he just submit that earmark or it has to be submitted with the report so that members can actually see that and see that there is no financial interest to see if it has merit or warrant this process is not being followed here we were told initially that there were no earmarks in the bill and then those of us who went out to view the classified annex did not see a list there was no list of a double there we were told later that it was with  clerk's office then with the part of the terry and it turned out that we finally did get the list and here it is twenty six earmarks in the bill but the list was not made public was not given to us until five hours after the deadline that the rules committee had established to submit your amendments so somebody who wanted to amend the bill or actually challenge or to highlight or to discuss the earmarks that are mentioned here and listed here did not have an opportunity to craft an amendment again this list was received it was made public five hours after the rules committee already shut down the amendment process this rule cannot go forward like this we cannot continue to do business like this we all know the problems that we've had with the appropriations process with the earmarking the scandals that have gone on the earmarking proper process is secretive enough it seems in the congress without adding the layer of intelligence committee then there are things that you can't even discuss on the floor we can't discuss openly and so it makes it even more difficult members need not be reminded that duke cunningham now sits in prison because he largely got in the intelligence process in the intelligence committee we can't allow that to happen again we have to have a process that makes sure that that cannot happen and that process is not happening right  now when you don't get yes until long after the process when you can't challenge them on the floor and then we have the problem here in open session you can't even challenge the earmarking and talk about what the earmark is actually about because you're in open session and you might be talking about classified things and so for that reason i'm announcing now that i will pass or i will offer a motion to move into secret session after these votes are concluded and let me just remind the members if you want to process where you know what's going on we have to move into secret session if you vote against the motion to go into secret session biased in essence saying let's just let it go  don't care what's in there i would challenge those who want to see what's going on to go up and do the classified annex you may or may not be able to find out what's what these earmarks are about but with this process the way it is we'll never know and we can't continue this i applauded the majority's move to do earmark rules in january they were i felt stronger than what we did when we were in the majority i think they should have been stronger but they were better than what we did and i said so but we aren't following those rules but we've already highlighted already a few times that if the majority submits a list of earmarks incomplete or complete or simply states there are no earmarks in a bill there  no parliamentary recourse for the minority or for anyone on the floor we have to accept at face value that there are no we are marks or that the list is complete that's wrong that's something that has to change but when we're dealing with the intelligence committee and something this important we can't let this process go forward without adopting some of the reforms that we've said that we're going to adopt so for that reason i will mention i will call for yield three minutes now to distinguish our chair of the select committee on intelligence who have comments regarding mr flake's comments and i'm a gentleman from texas is now recognized for three minutes thank you very much and i thank the gentleman for sits in prison the intelligence committee worked very closely with the parliamentarians that the committee on standards in official conduct other committees of the house on earmark disclosures i i am at a loss as to how the gentleman who informed the gentleman that there would be no earmarks but i think the gentleman now knows that the government printing office made an error in omitting the earmarks and that's why the delay in putting them up on their on their website be that as it made this committee follow the requirements of the house for each member receiving an earmark to certify that neither he or she nor his or her spouse would benefit financially from any kind of action we complied with all all the requirements all the rules and all the regulations as i said we did this in a very transparent and bipartisan way because we did not want to leave any impressions that things were not done according to the rules that had been set out everything that we that we did with this process followed the rules and the process is where the glitch came was when the printing was done there was an error committed by the government printing office and that's why there was a delay in posting the earmarks again i'm at a loss as to who informed the gentleman that there were no earmarks because it certainly wasn't anyone from the from the  committed that i'm aware of and i would be glad to yield to the gentleman or the gentleman the of the requirement actually is that the remarks i believe the requirement in the house rules is that they report be filed seventy two hours before it's brought up  we were told actually those of us who went up to view the classified and actually i was told i asked for the list if there is a list of earmarks and i was told there was not so i assume that  you would be provided support from the republican staff if they misinformed the gentleman about the issue of earmarks and i i don't know minutes on the gentleman from texas is recognized an additional man continue and i would say if that is the case if it's if it's a case of a computer glitch that led to no printing of the list then you would think that the rules committee would state ok maybe we should move the process back and allow members to offer amendments on specific earmarks sometimes the only way and i will run reclaiming my time it is my understanding that the gentleman was offered an opportunity to do that and return to an unspecified opportunity they offer an opportunity and i actually offered an amendment that was rejected by the rules committee just encompassing all earmarks that might be in the bill because i wasn't given a list i had no idea if there were any earmarks and so and that earmark or that was rejected and what the problem we have here in open session and the reason i will be calling to move into into secret session is that in open session it's difficult to actually discuss what the earmark might be about i'm being i'm being again reassured by staff recalling my time that the gentleman was offered less than an hour ago unanimous consent perhaps a few amendments with regard to specific remarks it was never clear how many and then once i would be allowed to offer or on which of these earmarks and tell that is clarified there's no reason to move forward and also let me point out again unless you're in secret session you can't discuss exactly what the remark might be about so you might run afoul of any statements that you've signed or any confidentiality counted in geology agreements that were under in terms of classified information and when i actually went up with the list to look at classified annex again and pointed at certain earmarks i was told that we are not sure what that is about that was requested by a member who is not on the committee that we don't know and till we can have that member actually stand up and be able to say what that earmark is about whether it goes to a private company whether it goes to an agency will  just don't know which it would have because yes let me again reassure the gentleman that every single earmark here follow the house rules every member that has an earmark certified like every member's require to be in the house that they had no specific interest the spouse has no specific interest with the company or companies where may i don't sit on the intelligence committee so there may be some disagreement there about whether the ranking member was informed or not and i think that will probably come to light later but but in this case if we had followed the rules we would have had the list before the rules committee shut down the amendment process because you need to be able to offer amendments on specific earmarks and in this case if members can't even go up and on their own view the some kind of comfort level that that the earmark under question is for the intended purpose or there's there's it should be in the intelligence bill then we're at a loss when we come to vote  i think our constituents expect us to be informed and weak when we can't even go up and get a classified annex and be informed then there's a problem will the gentleman yield well once again let me reassure my good friend and  occurred was in the printing but even that be that as it may i want to tell you again reassure you that we did not handle the process in the intelligence committee any different than any other committee is no way to run a process particularly given the recent history of problems that we've had in this regard and that's why i'm concerned and that's why i feel that that we can't do this in the in the open session like this we have to go to secret session r the gentleman with your back to the i would not given that i cannot discuss some of what i need to discuss in open session given what's transpired i don't think that we can that's why we need a close asking for a no vote on the previous question so that i can amend this rule to allow the house to consider and the minute offered by representative heather wilson of new mexico and provide the appropriate waivers for that a would modernize a foreign intelligence surveillance act to enhance ability of our nation to protect itself in times of war and elevated national security threats and i think that point was made very very eloquently by the general eighty from new mexico consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question and with that mr speaker i will reserve my time pending a request  intending if you needed to have time i'm prepared to close this gentleman and i reserve my time you want some time because anyone thank the chair i just need to clarify that the process that was used for the earmarks on this bill did not follow all of the rules that we had agreed upon in the committee and perhaps inconsistent with the rules of the house but i do know that they were inconsistent with the agreement that we have in the intelligence comm which was that on a bipartisan basis the chairman and the ranking member would review earmarks their content of the member and would sign off on the appropriateness of  those earmarks with the filing of the bill to the rules committee there was there was at least one earmark that was never brought to my attention and for which i never received a copy of the request from the member identifying the earmark or a statement from the member indicating that there was no  particular earmark weeks before we marked up the bill the the issue was fully discussed on a bipartisan basis i know it was discussed when we marked it up because there were a number of amendments that were that were brought to the to the to the markup so clear that there may be some confusion as to exactly what or what was not discussed but the process between staff but the process that is outlined in the committee is clearly that the chairman and the ranking member will go through and review those items that are identified as earmarks and we will agree on them and what we agree upon their inclusion in the bill the bill that was submitted filed with rules had at least one if not you know i don't i don't know about the full details but had at least one earmark that the chairman and myself never discussed that the chairman of my that or at least  that also that as the ranking member i had never received what would have been identified as the paperwork that went along with it the chairman knows that that particular earmark was a was one that was not discussed as an earmark i don't think the inclusion and the identification of it as being an earmark in committee when we debated this specific provision was brought up and sell the it's a cause of concern and building on what happened with my colleague from arizona mr flake where the rules committee did not identify the earmarks that were part of that bill on sale five hours issue of the time the time was an issue of government printing office error that's a different issue and i would i would just hope that my good friend and colleague and ranking member  would agree that we sat down and agreed to bring transparency so that the issues that came up when the gentleman was chair of the committee would not reoccur generally that was an area gentleman's time has expired  men from michigan is recognized for an additional minute if i that you that that is exactly the point that the whatever abuses whatever we wanted transparency these were guidelines and rules that we agreed upon in the previous congress we're i'm glad that they were carried over into this congress i'm disappointed that they weren't followed the way that they were outlined in in  the committee process is the gentleman was young now you know i would i would just again take issue with that point because we we we followed the process staff consulted on a bipartisan basis we might reclaim my time since i've got mr chairman now that doesn't follow the measure that we had you and i sat in a conference room we went through the list with staff discussing specifically each and every earmark and that earmark was not part of that process when we caught the report that accompanied this bill to the rules committee all of a sudden there was a new earmark that you and i had not gone through you portion of my time fascinated by my colleagues arguments on the other side we did have a rules committee hearing on this matter and there are all four members all too often and am in many may have and he didn't have an amendment at that time out film is argument is that we would need to be in what he says a secret session but one thing i do know being one of the few members that does serve on the rules committee and on the intelligence committee and that is that everyone knew the funding level of the issue that is being discussed mr flake may not have but i  today more than ever we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the hive highest priorities of this body the terrorist attacks of september eleventh combined with the continuing threat of further attacks underscore the importance of this legislation when the american people elected democrats to the majority they sent a very clear message that business as usual is no longer acceptable they to all of us republican and democratic democrat ally that there are problems in the way we operate and we need to change how we do business we must in my opinion can graduate our intelligence community for its successes but we also all must hold them accountable for their failures rubber stamping th acceptable and democrats are working every day as off republicans to make america a safer place for all i genuinely urge my colleagues to support this measure i heard arguments about the climate change requirement that all put forward for there to be a national intelligence estimate in that regard and their arguments against it i don't quite understand those argument we've made it clear that much of the information is collectable by analysts at this time and that it would help prevent future terrorist development and the way the argument has been couched on the minority is that is there this a lot of elbow intelligence budget law just in the history of the congress is not doing everything that's needed to be done because someone request it that there be a national intelligence estimate with reference to climate change one day some people in this body are going to get their head out of the same man and understand that s thing is changing in this climate of ours in this world and that we all owe it as much as we can afford all to make sure that we pass on  safe environment to all of the children of with that mr speaker i urge my colleagues to support the rule or to a yes vote on the previous question and you about the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution all time having expired the question is on watering the previous question those in favor please signify by saying i those opposed please say no in the opinion of the court and the electronic device pursuant to clause eight in clause nine of rule twenty this is a fifteen minute vote on author ing the previous question it will be followed by five minutes votes on adopting house resolution three eighty eight affor ordering the previous question on house resolution three eighty seven and adopting house resolution three eighty seven order