[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 99 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4418-H4421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM TO INITIATE OR
INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 708, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 706) authorizing the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to
enforce certain subpoenas.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to
House Resolution 708, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 706
Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform is authorized to initiate or intervene
in judicial proceedings in any Federal court of competent
jurisdiction, on behalf of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, to seek declaratory judgments affirming
the duty of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, to comply with any subpoena that is a
subject of the resolution accompanying House Report 112-546
issued to him by the Committee as part of its investigation
into the United States Department of Justice operation known
as ``Fast and Furious'' and related matters, and to seek
appropriate ancillary relief, including injunctive relief.
Sec. 2. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
shall report as soon as practicable to the House with respect
to any judicial proceedings which it initiates or in which it
intervenes pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House of
Representatives shall, at the authorization of the Speaker,
represent the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in
any litigation pursuant to this resolution. In giving that
authorization, the Speaker shall consult with the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group established pursuant to clause 8 of rule
II.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we've just had a
very important vote and some would ask what this second vote is about.
This second vote is a simple authorization for the committee involved
to be able to essentially hire counsel that would allow us to go into
court to seek a declaratory judgment by the Federal court to enforce
the subpoenas that have been presented by this committee to the
Attorney General of the United States. It's a simple, straightforward
resolution.
Why is it important? One of our obligations under the Constitution is
to provide oversight of the executive branch. There are those in this
body who have been here and engaged in debate with respect to important
items such as the PATRIOT Act and FISA. One of the things that we've
attempted to assure our constituents was that we would ensure that the
constitutional rights of Americans would not be trampled upon as we
carry out the appropriate responsibility of protecting this country and
our constituents against terrorist attack. That requires us to provide
active oversight over the executive branch.
Similarly, in this case, we have an obligation to stand in the shoes
of those we represent, to oversee the operations of the executive
branch--in this case, the Department of Justice--to ensure that they
are following the law.
{time} 1650
One manner in which that can be frustrated is by a department--in
this case, the Department of Justice--that refuses to respond to lawful
subpoenas and give us the information so that we can do that oversight.
That is what we were talking about.
This Congress, this House of Representatives, was misled. I don't
know whether it was intentional or not. I do know we were misled by a
representation from the Justice Department in an official response to
an inquiry by the Congress of the United States. That was not corrected
for 10 months.
You can look at it a couple of ways. One is that there was an attempt
to slow-walk the Congress so that it could not carry out its
constitutional responsibility. There is a lot of talk on this floor by
both Democrats and Republicans as to how we have an obligation to
oversee the executive branch. In fact, one of the genius points of our
Founding Fathers' Constitution is that conflict between or among the
three branches of government, that natural tension. But that natural
tension cannot exist and we cannot do that which we are called upon
under the Constitution to do faithfully if we are denied information to
oversee the operations of the Department of Justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So all we are doing simply is
asking for the authorization so that this committee can have the
representation of counsel to see that these subpoenas are carried out.
Since we have been given every sense from the Justice Department that
it would be folly, in a sense, to suggest that they would carry out the
actions that we just voted upon against the Attorney General, this is
the method by which we can achieve that which we are required to do;
that is, to carry out oversight responsibility against the executive
department, including the Department of Justice.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have come back from walking out of this proceeding to address the
serious, baseless charge of a coverup. No one in the majority has been
able to charge that the Attorney General or his top lieutenants knew
about the gunwalking initiated in the Bush administration because there
is no evidence of that after 16 months of investigation.
This contempt resolution stems from a letter from the Justice
Department correcting the record resulting from a prior letter written
in the Legislative Affairs section of the Justice Department that there
was no gunwalking. That letter relied on statements of ATF officials
and Justice Department officials who this Justice Department then fired
and did its own investigation. So what you have is contempt for
correcting the record.
What the Justice Department did was the opposite of a coverup. But it
is alleged that if the Department has nothing to hide, it would simply
turn over everything in its possession. The other side has gone so far
as to say that when the President invoked executive privilege, he too
was implicated in a coverup. But the Supreme Court itself has said that
while the privilege is not absolute--and here I am quoting--human
experience teaches us that those who expect public dissemination of
their remarks may well temper candor with concerns for appearances.
Thus, Presidents have repeatedly asserted executive privilege to
protect confidential executive branch deliberative materials from
congressional subpoena.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
Ms. NORTON. The last leg of today's weak reed of contempt is the
claim that the President asserted executive privilege too late. Why not
from the beginning?
The President, like every President before him, did not assert the
privilege until negotiations broke down. But the committee proceeded
without even examining the basis for the privilege, as prior Chairs of
our committee have done. A coverup is the most irresponsible allegation
of this debate because no evidence of a coverup has been submitted.
This subpoena is so partisan and political that I expect any court to
do just what our committee should have done--compel the parties to sit
down and negotiate.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's amazing that people would say there's no
evidence of a coverup when somebody says, No, we didn't do what we did,
and then hides it for an additional 10 months. By any normal American
standard, that would be a coverup.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I thank the chair for yielding.
[[Page H4419]]
I rise today in support of the motion for civil contempt so we can
get an attorney to proceed.
Normally under contempt, what happens is, we vote, like we just did,
to hold someone in contempt, and it's turned over to the Department of
Justice--in fact, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia--to
pursue in district court. Unfortunately, the U.S. attorney is an
employee and reports to the Attorney General, who was just found in
contempt. And I am concerned that past history of stonewalling delays
that are associated with getting us information and cooperating with us
on Fast and Furious will continue and, in fact, there will be no
prosecution of the contempt resolution we just voted out. So it is
absolutely critical that the committee be given the authority to pursue
this on their own if the Justice Department is not responsive.
I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this
civil contempt resolution.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The contempt citation pending against Attorney General Holder is
unfounded, unfair, and unwise. All of this involves questions about
gunwalking. And we know that the Attorney General has handed over
thousands of documents in response to multiple subpoenas. So we know
that the gunwalking policy began under the Bush administration. We know
that President Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, was briefed on
the policy, and it continued. We know that when Attorney General Holder
found out about it, he shut the program down and called for an
investigation.
If we want to know why the policy started, we should ask officials
who served when it started during the Bush administration. If we want
to know what Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious, we
should call the former Acting Director of the ATF, Ken Melson, who is
on the record as saying that he would have been the one to have
informed the Attorney General, but even he didn't know about Fast and
Furious. But unfortunately, requests from the Democratic members of the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to call these
witnesses have been rejected.
At this point, there has been no articulation of any useful
information about the origins of gunwalking in Fast and Furious or the
death of Agent Brian Terry that can be learned from the narrow set of
documents still at issue, nor has there been any articulation of any
legitimate legislative purpose that can be achieved. And, in fact,
Chairman Issa has silenced whistleblowers who testified about
legislation to strengthen law enforcement tools on our southwestern
boarder.
If the Speaker now insists on holding Attorney General Holder in
contempt for failing to respond to more subpoenas, the Speaker should
articulate with clarity what general purpose will be served by the
response. If nothing legitimately useful is to be learned nor any
legislative purpose is to be achieved with continued responses to these
subpoenas, then it is time for the Attorney General to get back to
work, along with the Members of the House.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if I heard the gentleman right
when he said that I ``silenced whistleblowers'' in order to keep them
from talking about gun control.
Is the gentleman disparaging and falsely claiming that I did
something that I know for a fact I did not?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. Of course.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I will tell you what you did. When you called the
whistleblowers in, and the whistleblowers, who are ATF agents, and you
know this--
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, it's pretty clear you are disparaging
me, and you are disparaging me by making a claim that's untrue.
The bottom line is, in committee, witnesses were told that they need
not answer questions that were not the subject of the hearing and, in
fact, those witnesses were allowed and did answer questions by the
minority having to do with gun control, an issue they prefer to talk
about rather than the cause of Brian Terry's death.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
McCaul).
{time} 1700
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a former Federal prosecutor at the
Department of Justice, I do not take these proceedings lightly. Above
all, those at the Department cherish their integrity. Mr. Speaker, that
integrity has now been impugned.
This is not about politics. It's about pursuit of the truth and
justice. The definition of contempt is the willful disobedience to or
open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court or legislative body.
This definition falls squarely within the facts here.
When insiders revealed the government's role in Operation Fast and
Furious, the Department of Justice falsely told Congress that
whistleblowers weren't telling the truth. As Congress fulfilled its
oversight obligations and tried to get to the bottom of how guns were
put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, ultimately killing Border
Patrol Brian Terry, this administration refused to turn over crucial
documents that would shed light on this. Instead, they asserted
executive privilege at the eleventh hour, calling into question the
validity of the privilege itself and at the same time demonstrating
that communications were held at the highest levels in the government.
In fact, the wiretaps, we all know, are approved at Main Justice.
Mr. Speaker, this Attorney General needs to be held accountable. The
Terry family, the families of the Mexican people who have been slain,
and the American people deserve no less.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes).
Mr. REYES. It is indeed a sad day today. As an officer that spent
26\1/2\ years wearing the United States Border Patrol uniform, it is
regrettable for me today that we're here under these circumstances.
I want to acknowledge and thank the chairman and the ranking member
for inviting me to go with them to Mexico City and visit at the U.S.
Embassy about the circumstances around what led to the investigation of
Fast and Furious. And to me, it's regrettable because we are here
discussing the death of a Border Patrol agent. I went to the memorial
service for Agent Brian Terry. I visited with his mom and his family
that day. I went there because as a former Border Patrol agent I wanted
to express sympathy and support, as I did so many times as a chief for
agents that were killed in the line of duty.
So for me, it is particularly troubling that we're here politicizing
the death of a United States Border Patrol agent. We ought to be about
getting to the circumstances of the investigation led under a U.S.
Attorney under OCDETF. Both the ranking member and the chairman know
that that was the controlling entity in this case.
I don't know except to say that it's pure basic politics that we've
now spun this up to the level of the Attorney General. Having had the
experience to supervise my agents that were part of OCDETF
investigations and having had a number of conversations with my friends
on the other side of the aisle who were experienced prosecutors,
everybody here that has that experience knows that those controls don't
go up to the level of the Attorney General.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. REYES. So we're here taking a lot of time when we should be
discussing things that are a priority to the American people. We're
here under the worst of circumstances for the Terry family, which all
they want is closure on the death of a son, on the death of a patriotic
American citizen, and spinning it in a political sense.
I really think that this is a sad day for this House of
Representatives, and we ought to do better for the American people.
Mr. ISSA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Labrador).
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, once again I sit here and I'm amazed by
the language that is being used. We've had numerous hearings. We've had
numerous investigations. We've had a lot of people come before Congress
and give us false information. And the reality is that I hear again and
again from the other side that there is no evidence of coverup; there
is no evidence of coverup.
[[Page H4420]]
But the reality is that we have only received 5 percent of the
documents that we have requested. There is no way for us to know
exactly what happened, who knew, and what did they know, unless we
receive all of the documents. All we're asking the Attorney General to
do is to provide the documents that we have requested. We wouldn't be
standing here holding these contempt proceedings if he had given us the
documents. And that's why I ask everybody in this body to actually vote
for contempt.
Mr. CUMMINGS. May I inquire as to how much time is left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Reserving the right to close, I have no further requests
for time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting here today, what we just
did with regard to the criminal contempt. I do believe that it is very
unfortunate, and let me tell you why. We have an Attorney General who
is indeed an honorable man. We who practice law look up to the Attorney
General and any U.S. Attorney. They are folks like us who are well
educated and who love their country. And Eric Holder, Jr., is no
exception.
Over and over again, he has tried to cooperate with this committee.
And I'm sure that both sides--his side and our side--have become a
little frustrated at times. But as he said in a meeting a couple of
weeks ago, he said that he's willing to give the documents, but he was
asking that at some point his attorneys have an opportunity to get back
to work.
Now, Leader Pelosi said something a moment ago that we should not
lose sight of, Mr. Speaker, when she spoke about the Constitution and
that it requires Congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary
conflicts and to seek accommodations that serve both of their
interests. In the words of Attorney General William French Smith, under
President Reagan:
It is the obligation of each branch to make a principled
effort to acknowledge and, if possible, to meet the
legitimate needs of the other branch.
I believe that this Attorney General has bent over backwards trying
to accommodate us, trying to provide the information, but at the same
time, as he has said to us many times, to protect the institution of
the Attorney General of the United States. And when I say protect the
institution, I mean protect the institution, the same types of things
that have assertions of executive privilege, making sure that wiretap
applications are not made public, making sure that confidential
informants are not disclosed, making sure that ongoing investigations
are not interfered with.
And I'm not sure, but there may be something that happened--we're not
sure; we're checking on it--happened in this House already today,
something that may have interfered with the trial already.
So as I close, I would submit that he has done the very best that he
could, and now we need to meet him halfway.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's been a long day for America, but it's been a longer day for the
Terry family. I'm going to urge everyone to vote for the ability to
hire counsel, and that's what the last vote is, and I believe it will
pass overwhelmingly.
But I'm going to use this time to pledge to the America people, to
pledge to the Terry family, and to pledge to my colleagues: this
investigation has in fact been brought to a halt in one area--and the
area is the Attorney General's flat refusal to any longer cooperate
with this committee.
{time} 1710
But it doesn't change the fact that in the days and weeks to come, we
will use what we can in the way of other tools, including some of the
individuals that the minority has talked about today, to glean
additional information, to find ways to prove accountability for the
many people that had to be involved in this OCDETF operation in order
for those guns to walk. We will continue to do that. We will try to
find the truth.
Hopefully in the weeks to come, we also will begin getting
cooperation from the administration again. But if we don't, I will tell
the ranking member here today, it has always been my intention to look
backwards to previous gunwalking programs that we believe were
certainly poorly designed and resulted in weapons getting out of the
hands of lawful people and into the hands of criminal elements. That's
not going to change. It's not going to change because it's our
obligation to investigate and because this one we cannot let loose
until the Terry family has been kept a promise that the ranking member
and I both made.
So I take the ranking member at his word today that, in fact, he will
not rest until we get some answers, and I commit the same that I will
not, and I urge the passage of this resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 708, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258,
nays 95, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 74, as follows:
[Roll No. 442]
YEAS--258
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--95
Andrews
Baldwin
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
[[Page H4421]]
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Garamendi
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Keating
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5
Ackerman
Costa
Kaptur
Lipinski
Towns
NOT VOTING--74
Baca
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Fattah
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Honda
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Markey
Meeks
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Pelosi
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sires
Thompson (MS)
Van Hollen
Waters
Watt
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
{time} 1734
Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``nay.'' to ``yea''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 28, 2012 on H4421 the following appeared: Mr. SULLIVAN
changed his vote from yea}} to nay.}}
The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. SULLIVAN
changed his vote from nay}} to yea.}}
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. COSTA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed the vote on
rollcall No. 442. My vote would have been ``yes.''
____________________