Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield to let me answer his question, Mr. Speaker, my answer to the gentleman is I think it is a healthy exercise for the States to participate in protecting the flag. I think they did a great job of it prior to 1989, when Texas versus Johnson struck down a Texas statute. I have a lot of faith in the legislature in Texas. I think they can do the same thing again.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. My answer to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is I think this is an effort, this idea of protecting the flag, and patriotism and desire to protect the flag is not limited to this body. I think it is absolutely appropriate for the State legislature in Texas, for example, to participate in protecting the flag. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on both sides of this debate, we can protect the flag and protect free speech. In fact, for 100 years or so before this case, Texas versus Johnson, in 1989 which struck down flag amendments around the country, I would answer my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] he had a number of State legislatures that in fact passed flag protection amendments. They worked well. I might add, Mr. Speaker, for those who say this somehow constricts free speech, if we look back at the Vietnam days and the Vietnam war days and all the protests and we ask ourselves the question ``Was there the adequate expression of free speech? I would say yes, in all of the marches and screaming and shouting and the sound boxes and the cursing and all of the things that were done to oppose the war. Those were all done at a time when we had flag protection amendments. Therefore, this does not hurt free speech. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think Justice Rehnquist was exactly right when he said that ``burning the American flag is not a statement, it is an inarticulate grunt.'' To answer my friends who say this is just a piece of cloth, it is a unique piece of cloth. We have made it so. It is the only symbol that we ask American soldiers and sailors to follow, sometimes to their death. When somebody does die in battle, that folded flag that covered their coffin is given to the widow or to the mother, so we have elevated this flag to a position that is a unique, unifying symbol in this country. It is only appropriate to protect it, and we will only be doing, with this constitutional amendment, what the country has been doing for the last several hundred years, before 1989.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].

Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time, and I would just conclude, the gentleman obviously is saying, You're going to have to build a naval base. You can't have 15,000 people; that's three carriers' worth, and their dependents, and not have a naval base. So the gentleman is either going to have to reopen the Long Beach Naval Station--I say to the gentleman, You can't homeport these at the Dairy Queen; you're going to have to reopen the Long Beach Naval Station, or you're going to have to keep the shipyard open, and that's what your group, Save our Shipyards, is trying to do, and I commend them for it. It is very creative, but it is going to blow away the integrity of the BRACC process. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little time for myself, as much time as I may consume, and ask the gentleman to respond briefly. I ask, If this isn't a BRACC issue, and you've already closed the naval station at Long Beach, and the shipyard closure is pending, what are you going to do with these carriers if you send them back up to Long Beach?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, this is a fight between two communities on the surface, San Diego and Long Beach, but it is really a lot more than that for everybody here who has some interest in the integrity of the Base Closing Commission and that operation because we have been through this fight before. The gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] has his numbers, San Diego has their numbers, Alameda has their numbers, the Navy has their own analysis, but in the end the Base Closing Commission in which we vested a great deal of trust closed the Naval Station at Long Beach, and I have the report here, the report that over the 20- year period they are going to save about $2 billion. The Naval Yard at Long Beach, which is pending closure according to the recommendation for closure, will save the taxpayers an additional $2 billion. So we are talking about $4 billion in savings for the taxpayers. Now the Navy made this decision to close Long Beach, and I am sorry, I feel for the gentleman, I think everybody that was involved in this situation in this program took some shots. We all took some body blows. We lost a naval training center to Illinois. We fought hard for it, Orlando fought hard for it, but with respect to the carriers, that Commission set down in a hard-nosed way and did evaluation of a number of areas. They did evaluation with respect to mission, and mission capability of the service was the most important thing. They said that having the aircraft replacement and repair yard right next to the carriers in San Diego was important because we have about 110 planes a year that have to be lifted by crane literally, damaged planes, off the carriers and repaired at the facility right there in North Island. They said the idea that we had the hospital at San Diego was good for families; that was important to them. They said that having the carrier training range right off San Diego, where cargo ships cannot go and impede naval operations, was important to have that colocation. So, for all those reasons BRACC made a decision to close Long Beach. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't involve yourself in an amendment that opens up the BRACC process. That is bad news for this House. Let's keep that naval station at Long Beach closed, let's keep the naval hospital closed, and let's keep this thing on track.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].

Mr. HUNTER. And the last documentation that the Army did on this did recommend Barstow-Daggett, at least from the documents that I have seen.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that some 60,000 troops rotate through this area for training, that there is a constant flow of troops coming from all over the Army establishment throughout the country for this unique desert training at Barstow, and this location is rally within minutes of where they actually train. Is that accurate?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been refighting BRACC. For mission effectiveness, for the men and women in uniform, for the taxpayers saving $4 billion under the base that has already been closed at Long Beach and the base to be closed at Long Beach, and for the integrity of the base closing process, vote against this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 45 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the top gun.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is supposed to be working for now?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time to thank the chairman for running this authorization in such an effective way, and I want to thank the ranking member for his excellent leadership. I think we have had some great debate, and some very close votes, I might add, votes that went the wrong way in some cases from this Member's perspective and others the right way. But also I think we have had an excellent debate. Mr. Chairman, I have two gentlemen who wanted to engage in a colloquy with me about an issue that was very important to them. One was the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. What they were concerned about is this year's Defense Authorization Act which contains a provision which expresses the concern of Congress that growth in the estimated cost of demilitarizing the U.S. stockpile of chemical agents is growing quite rapidly. That is correct. The cost of demilitarizing the existing stockpile of lethal agents, and incidentally a lot of Members are concerned about the fact that we are spending about 72 percent less in terms of modernizing our Navy and our Army and our Marine Corps with sufficient ships and planes and other systems. One reason is we have a lot of spending that is going to traditionally small areas, like the environment, that are growing rapidly, and one other reason is we are spending money on areas such as this demilitarization of chemical agents. That is a fact. It is taking quite a bit of money. The cost of demilitarizing this existing stockpile that we are now cutting down has grown to about $11.8 billion, in comparison to an early estimate we made of about $1.7 billion. The act expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should consider measures to reduce the overall cost of this demilitarization of our chemical weapons. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to assure my colleagues, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Ehrlich, and all other Members who are concerned about this demilitarization of chemical weapons, that we will be having hearings in the Subcommittee on Military Procurement on this issue. We will explore all the issues thoroughly, especially this cost issue, and we look forward to having them come and testify, as we do all Members, on this very important issue.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. Let me say to my good friend from California that I share his concern about the sea-skimming cruise missile threat, and that he absolutely has my assurance that I will thoroughly review this radar upgrade development, together with other integrated ship defense programs, and support its production if warranted. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wish to engage now in a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his contribution and his many Buy American provisions that have resulted in a lot of American jobs. The average worker in this country puts $1,000 a year from his paycheck into our defense bill. Because of that, American workers ought to be able to participate in the work. We thank the gentleman for his contribution and for the provision he put in the bill.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, unlike my own colleague, Duke Cunningham, I was no hero in service to my country and did nothing special, but I think all of us served under an ideal, and that ideal was best articulated by Gen. Douglas MacArthur speaking before this Chamber and before the U.S. Army graduates at West Point when he talked about duty, honor, and country. He said that the American soldier had a reputation for having a character which was honest, and he used another word, stainless. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when we ask our medical people in the military to do something that is highly unusual with respect to their charter as military officers, we ask them to take two very healthy people who come into a hospital, a mother and a child, totally healthy when they come in, and they leave, one as a wounded person as a result of deliberate medical procedure, and the other person leaves without their life, that is a misuse of the American military.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.