[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 4388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, SAYS NO TO NAVY LANDING FIELD IN 
                            WILDLIFE REFUGE

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, after I was elected to Congress more 
than 18 months ago, it became apparent to me that the decision of the 
United States Navy to site an outlying landing field in Washington 
County, North Carolina, was a decision with no rational basis. As a 
representative of the people of Washington County, I have spent 
countless hours trying to convince the Navy that this decision is 
extremely flawed.
  The existing landing field at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia 
has become undesirable for a landing field. There are houses all around 
the field, and the landing field no longer simulates an aircraft 
carrier, not to mention the unbearable noise. And so the Navy is 
correct in its decision to construct an outlying landing field, but it 
needs to be in a different location. Our Navy pilots need and deserve a 
suitable landing field to practice their landings, but the decision to 
place this field in the middle of a wildlife refuge is ill conceived.
  Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington County have challenged the 
Navy in the Federal courts, and they have won. The District Court and 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided that 
environmental impact statements submitted by the Navy are flawed. They 
do not fully disclose the environmental or safety concerns about the 
31,000 annual aircraft landings amid the 20,000 tundra swans and the 
65,000 snow geese which winter nearby at the Pocosin Lakes National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  The citizens of Washington County are determined to prevent this 
landing field from being constructed in their community. This site puts 
our navy pilots and our navy aircraft and the community at risk. There 
are better and safer alternatives, and it is the duty of the Navy to 
fully explore these possibilities.
  Despite the Federal Court order, and despite the language in the 2006 
Military Construction Appropriations bill directing the Navy to look at 
alternative sites, the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations recently 
admitted during a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing that the 
Navy's focus is to make the preferred site work rather than considering 
other alternatives.
  The Navy has failed to fulfill its obligation to engage in a clear, 
full, fair and objective process carried out in the light of day. This 
is a $186 million taxpayer funded project that seeks to remove about 
30,000 acres of farmland from the private hands of about 75 families, 
and we are determined to continue to persuade the Navy to explore 
alternatives.
  North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, has a long and proud history of 
supporting the Navy, and I certainly want to be a part of continuing 
that tradition. Our Governor, the Honorable Mike Easley, has diligently 
worked with the Navy in an effort to find an alternative site, and 
other Members of Congress from North Carolina have also offered to find 
a site. I trust that the U.S. Navy will respect the people of 
Washington County, respect the environment that we all treasure, and 
respect the rule of law. That landing field, Mr. Speaker, needs to be 
constructed at one of the alternative sites in eastern North Carolina 
and not in Washington County.

                          ____________________