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