Congressional Record: July 22, 2003 (House)
Page H7284-H7311
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
[...]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Otter:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Section . None of the funds made available in this act may
be used to seek a delay under Section 3103a(b) of title 18
United States Code.
[[Page H7290]]
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago when the formulation of
this great republic was being put together, John Stuart Mill sat down
and probably put the essence of this government in writing better than
anyone could. "A people," he said, "may prefer a free government,
but if from indolence or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public
spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it;
if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if by
momentary discouragement or temporary panic, they can be deluded by the
artifices used to cheat them out of it; or if in a fit of enthusiasm
for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the
feet of even a great man, in all these cases, they are more or less
unfit for liberty. And though it may have been to their good to have
had it for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it."
The United States PATRIOT Act was well intentioned, Mr. Chairman,
especially during a time of uncertainty and panic. However, now we have
had a chance to step back and examine it objectively. The legislation
deserves serious reevaluation. While I agree with some of the new
powers granted to the Federal law enforcement authorities that may be,
and I stress "may be," necessary, many more are unjustified and are
dangerously undermining our civil liberties.
We have the opportunity to revisit these sections of the USA PATRIOT
Act and to correct these mistakes from those first frenzied weeks after
September 11, 2001.
One provision, section 213, allows delayed notification of the
execution of a search warrant. It authorizes no-knock searches of
private residences, our homes, either physically or electronically. By
putting off notice of the execution of a warrant, even delaying it
indefinitely, section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act prevents people, or
even their attorneys, from reviewing the warrant for correctness in
legalities.
These "sneak and peek" searches give the government the power to
repeatedly search a private residence without informing the residents
that he or she is the target of an investigation. Not only does this
provision allow the seizure of personal property and business records
without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search
warrants and allows the CIA and the NSA to operate domestically.
American citizens, whom the government has pledged to protect from
terrorist activities, now find themselves the victims of the very
weapon designed to uproot their enemies.
It is in defense of these freedoms that I offer this amendment today
to the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2004 bill. This
amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to carry out section
213 of the USA PATRIOT Act as signed into law on October 26, 2001.
Through the passage of this amendment, Americans would have reinstated
a different kind of security, one giving them renewed confidence in
their government in tirelessly protecting their individual freedom from
unjustified and unnecessary intrusion.
Being secure at the expense of our freedom is no real security. Like
many Idahoans who have come to me with their concerns about the USA
PATRIOT Act and in passionate defense of their freedoms, we must
continue to examine our actions to correct our mistakes to guard
against the apathy or the indifference to safeguarding our liberties.
To these Federal agencies, it is a house, it is a building, it is a
business; but to us, Mr. Chairman, it is our homes, and there is
nothing more sacred than homes in America because it is the foundation
on which we build our families. It is the arsenal in which the virtue
and hope of every generation resides, and it is the fundamental primer
of any free people.
{time} 1800
We can, with the adoption of this first alteration to the PATRIOT
Act, begin the reclamation of our title of a Nation as a people fit for
liberty.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
without really knowing completely what it does. Let me just say if
anyone from the Justice Department is listening, is there an office of
legislative counsel down there who can give opinions? Hello, is there a
policy office down there?
This would be a mistake, though. We are amending the PATRIOT Act,
this is not an appropriations issue, on the floor of the House. The
gentleman may very well be right, and he seems to have pretty good
information, but he may not be. So for us to amend the PATRIOT Act in
this bill, I think would be a mistake.
This is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. This
is clearly for the authorizers; this is clearly for the Department of
Justice to come up and sit down with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Otter) and discuss this with him. This is clearly for the legislative
counsel of the Department of Justice to address.
The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may very well be right. The
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may not be right. But undoing a
statute with a funding limitation at 6 o'clock at night without knowing
what the ramifications are is not really the way to legislate.
So because of that, not because the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter)
is wrong, I want to stress again he may very well be right; and then
again, I want to stress he may not be, but I also want to stress that
the Department of Justice is AWOL on this issue with regard to coming
and sharing with the Congress, and with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Otter), some of the concerns. But in an appropriations bill, I do not
think it would be appropriate to amend the PATRIOT Act, without having
extensive and deep debate.
So with that, I oppose the amendment. I would be glad, as I said, to
set up meetings, should this amendment fail, with the Justice
Department and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) so we can get to
the bottom, to make sure whether what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Otter) said is true or not true.
With that, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would
refer the gentleman to my earlier comments about civil liberties and
the issues which are contained within the PATRIOT Act.
I may not totally end up on the side of disagreeing with the
gentleman once some more research is done. My problem with the
amendment is that lately we have been seeing a lot of amendments on
this bill, both in committee and on the floor, where we fully do not
know the full impact.
That may sound to some people as a contradiction to the fact that I
would want to be the leader in changing and I would lead the charge in
changing the PATRIOT Act. So I understand that, if there is concern,
the gentleman has to be respected for that. But this is an issue that
we really need to consult with many people on, and we just do not think
it should be done on this particular bill.
With that in mind, not only would I oppose it, but I would hope the
gentleman would reconsider and withdraw his amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and am proud to join with him and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul) in cosponsoring it.
It has been said that Members may not know the impact of this
amendment. This amendment seeks to deny funds which would be used to
carry out section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows for so-called
sneak-and-peak searches. It has been said that Members may not know the
impact of this amendment.
Let it be stated here that when this House passed the PATRIOT Act,
most Members, as diligent as they are, nevertheless did not have access
to see the very bill they were voting on, that, in fact, we were not
voting on at 6 o'clock in the afternoon, we were voting on in the dead
of night. In an atmosphere of apprehension and confusion and chaos, the
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which has led to a destructive
undermining of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights. The amendment
of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is the first opportunity that
we have had
[[Page H7291]]
in this House to correct something that has been a grievous assault on
our Constitution.
We are offering this amendment to restore integrity to the fourth
amendment by denying funds from being used to carry out section 213 of
the PATRIOT Act, that section which allows for the sneak-and-peak
searches. Common law has always required that the government cannot
enter your property without you and must, therefore, give you notice
before it executes a search. That knock-and-announce principle has long
been recognized as having been codified in the fourth amendment to the
United States Constitution.
The PATRIOT Act, however, unconstitutionally amended the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches
without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search
has been executed. Let me tell you what this means. This means that
under this law, this law which was passed by the Congress, the
government can enter your house, your apartment, your office, with a
search warrant, when the occupants are away, search through your
property, take photographs, and, in some cases, even seize property and
not tell you until later. This effectively guts the fourth amendment
protections.
In response to questioning by the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Department of Justice makes it clear that the fourth amendment is
already in peril as a result of section 213. Listen to this box score
of their activity: the Department of Justice reports that sneak-and-
peak searches have been used on 47 separate occasions and that the
period of delay for notification has been sought almost 250 times. I
would suggest to you just once constitutes a threat to our Bill of
Rights.
These secret warrants have been used in Federal criminal
investigations not necessarily related to terrorist investigations.
Notice with a warrant is a crucial check on the government's power.
It forces authorities to operate in the open. It allows citizens to
protect their constitutional rights. For example, it allows subjects to
point out problems with a warrant, for instance, if the police are at
the wrong address or if the scope of the warrant is obviously being
exceeded.
If, for example, authorities in search of a stolen car go into
someone's apartment and rifle through a dresser drawer, search warrants
rightly contain limits on what may be searched. But when the searching
authorities have utter control and discretion over a search, American
citizens are unable to defend their constitutional rights.
This assault on the fourth amendment is wrong, it is
unconstitutional, it is un-American; and it must stop. I would ask my
colleagues to recall the oft-invoked words of a great American,
Benjamin Franklin, who once said: "Those who would give up essential
liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety."
I say today that section 213 of the PATRIOT Act destroys an essential
liberty. The Otter amendment restores it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want
to compliment the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) for bringing this to
the floor.
When the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was in the passions following 9/
11, and that bill should have never been passed. It was brought up
carelessly, casually, in a rapid manner. The bill that had been
discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary was removed during the
night before we voted. The full text of this bill was very difficult to
find. I am convinced that very few Members were able to review this
bill before voting. That bill should have never passed. We certainly
should continue to maintain the sunset provisions. But that is a long
way off, and we should be starting to reform and improve this
particular piece of legislation. This is our first chance to do so.
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet
admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the
worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity
to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not
have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to
vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to
make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal
Government would not have access to the library records.
But there is no need ever to sacrifice liberty in order to maintain
security. I feel more secure when I have more liberty; and that is why
I am a defender of liberty, because my main concern is security, both
in the physical sense as well as the financial sense. I think the freer
the country is, the more prosperous we are; and the freer the country
is, the more secure we are.
Yet it was in the atmosphere of post-9/11 that so many were anxious
to respond to what they perceived as demands by the people to do
something. But just to do something, if you are doing the wrong thing,
what good is it? You are doing more harm.
But my main argument is that there is never a need to sacrifice
liberty in order to protect liberty, and that is why we would like to
at least remove this clause that allows sneak-and-peak search warrants.
It took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop this concept
that governments do not have the right to break in without the proper
procedures and without probable cause. And yet we threw that out the
window in this post-9/11 atmosphere, and we gave away a lot.
Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our
government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning.
It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not
done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on,
and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and
that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution,
the fourth amendment.
Not only should we do whatever we can to reform that legislation, but
we already know that there is a PATRIOT Act No. 2. It has not been
given to us, the Congress; but the administration has it for the
future. It is available, but we have only gotten to see it from the
Internet.
In that bill there is a proposal that the government can strip us of
our citizenship, and then anybody then stripped of their citizenship
could be put into the situation that many foreigners find themselves in
at Guantanamo before the military tribunals.
I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about
liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law
and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging
into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in
the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This
has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American
people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize
how serious the PATRIOT Act is.
I hope that the Congress and our colleagues here will support this
amendment. It is very necessary, and it will be voting for the
Constitution; and it will be voting for liberty if we support this
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) who just spoke. It is a cliche in this House that almost no
speeches change people's minds, but I think this speech is one occasion
when it has certainly changed mine, and I want to thank the gentleman
for that.
Originally, when I first heard the amendment offered, I thought,
well, this is not the right place for this, and it is not; and I
thought there may be ramifications to this that we do not understand,
and there probably are. But I have full confidence in the ability of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano) to see to it that that is fixed in conference if this
amendment is adopted.
The reason I have changed my mind listening to the gentleman from
Texas and the reason I intend to support this amendment is because of
the history of the PATRIOT Act.
[[Page H7292]]
{time} 1815
When the first act was brought to this House floor, I voted
"present" because this House had no idea what was in it. We were
asked to vote blind. And as a protest to doing that, even in the heat
of 9-11, I voted "present" to signify that I did not feel that I knew
enough about the contents of that bill to vote for it.
When it came back from conference, I very reluctantly voted "yes,"
because I thought there were some things in it that, because of what I
had learned in classified briefings, we needed to face. Things like
being able to go after multiple telephones rather than just being able
to target one telephone number of a suspected terrorist, for instance.
So I assumed that given the unifying approach that the administration
at that point had been taking after 9-11, I assumed the Justice
Department would exercise those authorities with restraint. I was
wrong.
I believe this Attorney General has far overreached legitimate
boundaries. I often disagree with The Washington Post, but I have to
congratulate their constant drumbeat of editorials in support of
preserving the values of the Constitution that protect individual
freedom and privacy. And when I see the Justice Department overreach,
as it has, and when I see them assert the claim that they have a right
to lock up anybody they want without any kind of court review
whatsoever, I am appalled and chagrined and horrified.
So in my view, anything that can be done to push the Justice
Department back a little bit closer to the Constitution, anything that
can be done to reinforce Congress's determination to give PATRIOT II a
far tougher scrutiny than it gave PATRIOT I, I am willing to do.
So I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), because my
first reaction was that we did not know enough about the effect of this
amendment to adopt the amendment. But upon reflection, after hearing
the gentleman, I conclude that we know far too much about how PATRIOT I
has been used not to adopt this amendment. As I say, the gentleman from
Virginia is correct, that there may be problems with this; but I really
think we have the capacity to fix those problems in conference if there
are problems.
Mr. Chairman, I want the Justice Department to have to come to us and
assure us that the way they are enforcing the law that we have given
them the authority to enforce is the correct way. I do not want us to
have to go hat in hand to the Justice Department asking them to defend
the Constitution.
So I would at this point simply say I think the gentleman is right.
We ought to adopt this amendment if for no other reason than to send a
message to the Justice Department that we want respect for law
demonstrated by the Justice Department as well as average citizens of
this country.
I thank the gentleman for his speech, and I thank the gentleman for
offering the amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself feeling good that once today I can agree
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and that is that the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has brought forth a very important
amendment which is addressing an issue that I believe millions of
Americans from very different political perspectives, whether they are
conservatives, like the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), or
progressives like myself, or people in between, are demanding a tough
examination of, and that is the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act.
Everybody in our country knows that on 9-11, 2001, a dastardly attack
took place against our country and 3,000 innocent people were killed.
And every Member of this Chamber pledges to do everything that we can
to protect the American people from other acts of terrorism and to do
everything that we can to wipe out terrorism throughout the world.
But what some of us very strongly believe is that we should not be
undermining basic American constitutional rights in the fight against
terrorism. We have strong law enforcement capabilities in this country
to fight terrorism, and we have to support our law enforcement
officials to do that. But we can fight terrorism without denying the
American people their basic constitutional rights, and that is the
point that I think the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is making
today.
As my colleagues know, I am very disappointed on a similar issue,
section 215, which deals with the FBI going into libraries and book
stores all over this country with virtually no probable cause. That
issue is not being debated. But I applaud my friend from Idaho for
demanding that this body begin, just begin to take a hard look at the
U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which passed so swiftly through this body where I
think many honest Members will acknowledge that they really did not
have the time to look at all aspects of that legislation.
So I rise in strong support of the Otter amendment, and I hope that
it carries.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of discussion as to whether or not this
is an appropriate time or the appropriate place to debate this issue.
Certainly there will be more debate to come. But this is as good a time
as any, and as good a place as any, because it is a good amendment that
definitely needs to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank those who have engaged in the
debate, whether one is for or against this amendment.
But there is one thing I must notice and bring to everybody's
attention, Mr. Chairman, and that is that pound for pound, we have
debated this amendment longer than we debated the PATRIOT Act. We
passed the PATRIOT Act in 45 days. The smoke was still coming up out of
the rubble in New York City and at the Pentagon, and who could not be
torn by still hearing the cries and the pain of the victims and the
families of those victims.
But now we have an opportunity to reflect back on what have we done.
I have to tell my colleagues that the comments that have been made
relative to, is this the proper time or is this the proper place, I am
just so thankful that our Founding Fathers did not sit around and say
that. It was the time. It was the place. And that is the legacy that
they gave us; and that legacy demands that whenever the opportunity
arises, we have an obligation to stand and to stand firm to make sure
that the liberties of the American people are foremost. There is only
one purpose for government, one purpose for government, and that is to
defend us in the peaceful exercise of our liberties.
So I am hoping, once again, as my friend, the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), said, that this will be the first in the piece-by-piece
taking back the freedoms and the liberties that we have, while leaving
some of the PATRIOT Act in place. The proper role of government, the
proper role of government is to defend us in the free and peaceful
exercise of our liberties and in our homes, and not to take those away
from us.
So I pray, I hope that today we begin that process, and I invite the
gentleman from Wisconsin and all others who will want to participate in
that to join me.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first, I want to rise to express a lot of empathy and
sympathy with the concerns expressed on the Otter amendment. I think
that they are very legitimate questions. I think some of the concerns
about the rapidity with which the PATRIOT I Act was passed in the
aftermath of a huge American historic tragedy are legitimate concerns.
But the rapidity with which we are passing this amendment in some ways
reflects the problems that some of the proponents of the amendment are
suggesting the original PATRIOT Act is guilty of.
I will tell my colleagues that it is important to have deliberation
and thoughtfulness as we go through the process of striking a new
balance. I think all of us will recognize that the last time the
mainland of the United States was attacked by a foreign power before
September 11 was in 1812. All of us here are civil libertarians, but
defining the balance between order and liberty is a constant struggle
with new technologies, with new challenges.
[[Page H7293]]
When was the last time that we as Americans before September 11
literally thought about the terror of a potential biological, chemical,
nuclear attack from a foreign power? This is a whole new set of
balancing that we have to do within the great framework that the
founders provided us in the Constitution. And I agree with the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the proponents of this amendment
that we need to have careful and thoughtful reflection, and we need to
be constantly dealing with balancing these new issues.
But I do believe that the best place to do that is through the
subcommittee process, in committees like the Committee on the
Judiciary, which I serve on. We hear expert testimony from civil
libertarians and law professors, from prosecutors and defense
attorneys, from people throughout the country who have expertise in
advising us, as the body that represents the people of the United
States in a democratic fashion, but also in a fashion that respects the
constitutional framework.
I personally am a huge civil libertarian, and there is much in the
suggestion that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the proponents
have of this amendment with which I hugely sympathize. But I will tell
my colleagues this: in a new day when all of our children and all of
our grandchildren are constantly under threat of biological, chemical,
or nuclear terror, which was not true, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, the
time for us has come to move into the 21st century in terms of
preparing the defense of the homeland. That is why we created an Office
of Homeland Security.
Now, let me address the merits of the amendment itself, because with
all due respect, there is some suggestion that the PATRIOT Act
radically changed the process of delayed notification. The question is
when a subpoena is issued, are there times when actual prior
notification to the recipient of the subpoena can be waived; and the
answer is, it has always been true, or at least far before September
11, that in most circuits in the United States, Federal courts have
allowed the delayed notification. But several things are required.
Number one, one would think from listening to some of the debate that
any prosecutor or any sheriff or any law enforcement agent or any FBI
agent could go in and subpoena records and tell people only after the
fact that their records had been confiscated and reviewed by the
government. That is a scary thought, but it is simply not accurate. The
truth of the matter is that in all events, 213 requires that a judge
make a decision. The authority is based on a court order and a court
order alone. So a judge is going to review all of the potential
evidence in the case to determine whether or not the delayed
notification is warranted.
I want the people to understand throughout America when courts are in
power, and the only time they are in power to approve delayed
notification, courts can delay notice only when immediate notification,
in other words, prior notification, might result in the death or
physical harm of an individual.
Imagine the events leading up to September 11 and the intelligence we
now know, if we had been better prepared to put it together, assimilate
it, understand what it meant. Courts can only delay notification if the
death or physical harm of an individual is impacted, or when there is
flight from prosecution; and we had some 19 terrorists floating around
America that we now know organized the September 11 events; evidence
tampering, or witness intimidation.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Otter amendment raises
concerns that I share, and those concerns are that we have to balance
in a new technological world, in a world of new threats, liberty and
order and security and homeland security. I would suggest that the
issues raised here are appropriate to debate. We will be debating them
for years, dare I say decades; but I do not think the place to debate
them is in the appropriation bill of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Otter) will be postponed.
[...]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 309,
noes 118, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 408]
AYES--309
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--118
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Ballenger
Bass
Beauprez
Blackburn
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Cunningham
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Feeney
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harman
Hart
Hayes
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sweeney
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--7
Berkley
Conyers
Davis (TN)
Ferguson
Ford
Gephardt
Meek (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1942
Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from "aye" to "no."
[[Page H7300]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[...]
