Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives FISA Debate On Rule 20240713

This resolution it shall be in order to take from the speakers table the bill h. R. 6172, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 19878 to prohibit the production of certain business records, and for other purposes. With the Senate Amendments thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the Senate Amendments. The Senate Amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member on the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption, without intervening motion or demand or demand for division of the question. Section 3, notwithstanding the order of the house of may 22, 2020, if a veto meaning is laid before the house message is laid before the house on house joint resolution 76, then after the message is read and the objections of the president are spread at large upon the journal, further consideration of the veto message and the joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative day of wednesday, july 1, 2020, and on that legislative day, the house shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. Woodall, pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only and i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, the rules committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 981, providing for consideration of Senate Amendments to h. R. 6172. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the Senate Amendments. The rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and the chair and the Ranking Member of the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. The rule provides that any madam speaker, the protection of Civil Liberties has been a uniquely american value. I oppose the original patriot act and subsequent reauthorization because i believe they crossed the line and compromised americans fundamental right to privacy. We can prevent crime and terrorism without our government collecting data on lawabiding citizens. Ive said that whether theres been a republican president or a democratic president in the white house. This has not been a partisan notion either. There are members on both sides of the aisle who have consistently said the same. When i work with my colleagues, mark pocan and tom massie, to introduce what was called the strongest antisurveillance bill to date, it was done with bipartisan support. Its no surprise then that i dont support the underlying bill either. Every day we ask americans to choose between their right to privacy and a false sense of security. Thats not a choice we should have to make. Having said that, other members in this chamber, democrats and republicans, feel differently. And it is the rules committees job to advance legislation to the floor. The floor. A fisa reauthorization recently passed this chamber with the support of over 2 3 of our members. I did not support it. The senate strengthened the bill, but, quite frankly, not Strong Enough for me. Though i do appreciate some of its reforms. Now, each member will have to decide where they stand. I know the president hasnt made this process easy. Hes thrown a lastminute wrench into the process with his tweeting. If this bill passes, it will go directly to his desk. Im not sure if he will sign it or not. Im not sure he knows, quite frankly. But we are giving every member the chance to cast a straight up or down vote and ultimately the house will have worked its will. Ive said many times that i oppose this bill. The government of the United States should not be able to go on fishing expeditions against citizens who havent even broken the law. Thats not a radical idea. To me thats a fundamentally american idea. I dont want seemingly unlimited, and in my view unconstitutional, powers in the hands of President Trump and attorney general barr, or any administration. This attorney general, quite frankly, has no respect for the rule of law. Thats my view. I dont trust him. I dont care whether its a republican or a democrat in the white house, we can and we must fight terrorism and deter wrongdoing in a way that better respects american Civil Liberties. This is a serious matter, madam speaker. It deserves to be handled more responsibly than by a latenight tweet. And with that, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall thank you, madam speaker. My chairman is exactly right, we just came out of the rules Committee Just about an hour ago and we did report this rule that does make in order a motion from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to concur in the Senate Amendments. And the Senate Amendments do take a small step forward in making the underlying language better than it used to be. But we had an opportunity in the rules committee to consider other amendments. We had an amendment by mr. Gosar, for example, that asked for additional certifications from the attorney general. We had a bipartisan amendment from mr. Davidson and ms. Love bren that would have gone lofgren that would have gone even further in protecting Civil Liberties. And i regret that the rule we have today makes neither of those in order. We have, as comes to no surprise to any of us, some very successful house work product that we could have added here and weve made the decision to accede the Senate Language. As i mentioned just over an hour ago, dr. Burgess, who sits on the rules committee, and i were there with the chairman at this time, madam speaker, with the chairmans indulgence, id like to yield to the gentleman from texas, dr. Burgess, for any statement he may have. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Burgess i thank the gentleman for yielding. And i do want to point out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, note the first word is foreign, Intelligence Surveillance act of 1978, provided authorities for the collection of foreign intelligence information to protect the United States from foreign threats. These authorities were expanded after 9 11 and their use has exceeded the original intent. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance court provides authorization via court order. Inspector general horowitzs recent report revealed intentional abuse of the fisa process by f. B. I. Officials investigating the Trump Campaign. Investigating the Trump Campaign for alleged collusion with russia during the 2016 president ial campaign and after extensive study by special counsel robert mueller, no such connection could be found. In addition, agents of the f. B. I. Reportedly used official meetings with thenpresident elect trump and Incoming National security advisor Michael Flynn for the purpose of gathering information on them, intelligence information. These politically driven actions by the f. B. I. Were highly irregular, inappropriate, and in the case of inaccurate fisa court applications, actually criminal. It is not legal to lie to a fisa court judge. And yet no one has been held accountable. No one has stood trial. Certainly no one has served a sentence to account for these crimes. What is the point of passing a law if the Enforcement Agency is the one abusing it . This is malfeasance of the highest order and it certainly must not go unpunished. Lets be clear. We all want to protect the American People and part of that responsibility includes authorizing certain activities by our intelligence agencies to obtain critical information on foreign targets. But no. Americans Civil Liberties should not be jettisoned for that effort. When the house first passed. Had passed h. R. 6172, the reauthorization of the u. S. A. Freedom act, i supported the bill because of the improvements that were made to the fisa process. But since then we have learned details that indicate that the abuse was much more widespread and much more deliberate than initially reported. Given that, rather than place additional requirements on the exercise of existing authorities, i think we must fully reevaluate the fisa authorities to resolve the right balance between protecting our nation and the rights of the American People. In addition, the administration does not support this bill in its current form. Which means that this is going to be yet another in a long line of activities undertaken by the democratic majority which are not going to be successful. I yield back to the gentleman from georgia. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i oppose the underlying bill. It has nothing to do with the mueller investigation. Into the collusion between trump operatives and the russians. Quite frankly, i look back at that episode in our history with great concern. A foreign power intervened in our election. And people close to the president lied about their interaction with the russians. Including general Michael Flynn, who my colleague just referred. To he lied to the f. B. I. But he doesnt need to worry because the president is going to pardon him or at least alluding to pardoning him. Because hes his friend. Its that kind of lack of respect for the law that has me concerned about giving more power to this administration, to be able to surveil american citizens. By the way, the attorney general is recommending a veto its because he thinks too restrictive. He wants more power. This attorney general wants more power. Give me a break. People have differences of opinion on the underlying bill. There are democrats who strongly support it and there are democrats who oppose it. There are republicans who at least they did strongly support it until the president did his tweet last night. And republicans who oppose it. So people can vote however they want to vote. But my opposition to the underlying bill is longstanding. And i hope that we im not going to sit here and try to listen to somebody try to rewrite history as to what happened between the russians and trump operatives. What happened should disturb every american, democrat or republican. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall thank you. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Woodall the gentleman from massachusetts, my chairman, knows the Great Respect that i have for him. In fact, the great affection that i have for him. I can tell him with complete sincerity, madam speaker, i have no interest in rewriting history. But i do have an interest in rewriting the future. And as we stand here today, my support for the underlying legislation does not wane because of a president ial tweet. My belief that the legislation will be signed into law wanes because of a president ial tweet. So, whether you are on the side that says, this bill is doing too much, or whether youre on the side that says this bill is doing too little, if youre on the side that says, we can do better together, then going down a path that the president s team has said will result in a veto advantages none of us. Madam speaker, it is painful, this is my last year in this institution, and i love this institution. Not because of the history thats in these walls. T because of the ancient to, mes that i see here tomes that i see here, but because of the people who sacrificed themselves and their families on behalf of something thats bigger than themselves. This idea thats the United States of america, that you and i have the privilege of playing a small leadership role in, thats universal and to be here n the floor of the house today , again, accentuating our divisions on a bill thats going nowhere, is worthless to me. I love being on the house floor with my chairman, madam speaker, when he is full thunder on behalf of his ideas and his principles, and i have to take the other side. That kind of debate, that kind of differences of opinions among people who respect one another, but simply come at things from a different perspective, thats exactly what this house was intended to produce. To be here on the floor today where my friend from massachusetts is having to carry a rule for a bill that he opposes, and watts to defeat, im down and wants to defeat, im down here telling you we had a great bipartisan solution but we wont be able to talk about it on the house floor, so now i have a bill that i support the underlying vision of, but know is going to go absolutely nowhere, and were just going to back folks into their political corners, thats not what our constituents expect from us and its not, i would argue, what we have come to expect from ourselves. It sadly is what the political theater advocates have come to expect for us. Madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to amend the rule to suspend the proxy voting until the d. C. Federal District Court reviews a lawsuit and determines an outcome. As you know, madam speaker, thinking about things that are within the laws of this institution, all the stories these walls tell, they will never tell a story of a Single Member of congress ever casting a vote from outside of this room where we are standing. Never has it happened. I would argue the constitution flatly prohibits it. I cannot understand how one can read the constitution differently, but i ask unanimous consent, madam speaker, to insert the text of my amendment in the record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Woodall i referenced the tones. Five s time i yield minutes to my good friend and actually, madam speaker, you know, someone who has worked in bipartisan way, a surprising bipartisan way, never fails to surprise members on both sides aisle, to protect this institution, all that it means American People. There are many folks in this institution, that i dont mind disagreeing with and in fact the fact we are on the other side probably leads me to believe that i am more right than i was. Ht i when i find myself disagreeing with the gentleman from virginia, i find myself having o go back and reflect on exactly why that is weve come down on different sides. In this ividuals chamber that provide us with that counsel, madam speaker, you know we hold in such high regard. Like to yield to the gentleman five minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. Speaker. You, madam we will miss you when you go on to do greater things elsewhere. Do not passr, if we the motion to proceed to the previous question, we can put proxy quorum voting rule on hold until after the courts have its to rule on constitutionality. Most on this sides of the aisle and the other side of the aisle strongly believe this proxy oting rule is unconstitutionally. Accordingly, yesterday, a suit was filed to have the rule declared unconstitutional. Griffith under the suit, the court is asked to do many an gs, including asking for injunction of our clerk from counting the proxy votes on any proxies nd on counting for purposes of determining a quorum. In on thismust weigh controversy before we take this new votes using proxy quorum voting scheme. The suit lace out constitutional requirements. Many of these arguments were made previously. The definitions of words like, to meet, assemble, etc. Speaker, as you know, and the important meanings are important and the filers of this suit couldnt happier. When i was reading it they used amuel jacksons dictionary of 1773. Just to let you know how odd all i could believe, i pulled off my copy of Samuel Jacksons shelves in my office and they got it exactly right. Meant to rm meet encounter, to be close, 1851, the e, and in webster dictionary says, to come near or or approach into company with. To assemble. To congregate. Example they used in websters 1851 was, the egislature will meet on the first wednesday in march. Clearly they knew what it meant to come together facetoface. Today on the internet, knowing hat some out there would say, morgan, get yourself out of the dusty books. To come into the presence of. O come facetoface and assemble similarly. In johnsons it means to bring place. R in one webster, to collect a number of ndividuals into one place or body. Internet i know what many of you are thinking, you have to get modern. Many of you are thinking, morgan, you got to get modern. Place and webex and others. Knew say if they only about it during the writing of the constitution, they would have permitted it. But, madam speaker, they had the written word and they had the ability to send letters. Knew about dangers. They knew about wars with other nations. D. C. , the burning of civil war. Multiple plagues and fears have of this he capitals country, but they never or amplated sending a note letter by friend or by post saying and can you imagine it saying, hey, give my vote to or williamf virginia only of indiana, and not count my vote as the vote on the present as nt me part of a quorum . Never thought they could. So the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this prese part of a wellfounded. Is also, its important to think the new fangled proxy rule may deal with today. Let the courts do its thing and out later. It well, thats more than sloppy legislating. Its dangerous. That . , you say, how is let me explain. As an example, we are preparing reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, fisa. Any other vote that does anything of import, no even the small, naming of a post office, because it spends money, the vote and he action of this house, under the proxy quorum rule is tainted of that uthority legislation, accordingly, called into question. Pass it, and the courts rule that the proxy oting and quorum rule is unconstitutional, in whole or in eithere will have handed getoutofjail free card to terrorists, enemies of the United States, or a hammer they against prosecutors trying to pursue justice. Want to eally what we do . I know its not, and we have another way. We can put the proxy quorum rule on hold, suspend it until the courts can make a finding inal ruling on its institutionality. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Five odall i yield minutes. The speaker pro tempore additional five minutes . Mr. Woodall yes, maam. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Griffith we can put the proxy quorum rule on hold. Until the end it courts can make a final ruling on its institutionality. Constitutionality. Once we have that answer, we can then move forward. Move forward without nowing where we are going on onstitutionality is dangerous, damaging, and destructive to every act we take in this body. Speaker, i would implore the members of this the party ot vote line. Do not say, oh, its a previous question. Vote. Throwaway today, the previous question is an important vote on whether we forward not knowing the way or whether we move forward knowing whether its onstitutional or unconstitutional. Ask you all to vote for our Great Republic and this august ote, vote no on the previous question and put the proxy until we e on hold have a definitive answer. Speaker, i respectfully yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Mcgovern thank you, madam speaker. And i want to thank the gentleman for reading from dictionary to all of us. But i want to read from the constitution. Quote. Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. End quote. I want to ask unanimous consent to submit to letter from erwin chim renes key discussing that view that remote voting process inre considering today would fact be constitutional. In the letter, the dean says, the constitution bestows in each house of Congress Broad discretion to its own the rules for proceed seeings. This authority proceedings. This authority is expansive and a rule to adopt proxy voting. Nothing in the constitution otherwise. Moreover, if this were hallenged in court, its very likely the case would be dismissed as a political question. The Supreme Court has ruled that to the internal operation of the congress are in the federal courts. Ndeed, ive written the court often indeed, i have written the court often has held the pertaining to its internal governance should not be reviewed by the federal judiciary. Id also like to submit for the record and ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a from deborah perilstein pearlsteen from Cardoza School of law. In her letter, which i strongly recommend all of my colleagues full, professor writes, i believe adopting procedures to under or remote voting these extraordinary circumstances is not only lawful but essential to the mate flans maintenance of our constitutional democracy. The constitution contains no requirements for people to vote. What the constitution does, courts has said, its own each to have proceedings. Its the flexibility that has embrace the ess to Informal Solutions they have adopted over the years to do business, including relying on give unanimous consent to a vote, even if majority less than a of members is physically presence on the floor. Inally, the temporary remote voting procedures bear an entirely reasonable relation to to goal that you aim achieve, namely, ensuring congress preserves the ability maintains a way that the institutions representative character, protects the operation, of its and fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American People. Madam speaker, about the process, let me just say, i hear my friends. They like to talk about the 230 years of tradition as though the any changesver made to the way it operates in those these last 230 years. Just simply not true. So many of our most basic have changed drastically since the first congress, from the way we vote to the way we count a quorum. Legislative body does not have the ability to respond to the challengings it then how itt faces, can survive and how can it be functional . The challenges we are facing permanent. T i could argue that the house has made several more sweeping and than this hanges before. For one, the way we vote today our nothing like how predecessors voted in 1789. Now we cast our votes in the an electronic device. Our predecessors recognized the ouse needed to advance with technology. For decades, they called on the a more implement efficient and advanced voting system. Be would seem we would archaic. Does that sound familiar . Right now were watching as our states take responsible action to respond to his pandemic by implementing remote voting procedures and parliaments around the world to this challenge headon and what were doing, were struggling to come up with an we need to do something. Something. Anything. But voting electronically is not only change weve made in response to technological advancements. Our floor proceedings are broadcast on cspan. Many would grapple how this change this ntally body, but the desire for accountability and transparency won the day. Always bad. T and, of course, there were safeguards attached to this that of the the integrity house. Proceedings cannot be tampered with and cannot be used for reasons and so on. Other changes we made over the years include the provisional after 9 11. And thats not the only time we made changes to our quorum requirements. Changes were deciding when a quorum is required. Raised des, members raised f order are not during debates. The house has demanded that resigned. Or how we count a quorum today is not the same how we counted a congress. The first weve made changes to our quorum rules as recent as 15 years ago. Deal. The what we are facing today doesnt have to prevent us from legislating. To adapt not be afraid and respond to these challenges. And raised during debates. A safe manner. O do so in if anything, we have 230 years of precedent of us adapting to changing world around us. There is nothing wrong with that. But we dont have to we dont decades to make these changes. We need to make them now because we are in the midst of a pandemic. We are seeing the end of it, but, according to this administrations own c. D. C. , we see a surge in covid19 cases in the fall. More difficult situation. Prepared. Be and so no one is suggesting any permanent rules changes here. Were putting forth is temporary and will be ied to the duration of this pandemic, full stop. Let me just say this finally. Constitutional. The experts have said so. We arent going to stop the work peoples house so that another branch of government can weigh in on our internal proceedings. It. I get my republican friends have another agenda. That we do noter get work done during this 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 Liberties Oversight 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 board, that was one of my Top Priorities all those years ago. And the board has done critical work in assessing the privacy and Civil Liberties, impact the government collection activities, including under various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So, again, this has to be a high priority for us. It was a higher priority in the act that was passed that could get passed in the senate. So again, im going to sub might my statement for the record submit my statement for the record that i talk about here. But fisa is a critical pillar of americas National Security which congress has updated and improved over the last years to ensure that americans privacies and Civil Liberties are respected. Are we ever satisfied . Of course not. Of course not. But legislation is just exactly that. Legislation. Our attempt to come together to protect and defend in a way that has already passed the senate, can go directly to the president for his signature, and i hope that that will be the case today. I thank the gentleman again for bringing this rule to the floor, i urge all of our colleagues to vote for this important rule that enables us to do important things for the American People. With that, i urge an aye vote and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall thank you, madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Woodall i thank the speaker for her words. We do come to a place where we sometimes are satisfied and in this case when he Bipartisan Group that was continuing to work to do even more of those good things that the gentleman laid out. They had an amendment that they had crafted together in a bipartisan way, that amendment was not made in order on this floor. I agree with the gentlelady. We should never be satisfied. In this case, we have decided to be satisfied with the Senate Language instead of trying to improve it with the house work product and i deeply regret that. With that, madam speaker, id like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. Roy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Roy i thank the gentleman from georgia and i appreciate the opportunity here to visit about what were dealing with today with respect to proxy voting. With respect to the previous question. I noticed that the gentleman from massachusetts, and first of all, our prayers go for the tragedy that you all are dealing with in massachusetts, a significant clip worse than we are in texas. Obviously regionally very difficult. But what were trying to deal with here right now is trying to protect the constitution of the United States. This is not something that is about slowing down the work of this body. I am delighted to work with my colleague from minnesota right now together, were all working together on legislation to try to improve the p. P. P. And im delighted to do that. As the cosponsor of that legislation. I am not here to slow down what we need to be doing to help work for the people of the United States. I can assure you. I am here because the constitution matters. And, look, in the very Staff Reports that talked about the options for us to deal with this, i would remind you that our democratic colleagues acknowledged the constitutional questions that arise from proxy voting. Lets be clear to the American People that were not talking about remote voting. I too, like the gentleman from virginia, have very serious constitutional reservations about remote voting. But lets have that debate. Lets have a thorough debate about that. But were talking about proxy voting. So for those people that are watching this back at home, understand what that means. That means that a member of this body who has been delegated to them the responsibility from their constituents to vote for them, to argue for them, to be on this body representing them, is taking that solemn duty and handing it to another. And that undermines our body. It delutz the representation the representation and the power and importance that is entrusted to us to our constituents. This is what is at stake and this is what were talking about we filed s why litigation. I would rather that we address in in this body, but talking to the parliamentarian, i was advised there was nothing we could do. The house voted 10, 12 days ago the peaker pro tempore gentlemans time has expired. He gentleman is recognized one for an additional minute. Mr. Roy i was told that we transfer our constitutionally Vested Authority to representative constituents to another. Told, and told, and i believe that is the case, we have to go to the courts. Our is not about setting own rules. This is about directly opposing he structure of the constitution in which we represent our constituents. Keep in mind, that at the time in 1793 in the heat of yellow fever, 5,000 of a elphiaians died out population of 50,000. Thats 10 . Or would be 180,000 today 160,000 today. Yet, what happened . James madison and George Jefferson and thomas were all working to figure out how this body could continue to meet in person. Didnt adopt proxy voting. They figured out how to work, to meet. Letter sent from James Madison to George Washington ctober 24, 1793, talking about this very issue in a pandemic meet. His body should 15 seconds. Mr. Woodall i yield an additional minute to the gentleman. I thank the gentleman from georgia. That this body should continue to meet. From James Madison, the father of the constitution, to our father of our country, eorge washington, expressly lays out what hes talking about to try to protect our duty to a body. The requirement of physical presence, the requirement that together, look each other in the eye, to do our duty constituents. Ur this is not, my friend from massachusetts, this is not about slowing down the work of this body. Is about doing our duty to uphold the constitution and finding a way to navigate difficulties of the current moment. We got through yellow fever. We got through world wars. Flu. T through the spanish we got through a civil war. And we managed to figure out how job. Our our founders got through smallpox. I would implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let us not adopt this proxy voting solemn we turnover our duty to another member. Lets find out how to get respects the hat constitution. Thats why were here and i appreciate the gentleman. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts. Madam speaker, nobodys turning over their solemn duty to another member of congress. F my friend would read the proposal, which passed the house, if he would have paid attention to the debate we had, wouldnt be mischaracterizing doing here. We are so nobody is turning over their solemn power to anybody. Have to participate directly. Just like they would on the house floor. Hey have to Pay Attention to the proceedings. They cannot give their votes in advance. Hey have to, on a previous question, people have to respond just like they would in realtime when they were here on floor. So this is just not true. It is not accurate. I, again, i dont know what weve had this debate. Spoken. E has and we are moving forward with by proxy today. And by the way, you know, we pandemic through the of 1918 in the way the gentleman just kind of characterized. That was an example of why we need to do something. Because during that time, we werent meeting. During that time, a bill, actually to try to get more help s to rural areas to people get through it, couldnt get passed in the house. Died as a result of it. So i dont look at the spanish 1918 as somehow a model that we ought to employ now. This s an example of how institution failed. And people died as a result of it. Now in another pandemic. Hopefully this is short lived. Hopefully, you know, the that ent is right, tomorrow everything will be perfect. You know. That re also being told actually things could actually get worse in the fall. Thats what happened during the the sh flu, by the way, fall was worse, and we need to be prepared and thats what were going to do. Peoples g to do the business, and if people can get here, theyll get here. Not because flights have been canceled, because theyre living in area where there has been a covid19, we in will adjust accordingly. Again, it is temporary. Meant to displace the way we do business here on a regular basis. Within the constitution it is constitutional. Onstitutional scholar after constitutional scholar has validated that. Say to the ld gentleman that i reject the way es characterized what we have done here because its just not accurate. It is not accurate. I would like to yield one minute maryland, leman from the majority leader of this house, mr. Hoyer. Thank the i gentleman. The speaker pro tempore the distinguished majority leader is recognized for one minute. R. Hoyer thank you, madam chair. I thank the gentleman from of achusetts, the chairman the rules committee. Im going to argue and im rule to talk about this and the bill to which it applies. A minute, not much more, perhaps a little more talk about what apparently the republicans want talk about proxy voting. I want to tell my friend, not a constituents, y for me so i would vote in this machine. One. Not one of them voted for me to machine. Hat what they wanted me to do is represent them. And they really didnt care how that. Accurate. It was frankly, i think that side of the aisle is promoting nd, of course, the gentleman mentioned philadelphia. 1787. Ber, the miracle at philadelphia. And you remember the debate. As member after member got up teams. D, we cannot use we cannot use our cell phones. Webex. Ot use remember that debate . Said you cant use any of that and you certainly cant use rotary telephone. You heard them say that. You cant do that. This room. Be in well, that room was in philadelphia. Ell, you need to be in this room. Well, that room is in new york. You have magnified form over substance. Constituents voted for us to vote their interests. Ways we can many do that. They had not the technology, and thats why they couldnt 48 hours. Vote in fly. Se the horses did not substance. You dont want us to meet. Who would be king does not want us to meet. I get that. Because you dont like the substance. Affordable care act its the Affordable Care act, whether its trying to help renters and trying to help people in line. I get it. You dont want us to meet. Obligation and a duty to the American People to do so. Who ke sure that the man would be king is not king because our constitution, the people who met in that room, they had had enough of kings. And they wanted to have people represent them, and they didnt care whether they this machine, that achine, that machine, or very frankly, as youre sitting in the aisle and you cant get by ask your friend, put it you, slot for me, will im not going to ask you to aise your hand if you ever did that, but that was virtual voting. It reflected your view, my my , representing constituents and your constituents. Now, let me speak about this and this bill. Appalled, chagrin, at whats d happening. Very hard to deal with very difficult subject. The house nd i from nd mr. Bond, senator bond and senator rockefeller. Ms. Pelosi was the speaker of house and i was the majority leader of the house. T was 2008 and we were trying to deal with extending the foreign intelligence our illance act to keep people and our country safe. Probably not very many of us on floor know more about the our ligence committee and speaker than our speaker. Shes the longest serving member of the Intelligence Committee ever. And mr. Schiff, they worked together. Mr. Nadler and his Ranking Member worked together. Months ago,ut 2 1 2 floor and we s. Ere all present dont mean we had 100 membership, but we were mostly present. We debated that bill. American what the people so pined for us doing. Voted together as americans. 67. 7 of the republicans voted aye. 66. 9 of the democrats voted aye. And america said amen. Do. s what they want us to reason together and do for the our country le and what is best for our people and our country. And we sent that bill to the United States senate. 126 republicans, 152 democrats. Oting together, 2 3 of the house sent that bill to the United States senate. And i talked to mr. Schiff and i nadler and they house bill has the support of the United States senate. I talked to leaders i wont name them in the United States senate who were surprised the senate did not pass the house bill. But sent an extension because the house vote on bill. They sent it after we had left pass that and the Intelligence Community made do. Fact, took up in the bill and what did they do . Two people who spoke, mr. Woodall, who. Voted with the majority, with 2 3 of republicans who said is a s a good bill, this good bill for our country, for americas security and americas safety. Mccarthy, as did mr. Mr. Thornberry, the Ranking Member on the armed did mr. Committee, as rogers, the Ranking Member on security committee, as did ms. Cheney, your onference chair, as did mr. Ole, the chairman of the rules committee. Ranking member. Amen. Now there were differences. As the speaker said, its a controversial bill. My friend and mr. Mcgovern are going to vote differently on this bill. Im going to vote for it. He believes there are not enough protections in here. There are more protections in here than those named voted for it. And 80 members of the united tates senate voted for it. 48 republicans. 48 republicans. Now what was different when they voted and 48 republicans in the United States senate voted for not someone who is beating the drum and supporters beating the drum that the f. B. I. , c. I. A. And this, that and other law the ement agencies broke onstitution. So he said vote no. My friend, with whom i work, majority leader called me the other night and said, you ought to pull the bill the minority leader. I keep wanting to make us you know why i do that . We were all in the majority when we passed this bill. It wasnt a majorityminority bill, it was an american bill. My friend, the minority leader, said, pull this bill. We have private conversations about where we are going to do. The only thing that has changed, madam speaker is that donald trump has said vote no to 126 people who voted with 152 democrats for america. And by the way, the people who are voting no also voted for america. They voted for Civil Liberties, which we honor. And we can respect every person who voted because they voted out of conviction, not out of party loyalty. Not a yes, sir. They voted their conscience. They voted their conviction. Wish this chamber were full but we have to be distanced. I hope some of my colleagues are listening on both sides of the aisle. This bill is like every bill, not perfect. But as the speaker said, it must pass. Why . To protect america. And we need to continue to keep making it better. My friend from massachusetts will make sure that we focus on that, and i honor him for it. Vote your friends, convictions. Remember how critical you were of a candidate for president who said i first voted for it and then voted against it. How critical you were. But you are flailing around to find a rationalization for your vote is sad. Vote yes on the rule and the bill. Vote for your country. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore members are directed to direct their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall only one person on our side of the aisle who can clear up that confusion in one minute and yield that one minute to our leader, the gentleman from california, mr. Mccarthy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Mccarthy i thank the majority leader for his comments. Reminds me when i was majority leader and he was minority whip, i yes or no for those days again. Let me respond to what you have said. I respect you greatly, but i just think you are wrong. When i walked in the wrong, you said we didnt want to meet. You know thats not true. Look at the board today. How many republicans are here and how many democrats. Give you an easy answer to that question who wants to meet. A month ago, only one side had a plan to Bring Congress back. We dont have a schedule. One day you say yes, next day you say no. I think its very clear which side wants to meet. Its very clear based on 231 years of history. For those members not in the chamber and those watching on television, you ought to Pay Attention to this very next vote. You are going to do something that no member was ever allowed to do before. We are going to change history, not for the better. While millions of americans are going to be tuned to their television to watch us put people in space and 70 members on the democrat side couldnt make it and want a paycheck and you just listened the majority leader question the republicans whether they want to meet. I watch my own state of california, now we get to go to church and get a haircut, but in congress, what do you get . No accountability. You see the one thing the majority leader that said is true, constituents expect you to vote for them and not give that vote to another state. Our constitution, our country expects us to convene, just as history has shown every time before in any crisis we have had. I heard the majority leader question, not going through the speaker, but one of our own members, on a speech that he gave just a few minutes before, congressman chip roy, about whether he wanted to meet. Lets look at some facts. You are called back here to vote on a bill authored by chip roy, the congressman, to help small businesses, but his name will no longer be on it. And the only reason we are going to get to vote on it, the pledge had to vote to and lo and behold and we changed the bill number. He is no longer the main author of the bill even though it was his idea, something he could be very proud of. He played politics well that day. Chip roy will tell me, he doesnt care who gets the credit but wants to help the small business. I look forward to the member who took his name and tried to campaign on that. Thats a lot of character on your side, by far. I hope you are proud of that, because i dont think anybody in the country is. Lets just look at some facts. I respect the chairman of the rules committee. I read his reports and even in april, he wrote a report about proxy voting and he questioned the constitutionality of it. I dont know if the constitution between now and then, but i dont believe it has. Lets look at the facts of what you have. I think many of you will say in your own state, things are getting better. In my home state, we can get our hair cut and churches and restaurants are opening up. Two weeks ago, you would have argued. At that time, only 12 democrats couldnt make it here to vote for the 3 trillion bill. Now there are more than 70 who are signing something that say they cant physically make it here today. I wonder if they are having a fundraiser today. Lets go through the facts. The constitution requires inperson assembly. If you hang your hat and the house can make their own rules, why dont you make a rule that republicans cant vote or women cant vote . You could make the rules but you cant make unconstitutional rules. The constitution deals with us and tells us we should assemble. Yes, thats why, after this building burned in 1812, they still convened, it wasnt here but in a hotel. You say, modern history allows us to do this. You know what modern history allows people to do . If a member cant vote on the proxy, you let a staff member to vote. Thats what your rules say. If you dont have it. The states and i will provide it to you. If you want to read it allowed. If a member cant vote, a staff can vote. Thats what you wrote and what you passed. Even one proxy vote dilutes the voting power of a member. We have an unbelievable country. The people lend their power and voice to members of congress, via congress man and congresswoman. You are going to have people voting on this floor voting for five members from five different states. In california alone, your largest delegation, more than half of the democrats stayed home. Ill guarantee you they card their check this month. That means 19 Million People in california will not have their voice heard. Maybe somebody from connecticut will vote for them. More than 70 members will vote by proxy. Hats 49 million americans who did not count because you gave it to somebody else. You should be proud of that. Proxy votes have never been allowed to count towards quorum. What are you going to do on this rule . There will be more bodies voting no than voting yes, but you are going to win because you got a vote in the pocket. The democrats permits a staffer to vote on behalf of a member who is unavailable. Its in the rules right here and ill provide it to you. A member let me read it to you, if a member is unavailable to email or send a text message, a staff member may transmit the instructions. Is that a staff member . Does that say only a member i have not yielded my time, but i read your words. A member can vote by proxy while attending a political fundraiser under this plan. A member could be at a fundraiser watching on television and say let me pause for one moment. I didnt want to go back to d. C. Because you asked me to. Its ok i will get someone from another state to do it. The mcgovern regulations that members can use proxy voting if they are physically unable to make it to the capitol. I dont know what happened in the last two weeks when 12 couldnt make it, but now, more than 70. Im concerned for them. Must be something very serious. All members had nearly two weeks notice ahead for this vote, two weeks you had to plan. 231 years, members found a way if this rule or bill passes, it will be because of proxy votes. My friend thinks someone is going to vote differently . Even on the senate side they told you whatever you pass under these rules are not constitutional. If you can make this type of rule, you can make anything. People with glasses cant vote. Unheard of. Yes, we raised the lawsuit and yes we believe in a previous question. That people should vote no on this. Its a violation of the constitution and dereliction of a duty of elected officials. It will silence the voice of people, the same constituents that you took the oath to represent. I think of all the things this. Ountry had challenges with never did this body never find it essential to me. Never did they question to change the rules to empower one over another. But they have done just that. They have done just that. If you are a member of congress, if you are at home sitting there because you cannot make it and you think you are going to send your message to your staffer to send it in, you may want to change because maybe mcgovern will change the rules now. When you were sworn in, you held up your hand to uphold the constitution. This is the moment, this is the time. Read article i, section 4, section 5, section 6. Hold people accountable. Whats interesting to me is the other side is willing to endanger the constitution to empower more power to the majority itself. Itll be interesting to see those who go back to their constituents and say, i will represent you because i can just phone it in i deserve to be reelected because i passed that off to another member to vote for you. Its interesting to find that maybe when you raised your hand, maybe when you thought the constitution changed, it hadnt. Just as the majority leader said, we want you to look into your heart, how youre going to vote do that. I hope we all come back to this floor and all look up. Im not sure how the vote will go. Off little p by the name that says proxy, will you be able to tell by a proxy that somebody from another state voted for you so the rest of the country can see . How will you tell the country oday its opening up more, sending astronauts into space, that you want to Close Congress further and you want to deny their voice one last time . This is not about opening a campus. This is about restoring the voice to the American Public that we have done for 231 years. For you to ever question who wants to meet, let the public just see the scoreboard at the end of the day. I think its easy to answer that question, not by voice, but simply by your feet who is willing to show, who is willing to work for them. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore according to the rules, members shall readdress remarks to the chair and the chair will strongly admonish all members to do so. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Mcgovern ive been here for a while now and never heard anything quite like that. Blatant mischaracterization of what the facts are. The gentleman suggested not once but several times that the rules allow Staff Members to vote for other members in this chamber. That is just not true. I mean no matter how you want to look at it, it is just not true. The gentleman repeated that falsehood over and over and over and over again. I asked him to yield so i could read the end of the sentence that he didnt want to finish which is, and that member must confirm the instructions by telephone to the member serving as proxy before the vote may be cast on tear behalf. The gentleman knows that thats not true but yet he comes to the floor and he repeats stuff over and over again, something that at in the written instruction, the guidelines that hes referring to said the opposite. I mean, are things that broken here that we cannot even agree on the basic facts . I get it. You dont like what were doing here. Thats fine. Lets not misinterpret and twist and distort what we are trying to do here. The gentleman had a plan. We actually delayed moving forward on trying to change the rules to operate remotely because the gentleman said he was willing to work with us to figure out how to come to some sort of accommodation. His plan was all members in this chamber get prioritized over all our constituents and we get tested every time we come back. So that we can operate here safely. So my doctors and my nurses and my First Responders and those who work in our Grocery Stores and those who work in homeless shelters and food pantries, who cant get tested, were all so special, according to the minority leader, that we should be prioritized and go to the top of the list. That was part of his plan. Forget about it. I dont know about your constituents, but my constituents would find that totally unacceptable. And it represent acetone deafness that i havent heard in a long time here. When he talked about no accountability, i dont know what the hell hes talking about. I really dont. You know. Again, the idea that somehow staff can vote for members, thats absolutely not true. Absolutely not true. I mean, you know, i dont even know how to respond to what the gentleman just said. It reminds it makes you understand why so many people are cynical when they look at this chamber. And they see the exchanges that go on here. We have disagreements on issues, we have disagreements on whether we should move forward with fisa or not. I have disagreements with my own leadership on that. Those are honest disagreements but theyre based on conviction, theyre based on facts. You can disagree whether or not we should be able to operate remotely during extraordinary times like pandemics, i get it. We can argue about the constitutionality. I think we are on strong constitutional grounds. You can argue the opposite point of view. But to make things up, to come down here, to twist what we have done here, its unacceptable. It is unacceptable. We all ought to be better than that were trying to figure out a way to operate during a very difficult time in our country. Where probably today, over 100,000 people have lost their lives. And notwithstanding the president of the United States trying to down play that and say no big deal, you know, not much of anything, it is a big deal. Ive lost valued members of my community to this disease. And i know you have as well. So were trying to get through this and hopefully this is shortlived and hopefully we can get back to business as normal, as quickly as possible, but if this comes back in the fall we need to be prepared. So, you know, under this proposal, if you want to be here, you can come here an operate in person. But as were all finding out, thats difficult. Even in committee hearings. Rule committees is the smallest committee in the house. We are meeting in the ways and Means Committee room or Transportation Committee room, amongst the biggest Committee Rooms in the chamber because were trying to follow the advice of the attending physician. We can debate whether this is the best way to move forward or not, thats fine. But lets not make things up. With that, i reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia. Thank you, madam speaker. I ask my friend from massachusetts if he has any remaining speakers . Mr. Mcgovern im prepared to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Woodall youve heard about the constitutionality of the proxy voting procedure my friend from massachusetts is absolutely certain that every constitutional scholar in the land is on board and believes its absolutely fine, which is good news for those of us who want the District Court to decide because the constitutionality can be sorted out in the courts in no time flat. If its this settled of a question were saying give it a couple of days, let the courts have an opinion and lets go ahead, its a nonjudicial issue well learn that. Its so clear that its ok why wont we allow time for the court to take a look. My friend from massachusetts says weve had this debate and the house has spoken, thats undeniably true. To be fair, it spoke in a bipartisan way against this, in a bipartisan way in favor of proxy voting, in a bipartisan way against proxy voting. Yes, the house has spoken in a bipartisan way. We have serious concerns that wed like to be addressed. If we defeat the previous question, they will be. Its not going to slow down the underlying bill. Its in the going to slow down any other important issues on the house floor today. Simply delays proxy voting that has never before happened in this chamber until the courts rule on its constitutionality. Madam speaker, the underlying provision is an extension of our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act measure. This is something that the majority leader said weve done in a bipartisan way. Time and time again. Ive been part of that bipartisan coalition. Today we have a senate bill in front of us and a bipartisan house amendment that improves that bill. What you didnt hear from the majority leader what you didnt hear from the speaker, is that the rules committee did not allow that bipartisan amendment and we now have a take it or leave it from the United States senate piece of legislation. I get it that happens to us sometimes. But it doesnt have to happen to us today. We have a bipartisan option a bipartisan choice, we collectively, if we pass this an opportunity that in a e th bipartisan way we agreed both protect National Security and protects Civil Liberties better than the underlying bill. Madam speaker, i dont know how many of my colleagues decided to show up for the vote today. Well soon find out. Each one voting by proxy will have to go through you and the member theyve designated. The two issues before us are serious issues. And they are threatened by the underlying constitutional issue of the man for the which well vote. As will every single vote we take until this measure is litigated. Lets litigate first. Lets not throw all this important work into question. If my friend from massachusetts is right an its Crystal Clear legally, well find out in no time flat. But if my friend from massachusetts is wrong, then well prevent the next round of litigation that calls into question every single bill this house acts on between now and then. Toiment close, madam speaker, by saying i dont question my friend from massachusetts love of this institution or his knowledge of the constitution. Hes in tauf spot as the rule committees chairman. We have a crisis. It was his job to move something intard. The report he wrote earlier this year reflected his wisdom, the measure this house passed reflected his wisdom. Hes got a difficult job and thats why you hear the very passionate defense hes making of what will become known as the mcgovern language, but let it not be said by any member of this chamber that his intent is anything other than serving this country and serving this house. He is in a very difficult spot but i know that his heart and his intellect are 100 with the people of this country and in service to this institution. I regret that were on different sides of this particular issue. Vote no on the previous this on, defeat it, add litigation time out. If we cant do that, i need you to defeat the rule, colleagues. Defeat the rule and lets take a better bite at this decision with the bipartisan amendments that we have before us. With that, madam speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Mcgovern thank you, madam speaker. Let me thank my colleague from georgia, mr. Woodall. He is this is his last term and believe it or not im going to miss him. Hes a spirited debater. And but i want to say, i say this sincerely, i appreciate his advocacy for his point of view. I usually disagree with it. But i know its based on principle and conviction and he sticks to the facts. He doesnt come to the floor and make things up, he sticks to the facts. And we have disagreements on those facts. And thats the way debate should be. They should be based on what is real, what are the facts. Madam speaker, as you heard today, this is a difficult issue, the underlying legislation that were dealing with with regard to fisa. Its one that cuts across party lines. Many members have strong opinions. As i said earlier, i opposed the original patriot act and subsequent reauthorization. I appreciate the work of many of my colleagues in getting reforms included in the underlying bill that are badly needed. I think we need to do much more to truly respect all americans fundamental right to privacy. I think its a false choice to suggest that we either fight we can either fight terrorism and wrongdoing or uphold the right to privacy. Theres been a lot of debate on both sides of the capitol and the president has weighed in recently. The attorney general has suggested that the president should veto this bill. Not because the attorney general wants more reforms, like ones the senate put in or the ones that have been suggested. Quite the opposite. The attorney general doesnt want doesnt want any more checks and balances put in place. And as i said earlier, that scares me. Because i dont trust him. I just dont. And you know, now the house will have a chance to work its will. My vote on the underlying bill will be no but i respect many of my colleagues who feel strongly we ought to move forward and approve the bill that originated in this house, then went to the senate, where additions were made in the senate, now its back to the house. So this has been a process that has not been short circuited in any way, shape, or form. But i think, you know, given the fact that the Senate Passed this with 80 of the Senate Voting in favor of it, again, i would have voted no if i were in the senate but 80 of them voted in favor of it. We cant get 80 of the senate to agree on lunch yet they voted affirmatively on this. When we voted in the house, 2 3 of this chamber, democrats and republicans, voted yes. I voted no. But but somehow there isnt strong support to move forward i think is not justified by the facts. So, i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule so we can move forward. And i would again differ with my friends on the previous question. I think what we did to try to accommodate the reality that we are facing during this covid19 crisis was responsive and deliberative and attempted to work in a bipartisan way. Many of the parts of this proposal reflect republican suggestions. I regret we did not come to a conclusion that we all could agree on, but as i said, the minority leaders insistence that we be prioritied in terms of testing was a nonstarter and insistence that he has veto power so he couldnt operate remotely was also a nonstarter. We need to do our work and we need to do it in a way where all members during this pandemic can participate. So watch live coverage here on cspan. New book, talking to strangers, author Malcolm Gladwell details why he things people make inaccurate judgments about people they dont know. Step out of the car. I am going to drag you out of here so you are going to drag me out of my own car . She was imprisoned for resisting arrest and two days later, hangs herself in her cell. A tragic and unexpected result. The whole, the exchange that we saw, which by the way, goes on, and on, and on, and on, we saw a small snippet of it, that was the kind of when i first saw the online, that was when i realized what i wanted to write about. If you break that exchange down moment by moment, you see multiple failures of understanding, of empathy, of a million things. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern a. Q daily, unfiltered coverage of the governments response to the coronavirus pandemic with briefings from the white house, congress, and governors from across the country