[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6] [House] [Pages 8775-8779] [From the U.S. 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. 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. [[Page 8776]] 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: 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 [[Page 8777]] 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: 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 [[Page 8778]] 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 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 [[Page 8779]] 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 the final vote on H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Supplemental bill. If I had been present, I would have voted yes on final passage. ____________________