[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6403-H6415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 79, 
 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE FLAG

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 173 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 173

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 79) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress 
     and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
     flag of the United States. The joint resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit. The motion 
     to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the 
     minority leader or his designee. If including instructions, 
     the motion to recommit shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides a fair and reasonable 
way to consider the proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress 
and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States of America.
  Let me go through the steps we will follow and Members in their 
offices should pay attention.
  First there is the 1 hour of general debate on this rule that we are 
taking up right now, which is equally divided between the majority side 
and the minority side, half and half. After voting on the rule, there 
will then be an hour of general debate on the proposed constitutional 
amendment.
  That time also is equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who happen to be on 
different sides of the issue: again equal time, half and half. Then the 
rule allows for a motion to recommit which may include instructions if 
offered by the minority leader or his designee.
  If the motion to recommit includes instructions, it may be debated 
for a full hour under the terms of this rule, not 10 minutes, a full 
hour. That hour would be controlled by a proponent and an opponent. 
That hour would be controlled by a proponent and an opponent. This 
would be the opportunity for the minority to offer an amendment or a 
substitute and have it voted on in the House.
  For the record, I should note that in the full Committee on the 
Judiciary markup only one amendment was offered, only one, and we 
should remember that the proposed constitutional amendment before us is 
only one sentence. It is a simple concept.
  The proposed amendment says, and I quote, ``The Congress and the 
States shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States of America.''
  That is all the amendment does; it speaks to principle, not to 
detail.
  Now, while short and simple, this proposed amendment to the 
Constitution carries great significance for me, and for many veterans, 
and for large numbers of patriotic citizens across this Nation. It is 
terribly, terribly important.
  I want to express my special thanks to the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], 
and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], 
who have really carried this in the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank 
the other Committee on the Judiciary members for all their work in 
moving this amendment to restore the Constitution to what it was, and 
that is exactly what we are doing, restoring it to what it was before 
the Supreme Court made what I consider to have been a very, very bad 
decision back in 1989.
  As we begin this historic debate, I would like to provide some 
background on how we got to where we are now.
  Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson back in 
1989, 48 States, and one has to remember this, 48 States and the 
Federal Government had laws on the books prohibiting the desecration of 
that flag behind you, Mr. Speaker. In the Johnson case the Supreme 
Court held that the burning of an American flag as part of a political 
demonstration was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment 
to the Constitution.
  In response to the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag 
Protection 

[[Page H6404]]
Act of 1989 under suspension of the rules by a record vote of 380 to 
38, 380 to 38. That means a vast majority of this Congress, 
representing the vast majority of the American people, voted for that 
bill.
                              {time}  1040

  Then in 1990, in the case of the United States versus Eichman, the 
Supreme Court, in another 5-to-4 decision, struck down that statute, 
ruling that it infringed on expressive conduct protected by the first 
amendment.
  Within days, the House responded by scheduling consideration of a 
constitutional amendment identical to the one we have on the floor here 
today. That amendment received support from a substantial majority of 
the House, but fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote for a 
constitutional amendment. The vote was 254 to 177. We needed 290, and 
we did not get it.
  Since that time, 49 States have passed resolutions calling on the 
Congress of the United States to pass an amendment to protect the flag 
of the United States from physical desecration and send it back to the 
states for ratification. I invite all of you to come over here and 
look. Your State, every State but the State of Vermont, has 
memorialized this Congress to pass the identical constitutional 
amendment.
  Ladies and gentleman, that is what we are here today for. None of us 
undertake this lightly. I certainly do not. The Constitution is a 
document that has stood the test of time for over 200 years, and our 
Founding Fathers wisely made it very difficult to amend. It is almost 
impossible to amend the Constitution. It has only been done a very few 
times over 200 years.
  Our goal is not really to change the Constitution, and for some of 
the Members that worry about freedom of speech, I think you ought to 
pay attention. Our goal is to restore the Constitution to the way it 
was understood for the first 200 years of our Nation's history, until 
1989. Had the Supreme Court not suddenly read into the Constitution by 
a very close 5-to-4 vote, something that was never there before, we 
would not even be here today. We would not be debating this issue. But 
the Supreme Court did take away the right of the people, acting through 
their elected representatives, to protect that flag, and today we 
propose to restore the right of the people to protect our American 
flag.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an idea that just a few people dreamed up. 
We are responding to the will of the overwhelming majority of the 
American people by restoring to the States and the Congress the power 
to protect the flag of this Nation.
  Some of the opponents of this proposal have tried to make it sound as 
if there is some kind of a threat to freedom of speech. But I will note 
that the power to protect the flag was used judiciously for over 200 
years. For 200 years no one thought it denied them anything. They 
thought it protected the flag. Well, 200 years later, 80 percent of the 
American people still want that flag protected. In a recent poll by 
Gallup, 80 percent of the American people said they want this 
amendment. That is why we are here today, to do just that, to protect 
Old Glory.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but we have other speakers who want to 
speak on this important issue. I ask a yes vote on this fair rule, and 
a yes vote on the constitutional amendment that will follow later on 
this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, for the Record, I include the following report showing 
the number of open rules in the 103d Congress and 104th Congress.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 27, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 31                 72
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 11                 26
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  1                  2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 43                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 27, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    0...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               

[[Page H6405]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191; A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        ...................
 95).                                                              Amendment.                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding the customary 30 
minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this closed rule for considering 
House Joint Resolution 79, which proposes, as you all know, an 
amendment to the Constitution that seeks to protect the flag of the 
United States from desecration. This is a controversial and important 
resolution, and it deserves a more open and fair procedure for its 
consideration that that which has been granted by our Republican 
colleagues on the Committee on Rules.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the amendment as proposed 
by the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides as well, as the rules 
of the House actually require, for a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, which in this instance is debatable for 1 hour, instead 
of the usual 10 minutes. As I noted, and is always the case with a 
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, this is an 
important and serious question, and it is thus deserving of more than 
passing consideration.
  We sought in the Committee on Rules to modify this closed rule by 
proposing that a number of amendments be made in order, so that Members 
would have the opportunity to vote for protecting the flag, both 
through an alternative amendment to the Constitution, and also through 
legislation that would seek to achieve the same ends without the 
necessity of a constitutional amendment. All were defeated on straight 
party line votes.
  We sought first to make in order the substitute constitutional 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] that would 
provide Congress and the States the authority to prohibit the burning, 
trampling, or rending of the flag, and also provide that Congress 
determine what constitutes the flag of the United States. Without this 
amendment, the terms of House Joint Resolution 79 are so open-ended 
that they give no guidance as to its intended constitutional scope or 
parameters. The resolution would, in fact, give enormous authority to 
State legislatures and the Congress in determining the crucial terms 
desecration and flag. It would also grant open-ended authority to
 State and Federal governments to prosecute dissenters who use the flag 
in a manner deemed inappropriate. Mr. Bryant's substitute is an effort 
to cure many of the defects in the writing of House Joint Resolution 
79. It would also have allowed Congress to adopt a single uniform 
definition ever of the term ``U.S. flag'' rather than leaving the 
definition to 50 different State legislatures.

  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, even though the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary requested in writing and again orally yesterday at the 
Committee on Rules that at least one substitute amendment be made in 
order, and despite the promise of the Committee on Rules chairman that 
such a substitute would be in order, we were denied that request. 
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we were told that the majority is giving the 
minority the right to offer the substitute in the motion to recommit.
  I would remind my colleagues that the motion to recommit is not a 
gift from the majority. It has since 1909 been a protection for the 
minority. In fact, the majority would have been prevented under the 
standing rules of the House from even bringing up the rule for 
consideration if they denied the minority the motion to recommit. We 
should have been allowed the promised substitute, as well as the motion 
to recommit, which we should have been able to construct on our own. 
This is a serious denial of our rights. It is especially significant 
because we are being denied this right during a serious change in our 
Constitution.
  The majority on the committee also denied the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Skaggs] the opportunity to offer his amendment, which consisted of 
the text of House Concurrent Resolution 76 and expresses respect and 
affection for the flag of the United States, and states our abiding 
trust in the freedom and liberty which the flag symbolizes. We felt the 
House should have been able to consider this thoughtful proposal as an 
alternative to amending the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee also refused to make in order the 
amendment by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] consisting of 
the text of H.R. 1926, which provides for the protection of the flag by 
statute, rather than through a constitutional amendment.
  Lastly, the majority also turned down our request for an open rule 
for House Joint Resolution 79, another example of broken promises by 
the Republican majority that we
 seem to be seeing more and more often these days.

  Mr. Speaker, as Members certainly are aware, this is a troubling and 
a difficult question, and it is not completely clear how Congress can 
or should go about the perfectly proper business of successfully and 
constitutionally prohibiting the highly offensive act at which this 
proposed amendment is directed.
  Those of us who served in previous Congresses have, the great 
majority of us, voted for legislation to outlaw desecration of the 
flag. We deeply regret the Supreme Court has struck down those 
statutes, holding that such Federal and State laws infringed upon an 
individual's right to free speech and expression as protected under the 
First Amendment to the Constitution. Many of us feel that this act of 
desecration is not in fact an expression of an idea or thought, and 
that protecting the flag should not, therfore, be held 
unconstitutional. It seems to most of us no one would have lost any 
freedom under those laws except that of burning the flag. Americans 
would have been just as free as they had been before to express 
themselves in speech or in writing or demonstrating on behalf of or 
against any idea or issue.
  However, this proposed amendment to our Constitution would, for the 
first time in our Nation's history, modify the Bill of Rights to limit 
the freedom of expression, and is thus wrong, we believe, as a matter 
of principle. This is unpopular expression, but it deserves protection, 
no matter how much we may deplore it. That is the test of our 
commitment to freedom of expression, that it protects not just freedom 
for the thought and expression we agree with, but, as has often been 
said, freedom for the thought we hate.
  Second, and of great relevance, we believe there is no compelling 
case to be made that there is a need for this amendment. We thankfully 
see no great need for it. Infuriating as these instances of contempt 
for a symbol we all love are, they do not happen often. As the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] testified at the Committee on 
Rules, only three such incidents occurred in 1993 and 1994. Indeed, 
studies indicate that from 1777 through 1989, there are only 45 
reported incidents of flag burning. There have been very few and 
isolated instances of flag burning in the past several years, and, 
frankly, there is every reason to leave well enough alone. Let these
 misfits who 

[[Page H6406]]
desecrate our flag remain in obscurity, where they deserve to be.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, such an amendment, even though it seeks to 
remedy an act truly abhorrent to all of us in this Chamber, trivializes 
the Constitution. We do not amend the Constitution very often, and for 
good reason. When we do, the reasons should be compelling and necessary 
to resolve a truly important question.
  In general, we reserve our Constitution, this great, basic document 
upon which all of our laws are based, to be the repository of the 
fundamental principles underlying the Governance of this great Nation. 
This matter of flag burning, important as it is, does not rise to such 
a level of constitutional consideration. It does not resolve any great 
matter that cries out for resolution.
  In addition, its passage would open a Pandora's box of litigation. 
The terms of the resolution concerning what is desecration and what is 
the flag are too vague and give no guidance to the states. It could 
well lead to 50 separate State laws, defining both the flag and the act 
of desecration in different ways, so that an act that is entirely 
lawful in one State may result in imprisonment were it to be performed 
in another.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult matter for Members to resolve in a 
proper manner, and it is for that reason exactly that we are so 
seriously concerned that the majority party is not allowing this House 
the opportunity to consider other possible alternative means to the end 
desired by all of us. So we urge your opposition to this unnecessarily 
restrictive rule.
  I end with two quotes which Members may find helpful, as I have. The 
first is from Charles Fried, who served with distinction as Solicitor 
General under President Reagan, and who said when he testified against 
a similar proposed amendment in 1990:

       The flag, as all in this debate agree, symbolizes our 
     Nation, its history, its values. We love the flag because it 
     symbolizes the United States, but we must love the 
     Constitution even more, because the Constitution is not a 
     symbol. It is the thing itself.

  And this, finally, Mr. Speaker, from a letter to the editor of my 
local newspaper a couple weeks ago from a woman named Carla O'Brian.

       America cannot be
        harmed by the destruction of its symbols, but it can be 
     damaged by abridging the freedom for which so many have 
     died, even if this very freedom allows a sensation seeker 
     to burn the flag. Those who seek to dishonor this country 
     by trampling on symbols are only difficulties honoring 
     themselves. Like a child throwing a tantrum, their goal is 
     to draw media attention and their actions should be 
     fittingly dealt with. Let's not make constitutional 
     martyrs out of these people in the name of patriotism. 
     Instead, give them the treatment they really deserve. 
     Ignore them.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have to just disagree with the gentleman. You 
know, the flag of the United States is the most important symbol we 
have. It is what makes us all Americans, regardless of where we came 
from, what country the immigrants who came to this country came from.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a truly great American, serving on the 
Committee on Rules with me.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the seriousness of this subject. Any time 
that we are proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States, 
it is a serious subject that merits and requires treatment with the 
utmost consideration and seriousness. Precisely I think because we are 
such a diverse nation, multiethnic nation, in fact, we are a 
multilingual nation, the symbol, the environment of our sovereignty, 
the symbol of our Nation, the symbol of our national unity, I think 
deserves protection.
  There should certainly be no bar to protection of that symbol of our 
Nation and our national unity and that environment of our sovereignty 
itself. There should be no bar to protection by Congress or the States 
to that most important symbol of our national unity.
  What we are proposing with this constitutional amendment is precisely 
to eliminate the prohibition against the protection of that 
enshrinement of our sovereignty. That is what we are seeking to do. So 
that is why it is so important.
  I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], for having brought forth this amendment. I 
think it is appropriate and important, and I would say that it is 
compelling and I would say that it is necessary, precisely because of 
our diversity and because of the great not only ethnic, but linguistic 
diversity and reality of our Nation.
  So, with respect to the arguments of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson], I would disagree with him. I would say that it is 
precisely compelling that we go forth and propose this amendment and 
let the States decide, because this is a symbol that deserves our 
protection and should not be prohibited. That protection should not be 
prohibited. That is what we are doing today.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed about 
the free speech aspects, but not of the constitutional amendment, but 
of the rule. I do not think that this pattern of shutting us up and 
stopping substantive debate ought to go forward without comment
  A pattern has very clearly developed, no matter what the intentions 
of the chairman of the Committee on Rules. And I do not question his 
intentions, but unfortunately I am not governed by his intentions, but 
by the actions he is required to take within the context of the whole 
House.
  We have had a pattern of more restrictive rules for debate recently 
than in any previous time. We just debated the military authorization 
bill under the most restrictive terms in my 15 years in Congress. We 
were told we did not have time to debate fundamental issues in that 
bill, and then we adjourned on Thursday afternoon, I believe, with 
hours to go when we were still in session on a Friday. We have had 
these rules where you get a fixed time, and quorum calls take away the 
chance of Members to offer important amendments.
  Today it is almost a mockery when we are discussing free speech, and 
this is a difficult issue, and I have great admiration for the 
patriotism that drives many with whom I disagree, but to debate this 
under so restrictive a situation. No amendment was allowed. The 
Committee on Rules used its discretion to say no to any alternative.
  It then had the inconvenient fact that the minority is entitled, 
entitled, to the motion to recommit. And what do they do? They even 
played with that, because the motion to recommit is usually available 
to any member on the minority side in descending order, the ranking 
member of the committee on down. They said only if it is the minority 
leader or his designee. Apparently some ploy to try to engage the 
minority leader.
  Why was it not the usual recommit? That does not say the minority 
leader or his designee. We in the past have said OK, look, here is our 
major amendment, and you use the recommit, frankly, for strategic or 
tactical purposes. You engage in debate. You have always had the right 
on the recommittal motion to come up with something and suggest it and 
come forward with it. And that has been taken away.
  It is unseemly in the defense of the great
   American flag, symbolic of the freest nation in the world, to come 
forward in the legislative body with debate under such restrictive 
terms. I think this is a very grave error.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan, the ranking minority member, who has always been victimized 
by this undemocratic rule.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has made the case ably. 
I would like to just reiterate that the rule on a constitutional 
amendment 

[[Page H6407]]
before us permits no amendments to be offered, despite the fact that 
numerous alternatives, both statutory and constitutional, were granted. 
Instead, the Committee on Rules is making merely in order a motion to 
recommit, which is more a procedural tactic as it has been used in the 
House.
  So the promise on opening day, that the Committee on Rules chairman 
promised, that 70 percent of the bills would be brought up under open 
rules, has not occurred. As a matter of fact, almost the opposite has 
occurred; 62 percent of all the legislation has been brought to the 
floor under closed or restrictive rules.
  The irony is this is on a constitutional amendment designed to 
restrict free rights of the first amendment of the United States.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I hate to take the time of the body when we really 
should be debating the issue of the constitutional amendment, but I 
would say to my good friend who mentioned it before, rule XI(4)(b) 
applies if offered by the minority leader or a designee. The gentleman 
perhaps ought to read that.
  And let me just say to the other gentleman that the last time the ERA 
was brought before the House, it was brought on a suspension of the 
rules. That means no motion to recommit, no amendments, no anything. 
And I would just say the press does not agree with his assessment of 
the Rules Committee. They say we have had 72 percent open rules since 
January.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished Member of this body, and a 
member of the Committee on Rules who has been a leader on this effort.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
who is also the author of this very, very important amendment.
  I am pleased to rise in support of what I think is a very fair and 
responsible rule, especially relative to how we have dealt with this in 
the past and also in support of the underlying legislation. This rule 
works within the time constraints that we have been given, and I think 
it ensures the careful, structured, scrutiny of what we are about here.
  Equally important, this rule does provide the minority with a chance 
to offer a substitute. I do not understand the problem on that. We have 
a motion to recommit there, and we will have debate, and we are going 
to debate the alternative for the same amount of time--the full hour--
that we are going to give to the Solomon proposal. So I think that is a 
pretty good deal. Each side gets the same amount of time. I commend the 
chairman for this very fair approach, and I frankly think all Members 
should support it.
  With respect to the amendment itself, I am generally very hesitant to 
support changes to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers exhibited, I 
think very uncanny long-sightedness in establishing the framework for 
the greatest democracy on Earth. But their tremendous forethought also 
allowed them to recognize that there might be times when the American 
people would want to join together and seek to make measured changes to 
the living document that the Constitution is. It has actually happened 
27 times, a very small number to be sure, but most of those 27 
amendments established and reinforced bedrock principles of our free 
society.
  I venture to guess that even those who strongly oppose today's 
proposed amendment would agree that the American people have thus far 
used the awesome power of amending the Constitution in a very wise and 
judicious way. There is no reason to doubt that this time will be any 
different.
  There is much misinformation about what this legislation does and 
does not do. In my view, simply put, it takes back from the nine 
individuals of the Supreme Court, who are not accountable, and it gives 
to the people, all the people in their States, in their home 
communities, wherever, it gives them the decision on how best to treat 
the flag. In sum, I trust the people of our country more than the 
Supreme Court on this matter, which is close to the heart of every 
American.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, originally as a cosponsor of the 
legislation, my name was placed on that as a matter of fact, and it was 
a mistake for it to have been done so. I know it is too late to 
withdraw the name because the bill has been reported, but I would 
simply say that in speaking, in planning to vote against the present 
proposal, I tried to honor and defend what the flag stands for, and 
that is freedom.
  I thank the gentleman for permitting me to make this statement prior 
to the time that we have any recorded votes on either the rule or the 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the chief sponsors of this bill, along with my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], I rise in 
strong support of the legislation and support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have made the point several times over the past few 
weeks that this is a bipartisan effort. This is not Democrat or 
Republican. It is a matter of protecting the single most recognized 
symbol of freedom and democracy in the world.
  We tried in 1990 to simply pass a law to protect the flag. Most of us 
voted for it. But the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. That 
means the only way that we can achieve this goal is by a constitutional 
amendment.
  This amendment will not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights. 
We are the most tolerant country on Earth when it comes to dissent and 
criticism of our Government. But I really draw the line on the physical 
desecration of this great flag. I think the American people agree. In 
fact, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], has a folder that 
shows 49 of our States have passed resolutions in support of our 
efforts.
  Each session of the House of Representatives, when we are opening 
session, we start off, as you know, Mr. Speaker, with a prayer and the 
Pledge of Allegiance. Every time we have a group of students that are 
in the gallery from elementary school on up, they proudly join in, and 
you will see it this week. They will join in. You will hear their young 
voices ring out: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States 
of America. They know the pledge, and they know what the flag means to 
our country.
  They do not understand why anyone should be allowed to desecrate the 
flag. Mr. Speaker, neither do I.
  The flag has rallied our troops in battle, and it has brought us 
together in times of national tragedy because it holds such an 
emotional place in our lives. And I am emotional, too. It is worthy of 
the protection we seek in this legislation .
  Now, our Founding Fathers never dreamed someone would desecrate the 
flag. If they had, the protection would have been written into the 
Constitution 219 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, over a million Americans have died in defense of this 
flag. We owe it to them to adopt this amendment. God bless our great 
country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Seneca, SC [Mr. Graham], a 6-year veteran of the Armed Forces, with 4 
years overseas, a great American.
  (Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo what my good friend 
from Mississippi has just said. I would like to encourage Members to 
support this rule.
  I know that many of the colleagues in this body are concerned about 
adopting this rule and approving the amendment, that it will harm the 
Bill of Rights and the right to free speech. I 

[[Page H6408]]
do not question their patriotism. One cannot be in this body without 
being an American patriot. We all disagree at times on many issues. So 
I understand the right to disagree. I certainly respect that.
  But let me say that the Bill of Rights and free speech issues and 
desecrating the flag in my opinion are not related. I would like to 
encourage every one in this Nation, conservative, liberal, and 
moderate, to speak out loudly if they feel the Government is wronging 
them or that we are off track. Speak loudly, speak boldly. Do it in 
constructive form, write, call, protest, take to the streets, tell 
everybody how you feel and in a manner that will encourage them to 
listen.
  Burning the flag, in my opinion, does not legitimize one's position 
or allow anybody to listen to you. If you feel the need to burn 
something, burn your Congressman in effigy, burn me, do not burn the 
flag. If you cannot yell fire in the movie for public safety concerns, 
you should not be able to burn the flag because of national concerns.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about desecration. And 
goodness knows, we have had a significant amount of desecration in this 
country. Not desecration of the flag. In fact, you can go all the way 
across the 50 States these days and you will see few, if any, Americans 
now or at any other time in our recent past, even since this decision, 
who think so little of this country that they would dare desecrate this 
flag.
  There are, of course, a handful of the super rich in this country who 
have regularly desecrated their citizenship by repudiating that 
citizenship so they could burn any sense of patriotism and burn the 
American treasury at the same time. And, of course, this amendment does 
nothing about that desecration, just as our Republican colleagues have 
sat around on their hands throughout this session of Congress and have 
rejected the notion of effectively doing something about those who 
desecrate their American citizenship.
  But I must say in this rules debate, what really troubles me is the 
desecration that goes on in this body every day and is going on today 
with this very rule. And that is the desecration of the rules of the 
House of Representatives. You would think that someone who proposes to 
give the House of Representatives the job, along with this Congress, of 
protecting Old Glory would be concerned about protecting the dignity of 
its own rules.
  We sat here on the first day of this Congress and heard about reform, 
about revolution, about opening the House of Representatives to do 
truly the people's business. And what have we got? Certainly not 
reform.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules stood on this floor and told 
us, we will have at least 70 percent open rules. Do we have an open 
rule today to consider something as important as how we protect Old 
Glory? No, sir, we do not.
  Why is it that there is such fear, if we are so proud of Old Glory, 
why is there such fear of having true openness? And the same thing is 
true with regard to the way the rules of this House are being 
desecrated today and every day of this session by those who refuse to 
abide by the rule that they serve on a limited number of subcommittees 
and committees. Thirty Republican Members of this House today desecrate 
that rule, as they have desecrated this rule for an open House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying going on around 
here, ``Gerry Solomon has the longest memory in the House of anybody.'' 
I will not comment any further.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Kim], one who came to this country, a great American and a very 
respected Member.
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand the argument, talking 
about the flag burning issue. I rise today in support of this rule and 
flag burning constitutional amendment. Many, many people have come to 
this great country in search of American dream, myself included. To 
these people to become an American citizen is the ultimate dream. To 
these people, the American flag is the essence of what being an 
American is all about. How would you like to see somebody burning the 
symbol of hope, symbol of dream?
  I have been hearing this argument that this amendment is a direct 
attack on freedom of speech under the Constitution. I do not buy this 
argument. I understand it is illegal for anybody to run around naked in 
a public place trying to express their freedom of speech. I place 
burning the American flag in the same category. I do not buy this 
argument that burning the flag occurs only less than six times a year. 
I do not care if it is once in a century, that should not be allowed.
  I have also heard this argument about some alternatives should be 
allowed. What kind of alternatives are we talking about? It is going to 
either allow or not allow, simple as that, up or down vote. I do not 
see any other argument about we should allow more alternatives.
  I personally am more insulted by watching someone burn our flag than 
watching someone running around naked trying to express their freedom 
of speech. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to support this rule. It 
is OK. Pass this much-needed constitutional amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the Constitution. I support the 
first amendment. My comments are not to demean the intentions of 
anybody in the House. I support this rule, and I support this bill. I 
want to talk about a few facts.
  In America today, it is illegal in many cities to kiss or hug in 
public. It is illegal to burn leaves. It is illegal to rip that little 
tag off the back of those newly bought pillows. You cannot rip those 
tags off. It is actually a Federal law, my colleagues, to desecrate or 
violate a mailbox. First amendment rights do not apply to a mailbox. 
But in America, my colleagues, it is absolutely legal to burn the flag.
  Desecrate the flag. You can defecate and urinate on Old Glory to make 
a political statement, but you cannot touch a mailbox. My colleagues, 
when did we start pledging allegiance to the mailboxes of our country?
  I do not mean to make light of this. But a Congress of the United 
States that will allow the same flag that was carried into battle after 
battle on the shoulders of fighting personnel, military personnel, 
knowing full well they would be slain and also knowing someone else 
would grab that flag, take that flag on into battle, try and mount that 
flag to preserve our great freedoms, knowing full well that their 
successor may be slain, a Congress that will allow that same flag to be 
burned by a dissident is out of touch. We have gotten so fancy there is 
no common sense left.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, I support the first amendment. Damn it, if we could set 
a mailbox aside, we can set the flag apart. Let the flag alone. If 
Members want to burn something dissident, they should burn their bra, 
burn their underwear, burn their money, and see how many will make that 
statement. However, the Congress of the United States has to say ``You 
cannot violate Old Glory.''
  This is not about the flag, this debate today; it is about respect, 
it is about pride, it is about values, and there is only one reason why 
flags are violated in America, only one; the Congress of the United 
States, the Congress of the United States allows the flag to be 
violated. Statutes are not going to work. Members know it. Let us not 
politically posture. Laws are not going to address it. It will take a 
constitutional amendment. I support that constitutional amendment, and 
I applaud the leaders for bringing it forward. Burn your bra, burn your 
pantyhose, burn your BVD's, see how many burn their money, but let the 
flag alone.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say amen to the previous 
speaker. He is a great American.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Miami, FL, Ms. 


[[Page H6409]]
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, another extremely important Member of this body. I 
know she speaks from her heart on this issue.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the American flag is a sacred symbol 
of freedom and justice, not just in the United States, but throughout 
the world.
  I know this in a very special way. I was born under a different flag. 
After a brutal dictatorship took control of Cuba, the land of my birth, 
I journeyed to freedom and came to the United States as a refugee.
  I remember well that day when I raised my right hand and swore 
allegiance to this great country.
  All of us who came to this country as refugees from a brutal tyranny 
know how much the American flag means for lovers of liberty and 
democracy.
  And we know jut how great and important are the American values that 
have led so many American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen over 
the centuries, to pick up our flag and march into battle against those 
who threaten our freedom.
  This year we have celebrated the 50th anniversary of the final year 
of World War II.
  One of the memorable occasions of that war, was when the marines 
climbed to the top of Mount Surabachi, to raise the American flag.
  Six thousand, eight hundred and fifty-five men gave their lives to 
place that flag on that mountain, and their sacrifice can never be 
forgotten.
  We have heard a lot from those who oppose protecting our flag from 
desecration and dishonor.
  We have heard words, and legalisms, and theories, and all the sort of 
things you find in books. I respect those words taken from books.
  Consult the book of America's heroes--patriotic young men who gave 
their lives for us. Put down your law books, and drive over to 
Arlington Cemetery, and gaze at the long rows of headstones of our 
fallen heroes.
  Then drive over to the Iwo Jima memorial, and stand there in silent 
tribute to America's heroes. Feel the wonder of what they have done for 
us.
  See beyond the cold bronze and the polished granite, and see those 
young men who were out there, thousands of miles from their loved ones, 
surrounded by the temporary graves of thousands of their fellow 
marines, and surrounded by field hospitals, where thousands more other 
marines lay wounded.
  See those young men, and then feel what they were feeling that day, 
knowing that any at a moment their lives could be taken.
  And then think about what it was that they felt that day about the 
American flag.
  Then you will understand this issue.
  Men have died under that flag.
  Those who served with them, those who loved them, and those who honor 
their memory today must stop those who dishonor them by burning or 
desecrating the American flag.
  And we can put a stop to this, by supporting an amendment to protect 
this sacred symbol from abuse.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a former Marine and Vietnam veteran.
  (Mr. SKAGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman, he and I were proud to serve our country in 
uniform. We were proud to serve under our Nation's flag. One of the 
reasons for the pride that the gentleman and I share was that we 
believed in a country that was strong enough to tolerate diversity and 
dissent, and to rise above it, because our freedoms and our values are 
stronger than the occasional jerk that wants to treat the American flag 
in a disrespectful way.
  Today, we are debating an amendment to the Constitution that, for the 
first time in the history of this country, will diminish our freedom of 
expression. I think it is ironic, maybe poetic, that the rule proposed 
for this debate itself shuts down freedom of expression in this House. 
There is no justification for this, absolutely none. Not even a 
substitute allowed in the regular order. This rule is a shame. It is 
shameful. It should not be allowed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a gentleman who came with me to this 
body 17 years ago. He is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and would like to rebut what was just said.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Back 
in 1983, I would bring to the attention of my Democratic colleagues, 
the equal rights amendment was brought up on the floor with the support 
of most of them, under suspension of the rules.
  There were no amendments allowed, there was no motion to recommit, 
and because I was the manager on the Republican side, in fairness, I 
yielded half of my time to Republican supporters of the ERA, but the 
Democrats did not yield any of their time to Democratic opponents of 
the ERA, so the split in the 40 minutes that we had to debate that 
important constitutional amendment was split 3 to 1 for the supporters, 
because of the unfairness of the folks on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is fair. It will allow for an extensive 
debate. I think that, given what the other side did with another 
important constitutional amendment, maybe they ought to take up a 
collection to build a statue to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], because of the fair rules that he puts together.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I am wearing an American flag tie 
that my son picked out for me, and American flag earrings that my 13-
year-old daughter picked out for me for the Fourth of July. I love the 
flag, and when I see the flag flying here over the Capitol, I choke up.
  However, we are talking not just about the symbol of our country 
today, we are talking about the Constitution that governs our country. 
The first amendment says ``Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech.'' The Bill of Rights has served our country for 204 
years. An hour of debate to discuss amending the Bill of Rights is not 
good enough.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend 
from Puyallup, WA [Mr. Tate], another freshman Member of this body 
which is really changing the face of this country.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 79, the Flag 
Protection Act. The purpose of this amendment is simple: To empower 
States and Congress to provide constitutional protection for the symbol 
of our Nation and all for which she stands.
  When you think of our national flag, Mr. Speaker, you think of our 
national heritage, our history, our culture; you think of the 
principles it embodies.
  America ultimately stands on the principle of freedom. Her soldiers 
have died on battlefields, her leaders have resisted foreign threats, 
and she herself has endured the risk of internal destruction rather 
than give up the ideal. All America is and all that she hopes to be can 
be found in this principle.
  The American flag is the symbol of that freedom. Its colors represent 
peace, liberty, and the blood her people have spilled. Its stars 
represent her parts, the 50 States of which 49 have urged us to pass 
this amendment. Taken as a whole, the flag represents America and the 
best of her traditions and hopes.
  Yet that freedom does not come without responsibility. Those who 
would dream her dreams must also share in her burdens. The right to 
free speech carries with it a corresponding responsibility to respect 
others and exercise that right in an appropriate manner.
  H.R. 79, Mr. Speaker, seeks to protect the symbol of the American 
Dream. If that hope of freedom can be freely desecrated, the freedom of 
our future will not long stand. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule and pass the Flag Protection Act.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Democrat, a former Marine, like our chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and our good colleague, the 
gentleman 

[[Page H6410]]
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and as an original cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 79, I rise in strong support of this rule to provide for the 
consideration of this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution which 
would permit Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the American flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the comments many of my colleagues in 
opposition to this proposed amendment have made regarding the first 
amendment.
  I, too, hold dearly the protections and privileges guaranteed to all 
Americans under the Bill of Rights, and in particular the first 
amendment right to free speech. The Bill of Rights is the foundation 
upon which this great Nation was built.
  But it is that greatness and resiliency of the Constitution and this 
Nation that are symbolized by the American flag. The desecration of the 
American flag is not just a simple expression of free speech. It is a 
profound and brutal attack on the very soul and history of our country.
  Old Glory has carried Americans to war and shrouded those who gave 
the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom and liberty. The 
American flag that is carefully folded and passed on to the family of a 
fallen hero is more than just a symbol. It embodies who we are as a 
nation.
  On June 14, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson paid high tribute to the 
American flag when he said:

       The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of 
     history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, 
     the experiences of those who do and live under that flag.

  The American flag is a unique and important part of America. Let us 
pay tribute to the flag, to this Nation and to our Constitution by 
passing this rule and this amendment today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman who just spoke 
that he may be a Democrat but he is a good marine and a good American.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett.
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I carry always with me a copy 
of the Constitution, and one of the previous speakers mentioned the 
first amendment, which has, of course, several very important 
protections in it: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble.''
  Obviously, these are very important rights that are guaranteed to us, 
but we have recognized as a country that there are some limits to 
these. For instance, the right of free speech will not permit you to 
get up in a crowded motion picture theater and yell ``fire, fire'' when 
there is not a fire. I think that this proposed amendment, which 
protects our flag against desecration, is at least the equivalent of 
denying the person the right to yell ``fire, fire'' in a crowded 
theater.
  This flag is a symbol of this great Republic. It stands for the whole 
history of our country. I think there is just no reasonable rebuttal to 
this very important amendment which four out of five Americans support.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, there is always an abundance in this House Chamber, and 
I guess in every body in America, of people who are willing to come 
down here and do the easy parts.

                              {time}  1130

  The easy part is to stand up here and make a patriotic speech that 
articulates our shared sentiments about the flag. We have heard 8 or 10 
of them already. Everybody agrees with them. But the hard part that a 
real patriot, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], would 
believe to be his obligation is to write law that will protect our 
public and last for the long term.
  What you have brought to us today with a rule that says we cannot 
amend it except with a motion to recommit is not a workable proposal. I 
fear that many of the Members who in a well-meaning fashion have come 
up here and spoken about it do not realize what it does.
  What does it do? It says that all 50 States can define what a flag is 
and all 50 States can define what desecration is as well as the Federal 
Government and the District of Columbia. That means, of course, that a 
citizen has no way of knowing from one State to the next what 
desecration of the flag is or even what a flag is.
  You probably have not bothered to check, but the current statute that 
defines what a flag is defines it as a 48-star flag; the other 2 stars 
were added by Executive order.
  I asked the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, during debate in the full committee would it be a 
desecration of a flag if you desecrated a 49-star flag and his answer 
was, ``That will depend upon the enactment passed by the Congress and 
the States.''
  We have tried to bring an amendment to the floor here today. We asked 
permission to bring an amendment to the floor today here and it will 
have to be offered as part of the motion to recommit now that says the 
Congress can pass a law defining what a flag is and making it against 
the law to burn, to trample, to soil or rend a flag. It makes it clear 
exactly what the flag is and what desecration is. Instead, we have been 
brought one out here that no one can interpret.
  Is it desecration of the flag to wear a flag on the back of your 
coat? Is it desecration of the flag to wear it on the seat of your 
pants? On a tie? Is it desecration of the flag for the Olympic team to 
wear a uniform that has a flag emblazoned across the shoulders? What 
about a Hell's Angel or a protester who wears the same thing? Nobody 
knows.
  We tried to bring an amendment to the floor to your proposal that 
says very clearly what it is, the flag is what the Congress says it is 
and desecration is burning, trampling, soiling, or rending. But you 
would not let us offer that amendment. It will, however, be offered as 
part of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I will yield to you on your time as much as you 
want to, but I have very little time so I do not want to use it up 
yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman's amendment is in order.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I ask for regular order, Mr. Speaker, I will be 
happy to yield to the gentleman on his own time.
  The easy part is to come down here and make great speeches, extolling 
the flag and talking about patriotism. Everybody agrees with those. But 
the hard part is writing legislation that will last for the ages and it 
will not subject our public to accidentally breaking laws they do not 
intend to break. Why would you not let us offer that amendment on the 
floor?
  Well, we will offer it as part of the motion to recommit. I commend 
it to the Members to vote for the motion to recommit, vote for one that 
will work.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus of the Committee on 
Rules and one of the longest serving Members of this body.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, in 1967, I was an original cosponsor of a 
bill to make desecration of the American flag a Federal offense, 
punishable by up to 1 year in prison and up to a $1,000 fine. That bill 
passed both Houses almost unanimously and was signed into law by the 
President.
  By 1989, 48 States and the Federal Government had laws on the books 
prohibiting the desecration of our beloved American flag. And as we all 
know, in 1989 the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute which 
prevented flag burning, and declared such an outrageous act an 
expression of speech protected by the first amendment.
  In response to that decision, another Federal law was enacted banning 
flag desecration, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

[[Page H6411]]

  Since then, 49 of our 50 States have passed resolutions calling on 
the Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution to protect the 
flag of the United States from physical desecration and to send it back 
to the States for swift ratification. It is clear that the States want 
us to act on this issue.
  I support this rule for House Joint Resolution 79, proposing a 
constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the States to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. It would be a shame and 
a disgrace if we sit idly by and let our beloved American flag--the 
greatest symbol of liberty and freedom--continue to be disrespected and 
desecrated. Our flag is a part of the soul of America, not merely a 
piece of cloth.
  I would challenge the Members of this body to remember that our 
freedom is not without cost--it comes with the high price of the 
sacrifice of human life. From the shores of Iwo Jima to the sands of 
Desert Storm, American men and women have given their lives for what 
the flag represents. If our flag is worth dying for, it is worth 
protecting. I urge all of the Members of this body to support this rule 
and this measure.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a Member from my home 
State, the gentleman from Hamburg, NY [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 79, it is with great pride that I rise to urge my colleagues 
to support the rule for its consideration.
  This amendment gives Congress and the States the power to enact 
legislation prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States.
  Forty-nine States have passed resolutions calling on Congress to 
propose this constitutional amendment. A recent Gallup survey found 
that 79 percent of those asked would vote for a constitutional 
amendment and that 81 percent belived they should have the right to 
vote on the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people what they want and what 
our flag deserves.
  The American flag represents this great Nation and is something to be 
revered--not destroyed or mutilated or treated with disrespect. This 
amendment helps to preserve a symbol of our country--a united nation 
where values transcend political party, ethnic group or socio-economic 
class and reflects pride in the principles of democracy and freedom 
upon which this country was founded.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for 
bringing this rule and his leadership on this important issue and once 
again I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and ask that they 
vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Buies Creek, NC [Mr. Funderburk], one of the outstanding new Members of 
this body who is changing the outcome of votes this year since he 
arrived in January.
  (Mr. FUNDERBURK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Solomon anti-
flag desecration amendment, House Joint Resolution 79.
  Many years ago the distinguished jurist, Felix Frankfurter, was 
asked, ``What is America?'' Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted:

       We are nothing more than the symbols we cherish. We live by 
     our symbols because a civilization that does not nurture and 
     cherish its symbols is in danger of withering away. The 
     ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of 
     cohesive sentiment.

  That is why we honor the flag. It is the tie which binds us together. 
We remember that tie every time we see it draped on the coffin of a 
soldier or sailor who gave his life fighting to preserve our freedoms.
  For 6 years I lived in a communist country where I saw people cry and 
salute when they saw the U.S. flag. They venerated our flag as a symbol 
of freedom from tyranny and they considered it an inexplicable sign of 
weakness for us to tolerate desecration of our most cherished symbol.
  A few years ago, the Supreme Court sent America a very clear message; 
desecrating the flag, they said, is somehow an act of free speech 
protected by all of the force of the U.S. Constitution. Now it is up to 
us to send a response to the Supreme Court. It is time to send, as one 
U.S. Senator put it, ``A We the People response'', that there should be 
no tolerance for those who deliberately dishonor the flag and all of 
the precious things that it stands for.
  Opponents of this amendment argue that the Constitution
   permits absolute freedom of speech. They declare that if freedom of 
expression is not protected absolutely, it is by definition diminished. 
But history can lead us to the opposite conclusion. When every 
conceivable outrage is permitted in the name of free speech, law and 
order soon breaks down and the rights of every citizen are threatened. 
2,500 years ago Socrates warned that, ``Excessive freedom leads to 
anarchy and anarchy leads to tyranny''.

  As we enter this fight, we must remember that the Constitution of the 
United States belongs not to the U.S. Congress, not to the Supreme 
Court, not to the media; it belongs to all of the American people. Let 
the people in the States decide. Let the people decide because, after 
all is said and done, it is their flag.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Is it not ironic that this 
closed rule that we are dealing with today comes on a constitutional 
amendment that is designed to restrict the free speech rights of the 
first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Is it not even more ironic 
that tomorrow we are going to be dealing with the Republican budget 
resolution, the final budget resolution which will be on the floor and 
that budget resolution makes cuts in veterans' medical care and 
benefits, a resolution that cuts $32 billion out of veterans' programs 
over the next 7 years.
  Under that resolution by the year 2002, more than half of the 
veterans who presently are served by the VA health care system, more 
than half of them will not be served. Thousands of beds will be closed, 
rationing of their health care will be imposed, and the prescription 
drug payments will be increased dramatically.
  Is it not ironic that those people who have served the flag, served 
this Nation the most, will see those kinds of cuts, and it is going to 
be covered up by this particular debate.
  Mr. Speaker, our flag generates the most intense national pride and 
reverence. Our flag is in no danger whatsoever of losing that position 
of pride and reverence. As such, anyone who burns or tramples the flag 
contemptuously as a part of dissent defeats their very cause. The 
proposed amendment that we have before us would be the first amendment 
adopted to the Bill of Rights to restrict free speech. It is not 
necessary, the flag is not in danger, but the adoption of this 
amendment endangers every American citizen's free speech rights.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close if I may.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following data on floor procedure for the 
Record:

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPLIED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................           None.
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed             None.
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5*................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted             N/A.
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2*...........  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain            2R; 4D.
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in              N/A.
                          Scheduling.                                House no amendments.                       
H.R. 2*................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665*..............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                


                                                                                                                

[[Page H6412]]
           FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPLIED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS--Continued          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 666*..............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667*..............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668*..............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728*..............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           
H.R. 7*................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729*..............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                 N/A.
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on Suspension              None.
                                                                     Calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830*..............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................            N/A.
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450*..............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022*.............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926*..............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 925*..............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap             1D.
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         
H.R. 1058*.............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 105       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap              1D.
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germaneness                     
                                                                     against it.                                
H.R. 988*..............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap             N/A.
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956*..............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order          8D; 7R.
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 1158..............  Making Emergency         H. Res. 115       Restrictive; Combines                   N/A.
                          Supplemental                               emergency H.R. 1158 &                      
                          Appropriations and                         nonemergency 1159 and                      
                          Rescissions.                               strikes the abortion                       
                                                                     provision; makes in order                  
                                                                     only pre-printed amendments                
                                                                     that include offsets within                
                                                                     the same chapter (deeper                   
                                                                     cuts in programs already                   
                                                                     cut); waives points of                     
                                                                     order against three                        
                                                                     amendments; waives cl 2 of                 
                                                                     rule XXI against the bill,                 
                                                                     cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule                 
                                                                     XVI against the substitute;                
                                                                     waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendments in                  
                                                                     the Record; 10 hr time cap                 
                                                                     on amendments. 30 minutes                  
                                                                     debate on each amendment.                  
H.J. Res. 73*..........  Term Limits............  H. Res. 116       Restrictive; Makes in order           1D; 3R
                                                                     only 4 amendments                          
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure and                
                                                                     denies 21 germane                          
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 4*................  Welfare Reform.........  H. Res. 119       Restrictive; Makes in order          5D; 26R
                                                                     only 31 perfecting                         
                                                                     amendments and two                         
                                                                     substitutes; Denies 130                    
                                                                     germane amendments from                    
                                                                     being considered; The                      
                                                                     substitutes are to be                      
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure;                   
                                                                     All points of order are                    
                                                                     waived against the                         
                                                                     amendments.                                
H.R. 1271*.............  Family Privacy Act.....  H. Res. 125       Open........................             N/A
H.R. 660*..............  Housing for Older        H. Res. 126       Open........................             N/A
                          Persons Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1215*.............  The Contract With        H. Res. 129       Restrictive; Self Executes                1D
                          America Tax Relief Act                     language that makes tax                    
                          of 1995.                                   cuts contingent on the                     
                                                                     adoption of a balanced                     
                                                                     budget plan and strikes                    
                                                                     section 3006. Makes in                     
                                                                     order only one substitute.                 
                                                                     Waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the bill,                          
                                                                     substitute made in order as                
                                                                     original text and Gephardt                 
                                                                     substitute.                                
H.R. 483...............  Medicare Select          H. Res. 130       Restrictive; waives cl                    1D
                          Extension.                                 2(1)(6) of rule XI against                 
                                                                     the bill; makes H.R. 1391                  
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     makes in order only the                    
                                                                     Dingell substitute; allows                 
                                                                     Commerce Committee to file                 
                                                                     a report on the bill at any                
                                                                     time.                                      
H.R. 655...............  Hydrogen Future Act....  H. Res 136        Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 1361..............  Coast Guard              H. Res 139        Open; waives sections 302(f)            N/A.
                          Authorization.                             and 308(a) of the                          
                                                                     Congressional Budget Act                   
                                                                     against the bill's                         
                                                                     consideration and the                      
                                                                     committee substitute;                      
                                                                     waives c1 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the committee                      
                                                                     substitute.                                
H.R. 961...............  Clean Water Act........  H. Res 140        Open; pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference; waives sections                
                                                                     302(f) and 602(b) of the                   
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     bill's consideration;                      
                                                                     waives c1 7 of rule XVI, c1                
                                                                     5(a) of rule XXI and                       
                                                                     section 302(f) of the                      
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     committee substitute. Makes                
                                                                     in order Shuster substitute                
                                                                     as first order of business.                
H.R. 535...............  Corning National Fish    H. Res. 144       Open........................            N/A.
                          Hatchery Conveyance                                                                   
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 584...............  Conveyance of the        H. Res. 145       Open........................            N/A.
                          Fairport National Fish                                                                
                          Hatchery of the State                                                                 
                          of Iowa.                                                                              
H.R. 614...............  Conveyance of the New    H. Res. 146       Open........................           N/A.0
                          London National Fish                                                                  
                          Hatchery Production                                                                   
                          Facility.                                                                             
H. Con. Res. 67........  Budget Resolution......  H. Res. 149       Restrictive; Makes in order            3D;1R
                                                                     4 substitutes under regular                
                                                                     order; Gephardt, Neumann/                  
                                                                     Solomon, Payne/Owens,                      
                                                                     President's Budget if                      
                                                                     printed in Record on 5/17/                 
                                                                     95; waives all points of                   
                                                                     order against substitutes                  
                                                                     and concurrent resolution;                 
                                                                     suspends application of                    
                                                                     Rule XLIX with respect to                  
                                                                     the resolution; self-                      
                                                                     executes Agriculture                       
                                                                     language.                                  
H.R. 1561..............  American Overseas        H. Res. 155       Restrictive; Requires                    N/A
                          Interests Act of 1995.                     amendments to be printed in                
                                                                     the Record prior to their                  
                                                                     consideration; 10 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of                  
                                                                     rule XI against the bill's                 
                                                                     consideration; Also waives                 
                                                                     sections 302(f), 303(a),                   
                                                                     308(a) and 402(a) against                  
                                                                     the bill's consideration                   
                                                                     and the committee amendment                
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendment;                     
                                                                     amendment consideration is                 
                                                                     closed at 2:30 p.m. on May                 
                                                                     25, 1995. Self-executes                    
                                                                     provision which removes                    
                                                                     section 2210 from the bill.                
                                                                     This was done at the                       
                                                                     request of the Budget                      
                                                                     Committee.                                 
H.R. 1530..............  National Defense         H. Res. 164       Restrictive; Makes in order      36R; 18D; 2
                          Authorization Act FY                       only the amendments printed      Bipartisan
                          1996.                                      in the report; waives all                  
                                                                     points of order against the                
                                                                     bill, substitute and                       
                                                                     amendments printed in the                  
                                                                     report. Gives the Chairman                 
                                                                     en bloc authority. Self-                   
                                                                     executes a provision which                 
                                                                     strikes section 807 of the                 
                                                                     bill; provides for an                      
                                                                     additional 30 min. of                      
                                                                     debate on Nunn-Lugar                       
                                                                     section; Allows Mr. Clinger                
                                                                     to offer a modification of                 
                                                                     his amendment with the                     
                                                                     concurrence of Ms. Collins.                
H.R. 1817..............  Military Construction    H. Res. 167       Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6  ..............
                          Appropriations; FY                         of rule XXI against the                    
                          1996.                                      bill; 1 hr. general debate;                
                                                                     Uses House passed budget                   
                                                                     numbers as threshold for                   
                                                                     spending amounts pending                   
                                                                     passage of Budget.                         
H.R. 1854..............  Legislative Branch       H. Res. 169       Restrictive; Makes in order        5R; 4D; 2
                          Appropriations.                            only 11 amendments; waivers      Bipartisan
                                                                     sections 302(f) and 308(a)                 
                                                                     of the Budget Act against                  
                                                                     the bill and cl. 2 and cl.                 
                                                                     6 of rule XXI against the                  
                                                                     bill. All points of order                  
                                                                     are waived against the                     
                                                                     amendments.                                
H.R. 1868..............  Foreign Operations       H. Res. 170       Open; waives cl. 2, cl.                  N/A
                          Appropriations.                            5(b), and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                     against the bill; makes in                 
                                                                     order the Gilman amendments                
                                                                     as first order of business;                
                                                                     waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the amendments; if                 
                                                                     adopted they will be                       
                                                                     considered as original                     
                                                                     text; waives cl. 2 of rule                 
                                                                     XXI against the amendments                 
                                                                     printed in the report. Pre-                
                                                                     printing gets priority                     
                                                                     (Hall) (Menendez) (Goss)                   
                                                                     (Smith, NJ).                               
H.R. 1905..............  Energy & Water           H. Res. 171       Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6             N/A
                          Appropriations.                            of rule XXI against the                    
                                                                     bill; makes in order the                   
                                                                     Shuster amendment as the                   
                                                                     first order of business;                   
                                                                     waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the amendment; if                  
                                                                     adopted it will be                         
                                                                     considered as original                     
                                                                     text. Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                     priority.                                  
H.J. Res. 79...........  Constitutional           H. Res. XXX       Closed; provides one hour of             N/A
                          Amendment to Permit                        general debate and one                     
                          Congress and States to                     motion to recommit with or                 
                          Prohibit the Physical                      without instructions; if                   
                          Desecration of the                         there are instructions, the                
                          American Flag.                             MO is debatable for 1 hr.                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. **All legislation, 62% restrictive; 38% open. ****Restrictive rules 
  are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open and  
  modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as
  opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart 
  of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are    
  three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.           


  Mr. BEILENSON. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very outset, 
this is a controversial, important and difficult question to resolve. 
It deserves a more open and fair procedure for its consideration than 
that which was granted by our Republican colleagues on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I shall offer a substitute amendment 
to the rule. The alternative rule will allow 2 hours of general debate 
and make in order the Bryant substitute, the Skaggs substitute, and the 
Thornton substitute, with each substitute debatable for 1 hour. At this 
point, I include the rule I intend to offer in the Record; as follows:

         Amendment in the Nature of a substitute to H. Res. 173

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, 
     pursuant to clause 1(b) of Rule XXIII, declare the House 
     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
     of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution 
     (H.J. Res. 79) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to 
     prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
     States. The first reading of the joint resolution shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five 

[[Page H6413]]
     minute rule and shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be in 
     order except the following amendments in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in section 2 of this resolution: (1) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Representative Bryant of Texas or his designee; (2) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Representative Skaggs of Colorado or his designee; and (3) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Representative Thornton of Arkansas or his designee. The 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read, are each debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent thereto and are 
     not subject to amendment. All points of order are waived 
     against the amendments in the nature of a substitute printed 
     in this resolution. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
     the joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise 
     and report the joint resolution to the House with such 
     amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.
       (1) Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after the date of its submission 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. The Congress and the States shall have power 
     to prohibit the burning, trampling, soiling, or rending of 
     the flag of the United States.
       ``Section 2. For the purpose of this article of amendment, 
     the Congress shall determine by law what constitutes the flag 
     of the United States, and shall prescribe procedures for the 
     proper disposal of a flag.''.
       (2) Strike the resolving clause and all that follows and 
     insert the following:
       ``Whereas freedom and liberty protected by the Constitution 
     are fundamental and precious rights of each American;
       Whereas the flag of the United States is an historic and 
     revered symbol of that freedom and liberty;
       Whereas generations of Americans have fought with valor 
     under the flag to protect the sacred values it represents;
       Whereas all the people of the United States, and their 
     representatives in Congress, should show respect and 
     affection for the flag;
       Whereas the flag has been a source of inspiration for 
     freedom-seeking people around the world;
       Whereas deeply held respect and affection for the flag have 
     caused many to propose an amendment to the Constitution to 
     protect the flag from desecration; and
       Whereas an amendment to the Constitution, expanding the 
     powers of government to prohibit offensive behavior, would 
     entail a limitation on freedoms previously protected under 
     the First Amendment: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress of the United States expresses 
     deep respect and affection for the flag of the United States, 
     and states its abiding trust in the freedom and liberty which 
     the flag symbolizes.''
       (3) Strike the resolving clause and all that follows and 
     insert the following:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled.

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Flag Protection Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FLAG PROTECTION.

       Each copy of the flag of the United States that is intended 
     to be displayed as a flag and is made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall belong to the people of the 
     United States and be held in trust for them by the Government 
     of the United States. The United States therefore has a 
     property interest in each such copy, and such copies are 
     subject to rules and regulations made under section 3 of 
     article IV of the Constitution of the United States. On this 
     basis, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make 
     rules for the use and disposition of such copies. Such rules 
     shall allow for the sale and transfer of the rights to 
     possess and use such copies. Any damage to or destruction of 
     such a copy that is in violation of such rules is a 
     depredation against the property of the United States for the 
     purposes of section 1361 of title 18, United States Code.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the 
previous question and against the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close debate on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of criticism of this rule. I would 
welcome Members to come over and look at the Congressional Record of 
1983 when the equal rights amendment was brought before this body under 
suspension of the rules, 40 minutes of debate, no motion to recommit, 
no amendments allowed, no substitutes allowed. We have not done that.
  Let me tell what we have done. We are debating a rule now that has 1 
hour of debate, and it is equally divided. Those in opposition have 
half an hour, we have half an hour. Then we go into the general debate 
on the constitutional amendment. That is equally divided. Both sides 
have equal time. Then we go into what is allowed in the motion to 
recommit, and that is any germane amendment, any germane substitute 
that the opponents would care to offer.
  I have just heard my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], say that his motion to defeat the previous question would 
make in order 3 kinds of substitutes. One is a constitutional amendment 
that was offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], who never 
bothered to come to the Committee on Rules in defense of his amendment, 
never bothered to even come up there.

                              {time}  1145

  Among the other two, one is a sense-of-Congress resolution by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] that is not germane to a 
constitutional amendment. It is simply a sense of Congress. The other 
is a statute. But you cannot allow substitutes in the form of statutes 
to a constitutional amendment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we are allowing is what is allowed under the 
rules of the House: the Bryant amendment in whatever form he cares to 
offer it, as an amendment, as a substitute, as a motion to recommit. 
That is in order and that will be immediately brought to the floor, if 
he cares to ask for it, after the one hour of general debate.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what we have before us today is a simple one-
sentence amendment that has been asked for by 49 States; every State 
but Vermont. It simply says the Congress and the States shall have 
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States of America.
  Pay attention to that, because that is not a constitutional amendment 
that bans physical desecration of the flag. It does not do that at all. 
What it does is empower the 50 States, one at a time, to pass a law 
which would provide for criminal penalties for those that would 
physically desecrate the American flag. Or the Congress could pass such 
a law.
  That is what we are doing. If we pass this today, we will then send 
it out to the States to be ratified by those States. Three-quarters of 
the States have to ratify it. That is all we are asking, that 80 
percent of the American people be allowed to have their vote.
  This is it. Look at it. And here are over a million signatures 
gathered by the veterans organizations that are sitting in this gallery 
and that are all out in the halls and around this complex today.
  All they want is the right to ratify. Give them that chance. That is 
what this country is all about. I urge a yes vote on the previous 
question and a yes vote on the rule.
  And then, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to pass that 
constitutional amendment. Two-thirds of this Congress is going to speak 
on behalf of those 80 percent of the American people who demand this 
right to vote on the constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5(b)(1) of rule XV, the Chair may reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the 
question of adopting the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 258, 
nays 170, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H6414]]


                             [Roll No. 428]

                               YEAS--258

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gibbons
     Hoyer
     Kasich
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torres

                              {time}  1209

  Mr. MASCARA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By a previous order of the Chair, this will 
be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271, 
noes 152, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               AYES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt

[[Page H6415]]

     Geren
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton
     Gibbons
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Livingston
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Vento
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1218

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________