Time. Ult it is i think in their political interest, i guess, have decided the work down of congress. Well, you know what, the work. An people want us to in times that are normal and like this, were in the middle of a pandemic, and so i to d urge my colleagues eject the motion of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and instead vote to get our work done. And with that i reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall thank you, madam speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. I want to ask my chairman, when he was referencing republicans who just want to slow this place down and dont want to get any work done, if he would accept me and my colleague from virginia from that characterization. Because except me and my colleague from virginia from that characterization. Because id like my chairman to know that doesnt apply. When the chairman just stated that the reason that republicans are opposed to proxy voting has nothing mr. Mcgovern let me put it this way. There are certainly members of your conference who are interested in slowing the work of this democratic majority down. And i think the arguments, the constitutional arguments are certainly on our side on this. And i think that there is another agenda, quite frankly. That is being pursued by some. Im not going to attribute that to you. Mr. Woodall i thank my chairman. Madam speaker, if the constitutional arguments are so clear, we should be able to get this out of the District Court in very short order. Presumptively with the decision that my chairman would like. I want to ask my friend from virginia, again, what ive seen from mr. Griffith, madam speaker, is someone who has fought on behalf of the institution, not on behalf of republicans, not on behalf of democrats. Without throwing my friend under the bus, hes been in the minority of my conference as often as hes been in the majority, fighting to do the right thing because he thought we were on the wrong path and he was saying, you know what, you may think this is political expedient today, but youre going to regret this and the decisions we make arent about politics, theyre about people, theyre about the institution, and so id like to yield to my friend if he has anything to add. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Griffith thank you, madam speaker. I appreciate it and i would reiterate and thank the gentleman for his kind comments and hes right. I come here not today as a republican or a democrat, i come here as an american and i have no agenda today except to defend the constitution. And while the courts may ultimately determine that my friends on the other side of the aisle are right, i believe they are sorely wrong, madam speaker. Sorely wrong. Because we are not just talking about voting from afar and while i would have problems with that as well, i will tell you it is more critical than that, because the constitution calls on us to meet, to assemble, and to have a quorum. And the Founding Fathers debated whether or not that quorum should be a smaller than 50 amount. And they determined that was not right because then it would tilt power into the hands of those that live closer to the capital. Like mr. Beyer who apparently is carrying at least nine plocksies. It tilts power into those peoples hands and away from the states that are further away. Like colorado and california. And so, madam speaker, i would submit to you there is a reason that in 231 years this has never come up. Even though they could have written a letter, as i said before. They could have easily written a letter. They could have written a letter and said, hey, i cant get there right now, give my vote to my friend. They didnt do it. They could have said, hey, for purposes of a quorum, count me from afar by letter. They knew how to write. Messages were traded all the time. Instead, they went to wherever the capital was at the time, whether it be in philadelphia, whether it be in washington, d. C. , in a hotel, and they did the peoples business, they did not cede that authority to anyone else. They kept it for themselves. And thats what the constitution calls for. And you know what. As i said before, they never did it, they never thought they should, they never thought they could. And, ladies and gentlemen, madam speaker, i have to tell you, we go all the way back to the declaration of independence. And cesar rodney got on his horse while deathly ill with cancer, suffering from asthma and the gout to ride to philadelphia to cast the deciding vote for his state of delaware because he needed to be there live in order to do it. He needed to be at the capitol, he needed to be at Meeting Place of this country. Even in its infancy. To cast the vote no matter what. And he rode through a storm. And so we continue to have the policy. Because it was the Founding Fathers wish. And because it is the right thing to do, that if youre going to count as a quorum, you meet in the capitol. You may designate a different place for that capitol. We might designate it in colorado, if need be. But wherever the capitol is designated, this body must come together representing the people from the various states of this union and we, each individual, shall cast our vote , not 10 votes here by one and eight votes there by another, but one by one, each district as determined in the census shall cast their vote on a each and every measure. And when we dont do that, we dont do our job. And when we dont do our job, we cast a doubt on every action we take. I yield back. Mr. Woodall i thank my friend from virginia, madam speaker. And i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i dont even know what the heck the gentleman from virginia is talking about. We debated this. Nobody is ceding their power to anybody. I mean, and we had this debate, read the resolution. Members who cannot be here are very much engaged and are directing their wishes very directly like they would by casting a vote here. So i dont even know what the heck were talking about here. But i guess its a good talking point on their side. But it doesnt reflect reality. With that at this point, madam speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished speaker of the house, ms. Pelosi. The speaker pro tempore the distinguished speaker is recognized for one minute. The speaker thank you, madam speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on the rules committee and for bringing us together so that we can present this fisa bill on the floor today. Madam speaker, when we come to congress, we all take an oath of office, we raise our right hand to protect and defend. The constitution of the United States, protecting that, were protecting the american people. Central to that defense is how we do protect and defend. Its about our values, which are part of our strength, its about the health, education and wellbeing of our people, our children, our future, which is part of our strength. Our military might is part of our strength. And our intelligence is very much a part of our strength, in order to provide force protection for our men and women in uniform, when they go out there to protect and defend our country. Force protection. When i first started on the Intelligence Committee in the early mid 1990s, a long time ago, i would soon then rise to be the Ranking Member and i take great pride in that, when i started way back when, it was about force protection. Intelligence to protect our forces, to anticipate any initiation of hostilities and lso when engage also when engaged, to have the intelligence to protect. And since then the whole world has changed with technology and all the rest, and that in that period of time. So our intelligence has had to change as well. And one of the ways it has has necessitated us having a fisa bill, the reauthorization of reauthorization of the u. S. A. Freedom bill today. We passed a bill, the chair of the judiciary committee, mr. Nadler of new york, and the chair of the Intelligence Committee, mr. Schiff of california, to committees of jurisdiction. It had strong bipartisan support, it went over to the senate. In my view, it was vastly improved in the senate and it had 80 votes. Our bill was bipartisan. Their bill was bipartisan too. 80 votes in the United States senate for the senate bill, which was amended by the leahylee amendment. Very, very protective of the balance that we have to have between security and privacy. Security and Civil Liberties. This is the balance that we have to strike. In my years on intelligence, i was focused a lot on the Civil Liberties part of it, establishing a board, etc. , to ensure that whatever we did, that balance with our Civil Liberties was central and important to it. As Benjamin Franklin said, security and liberty, you cant have one without the other. They go together. Security and liberty. And so now today, this rules committee is presenting that bill, the u. S. Freedom reauthorization act, coming back from the senate. Again, our bill in the house originally was 278136. It was strongly bipartisan. 126 republicans voting for it. This bill coming back from the senate, as i said, has 80 votes over there. With an intelligence bill, with a fisa bill, nobody is ever really that happy i never was. I never you always want more or less, as the case may be. But the fact is, and i say this in all humility, because i dont pretend to know more than my colleague, but in all humility, we have to have a bill. If we dont have a bill, then our liberties, our Civil Liberties are less protected. Some people say, i dont care, just let them extend this and extend that. No. Theres real value in both the house bill that we passed and then exceptionally so in what the senate passed. There are those who would not like to see us have a bill. Some of them in the judiciary the department of justice. To say, dont have a bill. Just give us all the leeway in the world not to have to protect any liberties. But we cant have that. Take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. And all the liberties contained therein. As we protect the american people. So, if anybody thinks, well, no. In order to have a bill we have to have a rule. So i thank you, mr. Chairman, for bringing this rule to the floor, which will enable us to pass a bill. This legislation increases the power of the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board to pursue its mission to protect americans privacy. After 9 11, as congress considered the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, establishing the privacy and Civil Liberties in a moment we will take you back to the house floor. E housst aourned l 00 a. M. Orrow. Said he would veto the fisa bill if the house passed the legislation. The house is expected to gavel in at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Cspans washington day with live every news and policy issues that impact you. Thursday morning my we discussed the latest on the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic with Virginia Republican congressman ben cline, and new York Democratic congressman. Watch washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern thursday morning. Join the discussion. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white court, andsupreme Public Policy events from the president ial primaries through the impeachment process. And now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch all cspans look Affairs Programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. And be part of the National Conversation through cspans washington journal program. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by yourev