Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute to respond to my colleague from Michigan.

This is a serious issue. We have worked hard for the last 2 weeks in particular, in addition to the hearings that we have had, with the commitment that we are going to do an overall fix of FISA in the fall. But we wanted to give the administration the three things, as my colleague from Florida just mentioned, that they could work with so they could keep this country safe in this urgent hour. Those three things we gave them. Then the goalposts were moved and we were told that there would be additional issues. That has been our experience.

The difference here is very simple, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 6 years have been only too happy to oblige the administration on whatever they need. You got a bill? Let's rubber- stamp it. Need a supplemental? Let's rubber-stamp it.

Well, do you know what? Those days are over. Since we took control of the Congress, we are doing the oversight that was neglected. We are now being part of the process to make sure that not only do we have the tools to keep this country safe, but that we protect the American people and their civil rights. That is the basic fundamental difference.

This bill here does the three things that the DNI asked us to do and that the administration wanted us to do. It is not the all-encompassing changes that FISA needs, but we are committed to doing that in the fall.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by correcting the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. Director McConnell didn't have 30 years, doesn't have 30 years experience in working in intelligence, he has 40 years experience working in intelligence. The reason I know that is for the last couple of weeks we have been working, trying to work together in a bipartisan way with the Senate and the House on this bill that we have here today.

Director McConnell asked us to do three things yesterday, and he sought the very bill that he is rejecting today, three things, and he could support our bill. Those three things were: expand it from relating to terrorism to relating to foreign intelligence; eliminate the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how recurring communications into the U.S. from foreign targets would be handled; and, third, allow for foreign targets to be added for the basket warrant after the warrant was approved. We did each and every one of these things.

They say, okay, we got a deal. No. After getting on the phone with the White House and the Republican leadership, he said, oh, I have a few other things that we need.

Well, you know, when we talk about the security of this country, when we talk about a serious issue like giving our intelligence professionals the tools that they need to keep us safe, it is serious business.

Today, we have to decide for ourselves do we want, on a temporary basis for 120 days, to give the Director the tools that he said he needed, the three things that he said he needed included in our bill to keep us safe while we work on the bigger issue, the bigger fix of FISA, or if you vote against this bill, do you make it a political issue?

The choice is simple. Are you interested in giving him the tools that are needed and necessary to keep us safe, or do you want it as a political issue? That's the question before us this afternoon.

The Director yesterday, in answering to the majority leader's inquiry, said this bill, this bill that we have before us today, significantly enhances America's security, the very bill that, according to the ranking member, he is rejecting.

My colleague, the gentlelady from New Mexico, says we didn't show the DNI the bill. We sent that to him. His lawyers dissected it. We were in the same room; and on one occasion, at least one occasion, Mr. Hoekstra was with us as we were talking about the issues, along with the Senate, didn't show it to him.

He had a chance to look at it, digest it and make recommendations, like the three issues that I just read, that he agreed to yesterday. Those are important things. Facts matter. The truth matters. Not about obfuscating the truth, it's about doing what's right for our country.

This is the right thing to do, to keep us safe for the next 120 days, so we continue to do the work of this committee.

Madam Speaker, we are in times of peril for a great country. All of us I think agree on that.

As I listened to the previous debates, the one providing assistance to Minnesota and also the one discussing the resolution prior to us coming on the floor, I was reflecting on the many men and women around the world that right now are putting their lives on the line to keep this country safe. They don't do it for glory; they don't do it for fame. They do it with an inherent trust in us that we will do the right thing to provide them the proper tools to do their jobs and keep us safe. That is what this bill does.

Mike McConnell, the Director of the National Intelligence Service, came to us and asked us for three things initially.

We gave him those three things. He told us we were at a time of heightened threats. We recognize that; so we worked in a bipartisan manner with the DNI to craft a bill, only to be told that it wasn't everything that he needed, yesterday.

We can't afford to leave and go on recess without passing this critical piece of legislation. This piece of legislation that sunsets in 120 days gives him the tools that he needs to keep us safe and to keep the trust with those men and women around the world that expect us to do the right thing.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield the remaining time to the distinguished majority leader from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I

want to congratulate my good friend, Mr. Thompson and Ranking Member King for a great job on this legislation.

Prior to coming to Congress, I served proudly in the United States Border Patrol for 26\1/2\ years, including 13 years as a sector chief in Texas. As the only Member of Congress with experience in defending our Nation's borders, I have firsthand knowledge about what is needed to keep America safe.

As a former law enforcement officer, I have long advocated for better communication between agencies in the field. I am pleased that H.R. 1 establishes a stand-alone interoperability grant program which will allow improved emergency communication capabilities among our Nation's first responders.

H.R. 1 also enhances State and local intelligence ``fusion'' centers, places a high priority on border intelligence, and modernizes the Visa Waiver Program, a critical element of our homeland security defense.

I was appointed to the Intelligence Committee before the tragic events of 9/11, and today I proudly serve as the committee chairman. H.R. 1 takes a step to close the gap and implement several 9/11 Commission recommendations, including the declassification of the intelligence top-line funding figure. It requires disclosure of the intelligence top-line for fiscal year years 2007 and 2008, but not until 30 days following the end of the respective years. Starting in 2009, the administration may decide not to disclose the amount if it provides a written justification to Congress.

As the 9/11 Commission found, such declassification of the overall number would not disclose exactly how we are investing in specific capabilities, would not reveal intelligence sources and methods, and would not advantage our enemies. Instead, it simply provides greater transparency to American taxpayers.

The conference report also extends the Public Interest Declassification Board and mandates that CIA declassify to the maximum extent possible the congressionally mandated 9/11 accountability report. These provisions further underscore the high priority supporters of H.R. 1 have placed on striking the proper balance between protecting our most sensitive intelligence secrets and ensuring greater accountability, openness and transparency.

Overall, the report reflects thoughtful legislative drafting, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my condolences to Lady Bird's family and tell everyone that while she will be missed, her legacy lives on in Texas.

I think her contribution to Texas gives us a unique insight into who the former First Lady was; a person who used her gifts, her position, her talents and her status to expand the world for everyday people, to make the world better for the inner city residents of D.C., and for the public that was traveling along the interstates of our great country, and, of course, for Texas.

She had vision and gave people a reason to be proud of their surroundings, to take ownership of their neighborhoods and communities, and to make them better places to live. This is meaningful and important on so many different levels for all of us that are Texans. In doing this, she was ahead of her time. She helped bring the cause of conservation to the forefront and drew our Nation's attention to the importance of creating and nurturing beauty.

I am honored and privileged that I met Mrs. Johnson many years ago when I was a college student at the University of Texas at Austin. I am proud of the legacy that she created and that she leaves with all of us. May she rest in peace among the hills, the streams, and especially the flowers that she so loved in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this resolution.

As a representative of the 16th District of Texas, I rise today in honor of a great El Pasoan and a great American.

I have on the floor beside me two pictures of paintings by this great American. His name is Tom Lea. He hails from my district of El Paso, Texas, and has left a lasting impression on the Nation as a whole.

One of these paintings, ``Rio Grande,'' this one right here, was specifically chosen, as has been stated by my good friend from Connecticut, by President Bush to hang in the Oval Office. As you can see, this is a beautiful representation of the rugged landscape and the environment of our wonderful Southwest.

The other is a portrait of Sam Rayburn. It is probably the most familiar to many of you, as it hangs in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. I venture that you would be hard-pressed to find another artist who could so capture the tenacity and formidable nature of this great Texas lawmaker and former Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Lea's legacy extends beyond the paintings that you see here, and I rise today because this month marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of this acclaimed El Pasoan. The 2007 Tom Lea Centennial Celebration, which is a month-long series of events, is currently underway all along our beautiful Southwest.

Mr. Lea is a celebrated illustrator, novelist, historian, war correspondent and muralist. His assignment with Life magazine in the 1940s to draw a cavalry trooper at El Paso's Fort Bliss led to his role as an accredited artist correspondent during World War II. Traveling over 100,000 miles through very dangerous and faraway theatres of war, he captured the American forces in the North Atlantic, the South Pacific, China, and Peleliu for the American public and for those of us that appreciate his great artistry today. While overseas, he also painted a portrait of China's Chiang Kai-shek.

From painting national and world leaders to his celebrated painting of his wife, Sarah, which includes El Paso's Franklin Mountains as the backdrop; from his critically acclaimed novels to motion pictures based on his written works; from his depictions of the heroism and harrowing circumstances of World War II to his award-winning murals in post offices in El Paso and across the country, Tom Lea has left a lasting impact on our Nation as a whole.

Obviously, Tom Lea is a national treasure and a creative genius. I want to thank my 79 colleagues who have signed on as cosponsors to this legislation.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge all colleagues to join me in honoring him by passing this resolution. My community of El Paso, Texas, was lucky to be home for such an icon, and the Nation as a whole is a richer, more interesting and more beautiful place because of his vision and his mastery.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of an amendment by my friend and colleague, Chairman Dicks, to increase funding for the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund, or BEIF, under the U.S.-Mexico Border Program by $15 million.

I also want to thank Chairman Dicks for producing a good piece of legislation and for being so responsive to me and other concerned Members from border districts. His willingness to listen to and take into account new information regarding the program are true marking of a fine chairman. As my friend the chairman noted, BEIF has recently instituted measures to ensure that program funds are

disbursed more quickly. I am happy that his concerns regarding the balance of obligated but unspent funds have been resolved. It is an efficient program with strong fiduciary controls. I was pleased to work with Mr. Dicks on this amendment.

BEIF, which was created under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), makes environmental infrastructure projects affordable for communities throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region by combining grant funds with loans or other forms of financing. It was created with the understanding that a healthy and economically strong border region is critical to a secure border and to the flow of commerce. Economic development rests on a foundation of strong infrastructure. In many poorer border communities, however, the capital does not often exist to build water and wastewater infrastructure. BEIF funds go toward increasing water and wastewater capacity--bringing services to people who have not previously had them, improving public health, supporting economic development in poor border communities, and ultimately strengthening our southern border.

Every million dollars in BEIF water and wastewater investment results in the following over 10 years: $11.1 million in private sector investment, 221 new jobs, $1.7 million in tax revenue, and $52.2 million in goods produced by the private sector. Generally, BEIF and accompanying efforts have aided 185 projects that have benefitted over 7.5 million residents.

In my own district of El Paso, Texas, water and wastewater projects have received about $65 million in funding under the U.S.-Mexico Border Program. That funding has gone toward innovative water planning for a growing city in the middle of the desert, toward technical assistance for smaller waterworks, and toward bringing water and wastewater infrastructure to unincorporated settlements, or colonias. This irreplaceable funding source for border communities must be maintained.

Let's bring water and wastewater to those who don't have it. Let's bring economic development to poor communities in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Let's invest in a strong and secure border. I urge my colleagues to join our chairman, Mr. Dicks, and me in supporting this critical amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this important measure which reflects--in dollars and cents--just a small measure of our appreciation for all that men and women in uniform do in defense of our Nation.

We have an obligation to provide the housing and other facilities in which our military members and their families live and work. This measure includes the funds required to fully fund the President's budget request for military construction projects. The bill provides $8.2 billion dollars to implement the 2005 BRAC recommendations and $2.9 billion to replace, rehabilitate, and build housing for troops and their families.

As the representative of Fort Bliss, Texas I have seen the fruits of military construction spending, and I can assure my colleagues that these funds are being wisely used by the Army and the other military services to greatly improve the quality of life for our military members and their families. From a motorpool that allows a young technician to repair vehicles out of the heat and rain to a childcare center where the children of deployed service members can learn and grow, these facilities are more than bricks and mortar. They are an integral part of every soldier's daily life.

This bill provides an unprecedented level of funding for veterans health care which will allow us to begin to address the needs of current veterans who have for years been woefully under-served by the Veterans Administration, VA system. H.R. 2642 will also provide needed funding for men and women returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This measure continues our efforts to improve benefits for our Nation's veterans and provides $43.2 billion for veterans programs--

$6.7 billion more than was allocated last year and $3.8 billion more than the White House requested for VA programs. This additional funding will meet shortfalls in the Veterans Health Administration budget and provide needed funds to better address Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, mental health and substance abuse, homeless veterans, and prosthetic research.

These programs and other initiatives funded in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act are critical to our troops and their families and to our veterans who sacrificed so much in defense of our Nation and our American values. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in deference to the comments of the last speaker, I think the American people know what's going on here. They know that almost 6 years after 9/11 and over 5 of those years during the time that they controlled this Congress, they couldn't do what we have been able to do with this funding for Homeland Security. They couldn't do it, or they wouldn't do it.

But either way, Homeland Security funding is vitally important.

Why? It's important because it sends a strong, clear message to all the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection officers, that serve us, serve us well, valiantly around the clock, that we think their work is important.

Last summer, in August, we had a series of hearings. I went to, I think, five or six of those hearings where a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were present as well.

They talked about doing everything that was possible to secure our country's borders. They talked about supporting the Customs and Border Protection officers. They talked about providing them the tools and the weapons and the technology, all the kinds of things that sounded really good.

Yesterday and today, they're singing a different tune. They're talking about stalling. Every minute that we talk about silly things, we aren't talking about serious problems, that demand serious efforts, serious problems that demand serious solutions.

At the very minimum, serious problems that demand serious debate. We don't need Members citing ``Animal Farm,'' which, that's all well and good to make a point, but the American people know that instead of an animal farm, this is a body of a ship of fools here.

We don't need cute and silly things like one is one and two is more than one, because it insults the very people that they profess to support, the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. By the way, every minute that we take doing these kinds of silly things here, professing to want to debate seriously, we also take time away from the largest increase ever for veterans funding, which is the next bill that's waiting to be taken up here on the floor of the House.

Again, 5 years after 9/11, they couldn't do it, they wouldn't do it. Now they've decided that they're not going to let us follow through on the hollow promises that they had made for 5\1/2\ years after 9/11.

These are serious issues that we have an obligation seriously to solve, an obligation that we owe, not just the American people, but the employees of the Department of Homeland Security.

I spent 26\1/2\ years serving this Nation proudly on the border. I know the integrity. I know the hard work. I know the dedication that the employees of the Department of Homeland Security give each and every day.

They are, or they should be, respected and are not being respected by the kind of silly debate that has been going on here from Members of the other side of the aisle. I think they deserve better, I think our country deserves better, I think we all deserve better when we reflect that this is the people's House. We deserve better than that kind of silly debate.

I believe that it's important that we return to a process, the regular order of continuing to debate this funding for a very important agency 6 years after 9/11.

Let's get to the business that we were sent here to do. People put their faith and trust in us. Let's not betray that faith and trust. Let's do our job.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize John ``Danny'' Olivas, who, with the launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis this past Friday, became the first El Pasoan to enter space.

Astronaut Olivas worked his way through the El Paso school system, and, upon graduating from Burges High School, went on to receive a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Houston, and, finally, a doctorate in mechanical engineering and materials science from Rice University.

Beyond being the first El Pasoan in space, Astronaut Olivas is also one of only a handful of minorities, and even fewer Hispanics, to participate in a Shuttle mission. The importance of Mr. Olivas' participation in this space flight is underscored by the lack of minorities in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. According to the U.S. Census, as of 2000, only 4.4 percent of jobs related to science and engineering were held by African Americans, with only 3.4 percent being held by Hispanics. It is estimated that by 2050, over 50 percent of the population under the age of 18 will be a racial or ethnic minority. It is imperative that we work to engage our minority populations in these fields.

In the face of growing foreign competition from technology sectors in India, Japan, and China, among others, it is increasingly important that we support opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math. Advancing our understanding of these areas guarantees the vitality of our nation as a whole by ensuring that our country remains a leader of technological innovation and economic competitiveness. In creating opportunities for minorities, we ensure that the face of our high-tech workforce reflects the true face of America, and that our face in space echoes our face on Earth.

I have long supported NASA in its pursuit of greater understanding of the universe through exploration. Supporting NASA creates not only opportunities for people like Mr. Olivas, but also tangible benefits that affect our everyday life. Airmen and -women flying training maneuvers over El Paso's Fort Bliss-Biggs Army Airfield, and Army PATRIOT units deployed at home and overseas, use technology developed by NASA. Additionally, the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, where Astronaut Olivas first developed his fascination with space exploration at the age of seven, provides jobs for Texas, and, in doing so, fuels our local economies through tourism and contracting. As Astronaut Olivas noted in a recent interview, NASA itself is like a rocket engine: hundreds of thousands of small parts, working in tandem within the machinery of our Nation to fuel the engine of progress.

Having met Danny Olivas on a number of occasions, I applaud the example he encapsulates; wish him and the whole crew of Atlantis a safe return; and look forward to a successful mission!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2199, the Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long Term Support Act of 2007. As a Vietnam combat veteran, I have seen the long term effects that war-related wounds and illnesses can have on the lives of our returning soldiers.

As Agent Orange sickness and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) came to typify the Vietnam War, I believe that Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) have become a signature wound of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Advances in body armor and battlefield medicine have allowed our troops to survive head wounds that once would have been fatal. However, the number of identified traumatic brain injuries is alarming. Of the 23,000-plus troops who have been wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two-thirds reportedly have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. These numbers may even be higher since many cases are often undiagnosed and go untreated. Some reports suggest that 150,000 veterans of the war in Iraq have suffered a traumatic brain injury of some kind.

Many of those affected by these devastating injuries are unable to perform the most basic cognitive functions and have great difficulties with the tasks of everyday life. These injured soldiers will require quality care and treatment for the rest of their lives.

While it is our obligation to ensure that our military forces have all the necessary arms and equipment to safely carry out their missions, we are also responsible for making sure that our troops know that we will take care of them when they return home. Today we have an opportunity to demonstrate to our wounded veterans our appreciation for their sacrifices and our firm commitment to providing them with the means for living a full and rewarding life. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and couldn't agree more with his comments on how serious this authorization is and our duty to do what we have been sent here to do, especially today for our military.

So with that, Madam Chair, I rise to express strong support for H.R. 1585. And I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our chairman, and the ranking member, Mr. Hunter, for the great job that they have done on crafting together a piece of legislation that is so vital and important.

Having said that, Madam Chair, in July of 2008, the Army will conduct a limited user test with soldiers from the Army Evaluation Task Force based at Fort Bliss using the first spinout of the FCS technologies. I know that the gentleman from Missouri understands how critical the first spinout of FCS technologies is for our Nation's warfighters, our warfighters that are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I would now like to yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the hope of entering into a colloquy so that he can discuss how the bill addresses this very important and vital issue.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his efforts in support of our military forces. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have no better friend in Congress than Ike Skelton; and on behalf of the Fifth Brigade of the First Armored Division at Fort Bliss, I want to thank the chairman for his assurance that their work in support of FCS and Army modernization, as they prepare for the test event next summer, will not be affected by the bill that we are debating today.

FCS represents the cornerstone of the Army's modernization plans, and I appreciate the chairman's understanding of the need to continue investing in the Army's future even as we face the challenges of today's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam Chair, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to our friend and colleague from California, the gentlelady, Ms. Sanchez.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from Florida for yielding me time on this very important rule.

I rise in support of this rule. The terrorist plot that was recently uncovered in New Jersey this past week shows that we cannot let our guard down in the effort to learn the plans and intentions of people who would do us grave harm.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2082, provides funding for the brave women and men of our intelligence community. I have visited with them in every corner of the world, and I am constantly amazed by their patriotism, their dedication to mission, and their commitment to doing our Nation's most sensitive and dangerous business, often without public acknowledgement or recognition.

Today, the United States faces a dynamic set of threats, challenges, and opportunities. We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We face a growing terrorist threat. Countries like Iran and North Korea are working towards a nuclear bomb. And we face a number of other key challenges in Africa, Latin America, and from rising powers like Russia and China. These major challenges require a major effort by our government to collect, to analyze, and to disseminate intelligence, and to do so within the legal bounds of our Constitution and our national values.

This bill invests in human intelligence. It invests in analysis and analysts. It funds key counterterrorism operations and sensitive collection programs. And it improves critical oversight in key areas such as the overuse of contractors and the lack of qualified linguists in the intelligence business.

This bill was developed on a bipartisan basis. And although there may not be agreement on every single point, there is agreement on all the major points. This rule will allow a full debate on many of the key issues before us, and I, along with my colleagues, should welcome this debate. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted to assure my friend and colleague from Arizona that, being sensitive to the issues that he mentioned about one of our former colleagues that, regrettably, now sits in prison, the Intelligence Committee worked very closely with the Parliamentarians, the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, and other committees of the House on earmark disclosures.

I am at a loss as to 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 is why the delay in putting them up on their Web site.

Be that as it may, this committee followed 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 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 did with this process followed the rules and the process. Where the glitch came was where the printing was done. There was an error committed by the Government Printing Office, and that is why there was a delay in posting the earmarks.

Again, I am at a loss as to who informed the gentleman that there were no earmarks, because it certainly wasn't anyone from the committee that I am aware of.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time just to explain to you that our process in the committee is that you would be provided support from the Republican staff.

If they misinformed the gentleman about the issue of earmarks, I don't know why they would do that because clearly staff on both sides knew that there were earmarks.

I will continue to yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that the gentleman was offered an opportunity to do that and rejected it.

I am being again reassured by staff, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman was offered, less than an hour ago, unanimous consent to allow him to have an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me again reassure the gentleman that every single earmark here followed the House rules. Every Member that has an earmark certified, like every Member is required to in the House, that they had no specific interest, that the spouse had no specific interest with the company or companies where the money was going.

Will the gentleman yield?

Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my good friend and colleague from Arizona that the report, along with all the listing of earmarks, was filed appropriately, timely with the Rules Committee. Where the glitch occurred was in the printing.

But 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 in the House, and I would hope the gentleman would understand that.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you for yielding, because one of the fundamental points I want to make is that we wanted to err on the side of transparency. Staff tells me that the issue of that particular earmark, weeks before we marked up the bill, 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 brought to the markup.

Will the gentleman yield?

Those are two different issues. The time was an issue of Government Printing Office error. That is a different issue.

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 the chair of the committee would not recur.

If the gentleman would yield.

I would just again take issue with that point because we followed the process. Staff consulted on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2082 pursuant to House Resolution 388, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.