[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.
____________________