[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11002-11003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION OF VIEQUES BOMBING RUNS

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last week, the administration made 
headlines when it said it would stop the bombing in Vieques.
  But is that really true? Let's look at the fine print.
  First, the administration did not commit to stopping the bombing 
immediately and permanently, as so many of us have called for. In fact, 
the bombing runs continue this week.
  Second, the administration said it would stop the bombing by May 1, 
2003. But is that really something new? Let's look at the date by which 
the bombing would stop under the current agreement and existing law, 
which provides for an end to the bombing if the people vote for it. The 
current agreement and existing law call for an end

[[Page 11003]]

to the bombing by May 1, 2003--the very same date.
  In other words, the administration is saying nothing more than what 
current law mandates if the people of Vieques vote to stop the bombing.
  If that is all the administration announced--that the bombing would 
stop by the same date provided for under current law--then this flurry 
of attention would be little more than an overblown story about this 
President's desire to abide by the letter and spirit of the agreement 
entered into between the Federal Government and the representatives of 
the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico.
  But that is not all the administration announced. It also announced 
that it wanted to stop the November referendum. The devil is in the 
details, they say. Well, this is one powerful devil of an idea that has 
not received the scrutiny it deserves.
  For what the administration is really attempting to do is to 
undermine the intent of the law and subvert the will of the people of 
Vieques.
  The administration says that a referendum is unnecessary, because it 
already plans to end the bombing by 2003. I say a referendum is more 
important than ever, because without an electoral mandate to require an 
end to the bombing, any administration expression of intent is nothing 
more than that: an expression of intent. Not a legal requirement. And 
``intentions'' can change at a moment's notice.
  I wholeheartedly support all efforts to find a viable alternative 
site to train our naval forces. We need such training, to protect our 
national interest and to protect our troops. And we must work hard to 
find places and ways to provide such a vital element of our defense.
  As I have said before, the people of Puerto Rico are great patriots; 
its sons and daughters volunteer for our Nation's armed forces at one 
of the highest rates in our country.
  Thousands of Puerto Ricans have lost their lives in service of their 
country during all the wars of the 20th century. We need the good 
training to protect all our troops, many of whom are Puerto Rican.
  So this is not a matter in which the people of Vieques or Puerto Rico 
should be pitted against the interests of national security. We are all 
Americans. We are all on the same team and we want the same thing: the 
best trained armed forces in the world.
  And so, I agree with President Bush when he says the ``Navy will find 
another place to practice.'' I agree with Secretary Powell when he 
says, ``Let's find alternative ways of making sure that our troops are 
ready . . . using technology, using simulators and also finding a place 
to conduct live fire.''
  But here's the bottom line: Under current law, if the people of 
Vieques vote in November to end the bombing by May 1, 2003, the bombing 
must end by that date. Pure and simple. However, under the 
administration's plan, there will be no referendum. And therefore, 
there will be no mandate and no requirement to end the bombing by 2003. 
Only a policy to do so. And that policy could be altered by the 
President anytime between now and 2003.
  In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld has already said that the Navy might stay 
on Vieques for another, and I quote, ``two, three, four years'' until 
it can arrange ``the training that's needed in other ways.'' Defense 
Department officials were also quick to point out that while the 
President said that the Navy would find another place to practice 
within ``a reasonable period of time'' he never defined ``reasonable.''
  Secretary England said he wanted to ``have us control our destiny,'' 
meaning the Navy, as opposed to allowing what he called ``this level of 
emotion'' distract ``our attention from the real issue.''
  In other words, the will of the people of Vieques is an ``emotion'' 
that must be put aside, and the people of Vieques should not control 
their destiny--the Navy should.
  I believe that is the wrong way to deal with this very important 
issue. I believe we should work toward a solution to this problem 
without circumventing the law of the land, without abrogating an 
agreement, without obviating the will of the American citizens of 
Vieques.
  I will stand up against any effort to shut down the referendum in 
Vieques. Let the votes be cast. Let them be counted. And let the voice 
of the people be heard and respected.

                          ____________________