[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 65 (Thursday, May 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2892-H2896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) Authority To Make Payments.--Subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to enter into agreements to make payments for the 
     settlement of the claims arising from the deaths caused by 
     the accident involving a United States Air Force CT-43 
     aircraft on April 3, 1996, near Dubrovnik, Croatia.
       (b) Deadline for Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary 
     shall make the decision to exercise the authority under 
     subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Source of Payments.--Amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of the Air Force for 
     operation and maintenance for fiscal year 1999 or other 
     unexpended balances for prior years shall be available for 
     payments under subsection (a).
       (d) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment under 
     this section in settlement of the claims arising from the 
     death of any person associated with the accident described in 
     subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any amount paid to a person 
     under this section is intended to supplement any amount 
     subsequently determined to be payable to the person under 
     section 127 or chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or any other provision of law for administrative settlement 
     of claims against the United States with respect to damages 
     arising from the accident described in subsection (a).
       (f) Construction.--The payment of an amount under this 
     section may not be considered to constitute a statement of 
     legal liability on the part of the United States or otherwise 
     as evidence of any material fact in any judicial proceeding 
     or investigation arising from the accident described in 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. FARR of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record..
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the gentleman's amendment.
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's right, the right to 
object, but this bill that we are dealing with, the underlying bill, is 
a spending bill, an emergency spending bill, and we have a legal 
emergency that has to be taken care of. They are the families of our 
constituents who were killed on a United States mission on a United 
States aircraft while approaching Dubrovnik Airport.
  The families of the Ron Brown Trade Mission have no place to turn. 
They cannot use tort law as a remedy, they cannot use the Foreign 
Claims Act as a remedy, they cannot have any other redress because they 
were flying on a military aircraft. The Senate has used this 
supplemental bill on their side to pay for the families affected by the 
gondola accident at Cavalese, Italy. If the Senate can help the 
families who lost their loved ones in an accident caused by an U.S. 
Marine Corps aircraft, then the families of the Ron Brown crash should 
also have remedy.
  Mr. Chairman, the only way they can have remedy is for this Congress 
to authorize the Department of Defense to help those families, and that 
is what this amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment for a very simple reason: 
justice.
  The bill in an ``emergency appropriation.'' We have legal problem 
that can only be solved by Congress. I think that qualifies as an 
``emergency.''
  The problem is that all the families of the civilians who lost their 
lives on a U.S. Air Force plane on the mountain side while approaching 
the Dubrovnik airport in foul weather, have no legal place to turn.
  They can't use tort law nor the foreign claims act nor other 
redress--nor does the military have the authority to help the families.
  The crash occurred on a ``military aircraft'' that was not properly 
equipped with standard navigational and safety equipment.
  Flight protocols had been violated!
  The Dubrovnik airport map was incorrectly drawn!
  If any of these factors had changed, the 35 people aboard flight CT-
43 would not have died.
  The Air Force's own Accident Investigation Board Report plainly 
states: (quote) ``the CT-43 accident was caused by a failure of 
command, aircrew error, and an improperly designed instrument approach 
procedure.'' (Unquote)
  Since the crash, the families have been dismissed by the U.S. 
Government because the government generally lacks the authority to give 
restitution for the families' loss.
  This amendment fixes that. It gives the DOD the authority to enter 
into settlements with the families who had victims on CT-43 if the DOD 
finds their claims worthwhile.
  This House should also note that the in Senate version of the 
supplemental bill is language very similar to mine. In the Senate bill 
money is set aside to pay the families affected by the Calavesee 
gondola accident. It seems to me that if we can consider giving 
Europeans families who lost loved ones in the gondola accident--caused 
by a U.S. Marine Corps flyer--restitution for their pain, then we can 
give equal consideration to American families similar treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

[[Page H2893]]

                         Families of the CT-43

       We the undersigned are family members of the citizens of 
     the United States who were killed on USAF CT-43 on April 3, 
     1996, near Dubrovnik, Croatia. They died while engaged in a 
     journey for peace and restoration of the war ravaged 
     countries of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. No citizen of 
     the United States should lose his or her Constitutional 
     rights to seek justice simply by virtue of being a public 
     servant, traveling abroad on US government business, or 
     traveling aboard US government vehicles or on US government 
     property. The United States government employer should not be 
     exempt from its own principles of justice as law maker.
       No one on that plane would have been so cavalier or 
     reckless with their lives or family responsibilities to have 
     knowingly boarded a plane that USAFE (United States Air Force 
     European) had given direct orders not to fly, into an airport 
     USAFE had ordered Air Force personnel not to land in by 
     instrumentation, flown by a flight crew USAFE had ordered not 
     to fly without theater specific training, using erroneous 
     missed approach plans USAFE had declared were not approved. 
     Nor would any government employees have stepped on a 
     government plane knowing that in the event of injury or death 
     resulting from acknowledged gross negligence by Air Force 
     personnel they or their families would have no standing 
     before any court of law in the United States, criminal, 
     civil, or military, and therefore no means of redress or 
     compensation. Nor would they have flown knowing that in the 
     event of a crash by a military plane or foreign soil their 
     insurance might be canceled (some were), or that individuals 
     in the private as well as public sector would have no 
     guaranteed basis for claim under any United States statute.
       (Signatories to the Families of the CT-43 letter)
         Sheila Christian, Darrell Darling, Karen Darling, Kelvin 
           Farrington, Douglas Farrington, Ina Ray Farrington, 
           James Warbasse, Kenneth Dobert, Maureen Dobert, 
           Patricia Conrad, Nora Poling, Edward Kaminski, Michael 
           Kellogg, Char Kellogg, Mary Schelle, Alicia Branley, 
           Paul Cushman, Jr., Paulette Cushman, Donna Shafer, Phil 
           Shafer, Marilyn Pieroni, Deborah Davis, Nettie Jackson, 
           Jane Hoffman Davenport, Emma Williams, Dona Hamilton, 
           Charles Hamilton, Jean Whittaker, Susan Elia, Deirdre 
           English, Leonard Pieroni III.
                                  ____

                                                      May 5, 1999.
       Dear Congress Member Sam Farr:
       Thank you for your tireless efforts to seek corrections and 
     compensation for the causes of the unnecessary loss of 35 
     brilliant lives on April 3, 1996, including our own bright 
     son, Adam.
       We are the families of those men and women who died on 
     April 3, three years ago in Croatia on a mission of peace 
     through trade. The President in his memorial remarks said, 
     ``They are all patriots.'' Their mission was that of 
     beginning to help rebuild the infrastructure and the economic 
     underpinnings of a land decimated by war. They were entirely 
     willing to take eyes-open personal risks which are 
     concomitant with any travel and work in areas of hostility 
     and violent conflict.
       They were not prepared for nor informed of the risks, of 
     flying aboard United States governmental aircraft. Quoting 
     USAF Brig. Gen. Charles H. Coolidge, Jr., President of the 
     CT-43 Accident Investigation Board: ``The CT-43 accident was 
     caused by a failure of command, aircrew error, and an 
     improperly designed instrument approach procedure'' (p. 65,  
     3, Causes, April 3, 1996 Accident Report).
       The risks unknown to anyone aboard the CT-43 were:
       Flying illegally with a flawed missed-approach map which 
     showed St. John's Mountain to be 200 feet lower than it 
     actually was. They struck the mountain 70 feet below the 
     summit.
       Flying into an airport (considered by many commercial 
     pilots to be one of the three most notoriously dangerous 
     airports in the world) which had not been previously 
     inspected and approved by US Air Force inspection personnel. 
     An inspection would have disclosed that the missed-approach 
     beacon was inadequate, the map was inaccurate, the flight 
     control system had been sabotaged, the winds are violently 
     capricious.
       Flying into one of the 30-40 airports previously behind the 
     Iron Curtain into which USAF European command had ordered no 
     USAF crew may fly without first taking training flights into 
     those specific airports, April 3, 1996, the CT-43 was the 
     very first flight of any US military aircraft into Dubrovnik.
       Flying into bad weather with extremely low visibility 
     requiring instrument approach, in direct violation of 
     specific USAF orders to fly into the Dubrovnik (Cilipi) 
     airport only under visual landing conditions, without the 
     assistance of instrumentation. The flight crew could not see 
     the mountain in front of them through the clouds until the 
     instant they struck it.
       Flying an aircraft into an airport equipped with no 
     guidance instrumentation except two non-directional beacons 
     for which two radio receivers are required on board the 
     aircraft. It is illegal and a violation of USAF regulations 
     to switch from one radio frequency to another. The plane was 
     equipped with only one radio with which to remain on course. 
     In fact, the operable navigation system of the CT-43 was 
     inferior to that of the Enola Gay, 50 years ago. The Air 
     Force would not have been able to rent its own CT-43 as a 
     charter because it did not meet minimum navigation and safety 
     standards.
       Flying a Boeing 737 which was old, known to veer off course 
     erratically, without a black box, carrying a crash locator 
     with a depleted battery and innumerable other flaws. When 
     questioned why the CT-43 flew a straight line nine degrees to 
     the left off course, the head of the investigating team 
     simply said, ``We cannot figure out why these two capable, 
     experienced pilots would do that.'' The report provides no 
     further in-depth analysis of possible equipment failure 
     approaching the thorough reconstruction of the TWA 800 and 
     other similar crashes. The pilot who flew the CT-43 to 
     Europe before the Department of Commerce trade mission 
     reported that the plane was drifting to the left. 
     According to the 7,000-page investigation report that 
     pilot was never called to testify.
       General William E. Stevens appealed for a waiver of all the 
     above flight restrictions November, 1995. In January 1996 
     USAF European Command denied General Stevens' appeal. General 
     Stevens continued to order flights in direct violation to 
     direct commands. In March he ordered the flight of First Lady 
     Hillary Clinton on the same CT-43 over the same terrain. He 
     got lucky. On April 3, General Stevens' luck ran out and 35 
     people died as a direct result of his disobedience and 
     disregard for the most basic safety. On April 4, early in the 
     morning General Stevens ordered all such disobedient missions 
     cease. Today General Stevens is at the Pentagon without a 
     single day's loss of pay, demotion, or loss of benefits. Our 
     family members are dead.
       For the last year and a half the families of CT-43 victims 
     have consistently worked together to:
       Provide for legislation which would begin to close the gap 
     between death benefits from commercial aircraft crashes, and 
     the private sector compensation ranging from $3 million to 
     $16 million to CT-43 private sector families, and the paltry 
     $10,000 value the US government places on the lives of its 
     own single employees, even in instances of gross negligence.
       Advocate for regulations in the Administrative Departments 
     which ensure all passenger-carrying government aircraft 
     without exception meet FAA safety equipment and procedure 
     standards and in event of a crash are investigated under NTSB 
     or comparable independent jurisdiction.
       Provide every civilian and employee traveling aboard 
     government aircraft with a clear and unambiguous statement of 
     disclosure that until corrections 1 and 2 above are fully 
     implemented, government aircraft may not meet FAA standards 
     of safety, life insurance may be made null and void, any 
     death benefits which families receive in the event of death 
     will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 for government 
     employees without dependents, their families, will have no 
     standing in any US court of law, and no legal redress.
       If the US Government does not conform to the standards and 
     ensure the rights and benefits which that same government 
     requires every commercial airline to provide, and if the 
     government makes itself immune from a citizen's rights of 
     redress regardless of how egregiously or grossly negligent 
     its agencies may be, at least the government of the people 
     has the moral obligation to warn its citizens of potential 
     harm.
       A patriot is one who values the well-being of the nation 
     and fellow citizens above his or her own life or well-being. 
     It is a very small thing to ask of these patriots' 
     representatives that they protect their own lives, the lives 
     of their employees, and the lives of others who serve the 
     country. Enough lives have been lost without their 
     foreknowledge. Now that we know the potential loss, it is 
     unconscionable that we would not act to eliminate future 
     deaths and that restitution for prior gross negligence would 
     not be made.
           Sincerely,
                                        Darrell and Karen Darling,
       Parents of Adam Noel Darling For the Families of the CT-43.

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
against the amendment. It proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. Therefore it violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment, 
but I urge all the people in this room who have the responsibility for 
finding a remedy when there is no other remedy to seek redress wherever 
we may be able to possibly to do it. I appreciate the time allowed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H2894]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be available for the use of United States Armed Forces in the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been spirited, it has 
been heartfelt, and let me say that I appreciate the sincerity as well 
as the hard work that has gone into this, but the sincerity on both 
sides of this issue, and one note of which I am just a little bit upset 
about, and I will just state it for the record:
  I think it is disconcerting to me that today this body is being 
forced to vote on two separate issues, and I am not just condemning the 
President, but I am also going to put this on the House leadership, 
which is Republican. When we are talking about issues of life and 
death, of peace and war, we should not be linking together two separate 
issues. This is not right.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve an accountability, deserve 
us to vote up and down on whether or not we should improve the 
readiness of our troops without having to know that we are being forced 
to vote on it because, if we do not, that we will not have some other 
issue come through, and this is whether we vote for war in the Balkans 
or whether we vote for readiness. These are two different issues.
  So I am a little upset about that, and I think the American people 
deserve better.
  Finally let me just say about this debate, because this is the last 
time I am going to have a chance to talk on this, and I will make it 
very brief: We are debating something that goes far beyond 
micromanaging. Mr. Chairman, we should recognize what this debate is 
really about, and it is not micromanaging our troops. What we are 
debating is far from that. It is just the opposite.
  In fact, what we are debating is the biggest issue of all. It is what 
the strategy should be for the United States of America in the post-
Cold War world. Are we going to have the same kind of involvement?
  Now we postured, there was a lot of posturing going on last week in 
those votes. But it is these votes today that really determine where we 
are at, where Congress is at. If we continue to carry the burden of 
Europe, if we continue to be the policemen of the world as we were 
during the Cold War, if we permit the President to continue having and 
exercising these expanded powers that we gave him during the Cold War, 
our country will not be a safer place, and we will put our troops in 
jeopardy because we cannot afford to carry that burden anymore.
  So while I would like to present my amendment, I recognize that those 
people who voted against the Istook amendment would not be voting for 
my amendment because it actually goes a step further, but I ask the 
people in voting on the final vote today to consider that we are not 
just voting for the Balkan war and to upgrade our readiness in other 
parts of the world, but we are also voting on what our policies are 
going to be, whether or not we are going to have this expanded role in 
the world anymore, which I do not believe the United States can afford 
to do.
  So, with that said, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do this to try to avoid having to take a lot of time 
on a recommittal motion, and let me say this about final passage of 
this bill:
  I have frankly gotten whiplash from watching the majority party 
reverse its position on military action in Yugoslavia during the past 
week.

                              {time}  1915

  First we had a vote to withdraw troops, and they voted 127 to 92 in 
favor. Then on the Gejdenson amendment, the one originally offered in 
the Senate by Senators McCain and Warner to support current policy in 
Yugoslavia, namely the air war, they voted 31 to 187 against. Of the 97 
Republicans who voted against the withdrawal, 62 voted against the air 
war.
  They then voted for a resolution restricting the use of ground troops 
203 to 16, but that was last week. Now, we have had the Istook 
amendment on this bill, which tried to make real last week's 
restriction on ground troops, and the same leadership which lobbied 
their Members to restrict the use of ground troops last week lobbied 
them against a restriction on ground troops this week. This time they 
voted against the restriction 116 to 97. A total of 101 reversed their 
vote from a week earlier.
  Now, finally, undoubtedly they will vote overwhelmingly for final 
passage of an appropriation that more than doubles the amount of money 
requested by the President for the war which they voted against last 
week.
  I respect every individual decision made in this House. I simply want 
to express the hope that the conference will produce a more consistent 
product, a more disciplined product, and a product that more 
effectively and accurately does reflect the true costs of the operation 
that we are now engaged in.
  I would ask each and every Member of this House on final passage to 
disregard the desires of either party leadership and simply vote their 
consciences.
  I will intend to vote no. I vote no not because I do not believe we 
ought to be involved in Yugoslavia. I do, and I passionately support 
the efforts there and the efforts of our troops. I simply believe that 
this bill is one that has engaged in excess. I do not want to prolong 
the debate by offering a motion to recommit, which could take more 
time, but I wanted to say that now so that we can put in some 
perspective what the final vote will represent in the context of what 
has happened in this House the last 2 weeks.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       At the end (before the short title), add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 502. Such funds borrowed from the Social Security 
     Trust Fund Surplus to finance this Act shall be repaid.
       Whenever there is an on-budget surplus for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to 
     use such funds to retire public debt until $12,947,495,000 of 
     such debt is retired.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues are 
restless. I will try to make this brief. I have been waiting 9 hours to 
talk about a point that I think is very important.
  The motion, the amendment, says that since we are borrowing this 
money, since we are taking the surplus from the Social Security Trust 
Fund to pay for this bill, that this amendment says that when there is 
an on-budget surplus, we should use that money and put it in the same 
kind of lockbox that we passed in the budget resolution that would go 
to pay down the debt.
  I just plead with my colleagues that something as important as this 
kind of funding for our military, does it not justify increasing taxes 
to pay for it, or cutting other government spending to pay for it, 
instead of just increasing borrowing that our kids and our grandkids 
are going to have to pay back?
  Listen to this: For almost every year out of the last 40 years, we 
have used the Social Security Trust Fund surplus for government 
spending. This year, in a historic vote, this Chamber voted a budget 
resolution that says starting next year we are not going to do that

[[Page H2895]]

anymore. We are going to, starting next year, not use any of the Social 
Security Trust Fund surplus for government spending, and it is going to 
be put in this so-called lockbox. In effect, it is going to go to pay 
down the public debt, until it can be used for a solid Social Security.
  It just seems so reasonable not to continue to increase the debt 
subject to the debt limit that somebody else is going to have to pay 
back sometime.
  Let us make a decision of priorities. Let us make a decision if 
spending of the government is important enough to increase taxes, let 
us take that question to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations bill will result in 
additional government spending out of the Social Security Trust Fund 
surplus. That's not right and it shortchanges current and future 
retirees.
  This amendment creates a ``lockbox-type'' mechanism to repay the 
money that this supplemental appropriation will require us to borrow 
from Social Security.
  The amendment captures the first $12.9 billion in non-Social Security 
surpluses that come into the Treasury. The amendment then directs the 
Secretary of the Treasury to use that money to retire public debt.
  This is the same thing done by the ``Social Security lockbox'' 
legislation.
  This amendment allows us to support our military while being fiscally 
responsible and protecting Social Security for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan is 
withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Kosovo and Southwest Asia 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having resumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1664) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for military operations, 
refugee relief, and humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in 
Kosovo, and for military operations in Southwest Asia for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 159, he reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 311, 
nays 105, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               YEAS--311

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--105

     Archer
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cook
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Myrick
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Portman
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bliley
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     King (NY)
     Kuykendall
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Northup
     Packard
     Slaughter
     Tiahrt
     Wynn

                              {time}  1940

  Ms. CARSON changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on final passage 
of H.R. 1664 due to a family emergency. However, had I been present I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because of the prior commitment of 
my daughter's wedding in Houston, I was not present for

[[Page H2896]]

the final vote on H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Supplemental bill. If I had 
been present, I would have voted yes on final passage.

                          ____________________