国会记录：2003年7月22日（楼）第H7284-H7311商务部，司法部，国家，司法各部门，各相关机构拨款法案，2004 [...]修正案尽在水獭先生OTTER先生。主席先生，我提出的修正案。那位主席。秘书会指定的修订。修正案的文本如下：修订通过提供水獭先生：在该法案结束（前的简称），插入如下：部分。该法案提供的任何拨款可用于寻找下标题18美国法典第3103A（B）的延迟。[页H7290] OTTER先生。主席先生，在这个伟大的共和国的配方放在一起超过200年前，约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒坐了下来，很可能把这个政府的本质比任何人都可以写出更好。“一个人，”他说，“可能更喜欢自由的政府，但如果从懒惰或疏忽，或怯懦，或者希望的公共精神，他们是不平等的，以必要的保护它的努力;如果他们不会为它的时候打它直接攻击;如果一时灰心或暂时的恐慌，他们可以通过使用欺骗他们出来的计谋迷惑;如果在一阵热情的一个人，他们可以被诱导在脚打好自己的自由 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. [...]