it would be short sighted to limit the government's ability to monitor an individual foreign terrorist who is working alone within the country it is not so hard to imagine a terrorist break away from al qaeda logical reasons and set out to commit terrorist acts on their own these authorities were not acted after nine eleven to fill gaps in the law the fact that this particular gap was close may have deterred a lone terrorist from attacking within this country since the provision was enacted we do not know but if it is not extended i would not like to have to explain to the american people or family especially the relatives of any victims of a lone terrorist attack why congress allowed this to expire simply because it was previously not needed some critics argue that the government can use title three criminal wiretaps to monitor terrorist however a criminal wiretap to use in intelligence operations first criminal wiretaps are authorized and the presumption that the information collected will be used as evidence in a trial and turned over to the target when they become a defendant in a criminal case however if i so wiretaps are used to collect foreign intelligence information that is highly classified and generally used for purposes other than a criminal trial and intended not to be given to the terrorists further if i so wiretaps protect the sources and methods of the government surveillance this is information that criminal wiretaps do not protect gathering intelligence through use of a criminal wiretap could tip off the terrorists to the strategies we used to track terrorists and intercept them before they strike criminal wiretaps also require quote live minimization to ensure that the government does not gather intelligence on protected activities however live minimization is nearly impossible in foreign intelligence collection that is because most of the information captured by fighter wiretaps is in a foreign language it is recorded live but later translated by linguists as intelligence agents intelligence agencies under this process there is no opportunity for the government to minimize information as it is collected due to these realities it is imperative that the wilding let's start with she's the former chief counsel of the house permanent select committee on intelligence  place and with that i'd like to yield some time and i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding actually i was going to make that point a couple of others mr chairman on this particular issue i agree with the president of the united states i agree with the department of justice prior to the trial in the case it would be dangerous to turn over that kind of information because it might well reveal our sources and our methods of trying to track down terrorists the second reason amendment if the fourth amendment handed upbringing people who are protected by the constitution under the scope of the act a court would have struck it down as unconstitutional a long time ago and that has happened  act referred to by the gentleman from new york really doesn't apply or is not applied there are two very separate and distinct things and i just look at the criminal trial that resulted from the  dropped and these were conversations that were overseas and also how the twin towers were constructed and the result of those coming out in a public criminal trial  indicated that we were able of the type of surveillance maps of the day after it became evidence in a trial and the testimony that was given by the architect of the twin towers that they were designed to withstand a direct hit from a seventy seven which was the largest airplane that was flying at the time the towers were designed certainly in law and out of the information to use bigger airplanes to mr watt mr scott adequately balances while the bill before us makes good progress in doing both of these things i do have concerns about the classification of programs authorized by and or specifically i question whether certain top secret programs really need to be classified as such and whether our current system for curbing the tendency towards blanket secrecy in our intelligence programs is effective the amendment that i'm offering security as my colleague our nation's security policies and procedures have largely been prescribed in a series of presidential executive orders these executive orders and most a systematic declassification review to be conducted by each agency that has originated classified information my amendment is consistent with these executive orders and reaffirms that the government should provide the american mine from texas and i am well aware of some of the charitable foundations and i want to put this very limited amendment does not capture the prosecution that took place in texas on  charitable organizations that were using that status for untoward activity i propose that we use this opportunity to address and to attend to the issue of material support for terrorism  to address the question of providing humanitarian aid currently charities and human rights organizations and their employees a severe legal sanction including prison time for providing aid essential to saving lives such sanction should be in polls only on those who  support terrorism not on those who are violent humanitarian aid in addition the manager an exemption for medicine the religious materials could have been expanded to include medical services and equipment water sanitation facilities materials required for emergency response education materials and activities development activities that contribute to self sufficiency and conflict resolution and human rights based programs every violent extremism that was discussed by a number of our very very supportive humanitarian organizations of i have a great deal of respect for but i want to narrow this so that my colleagues can  narrow focus to ensure the security of americans and also provide the provision of the previous might have included the items such as food water water sanitation materials medical services blankets clothing shelter but i have narrowed it and so my amendment only adds to the material support exceptions for medicine of religious material bibles to other essential items and water only food and water only for the more my minute limits the occasions when these items could be given the times of natural disasters mine our approach was also influenced by a similar memo that was offered by my dear friend mr scott during the hundred ninth congress then with the scots i'm included they brought a provision for a manager in a and had the good support of a number of a members and i have taken his great leadership and narrowed that intent is a member of the foreign affairs committee which also has you that there was enough military presence to support anyone attempting to do untoward activities but we were bringing in blankets and water and obviously under the auspices of those who intend to do  prohibited and barred obviously from the area you are talking about the actual victim you're not speaking to those groups who may have previously been involved in activities that were so i am looking for providing material support provision we know from experience on the ground just how devastating this prohibition has been and one powerful example was the two thousand  everything from borders to traffic and the fact that humanitarian groups had to cooperate with this organization to get should not have prevented the delivery of goods like food and water the long includes murder manslaughter arson use of biological weapons to kill maim or injure persons or damage property this is not by any stretch of the imagination a humanitarian purpose even if the nature of the items may have humanitarian  order ok well first of all i vigorously disagree with the gentleman from new york and his interpretation because we are amending the definition of material support  frankly this language was in the two thousand and five bill so therefore it is language that has been accepted in the past it is ludicrous to suggest that we would be so u nrestrained that we would not be able to throw out the false transmitting of food and water this is an issue that has confronted our charitable groups it's unfortunate that some of them happen to have muslim in their name and i frankly am concerned that we are not looking at the broad spectrum of charitable but my comment on it being germane has to do with the title of this bill has to do with the patriot act amendment we have amended the roving wire on an idea of a prospectively having a hearing on this question i believe this is germane because this is a bill amending the patriot act with language in it i don't think we can continue to ignore the need of separating out charitable my own personal opposition that this is not something that we should be exploring that question money when it comes to organizations like is fungible and i don't think that it would be appropriate same as generally people were just making observations gentleman from thank you mr chairman i'll be just my observation is that if two distinguished members disagree so much on a point it makes the point for a hearing criminal pan registers and trap and trace devices the federal criminal code as provided penn registers and appen trace authority since one nine hundred eighty six the pen register is an electronic device that records all telephone numbers dialed from a particular telephone line a pen register can also be used to acquire outgoing internet ip addresses and e mail routing in addressing information trap and trace is similar to a pen register but instead of providing the outgoing phone numbers out from a particular phone line it provides incoming phone numbers dialed to a particular telephone line under current law the law enforcement officials must show that the information captured by a pen register trap and trace  vice is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation this standard has been in place since an accident of the provision in one thousand nine hundred eighty six in contrast h r thirty eight forty five unwisely elevates that standard to require government law enforcement officials to provide a statement of specific and articulable facts in its application to the court this statement is meant to justify the government's belief that the information to be obtained by the p register or a trap and trace advice is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency the manager's amendment takes the additional unwarranted step of requiring the reviewing court to specifically find that the government's statement of our articulable facts this efficient in its order authorizing the use of a pen of the pen register or trap and trace vice there's no justification for this elevation of the standard needed to obtain a pen register or a trap and trace advice there's also no justification for the extra step that the court must take an issue an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device there is no evidence of any abuse of this criminal authority there is no reason to  amend this provision at all and certainly not in the u s patriot act reauthorization if adopted this section would underlie burden the federal and local law enforcement agencies that regularly use pen registers and trap and  trace advices in criminal cases because of this fact the national district attorneys association the national chair for journal water police all oppose this provision proposed change in the standard i've also heard from the international so seasons of police they believe section one of seven effectively erodes the value of the pen register and make it more difficult for law enforcement to access the ongoing call detail records of a subject while attempting to determine patterns and relationships demonstrated by the subjects communication records these are unwarranted and unnecessary changes in the law the committee should strike section one of seven and the additional changes that are in the mr chairman and also while it's fresh in my mind what you were just saying is when you talk about standards of proof and then you related to a terry stop but then say it's not the same thing  and that the fact that there's been no misconduct with the existing standard that we have from one thousand nine hundred sixty but yet it still needs to be elevated despite the fact that there's been no misconduct i'm not i'm not quite  but i might say to the chair one of the strange things is the example of stopping somebody and searching him isn't the equivalent in this case this is an example of writing down license plate numbers as vehicles go b a certain intersection and i think that's a more appropriate equivalent granted they're not as visible on the road but but the technique of trapping we're trapping relevant association numbers and  back gentleman from california i'm sorry i wasn't here for all the debate but could the chair clarify have we had hearings on this particular subject effect unless i'm mistaken every single law enforcement agency in the country if i understand correctly what this part of the bill does and may i ask the chair do we have  member except the secondary amendment instead would replace the specific articulable with language that requires a statement of facts and circumstances relied upon by hundred eighty six standard is somehow broken or being abused i don't at this point see the need to modify and i would like this amendment to stand on its own for now because i think that mr berman votes no foreign intelligence investigation the pen register is an electronic device that records all telephone numbers from a particular telephone line a pen register can also be used to wire outgoing internet ip addresses and email  under is that the end for me is likely to be one foreign intelligence information not concerning the united states person or two relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities if an investigation involves a u s person it cannot be conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the constitution section one hundred eight of the house democrats legislation amend the standard to require a statement of the specific and articulable facts from the government to justify the belief that he will collect foreign intelligence information or is relevant to an investigation to protect against terrorism this new standard is completely unnecessary and will be burdensome to government the government must already go through the arduous steps to obtain a order for a p r collection congress should not unnecessary and will be burdensome to the government the government must already go through arduous steps to obtain a court order for a pen or trap and trace device so i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment  that does not bar the work of our very fine law enforcement and i rise to oppose the language of the amendment because i think the standard can be equated to what probably was the opposition to the established miranda law decades ago but that would hinder him for some it hinder the activities of law enforcement in their pursuit of criminal we've found that that's only given americans a detail as to the utilization of the technique i frankly believe that the constitution warrants this city and i believe that in our actions even though it may be in the pursuit of terrorists we too are guided r thirty eight forty five offered by ms jackson lee of texas at the appropriate place in the bill insert the following section section plan for public reporting on national security attorney general shall submit to the committee on the judiciary and the permanent select committee on intelligence of the house of representatives the committee on the judiciary the select committee on intelligence is a hallmark of democracy my mimic calls for the attorney general to submit to congress not later than one hundred eighty days after the date of the enactment of this report describing a plan that to the maximum extent consistent with national security will provide periodic  particularly important in areas that could lead to any misuse of power rigorous public reporting requirements are essential to permit congress and the public to access information pertaining to the accuracy of the patriot act i believe that having full and public access to the activities within the guidelines of the part of justice within the guidelines of the inspector general is a continuing assurance of civil liberties while also ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to fight terror as chairman today  many of our colleagues have indicated that there are no need for changes i need only remind them of two things one from the past and one from the president first as a student of history we can recall that before we  had the challenges of the patriot act we had the challenges that were misuse and in the mccarthy house un american activities committee i believe because of the bipartisan work that we did when this bill was first passed by this committee under the leadership of then chairman sensenbrenner we have brought it that possibility but then as well we know that in addition to that action in the one nine hundred sixty s during the civil rights movement we saw the efforts of the cointelpro none of those individuals that were turned out to be terrorists other than to ask for equality in this nation both iterations of the patriot act were used to target political opponents of a party in power as a member of the select committee on assassinations that investigated the assassinations of dr king and john f kennedy i saw firsthand how dr martin luther king jr was targeted and who as it was revealed in the church commission in the one nine hundred sevent was given a handwritten note from an f b i agent urging dr king to do action that none of us would want to discuss at this time i therefore believe that this is a reasonable amendment a supreme court right according to this legislation we do have that possibility with this particular transparent amendment the opportunity for security but as well transparency i bill and i think that this amendment calling for a very public reporting would fall into the same category so it was my intent and it is still my intent to ask my colleague from texas to consider withdrawing her ame agencies because it would require them to figure out a way to release what might be classified information and rather than put them through that struggle for no apparent reason i think it might be good for us to discuss the d resubmitted if you want to do that well let me on to my colleagues in concluding indicate that we think the amendment is narrowly drawn but i am willing to submit to the same  the bill this amendment revises the standard by which the pfizer court will review the government's certification of non disclosure for business records under current law if the recipient of a business records order challenges the accompanying non disclosure requirement the file is a court is instructed to treat as conclusive the government certification that disclosure of a business records order may endanger the national security of the united states or interfere with diplomatic relations the legislation we're dealing with strikes that conclusive treatment provision thus affording no weight to the government certification this despite the fact that the courts of long held that the president and the executive branch as recognized under the constitution as experts on national security and foreign intelligence information must be afforded deference in their determinations that  certain information that may endanger american courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority executive or national security  conclusive treatment of n f l nondisclosure is unconstitutional because they found it inconsistent with strict scrutiny standards for content prior restraint on first amendment protected speech however the court did not find that in the absence of conclusive treatment there should be no wait before did the government certification on the contrary the court's opinion continue to acknowledge the precedence that level of deference must be afforded the executive branch's assessment of the dangers posed to national security or disclosure of a national security letter i would argue that the same holds true for business record  keeping with the court's opinion in this provision should be construed to afford a different deference excuse me so long as it is not conclusive to the government's nondisclosure certification so my amendment would take out removal of any difference whatsoever which is now conclusive and substitute a language which says the judge should give substantial w in the they said the standard that was applied was unconstitutional but what standard did they actually apply congress to determine what the appropriate deference would be but they acknowledged the opinion that deference given to the executive branch in these matters  mr chairman eight members voted of the members voted nay the member has not adopted the committee will be in recess to return immediately after this  ms baldwin without objection the gentleman is recognized in support of his amendment thank you mr chairman as chairman i offer the amendment to strike this section of the bill because clearly we we need to ensure that amendment does not require immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant since that time three federal appellate courts have considered and constitutionally upheld delayed notice search warrants and all of held them to be constitutional under current law the government can ask a federal judge i repeat a federal judge for permission to delay the notice of the notice to the target that has been conducted pursuant to warrant this legislation unwisely limits the judge's limits the judge's discretion in granting permission for delayed notice german by amending the standard  to will in section one o six the bill imposes a standard which shall not be as the chairman wisely would note where the shoe on the other foot the likelihood that a standard will meaning by all reasonable accounts will happen must happen and shall happen isn't going to happen it's very clear that a standard far less then will is the bases under which we would act were it us mr chairman i would ask and i would ask all the members consider if in fact your child had been kidnapped you wanted to have  warrant served on the likely kidnapper but did not want him to know that you were that close to him so that he would continue to keep your child alive in the hopes that you would deliver the rat ransom mr chairman would you that delay based on a standard and absolute by the preponderance of the evidence that it would lead to your child's death or would you rather that the standard be may lead to your child's death may adversely affect the ability to complete the rescue of your kidnapped child i used that example of a kidnapping for a good reason we have a hostage in terrorism every day the hostage is a safety and security of the american people letting a terrorist know that we are close to him onto him or in fact have been able to secure a tap on their communications whether a terrorist or a drug trafficker or any other  multi nation state actor clearly is what this this act was intended to do this sensible amendment is designed to treat that standard in a way that we'd want to be treated if it were our  congress unlimited last year while increasing the cost of health care for everyone so it's no surprise that opposition by trial lawyers is the reason tort reform has been excluded from the democrats health care proposals but it is a surprise budget office estimates that an acting tort reforms nationwide would result in medical malpractise insurance rates falling twenty five to thirty percent and according to the government accounting office rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums lower premiums mean americans will pay less to have better health care the american medical association said quote if the health care bill doesn't have medical liability reform in it then we don't see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs and the president's own doctor over two decades supports tort reform and he said regretfully that quote i want to talk to the president about malpractise and he took the lawyer's position and  the handful of states that haven't acted tort reform health care costs on the availability of medical care has expanded in my home state of texas premiums fell by thirty percent and more than fourteen thousand doctors returned or set up new practices  this state as a result of tort reform to give just one example a charitable hospital group in texas that serves the poor and under reported that enacted tort reform legal costs have gone from  hundred fifty three million dollars a year to two point three million last year doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that order unnecessary and expensive testing procedures that are no benefit to the patient department of health and human services estimates the national cost of defensive medicine is more than sixty billion dollars the congressional budget office just issued a report that concludes it costs fifty four billion dollars the cost of litigation and defensive medicine are then passed malpractise which are often just a form of legalized extortion but all americans would gain and tens of billions of dollars be freed up and could be used to help provide health care to the uninsured they would be reporting out this resolution to the house floor is the only way we and congress can expose the hidden barriers that now stand between real reform and the american people i thank the chairman of your back well i thank the gentleman one of our trial lawyers on the committee to the defense of those practitioners who are required to go regularly but be that as it may inquire of a distinguished ranking member of whether he has communicated any correspondence to the department of justice or the attorney general in an effort to determine what the relationship of the trial lawyers chairman your inquiry which whether we had mailed him a letter yet based upon our track record with sending letters to the department i think we have a couple of dozen and it has taken an average of five months to get a response if we get a response at all that was not exactly confidence building as far as being able to expect them to respond to any letter on this particular subject and again i think a resolution would get a response a lot more together can elicit from turner general or his representatives you know i missed him as i understand it you have agreed to make a conference call with me so far and would you be willing during that conference call my friend the ranking member and mr chairman do you would you request as i would hope that we would need to get a response from them before we vote on the health care bill saturday at approximately six p absolutely i would insist upon those terms if that's what you want let me ask my colleagues if if if there are any other requests we'd like to make as long as the chairman is so agreeable could you could you hold off any other plane if you asked him in the rain if you asked him on a boat did you ask him whether go but i'll hold off on that point as a point of clarification and to clarify where i stand on things i haven't yet been accused of being a trial attorney i don't see it as a negative while i have probably had completed a couple hundred trials they were always in criminal court and i don't see how that plays out in the health care debate but as long as we're talking about asking who's played a role in the health care debate i think it's fair to go across the board if we're going to do that if we're going to look at our true intentions  clearly this is a comprehensive health care reform bill attempts at such but there is a lot not in the bill as well and it doesn't it goes well beyond the issue that was raised here and i believe that there are probably hundreds of groups that are glad that they aren't involved with this and a greater level but i would suggest that if we're asking about motivations of why things were done that it's not fair to single out the american association for justice i think it's fair to ask how i could probably name a hundred groups but i'll start with the american medical association the american hospital association the u s chamber of commerce or any other entity associated with advocating for so called medical malpractise reform or any of the groups whose interest in health care is not involved in this bill who may be happy today that that's not the case  the constitution may say and no one will ever be the wiser there can be no lot no rights and no liberty if the executive can do anything it wants behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy the state secrets doctrine as it has been reinvented in the last few years is the greatest threat to liberty in this country at present it must be limited and controlled and the appropriate balance between our three branches of government must be restored that is what this bill seeks to do separation of powers concerns are at their highest with regard to secret executive branch conduct and the government cannot be allowed to hide behind and examine claims of secrecy president obama has acknowledged the state secrets privilege is overused and needs reform in late september attorney general holder issued new policies and procedures for invoking the privilege that policy is a welcome step in the right direction but it is not enough while it sets up some internal policing of the privilege by the executive branch it still permits the executive to be its own judge this policy does not provide for a review of assertions of the state secrets privilege congress must do so congress has already provided guidance to the courts for handling sensitive information and other contacts through  see for the classified information procedures act and pfizer it is high time that we provided similar guidance for handling claims of secrecy in civil cases several of the witnesses who submitted testimony to the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties including federal judges the former directors of the f b i and the cia and a former colleague congressman hutchinson argued persuasively that the courts have proven themselves fully competent to safeguard sensitive information and that it is the are best qualified to balance the risk of disclosing evidence with the interest of justice and in any event they are the branch interested by our system of government by our constitution making such a balance provides much needed guidance to courts when handling state secrets privilege claims in the following key way first h r ninety four perhaps dismissal of the case of the very outset and the government's unsupported assertion that the case cannot be considered because its entire subject matter is a state secret h r ninety four would require a court to examine and rule on actual not hypothetical claims of harm that would be caused by disclosure of the particular information that the government  withhold second h r ninety four requires that all judges using secure proceedings and other safeguards the information of the government seeks to withhold to determine whether the harm identified by the government is likely to occur currently each individual judge must decide whether to review the information or whether instead to accept the government's assertions as dispositive on their face this is resulted in inconsistent and unfair results third if the judge can be created allowing cases to go forward whenever possible while protecting valid states where there is no possible substitute the bill allows the judge to issue appropriate orders including dismissing a claim or finding for or against a party on a factual or legal issue this provision is modeled on the interest of justice language contained in the classified information procedures act and provides the same type of flexibility in civil cases as they now have in criminal cases we all understand the need to protect national security but both individual justice and national security can and must be protected at the same time ensures that when the government raises a state secret privilege in civil litigation the courts can strike the correct balance of the members of the committee to support the bill the bill in essence says that the executive may assert the state secrets claims the courts must judge the validity of those claims in the context of litigation as they normally do because chairman emeritus jim sensenbrenner thank you very much mr chairman i appreciate the ranking member yielding to me since i have a four o'clock meeting that i can break as i said at the hearing on this bill the state secrets privilege is a long standing legal doctrine the supreme court most recently described in the case called us versus randall in that case the supreme court made it clear that if a court after giving appropriate deference to the executive branch determines the public disclosure of the rules that govern this doctrine as it exist today were approved by the supreme court in the case of the united states reynolds the court held that deference to the executive branch is assessment of the sensitivity of national security information appropriate balance to maintain national security the doctrine has subsequently been held by court to quote have a firm foundation in the constitution and quote and it continues to have the strong support of today's supreme court which approvingly by justice department committee and the personal approval of the attorney general finally each year we will voluntarily report to congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because there must be proper oversight of our actions and quote that policy was formally adopted by the justice department on september twenty three and senate judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy has stopped pursuing his own legislation on the subject in favor of simply monitoring the implementation of the justice department's policy that measured approach stands in stark contrast to the bill before us today it would require a court to give testimony provided by partisan advocates hand picked by trial lawyers the same way as testimony provided by national security and presidents of both political parties have agreed that the current approach strikes the right balance we should not deviate from the approach that has been accepted over many years on a bipartisan basis and our nation so well this bill endanger our national security and makes it harder to protect american lives i hope there is bipartisan opposition to it now you're back thank you mister we will  to determine how to best the judges issuing these warrants a clear understanding that was not like that was not enough for the catchall as staff worked out a compromise we can all be for even if we cannot always be for some elements of the bill and i thank the chairman for his effort in making this happen and yield back the balance of my time i thank the gentleman contact the attorney general but that he is on a plane and unreachable at this point i know that we have talked to his staff and with the understanding that we will be able to get an official response by saturday afternoon i'd be willing to suspend the motion of any resolution of inquiry but let me add mr chairman that our national indications were unofficial aide that no such correspondence or communication that i requested existed that is simply not credible the white house just in its partial released records individuals who have visited at the white house and  officials five times just in the month of june and again that was just a partial list that occurred so i hope the white house understands that it is not credible for them to say there have been no communication agreed to drop the motion to report the resolution adversely but reported instead because of our outstanding agreement to report it gentleman is recognized as supportive of mr chairman i have three technical changes that i am offering in this amendment the first streamlines the process for appointment of attorneys with appropriate security clearance t yes i think the gentleman for yielding and i understand this man it makes clarifying changes described by the chairman of the constitution subcommittee clarity is superior to vagueness and so i support this amendment however the provisions of the bill this amendment leaves disclosed in the bill as it's currently drafted courts are given no real guidance in this respect but are simply ordered to evaluate the testimony of a government witness the same way they would any other witness any othe r expert witness i'm not sure that this is the correct standard or it's desirable for the congress to be silent on this point and the senate legislation sponsored by specter they would include  substantial standard this legislation offers something somewhat different that would provide that the government's assertion of harm should be given will facilitate the court an understanding that whether the government expert is the director of national intelligence director that they do possess possess the broadest possible range of information on the impact if you say the whole point here is that we're asking the court to judge whether the government's assertion that certain evidence must be kept secret is valid or not they're going to got to have the opportunity to make that case and what the bill says is the court's took the same weight to the government witnesses as it would to any other expert witness depending on on the facts by the article two powers given to the executive branch now we may not like we may wish that we were or in this the gentleman from new york the court is supreme in this regard but in fact the  gentleman from california is preferable to the underlying bill that we have the gentleman should look at what the u s supreme court said in department of of harm by the government deference second amendment would put the sense back in and add language as follows the courts your way testimony from government experts in the same manner as it does and along with any other expert testimony and then would about the court testimony from government experts in the same manner as it does along with any other expert it seems to be at odds with giving the government deference and i think it will cause confusion for the court to say well my supposed to give the government due deference and at the same time give it no more deference than any other expert so i find it confusing to suggest both at the same time which is why i thought it was cleaner if the goal is to say that the government is not an equal party here because the government has the whole array of intelligence information about what the national security interests are then they're not in the same shoes as every other witness so i reluctantly mr chairman i can't accept  what is implicated is a presumption a presumption that would in the minds of jurors that due deference means  i listen and have great respect for both gentlemen from from california but the arguments that are made by mr lundgren in terms of commander in chief article two powers are reminiscent of the debate that we have in terms of water policy this is a mixed bag clearly in the united states constitution that congress shall have the power to declare war limited and i d s say this is a situation where i think we have learned over the course of the past decade that executive power should be limited pr presidents follow that practice we have had significant difficulty receiving from the executive branch the kind of cooperation and collaboration that's necessary in terms of  oversight and that is not meant to be a partisan issue but we've had it during the clinton era we had it during president george w bush and it would appear that we're having some  think the chairman one of the perhaps the most dramatic changes in the bill with the gentleman yield if the gentleman would make a minor change in the amendment by unanimous consent i think we are prepared to accept  favorable submission was being made but i'd also like to indicate that with respect to that request it does seem that it is at a time that we are debating a very serious health care bill and i do know that medical