather than this if in fact we are serious about the war on terror if we in fact we are serious about gathering that information which is necessary to protect us against those who would harm us and those we represent we would be acting on the pfizer act reconstitution here today would be acting on the senate bill that's the time limit there is no reason for scheduling this today we've had eight months to schedule this but yet we find that this is what we're going to be dealing with before we go home and we're going to say it is unimportant as to whether or not we would continue with the protect america an important except except in the opinion of the number one intelligence officer in the united states after mcconnell who served under democrat and republican administrations who told us if we allow this to go down that is the protect america act we will close our eyes for sixty percent of the legitimate terrorist targets around the world prospect madam speaker we have reluctantly reached today a vote to hold former white house counsel harriet miers and white house chief of staff joshua bolten in contempt of congress since march ninth of two thousand and seven chairman conyers and i have patiently negotiated in good faith to reach an accommodation with the white house for documents and testimony relevant to the u s attorney investigation unfortunately under normal since normal instances i would but i don't have the time and i apologize on the floor slow down my white house has stubbornly refused to move off its opening position an unreasonable offer that testimony be given without an oath or a transcript and that any testimony in documents provided exclude internal white house communications to have negotiations concessions by both sides are necessary otherwise it's just capitulation i was extremely disappointed that ms miers mr bolton in the white house based their refusal to comply with our subpoenas on sweeping claims of executive privilege an immunity that some experts have called nixonian and breath the subcommittee carefully considered these claims in two separate meetings last year and in detail rulings i found that these claims were not properly asserted and were not legally valid even if the claims were properly asserted and legally valid the strong public need for information about the u s attorney firings substantially outweighs the assertion of executive privilege here i was also very disappointed to hear from attorney general me casey in testimony before the judiciary committee last week that he will direct the d c u s attorney not to comply with the contempt statute which provides that the u s attorney shall refer the contempt citation to a grand jury for action after receiving it from the speaker members on both sides of the aisle should recognize the gravity of this vote the executive branch is allowed to simply ignore congressional subpoenas while congress idly stand by we will have abdicated our role in of oversight of the executive branch and undermined our as justification for questionable claims of executive privilege i hope that my colleagues on the other side will stand together in support of this body of institutional pronk it is time is long overdue for congress to reassert its to reassert itself as a co equal that she has left the floor that's unfortunate her response to my in korea about yielding was that she didn't have enough time and we're standing here today with very little time to debate an issue that is dramatically important it's important for this institution as but by the way people on both sides of the olive said the speaker and the majority leader both made a point of how important this issue is to this body it is vitally important to me that we retain the rights of this of this body as it relates to the administration whether that's a republican administration or democratic administration in his opening statements mr diaz balart talked about or gave a quote from former attorney general janet reno in which she's said there was no right to do what we're trying to do today i would have loved to have asked the ranking or the chairman of the committee on commercial administrative law if she thought that was the case where she disagreed what the scope of the right of the administration is to to not appear obviously there is a sense in this case that we ought to get something done and in fact we've done a great deal we have hundreds of hours of depositions literally tens of thousands of pages tens of thousands of e mails we've asked questions of everyone involved in the matter in the case and what we come up with i wanted to ask the ranking member what the evidence we're going to present the u s attorney is that he can take and say i have a need to get this information from these people in the administration who won't show up to the to the house i have a need to understand these facts which seem to be in in confusion i have a need to decide what between these two different stories is the truth but we haven't said that to him we have we don't have the evidence that we can give the u s attorney what we are giving to them him is a desire to continue a witch hunt which has produced up to today zero nothing as far as i can tell i've been in every meeting every hearing and and followed on every single deposition that we've had there is nothing that indicates that anybody has lied or that there is a reasons that the white house has been involved and therefore there is no reason that i can understand and i've asked many times on the record in committee hearings what those reasons are what it is what the discrepancies are what the problems are for which we need to subpoena people the white house and create a showdown mr bolton and nobody else will talk to us that's precisely why we were forced to this position sir reclaiming my time and i appreciate the general's position the gentleman has said that eloquently in the past on many occasions but we are now talking about getting a subpoena in forcing a subpoena in a criminal process against people for whom we have no evidence as far as i can tell we have yielded the gentleman if he has evidence no evidence that they have been involved there's no discrepancies in the testimony that we had before us is there the gentleman this so kind to you again we don't have any evidence we aren't accusing them of anything sir we're merely seeking the documents that could be relevant to the determination of whether the department of justice has been politicized reclaiming my time i appreciate the gentleman's candor and i appreciate the very gracious way the gentleman has handled this whole investigation but it comes back down to this we have no evidence and if we're going to produce it we're going to always stood for the finest traditions of this body in november of two thousand and six the american people decided to give the democrats the control of the house of representatives and the congress was fortunate enough to be elected as one of the forty three new democrats in that class and many people have said in the examining that election oh we were elected because of the war in iraq but that's not what i heard when i heard when i was campaigning in two thousand and six and i most of my colleagues in this class would say the same thing is we want to return the government to the tenets of the constitution we want to restore the checks and balances that the founding fathers prescribe we want to make sure that this president and every president is held accountable is not above the law so when we came here one of the things we did was to start talking about article one article one which established the congress of the united states and best of all legislative powers therein we started wearing these buttons article one buttons and we offered them to members of both parties hoping that this would not be a partisan issue and not be an expression of partisanship but instead of respect for the integrity of this institution unfortunately most of my colleagues on the other side chose not to wear these buttons they've chosen to make this a partisan issue in spite of the fact that during the last six years before we took control of the congress no subpoenas were issued against this president knows efforts to hold him accountable were made in spite of the fact that in the prior administration a thousand subpoenas were offered by the republican congress to the democratic president so unfortunately this has become a partisan issue when it shouldn't be to me this is all about institutional integrity about restoring the checks and balances fundamental to our power our legislative power is our ability to gather information if we do not care if we do not stand up for our right to gather information then in spite of the fact that my colleagues on the other side is so well we we may lose our prerogatives if we go to court if we don't challenge the president on this issue we will have surrendered our prerogatives and that is the worst fate that we could commit this body to so i would say in closing that you know many people look at the polls today and say the standing of the congress is at its lowest ebb ever and they say maybe that's because we're not doing anything i think it's because the american people recognize that we have been negligent in not upholding our responsibilities under the constitution this is an important step in restoring the integrity of this institution and restoring the confidence of the american that we've reached the point in this house that reasonable minds could not prevail on an issue that involves the very safety of the american people last august congress passed and the president signed into law the protect america act this critical legislation closed the gaps which had previously caused the intelligence community to miss more than two thirds of all overseas terrorist communications finally allowing the united states to stay one step ahead of the terrorists the senate amendment to h r thirty seven seventy three would enable law enforcement and the intelligence community to continue their counterterrorism efforts including working with telecommunications companies and allowing a szell's to gather intelligence from potential foreign terrorist outside the united states at the same time this bill is mindful of our constitutions and the protections it affords to u s citizens whether they are inside or outside the united states furthermore the authority provided that the bill would sunset in six years allowing congress to revisit any issues that might arise we cannot afford to let the terrorists particularly those who are conspiring abroad to have the upper hand our law enforcement and intelligence communities must have every resource available to do their jobs in keeping this nation safe i urge my colleagues to support the united states not the terrorists by passing the senate amendments to h r thirty seven seventy three and i thank the gentleman from florida for yelling continue our discussion that was raised by the gentleman from utah as a matter of fact in our resolution recommending that contempt of congress be  issued we found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing at the department of justice nearly a hundred pages of it for example the decision this was voted out of the committee the decision to fire retain some u s attorneys may have been based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan political factor department officials appear to have made false or misleading statements to congress many of which sought to minimize the role of white house personnel in the u s attorney firings and actions woman from ohio i serve on both clay rules and judiciary gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes thank you madam speaker let us recall what this is all about we are here today because the now resigned chief of staff to former attorney gonzales ran a plan over a period of just under two years during which he maintained a revised list of u s attorneys to be fired or retained if prosecutors were placed on this list for political reasons or alternatively kept off because of a willingness to engage in political prosecutions these actions are not only improper illegal but they constitute criminal abuse these are serious allegations and we have a constitutional duty to to pursue pursue this proceeding today congress is not only entitled to look into this matter we must conduct a thorough oversight of the executive branch  some of my colleagues argued that the united states attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president however it's very critical to note that in throwing out this term at the pleasure of the president may may be accurate in the sense that the president may fire somebody for no reason alberto gonzales can fire somebody for no reason but they can't fire on for an illegal reason and that is what we're looking at here the committee on the judiciary chairman conyers testified yesterday that he pursued documents from the white house in the testimony of ms miers and this or bolton for eight long months and then return the white house did not provide a single document and specifically directed ms miers to mr bolton to ignore the judiciary committee subpoena citing executive privilege this is not a situation of a certain executive privilege because ms miers did not even show up for the hearing so they were called to testify before to assert that claim furthermore madam speaker is one thing for them to decline to answer certain questions based on a claim of executive privilege it is and then tiredly different matter to defy even orders to recognized for two minutes thank you have pre show at the time i do serve on judiciary committee and i looked at that empty chair that miss miers was supposed to be sitting in when she was asked to testify before a committee nothing is more contemptuous of an official than not to simply appear to appear by counsel to appear in person to allege a a privilege is one thing not to show up is the utter most peak of contempt that a person could have for the congress and for the legislative body she did even send a little note miss miers were fully cannot attend your hearing this is the highest contempt we are representatives of the people and we are appalling the constitution and our jobs as being equal in op branch of government which this legislative body is and there is no such thing as an imperial presidency and no one is above the law thank you of florida is recognized for a minute hand madam speaker no one is immune from accountability and the rule of law not harriet miers or josh bolten and especially not president bush or vice president cheney it is high time to defend the constitution and congress as a co equal branch of government our liberty and freedoms as americans are dependent upon the checks and balances that protect our nation not since watergate not since watergate has a president so openly disregarded the will of congress josh bolten and harriet miers have blatantly ignored congressional subpoenas thumbing their nose at congress and our obligation of legitimate oversight the power of the congressional subpoena safeguards our liberty it protects against an all gentleman from florida to recognize for two minutes thank you madam speaker i rise today in support of this resolution i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as members of a co equal branch of government to issue these contempt citations to members of the bush administration who clearly feel that they are above the law last year when the judiciary committee was legitimately investigating the political purge of u s attorneys and conducting oversight into the politicization of the of the justice department administration officials not only failed to turn over key documents after receiving subpoenas they didn't even bother to show up to testify madam speaker i am deeply frustrated by this administration's continued stonewalling and frankly the contempt that it has shown for congress as our former republican colleague congressman mickey edwards told our committee the administration's actions have been outrageous and it continues to erode the separation of powers i applaud chairman conyers patience and his many attempts to resolve the situation short of the manner in which we will today but i know compounded by the fact that harriet miers is my friend we practiced law together in the state of texas we worked together and so it is very difficult to stand here today and to acknowledge what is an enormous crisis in our government and that is the lack of recognition of the constitutional premise of the three equal branches of government i came yesterday to talk of the embeddedness of the constitution not only in many books but also in the hearts of americans when i go home to texas people still ask the question what are you doing about the u s attorney situation what happened to the fairness and integrity of the appointment process the american people want to know we are now doing their bidding they want us to be able to clear the air and as a member the judiciary committee let me tell you john conyers has the patience of job all over and over again and chairwoman sanchez all over and over again working with ranking member canyon said that we wanted to do this in a way that you could come and give information that information to be transcripted we will then try to find out the truth we come here with a broken heart a humble spirit  but the constitution deeply embedded in our heart recognizing that there is nothing to protect if the president says that he is not involved let the constitution stand let us do what we're supposed to john expire my friends vote for th privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor in this in this fashion in effect of mourning even the floor it by virtue of the fact that when the rule is passed the rule that we're debating automatically the two resolutions of contempt would will be considered adopted that is absolutely unprecedented as well as uncalled for and  the nature of the actions of the majority today are most most unfortunate i had the recent opportunity to speak at the florida international university law school  professor leavitt asked me to to speak there about the rule of law and i and studying restudying the issue of the rule of law i stressed how the independence of the judicia is perhaps the key or certainly one of the fundamental keys to the rule of law and judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain independent throughout these two plus centuries well all of the branches madam speaker must exercise restraint and the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite not only restraint but i would say unprecedented uncalled  for an unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of this importance as i stated the majority is not even not even allowing debate on the resolutions of contempt not eating not even permitting votes on the resolutions of contempt with the rule that is being debated today on those resolutions will be at this point the house is just about wrapped up debate on the contempt of congress in force meant contempt of congress subpoenas against former white house counsel harriet miers and josh bolten the chief of staff the debate is actually on the rule itself an acting rule and if it passes these these subpoenas become enacted that had about an hour and fifteen hour and twenty minutes worth of debate and as you saw representative lincoln  florida who is managing the republican debate this afternoon called for a motion to adjourn this is the second motion to adjourn today they called one earlier and we had heard from a house republican leadership  producer about this that they had said the republicans are protesting the refusal of speaker pelosi and majority leader hoyer a whole year to pass the bipartisan senate fice a bill therefore letting the protect america act expire you heard a lot of that in the debate that's just wrapped up meanwhile over on the majority leader side from jordie leader hoyer sophos they expressed some disrespect some some displeasure at the disrespect that have been shown by a republican member of congress in calling a political procedural motion during the memorial service for the late chairman tom lantos that first motion to adjourn occurred as that service was underway so this is a procedural vote here a fifteen minute vote they have just about wrapped up debate on the on the contempt citations on the rules for that and we should see a vote on that as well yesterday the house failed to move forward with feisal legislation the president today made comments on that just before his  trip to africa which begins tomorrow to show that to you during this vote or the next series of a series of votes the associated press says that president bush said u s intelligence gathering will be compromised if congress fails to extend a law by saturday allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e mails in the u s in cases of suspected terrorist activities again we'll show that to you in just a few minutes and here's how dearly julie hirschfeld davis is is reporting on this debate here in the house the house is moving toward a vote on to hold two of president bush's confidence in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether federal prosecutors were ousted for political reasons the article continues lawmakers were to vote by midday thursday on a measure holding presidential chief of staff josh bolten and former white house counsel harriet miers and contempt for failing to respond to congressional subpoenas for information on the two thousand and six two thousand and seven firings lots to read on the capitol news or lots of that article and others available at the capitol news or politics on the hill and also presidential politics as well you're watching live house coverage on c span coverage coverage of the house on c span they are on a procedural vote a motion to adjourn a fifteen minute vote we mention the president bush came out just a short while ago to talk about electronic surveillance let's take a listen to his comments from the white house good afternoon this saturday at mid night legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire if congress does not act by that time our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to what they are saying and what they're planning will be compromised it would be a mistake if the congress were allow this to happen members of congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching they said it themselves they've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate and now they must act and pass legislation that would ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe earlier this week the senate did act and passed a strong bill and did so with a bipartisan majority the senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people the senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect america after the attacks of september the eleventh without this protection without this liability shield we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts and that of course will put the american people at risk now if the house is turned act it is clear that the senate bill would pass the house with bipartisan support republicans and democrats in the senate can put partisanship aside and pass a good bill there's no reason why the house cannot do the same and pass the senate bill immediately our government is no greater responsibility than getting this work done and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire i urge congressional leaders to let the will of the house and the american people prevail and vote on the senate bill before adjourning for their recess failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence failure to act will also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country and this is unacceptable now should not leave washington without passing the senate bill and i am scheduled to leave tomorrow for a long planned trip to five african nations moments ago my staff informed the house leadership that i'm prepared to delay my departure and stay in washington with them if you will help them complete their work on this critical bill the law abs of countless americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications are intelligent professionals are working day and night to keep us safe and they're waiting to see whether congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or they are tied their hands by failing to act american people are watching this debate as well they expect congress to meet its responsibilities before they leave town on a recess i'll answer a few questions ben you got a question on the pair to answer thank you mr president it appears with that deadline approaching that the house in the white house might be seen as being gauging the game of chicken here playing politics with an important ellison's law if the law expires and something happens wouldn't you be at least partly to blame and on your africa trip if you have to delay do you think that you would be shortening your trip by the best of the latter you know the delay depends on where the house acts of course and they've got plenty of time to get this done but if we have to delay will delay but i will i'm going to go to the countries that i sent to go to now into the first case you know whether or not this is politics i certainly hope not i can assure you al qaida and their planning in thinking about politics they're thinking about hurting the american people again we you know who's to blame but that the folks in congress passed a good bill  last late last summer where they analyzed the situation they said there's a threat and they agreed to give our professionals the tools they needed to do the job the problem is they let the bill my attitude is if the bill was good enough then why not pass the bill again i mean the threat hasn't gone away suddenly they've had plenty of time to think about how to address the issue thirdly the senate led the way the senate showed how to pass a good bill with a bipartisan majority and the truth of the matter is if there was a willingness to get this problem solved all the leadership would have to do is submit the senate bill for a vote so we'll see what happens my attitude is now is a time to get the job done there's been plenty of time to think about it plenty of time to debate it and there's a good way forward and hopefully the house leadership will put this bill for a vote and let the members vote as they as they so desire mike mr president i realize this is a sensitive matter but i'm wondering if there's a way you can spell out for the american public what the practical impact may be if this law expires on our intelligence professionals say next week or i hope it doesn't but clearly there will be a gap and of course we won't be able to assess that gap until you know until until the time  the step one is you know i guess you've got to come to the conclusion that there's a threat to america or not a threat and evidently some people just don't feel that sense of urgency i do and the reason i do is i'm firmly believe that there are still people out there who would do us harm secondly i know  that the tools that i've just described are necessary to protect us why because we need to know you know what people are saying what they're planning and what they're thinking and the tools that i have just described has been very effective thirdly people are wondering why the companies need liability protection well if you cooperate with the government and then get sued for billions of dollars because of the cooperation you're less likely to cooperate and obviously we're going to need people working with us to find out what the enemy is saying and thinking and plotting and planning harm and i recognize there hasn't been an attack on our country but that does not mean that there's not still an enemy that lurks plans and plots and one of the reasons we've been effective is because we put new tools in place that give  professionals that which is necessary to protect this is a different kind of threat that we've ever faced before it's a different kind of war that we're fighting and it requires a different approach again i repeat to that the congress took a look at this issue and decided that the tools were necessary to give to our professionals last late last summer and if it was necessary late last summer why is it not necessary today what has changed with the threa that republicans and democrats can come together and go to put a good little piece of legislation together and get it passed and the house leadership has an opportunity to do that now listen thank you all very much president bush from just a short while ago talking about feisal legislation he departs a trip to africa tomorrow five nation trip congress now an updated story late this morning said headline says house democrats could still pass pfizer this week a deal could still happen according to congress now and house rules last night approved a measure allowing for emergency consideration of a possible compromise bill before the end of the week last night several democrats joined rank with house republicans wednesday to defeat a twenty one day extension of current law set to expire friday night and continuing with the article although republicans and the administration have been pushing for lawmakers to pass a long term fice a bill democrats have insisted that if the current surveillance laws laps in the intelligence community community will not be impacted also violence that is currently go on with going on would continue according to majority leader standing hoyer as reported by congress now they are voting now on a motion to adjourn a procedural vote still some time left and some votes left they've been debating the rule for a couple of resolutions recommending that harriet miers and josh bolton be held in contempt of congress and on the informant of subpoenas the they rule is  phone acting rule which means if it's if it's voted on and passed the resolutions are in effect let's get some more now on that upcoming vote for me capitol hill conversation we had earlier joining us on the phone keith perino of congressional quarterly the schedule that they always intended to do it but there was always something else that was even more intense and they had to take precedence and and now they're saying well we have this time in the schedule do it's we're going to do it today even writing about this in congressional quarterly you said that house action be far from the end of the matter that the any action in the in the court the court cases would extend far beyond the bush presidency what's the house really after in this case want what the house wants to do is just sort of congressional prerogatives congressional oversight presidency simply because bush has less than a year to go and court cases like this factoring in appeals and they're not very many of court cases like this i should add to go on what should we take a really long time what have the has the internal white house records right communications back and forth between aides and that sort of thing related to the firings miers was subpoenaed for documents in her possession and testimony because the democrats investigation revealed she had a hand in the far east meaning she was and she discussed it with the justice department in the early stages and was aware of it and so on and so they want to see what she knows assuming the citations are approved in the house today what happens next what's the white house likely to do well that's work it's a little complicated under the law if the citation is approved the u s attorney for the district of columbia is required to take the matter before a federal grand jury for action but attorney general michael mckay's he has already told committee to initiate legal proceedings to enforce their subpoenas to initiate the proceedings on their own in a court so they don't need the justice department to carry the matter forward he's bringing rights for congressional quarterly covering the debate today in the house on these contempt citations thank you for joining us and the house will vote surely they pretty much wrapped up debate on the rule for those resolutions those contempt of congress resolutions this vote really goes back to electronic surveillance this is a procedural vote a motion adjourn the second one of the day that we've seen earlier a house republican leadership aide had said that republicans are protesting the refusal of speaker pelosi and majority leader hoyer to pass the bipartisan senate finance a bill therefore letting the that protect america act expire again this from a house republican leadership aide we believe delaying action on this critical bill puts our national security at risk and the comments continue republicans strongly believe that before congress adjourns and leaves washington we must give our intelligence officials the tools they need to keep america safe that's from capitol hill from our capitol hill reporter producer and new quotes of a republican leadership aide again on the house floor fifteen minute vote wrapping up we should see a vote sometime soon on the the rule for the resolutions recommending that harriet miers and josh bolton be held in contempt of congress also a number of votes later today on suspension bills that were debated yesterday in the house over in the senate today they've been working on a bill setting american indian health care programs through the year two thousand and seventeen a number have a of amendments have been offered senate leaders there say they hope that they'll finish the bill today or tomorrow before they leave for the presidents day recess and we're covering a hearing this afternoon on national intelligence with the director of national intelligence mike mcconnell that'll be coming up this afternoon at two thirty eastern live on c span three you're watching  live house coverage on c span the bulk of the house business today has been debate on the rule for resolutions recommending that harriet miers and josh bolten be held in contempt of congress and on enforcement of subpoenas that's a self executing rule which means if they vote on it it passes it's in effect and that drew a lot of debate on the house floor in the last hour hour and a half or so a number of suspension bill votes coming up today as well a piece writes the julie hershel davis with the associated press writes the house is moving toward a vote to hold two of president bush's confidence in content for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether federal prosecutors were ousted for political reasons the action which democrats have been threatening for six months was the latest wrinkle in a more than year long probe that's from the associated press earlier today members attended the memorial service in the capitol for the late tom lantos representative of california who died at the age of eighty on monday due to cancer we'll have a chance you have a chance to see that again on saturday morning we'll show you a ten a m eastern you can also see that the moral service online it's the video is link the complete program at cspan dot org motion to adjourn this procedural vote winding down we should see a bit more wrap up on the debate over the rule for these contempt of congress citations against harriet miers and white house chief of staff josh bolten john bresnahan in the politic wrote this morning that although the house judiciary committee approved its contempt resolutions more than six months ago speaker pelosi and other democratic leaders have repeatedly postponed a floor vote until now citing a variety of reasons in doing so some top democrats including democratic c chairman rahm emanuel don't want the house to press the issue fearing that congress's authority could be eroded if the courts support bush's position other democrats including some conservative blue dogs fear that seeking this legal fight is needlessly inflammatory especially since former attorney general alberto gonzales on whose watch the firings occurred has left office that's from the politico one of a number of articles about politics about capitol hill that you'll find in capital news dot org our  question to capitol news dot org senate voted yesterday to ban waterboarding and other interrogation tactics used by the cia our poll question asked you should the cia be allowed to waterboard terror suspects log on and cast your vote and take a look at the latest political video and read the latest political headlines at capital news dot org members will vacate the well take their seats or move their conversation from the floor members or seven in rear of the chamber will take their seats or remove their conversations from the floor my colleagues many of you have heard me say on numerous occasions that i think the american people sent us here to work together to get things done on behalf of our country over the last couple of weeks we've had an opportunity with the economic growth packages to work in a bipartisan way on behalf of the american people and i really think it showed our chamber and our congress at its best but i don't think there's any priority that we have that's more important than protecting the american people and for more than six months we've reached out to the majority on the foreign intelligence surveillance act because we want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to protect us now that bill that was passed in in late july expired on february first and several weeks ago we provided it an extension now that that runs out on saturday for the last six months as we've tried to come to an agreement on this bill we've reached out to the majority of trying to find common ground and we've been turned down at every turn this week the president the senate and frankly a majority of the members of this house and i have said enough is enough no more extensions but instead of working with the republicans and democrats who are interested and working on this bill that would protect our country and protect the american people that this political stunt what occurred today because we have space on the house schedule and other words we have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition but no space for a bill that would protect the american people from terrorists who want to kill us i think this is the height of irresponsibility it's an insult to this house and it's an insult to the american people the actions on the floor of this house today will not make america safer it will not help us protect americans from being attacked earlier today the president announced that he would delay his trip to africa a long planned trip he would delay it so that he could work us to sign the long term foreign intelligence surveillance act modernization the law in the law house republicans stand ready to stay here as long as it takes to get this bill passed and get it to the and ladies and gentlemen we will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security we well we well we will not stand for this and we will not stay for this and i would ask my my house republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be here protecting the american people not vote on this bill let's just get up and leave not always been the case i want to read you a little bit from the debate from one nine hundred ninety eight when mr boehner speaks mr boehner says mr speaker it's time for stall tactics to end and cooperating to begin whether it is stalling on basic requests for information or invoking executive privilege the result is the same the american people are denied the right to know what is going on inside their white house in the end mr speaker that is what the fight is all about the american people's right to know what happens in their government the government does not belong to politicians in washington d c the government will launch to the american people and have a right to know what happens in washington d c they have a right to know what is going on in their white house i concur completely with mr boehner on that statement and want neither republican nor democrat president t the debates we've been having over the past few days are consequential and about the most important thing that this body does and that is uphold the law not just pass the law uphold the law and as i said a little earlier in this debate part of that was overseeing the executive department to ensure that they execute our laws appropriately and legally and the congress has been given under the constitution the authority to seek information the judiciary committee has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming that congress as mr boehner said cannot do its job if the congress simply fails to assert its constitutional rol now there is a situation that we confront that large number say that they want to adjourn they've been making motion after motion after motion to a now they have been voting for it but they've been making it and now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we're not working they assert that we're not passing the foreign intelligence surveillance act not to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in resolving the differences between the senate and in the house in a conference committee now i will tell my friends on the republican side of the house they know as well as i do that the reason the senate did not pass us a bill three months after we passed our bill to them was because  republican delay in the united states senate that's the reason this bill is so late getting to us and that's the reason we don't have time to work it out that's the reason that we are not passing legislation now the president  erts that the expiration of the protect america act will pose a danger to our country the former national security council adviser on feisal will remain in effect the authority given under the protect america act remains in effect and if there are new targets the feis a court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act so i tell my friends we are pursuing the politics of fear unfounded fear four hundred thirty five members of this house and every one of us every one of us wants to keep america and americans safe not want to th not one of us wants to subject america or americans to danger the president's assertion is wrong i say it categor president's assertion is wrong now the president says he will delay his trip to stay here and work with us i know that mr reyes and mr conyers will be contacting mr rockefeller and  wife got pat's name to discuss with them how we might move forward they in turn will talk with their republican counterparts as well to see how we can move forward but the time that we asked for less than twenty four hours after the senate passes a bill that time we asked for to a let this process which is the normal legislative process to bring the senate and the house together to fashion a bill that both houses feel comfortable with feel is good for america was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote of the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective the president said he was going to be to it which is why i presume all of you voted against it because of course in the first six years we never pas anything to the president that he wasn't supportive of we were very cooperative congress with this president this president is not used to the congress saying we may have a different view mr president we too have a responsibility and we may see it slightly differently than you but yes as the leader on the other side said we have come together we work together we passed a stimulus package together we can do that on this bill but we can't do it overnight this matter is much too serious to do it overnight my friend of the rules committee indicates  this does not give us full time for debate on this rule he opposes this rule the interesting thing is he says country we ought to be considering something over night over night without any time to consider it in conference the minority has now affected a strategy which they tried to use on the agriculture bill let's work but by the way we're leaving and why are we leaving we're leaving so that we can put clued a majority being responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond we'll have to go out of session so it is somewhat ironic that on the one hand they say we ought to be doing something and on the other hand they walk out to preclude us from doing our business i'd be glad to have them i think billy madam speaker i simply rise to say that my very good friend the distinguished gentleman from maryland is incorrect when he said that we're asking for a measure to be considered overnight on tuesday of this week this measure was sent to this house and we have had an there is no urgency that claim is a claim made to stampede this house and the american people i tell my friend from california thank the reasons that there is no urgency because in one nine hundred seventy eight this congress passed legislation to assure the fact that we could intercept communications was the same time protecting our constitution that is why there is no urgency is there an important reason to act there is do we have every intention of act acting we do but we will not be presented with a bill on tuesday night and asked to pass it on wednesday afternoon without a full and fair consideration that is our duty that is our responsibility and that is what we will do you know back the balance  the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute thank you madam speaker i began my speech today by saying that we must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on the same squares some votes may be tough this one isn't the first thing we do when we enter this congress is swear to uphold the constitution of the united states that is what we're asking you to do today on both sides of the aisle for some of our friends obviously it's easier for them to pass they'd rather not vote on this but for the rest of us there to stand up to our duty while we were saying here reassert the fact that the congress of the united states is a a co equal branch a vote yes on this and i call the previous question the question