THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Fowler:
Page 11, line 24, insert `and' after the semicolon.
Page 11, line 25, strike `and conducting' and all that follows through the comma on page 12, line 2.
Page 13, line 10, strike `fire-fighting' and all that follows through the comma on line 12.
Page 13, strike lines 14 through 17 and insert the following: `the President has certified to the Congress that trespassing and other intrusions on the range have ceased; that the integrity and accessibility of the training range is uninterrupted; that he has directed the Attorney General to strictly enforce all Federal laws aimed at preventing trespassing and other violations of security and safety on the range; and that he has directed that military training operations utilizing the full range of live ordnance in use prior to April 19, 1999, be resumed and that such training operations have been initiated:'.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 1/2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, life and death. That is what this amendment is all about. Will we allow the illegal acts of a few to jeopardize the lives of many?
The Fowler-Hansen amendment does three things. First, this amendment prevents the $40 million contained in this bill for Puerto Rico from being used to pay for a binding referendum on whether live-fire training on the Navy range on the Island of Vieques should be resumed.
Second, it strengthens language in the bill making the money contingent on the removal of illegal trespassers from this range, who have it closed down.
And, last, it would require the resumption of live-fire training in Vieques before Puerto Rico could receive any of the $40 million.
Mr. Chairman, remarkably, a group of people engaged in civil disobedience have occupied a critical military installation with no reaction from this administration. Their protests began last year after a Navy civilian employee was killed by an errant bomb while he was on a military live-fire range 9 miles from the nearest town. The gold star up here shows where he was. The town is down here, 9 miles away.
According to our military leaders, we have a clear national security requirement to do live-fire training on the East Coast. Holding a referendum on the subject as the President has proposed is not sound public policy and will set a terrible precedent.
According to Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, and I quote,
Vieques is a uniquely valuable training site. It is the only one available to East Coast units where mission essential combined arms training can be conducted.
End of quote.
The people of Vieques do not bear a unique burden. They are 57 other live-fire and inert-weapons ranges in the United States. It is deeply ironic, I just found out tonight that the Puerto Rican National Guard performs their live-fire artillery training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, only 1.9 miles from an incorporated area of 90,000 residents, while the Governor of Puerto Rico supports the closure of the live-fire range on Vieques, 9 miles from a civilian population.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to provide and maintain a Navy. We must not shirk our responsibilities. Support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H1562] GPO's PDF
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, with great reservation, I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I very simply do so because we do have an agreement presently struck with the people of Vieques. It is our desire to obtain the same objectives as the gentlewoman would wish to obtain. The fact is there is a referendum next year and if we should, by way of legislation in this process, essentially rub the people of Vieques' nose in that process, what more could we do to undermine that election from our point of view?
So it seems to me that this is not the time to have such a language. And it is because of that that I very regretfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, what happened yesterday at the White House? Somebody jumped over the fence and they apprehended the person because he was trespassing and they took him to jail. Guess what we are talking about here tonight? Only trespassing.
These people went on to this range and trespassed on the range. Now instead of saying like we did at the White House, we say now they can determine whether or not they are going to get $40 million or $50 million for doing it.
Does anyone think they would really do that, when they do not do this they are going to get the whole shooting match? They get $250 million and they can do with it what they want and no military there.
I have had some of my friends say: Let this process work. We are going to win on this one. So I called down to Puerto Rico and I asked the question: Please tell me what the polls show. Do my colleagues know what the polls show? Four percent of the people in Puerto Rico would vote for this. Let us say if someone went to Twentynine Palms or the Utah Test and Training Range and trespassed, what would we do? We would kick them out. In this instance who are we kicking out? We are kicking out the military who absolutely needs this particular area.
A lot has been said about this letter from the Navy. This did not come from the Navy. This came from a political appointee. We do not see the CNO of the Navy on here. We do not see the Commandant of the Marine Corps on here. We do not see any of these people. What do we expect? This is not worth the paper it is written on.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, to compare the situation in Vieques to any other situation in the rest of the land is like comparing a ping pong ball with a basketball. There is no place in the U.S., no place in our Nation where there is bombing from the air, shelling from the ocean, and also from the land at the same time.
That is what they say. That is why the Navy has said that Vieques is such an important thing. The Navy has sent a letter to the chairman of this committee saying: I am writing to express the grave concern of the Department of the Navy with the proposed amendment to H.R. 3908 concerning the economic assistance program on the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. They end up by saying: The Department of the Navy strongly believes that the negotiated agreement represents the best opportunity for the Navy to resume crucial training on the Vieques range.
Mr. Chairman, the Navy right now could never resume any bombing because they have violated the Clear Water Act and there is no permit. The only way that it can resume is with inert bombs. There is no other way to resume any maneuvers. This is for the interest of the national defense.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this amendment. I tell the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to come to California and see San Clemente Island. It is bombed from the land, bombed from the sea, and strafed.
The fact is if we are going to set this precedent that Puerto Rico is going to be able to vote if they want a bombing range in their neighborhood, then the 32 million people of California also want to have the same right to be able to say we do not want our islands bombed.
Fairness is fairness. If we are going to set the standard in Puerto Rico, then apply it in the rest of the country. And see if Utah wants to be bombed. This is an issue of national defense, but also the constitutional responsibility of this Congress to apply to military defense.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) knows how reluctant all of us are to rise in opposition to this, but I feel I must as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a witness to the experience of the Island of Kahoolawe, which was an island in Hawaii which had received live-fire operations for many decades and where that has ceased as a result of the efforts of the people of Hawaii.
We certainly share the national security concerns of the gentlewoman from Florida, but I feel very strongly that her amendment would stall the progress towards a positive solution.
Mr. Chairman, the agreement worked out between the Department of Defense and the Governor of Puerto Rico was very thoughtfully crafted and a product of tireless effort. This agreement was not reached with the protestors, but with the lawful authorities of Puerto Rico. Resolution is best accomplished by moving forward with the agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I can say that I have a copy of the Navy Times of April 3, and it says, `Stay on Vieques, residents say.' It may very well be that the referendum will turn out in a positive way in the direction that the gentlewoman requires. So I ask that her amendment be defeated.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I live in Colorado Springs and we love Fort Carson on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. It has a live-fire range and we are continually working to make sure that we do not build up around that live-fire range and impinge upon it, because not only do we love Fort Carson, but if they need to train with a live-fire range, we want them to have it.
The people in Puerto Rico seem to love Roosevelt Roads, but they do not the live fire. If we do not have the live fire, we do not need Roosevelt Roads; and we ought to close Roosevelt Roads if we are not going to have a live fire range.
The Navy has spent the last 2 years trying to convince me that we need desperately this range and that we should not do anything to impinge upon that. I hope Members will support the amendment.
[TIME: 2115]
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. David Sanes Rodriguez was killed as a Navy employee, a civilian, a Puerto Rican, but a civilian of the Navy. He was killed on sight by a misfiring 9 miles from any civilians. Our sailor, our pilots are going to be in extreme danger if they are not allowed to have a practice range.
John McCain and so many others before they went off to battle practiced right here, and they needed that practice.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) has 30 seconds remaining.
[Page: H1563] GPO's PDF
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said that John McCain practiced here. In 1952, we deployed there. I was on Vieques at the time. There was no one understands more the importance of the Vieques than me. The Navy says in their correspondence to me, if this money is taken out, the agreement will be breached.
We can stand here and beat our chest. We can say we are going to force this issue on the Puerto Ricans. That does not solve the problem. They have come to an agreement. The Navy did not live up to their agreements since 1986. They did nothing for economic development. We are saying here that they have to give in to our demands.
There is no question about the importance of Vieques, but this is not something we dictate. The Defense Department has worked out what they consider the best possible agreement. They have negotiated with the governor of Puerto Rico; a lot of the Members here do not like the agreement. They do not think it is fair. They do not think there should be an agreement like this. We put the $40 million in to live up to our end of the agreement.
Believe me, if we take the $40 million out, there will not be any agreement, and we will not have opportunity. The Navy said they will not be able to go forward if we take this money out as important as it is to them. I would urge the Members not to vote for this amendment, to vote against this amendment, with the idea that we will be able to solve this problem. They will have a referendum, and they will allow us to go forward with using this as a tactical training base.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, one quick correction. This amendment does not strike the $40 million. It does not strike it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is highly respected. This is a bad agreement. If you have a bad agreement, then get rid of it. Why would we ever endorse extortion of the taxpayers' money? And that is what this is. I do not care how you call it. If we do this in Puerto Rico, then what are we going to do about the Tohona Oden tribe outside of Tucson who want their Indian lands back? Then the Committee on Appropriations are going to say we have to give money to them. We are going to be doing this all across the country. Enough is enough. Support the Fowler amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title II?
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Fowler:
Page 16, after line 21, insert the following new subsection:
(c) Sense of Congress Regarding Military Families on Food Stamps.--It is the sense of the Congress that members of the Armed Forces and their dependents should not have to rely on the food stamp program, and the President and the Congress should take action to ensure that the income level of members of the Armed Forces is sufficient so that no member meets the income standards of eligibility in effect under the food stamp program.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just want to say this amendment is very straightforward. It is noncontroversial, but it is very important. It puts this Congress on record that having U.S. military families on food stamps is simply unacceptable.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say for the record to the gentlewoman that we are happy to accept this amendment that you present to the House.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad we can agree on this one. This just expresses the sense of Congress that the President and Congress should take all steps necessary to ensure that no military man or woman must rely on public assistance to provide for their families.
My amendment does not seek to prescribe a solution or fund an answer to this immoral situation. This is not the appropriate vehicle or venue for that. The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations are best equipped to devise a solution.
All I am seeking to do today is to send a message from this Congress to every soldier, sailor, and Marine that we believe they deserve better. They deserve better for themselves and for their families, that the sacrifices they make day in and day out for this country of ours will not go unnoticed and unrewarded by this Congress.
I just want to share real quickly a personal story that really brought this home for me. Several months ago, I was home on a Saturday night and the phone rang; and it was a young woman married to a Navy lieutenant, stationed out at Mayport, and she was in tears. And I said what is wrong, and she said we ordered a pizza tonight.
And when the pizza delivery man came and I opened the door, it was a young petty officer who had been working all day in Mayport, and he is delivering pizzas at night so he will not have to go on food stamps so he can feed his family.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no problem with this amendment over here.
Mrs. FOWLER. I appreciate that. I am almost through. She asked me, because I told her I would bring this here, so I made a commitment to her. Her husband is flying with the Navy. She said what kind of country treats its soldiers so poorly they have to deliver pizzas to feed their families?
This is why I have the amendment here tonight. I appreciate both sides accepting it. And I know we can work tonight to send a message to these young men and women that we will provide for them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
The amendment was agreed to.
Are there further amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents