c-span: you were not happy when dick armey wrote an op-ed piece in "the wall street journal." >> guest: you know, dick and i worked pretty closely together the first four years of my speakership. and i think dick was somewhat disappointed when livingston stepped down and he really didn`t get the nod to be speaker. and i think that`s a personal disappointment we would all have. and he was the next guy in line but it just happened that way. and you know, one of the things about speaker, anybody -- you know, if you have half the votes in your conference, you can get elected to a party position or a conference leadership position. but in order to get elected speaker, you have to have every one of -- almost every one of your people to get elected. that`s what happened to newt in the first place because we had 10 or 12 people, maybe 18 people, that weren`t going to vote for him for speaker on the floor. and you can`t get elected speaker. it just doesn`t happen. and i think that was the realization that dick had to face up to. but you know, we worked together very, very closely. and dick was

dick armey on the right of your screen there, or tom delay on the left of your screen, they were both kind of fire breathers like newt gingrich had been. but after what newt gingrich had brought them to, after the bob livingston "i had affairs too" public relations catastrophe in the middle of what they were trying to do in the middle of the bill clinton impeachment weather all of that going on, with all of that turmoil in '98, after losing the midterms, middle of the impeachment, recognizing it's a political disaster, losing newt gingrich, picking bob livingston, losing bob livingston, not wanting delay, not wanting army, with all of that going on, facing the historic defeat in the elections, they decided, republicans decided they needed to play it safe. they needed somebody to calm everything down. they needed somebody with no scandal dragging around behind him, somebody who didn't have enemies under every rock in washington, somebody who wasn't a fire breather and super controversial and like an insurgent or revolutionary, they needed somebody competent and trustworthy seeming, som

it was dick armey.he signed a tea party budget compete deregulated glass-steagall, don't ask don't tell, nafta. this crime bill is what has the african-american community. now -- messed up now. all this is coming home to roost. what sister souljah said was right. bill clinton's presidency for african-americans was disastrous. he should have been telling the right wing newt gingrich and dig army -- dick armey that what they were doing was wrong. host: all right, let me ask you this, back on topic here -- how does this really to whether or not hillary clinton should be taking questions from the press? should she have to answer for her husband's administration? caller: just answer those questions. she made a statement about the crime bill, that it was wrong mass incarceration, and same-sex marriage. she said that. she is speaking out against those things now. this is what she is going to have to do. there is no center. there was no center under bill clinton. bill clinton governed from the far right of the

and the reason we're here to even debate it is that then-majority leader dick armey in the house and i put in sunset provisions so we will have to show responsibility and vote as the house did the house did by a four-to-one margin. our bill, senator lee's bill and mine would not just end the n.s.a.'s bulk collection of section 215, it would add new transparency to oversight reforms to other surveillance authorities. and it would be a solid foundation upon which we can build our future reform efforts. i've been in the united states senate for more than 40 years. i've learned that when there's a chance to make real progress, we ought to seize it. but i also know we cannot let this be the end of our fight for greater privacy protections transparency and account act. i remember committed to fighting that fight on behalf of vermonters and all americans. so the choices before us this evening are clear -- either let these authorities expire completely or pass the u.s.a. freedom act. there's no more time for political maneuvering or fearmongering or scare tactics. it's time for us to do our

the original sunset provisions were written by republican leader dick armey and myself. i.t. not as though this deadline suddenly snuck up on the leadership of the chairman of the intelligence committee who's just now considering alternative proposals. remember we're just a few days away from the expiration date. but despite this urgency and the extensive debate we've been having the only bill that's been filed by the opponents of the u.s.a. freedom act is a two-month rubber stamp of the patriot act provisions, a bill the senate sponsors know cannot pass the house even if they were in session and because they're not if we were to pass it here, it becomes a nothing burger because there will be no law to extend. i read in the press there may be an alternative proposal in the works. it may include a provision to keep the bulk collection program if place for more than two years. well even if you could legally pass that, it's entirely unnecessary. just this week, the n.s.a. director stated in a letter to leaders mcconnell and reid that the n.s.a. only needs 180 days to transition