[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5514-H5555]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015
[...]
amendment offered by mr. massie
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds made available by this Act may be used by an
officer or employee of the United States to query a
collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under
section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person
identifier.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to queries for foreign
intelligence information authorized under section 105, 304,
703, 704, or 705 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805; 1842; 1881b; 1881c; 1881d), or title
18, United States Code, regardless of under what Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act authority it was collected.
(c) Except as provided for in subsection (d), none of the
funds made available by this Act may be used by the National
Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate
or request that a person (as defined in section 1801(m) of
title 50, United States Code) alter its product or service to
permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in section
1801(f) of title 50, United States Code) of any user of said
product or service for said agencies.
(d) Subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to mandates
or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman
from Kentucky and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick of being spied
on. Our Founding Fathers wrote an important provision into the Bill of
Rights--the Fourth Amendment--and that requires probable cause and a
warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on any
American.
During the debate on the USA FREEDOM Act, we knew that more work was
needed to ensure Americans' privacy rights are protected. That is why
our bipartisan group has joined together to shut surveillance backdoors
that do not meet the expectations of our constituents or the standards
required by the Constitution.
At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California
(Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that the
Director of National Intelligence has confirmed publicly that the
government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of
emails and telephone calls, without individualized suspicion or
probable cause when it comes to U.S. persons.
[[Page H5545]]
Last week, the director of the FBI testified under oath, before the
Judiciary Committee, that this information is used for prosecution and
without a warrant.
This amendment is simple. It allows us to get the bad guys, but it
also says use probable cause and the Fourth Amendment. It also closes a
backdoor to technology holes.
The broad support for this, I think, shows why it is important for
Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin; myself; Mr. Conyers of Michigan; Mr.
Poe of Texas; Ms. Gabbard; Mr. Jordan of Ohio; Mr. O'Rourke; Mr. Amash;
of course, Mr. Massie; Mr. Holt; Mr. Nadler; Mr. Petri; Ms. DelBene;
Mr. Farenthold; Mr. Sanford; and Mr. Butterfield--this spans all over
this House of Representatives, from right to left, with Members saying:
yes, we need to protect our country, but we also need to honor our
Constitution and especially the Fourth Amendment.
We started this Congress by reading the Constitution of the United
States aloud in this Chamber. Let's finish this bill by making sure
that we honor that Constitution by adopting this amendment.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I will submit for the Record the letter from
the Director of National Intelligence that my colleague from California
referred to.
Director of National Intelligence,
Washington, DC, Mar. 28, 2014.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide
Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from
2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to
query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign
Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person
identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been
conducted for the communications of specific Americans.
As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of
Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to
Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21.
2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers,
of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign
intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably
believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section
702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to
minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as
consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you
know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to
restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately
not adopted.
For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs, at
(703) 275-2474.
Sincerely,
James R. Clapper.
Mr. MASSIE. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment. This is our Appropriations bill. There is nothing in this
amendment about funding. You won't see one dollar sign or numeral. The
goal was to change policy--that is why they are here--and the
application of the law without the oversight of the authorizing
committees. The authorizers ought to be dealing with this issue.
It is my pleasure to yield such time as he may wish to consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of
the Judiciary, to respond to this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, last month, the House passed H.R. 3361,
the USA FREEDOM Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. This
amendment undoes the carefully crafted reforms that this body passed,
with overwhelming support.
A similar amendment regarding section 702 was offered and rejected by
the House Judiciary Committee during its markup of H.R. 3361.
The bipartisan legislation passed by the House last month was closely
negotiated on a bipartisan basis with the House Intelligence Committee,
House leadership, and the intelligence community--to create a product
that provides real, meaningful reforms to intelligence-gathering
programs, while ensuring that the operational capabilities of the
intelligence community are protected.
H.R. 3361 explicitly codifies existing minimization procedures for
section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act that requires the intelligence
community to minimize the collection and prohibit the retention and
dissemination of wholly domestic communications.
H.R. 3361 also prohibits the government from using communications to
or from a United States person or a person who appears to be located in
the United States, except where the communication relates to a target
under section 702 or to protect against an immediate threat to human
life.
The intelligence community is strictly prohibited from using section
702 of the FISA Amendments Acts to target a U.S. person. If a U.S.
person is the target of intelligence gathering under FISA, this must,
at all times, be carried out pursuant to an individualized court order
based upon probable cause.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.
The USA FREEDOM Act that reformed the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act was the product of nearly a year of carefully
considered negotiation and debate. It passed the House last month with
an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 303 votes, but now, we have an
amendment to an appropriations bill that makes major legislative
changes to FISA with only 10 minutes of debate, and it makes our
country less safe.
It would prohibit the urgent search of lawfully-collected information
to thwart a bomb plot against a synagogue in Los Angeles, a church in
Maryland, or the New York Stock Exchange.
It has no emergency exceptions, and it basically says that what you
can do to stop a criminal in this country, you can't do to stop a
terrorist. That is wrong. We cannot allow this to happen.
We will continue to work on FISA and our other national security laws
to maximize privacy and civil liberties, especially for U.S. persons,
but we must do so carefully and deliberately. We must make sure to also
keep our country and our allies safe from terrorist attacks.
Ultimately, while I applaud these Members for continuing to look for
ways to reform our intelligence laws, we shouldn't be doing this on an
appropriations bill with only 10 minutes of debate.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is
correct. This was in the original FREEDOM Act, and it was stripped out
in his committee. That is why many of the Members who originally
sponsored the FREEDOM Act did not, in fact, vote for the final version,
and I would argue that it was not legislated.
The final version of the FREEDOM Act was done behind closed doors,
and when it came to this floor, we would have loved to have offered
amendments, but the rules were written such that we could not amend it.
Legislators from 435 districts had no say in the final bill, and that
is why we are here tonight with this amendment, to reinsert this
provision which over 150 Members of this body sponsored.
At this point, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, our number one priority is keeping the
American people safe. We do that by focusing our resources on those who
actually pose a threat to our safety, while upholding the freedoms and
civil liberties of the American people, not by continuing this dragnet
spying on millions of Americans.
There is no evidence to date that these programs have made our
country more secure. Not a single taxpayer dollar should be used to
fund a program that spies on innocent Americans, violating the
principles of liberty and freedom that so many have fought and given
their lives for.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the NSA has shown they will always
interpret the law to the extent that allows them to seize the
information. That is why the law has to be much more clear to the NSA.
We all must remember that the NSA was violating the PATRIOT Act, as
written.
[[Page H5546]]
This amendment does something that is very concrete. It tells the
NSA: Get a warrant. Get a warrant through the front door. You get a
warrant through the backdoor. You can't spy on Americans unless you get
a warrant. That is what this amendment does, and I support this
amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas is correct. The
American people can be kept safe, and we can follow the Constitution.
We don't have to disregard it, and that is what this amendment would
allow us to do, to keep the American people safe while protecting their
civil liberties.
There are two provisions here, and they both close backdoors. One
backdoor currently allows, without probable cause or a warrant, for the
NSA to query a database of American persons' information. This is
wrong. They should have a warrant.
The other part of this amendment would prevent money from being spent
to fund companies to put backdoors into products. When the government
causes these companies to intentionally make defects in their products,
they make Americans less safe. They make Americans' data less safe, and
they compromise the quality of American goods overseas.
Ultimately, this is about the Constitution, and if you believe in the
Constitution, if you believe that it is still valid, if you think we
can honor the Fourth Amendment and that we can still keep people safe,
then I urge you to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2145
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the bill passed by this House honors the
Fourth Amendment and protects the rights of American citizens. At the
same time, Islamic radical terrorists are on the march in Iraq, and the
leader has publicly threatened to attack America, Syria has become a
vortex of jihadists from across the globe, and the Director of National
Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security have warned of the
growing threat these jihadists pose to our own homeland. State control
has collapsed in Libya, and rival gangs of radical terrorists have
established safe havens that rival those in Afghanistan prior to 2001.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al Qaeda
continue to fight. Moreover, the administration has released the
Taliban Five from Guantanamo, emboldening the terrorists. The terrorist
danger is grave and growing. The terrorist threat is not contained
overseas. The U.S. homeland remains a prime aspiration and target.
This amendment would create a blind spot for the intelligence
community tracking terrorists with direct connections to the U.S.
homeland. This amendment would impose greater restrictions on the
intelligence community's ability to protect national security than
constitutionally required and create an impediment to the government's
ability to locate threat information already in its possession. Such an
impediment would put American lives at risk of another terrorist attack
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and stand by the
legislation passed. It is also being considered in the Senate and there
will be further negotiations, but this--this--contradicts the intent of
the House and endangers America's national security.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, this amendment answers questions millions of
Americans have asked: Will we stop the government's unconstitutional
searches of Americans' stored communications? Will we prohibit the
government from deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet
and America's technology products?
This amendment would do both while still giving the government all
the authority it needs to collect foreign intelligence on real threats.
It is a first step towards reversing the current government paradigm of
treating our people as suspects first, and citizens second. I urge my
colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.
It has been over a year now since the nation learned of the scope of
the National Security Agency's vast surveillance programs targeting
global communications, and thus the communications of every American.
These programs have been executed in the absence of true, probing
Congressional oversight, and they have been repeatedly rubber-stamped
by a secret court that has too often acted as an enabler of this
domestic spying rather than a check on it.
Earlier this spring, the House passed a bill--the USA Freedom Act--
that if enacted into law would have the effect of essentially
enshrining these unconstitutional programs into law. While I hope the
Senate will either reject or substantially improve that legislation,
there is no guarantee that the USA Freedom Act or any other stand-alone
NSA reform legislation will pass the Congress this year. That is why I
and over a dozen of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, have brought
this amendment to the House floor tonight. I should also note that this
amendment is supported by dozens of groups from across the political
spectrum, as well as some of America's leading technology companies,
including Google.
This amendment answers questions millions of Americans have asked:
will we stop the government's unconstitutional searches of Americans'
stored communications? Will we prohibit the government from
deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet and America's
technology products? This amendment would do both while still giving
the government all the authority it needs to collect foreign
intelligence on real threats.
The first part of this amendment would prohibit the government from
conducting warrantless searches of the communications of Americans
collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. One of the predictions I and others made in 2008 when this
provision became law was that it would be misused for the ``reverse
targeting'' of Americans' communications while collecting against
foreigners. As we now know, that is exactly what happened, and those
communications--billions of phone calls, emails, text messages and the
like--now sit on National Security Agency servers, available for search
without a warrant. This amendment would bar the NSA from using any
funds in this act to conduct any search of stored communications of
Americans collected under Sec. 702 of FISA, thus protecting the privacy
and Constitutional rights of all Americans.
The second part of this amendment would prohibit the government from
forcing American technology companies to build in ``back doors'' to
their products that would compromise the encryption and privacy
safeguards built into them. Early this year, published reports revealed
that RSA, which provides the SecurelD remote login devices used by
House Members and staff, had, at NSA's insistence, built in such ``back
doors'' to some of its other products that compromised the privacy and
encryption features of the devices in question. This amendment would
prohibit that practice, thus helping to restore public confidence in
the security and integrity of American produced high technology
products.
This amendment is a first step towards reversing the current
government paradign of treating our people as suspects first, and
citizens second. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, and the other sponsors of
this amendment for their continued leadership on the effort to roll
back dragnet surveillance of United States citizens.
Last month, a broad, bipartisan majority passed H.R. 3361, the USA
FREEDOM Act. That bill rightly ends domestic bulk collection.
But, as I said then, ending bulk collection is only part of the work
that must be done to fully reform government surveillance.
This amendment closes the ``backdoor surveillance'' loophole--through
which the government queries U.S. person information without a warrant.
This amendment also prohibits the government from mandating the
creation of vulnerabilities in commercial products and services for
later exploitation.
Together, these changes end two demonstrated threats to our privacy
and civil liberties--without any measurable loss to our national
security.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a leading co-sponsor of the
Sensenbrenner/Lofgren/Massie amendment and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
The NSA must stop conducting illegal `backdoor searches' into the
communications of U.S. citizens. Congress must adopt the Sensenbrenner/
Lofgren/Massie amendment and make sure that this loophole is closed in
the law. For too long, the NSA has misused authority granted under
section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which was meant only to
authorize spying on foreigners. However, the NSA has misused this
authority to search emails, pictures, videos, and other internet
[[Page H5547]]
traffic of innocent Americans. This practice is clearly
unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects
against unreasonable search and seizure, and normally requires a court-
issued warrant. Clearly, this is not how Congress intended the law to
be applied.
After the passage of the USA Freedom Act, this amendment is the
logical next step to prevent improper surveillance. I will continue to
work to improve our nation's privacy laws and to ensure that this
Administration, and all those that follow it, respect the
constitutional rights of all Americans.
As I said at the time, the USA Freedom Act certainly did not give us
everything we wanted or needed. It was far from perfect, but it was an
important step forward. We must not leave in place a framework that
leads to the dragnet surveillance of our citizens.
During the last several months, I have worked with my colleagues on
the House Judiciary Committee to pass the USA Freedom Act. While that
bill contains some significant reforms, such as ending NSA's bulk
collection of metadata from Americans, more reforms are still needed.
And this amendment is an important step in the right direction.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support this amendment
to the Fiscal Year 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I
would like to thank Representatives Lofgren and Massie for their work
on this issue.
To my colleagues who supported the USA FREEDOM Act, this amendment
further defends the constitutional rights we voted to protect. To
cosponsors who didn't believe the FREEDOM Act went far enough, this
amendment reclaims an important protection stripped from the original
bill.
I believe the amended USA FREEDOM Act is an important step toward
striking the proper balance between privacy and security, and I look
forward to seeing it signed into law. But as I said at the time of that
vote, the FREEDOM Act was a first step--not a final step--in our
efforts for reform.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibits the government
from targeting U.S. communications. The Administration believes,
however, that as long as it incidentally or inadvertently collects
Americans' communications, it can read our emails and listen to our
phone calls without any judicial process at all.
The Administration has admitted it violates our rights in this way,
but it refuses to say how often or to what extent.
The Obama Administration knows that FISA does not authorize
collection of wholly domestic communications. It also knows that the
content of our communications are, by and large, protected by the
Fourth Amendment. But the Administration nevertheless believes that as
long as those communications are inadvertently collected, it has the
right to disregard the law and the Constitution.
This amendment says that the Fourth Amendment means what it says and
there should be no shortcuts around it. For those who believe the sky
will fall and U.S. security will be undermined, it has only been since
2011 that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opened the
backdoor and allowed these illegal searches. This amendment closes that
door.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
will be postponed.
[...]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Massie) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293,
noes 123, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 327]
AYES--293
Amash
Amodei
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Byrne
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McAllister
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walorski
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
NOES--123
Aderholt
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Benishek
Bilirakis
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Coble
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Ellmers
Forbes
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grimm
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Langevin
Latham
Levin
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McKeon
Meehan
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nunes
Pearce
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Sewell (AL)
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (TX)
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lipinski
NOT VOTING--14
Fudge
Kirkpatrick
Lankford
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McCarthy (NY)
Mulvaney
Nunnelee
Polis
Rangel
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Thompson (MS)
Walz
{time} 2247
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
