mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time . 
mr. speaker , i am going to ask for a `` no '' vote on the previous question so that i can amend the rule and allow the house to consider the sanders amendment that was rejected in the committee on rules last night on a straight party-line vote . 
i might also add that the extraordinarily important otter amendment on the egregious sneak-and-peak law was voted down on a 9 to 4 vote last night . 
this amendment would exclude booksellers and libraries from the scope of section 215 of the patriot act , which allows law enforcement to conduct broad searches of the records of bookstores and libraries without demonstrating probable cause , and it forbids libraries and bookstore owners from even telling their patrons that their records have been searched . 
mr. speaker , an identical version of this amendment was passed in the house a month ago during consideration of the science , state , justice , and commerce appropriations bill . 
by a substantial vote of 238 to 187 , the members of this body expressed their support for the provisions of the sanders amendment . 
it is clear that the patriot act 's provisions on the search of library and bookstore records are overly broad and undermine our basic constitutional rights . 
for the sake of civil liberties and the privacy rights of our fellow citizens , this house needs to debate the sanders amendment . 
i want to emphasize that a `` no '' vote will not stop the house from considering the patriot act reauthorization bill , and it will not block any amendment made in order under this rule . 
but a `` yes '' vote will block the house from considering the sanders amendment . 
please vote `` no '' on the previous question . 
mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question . 
