[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6415-H6436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE FLAG

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 173, 
I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 79 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 79

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), 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--

       ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit 
     the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 173, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater symbol of our unity, our freedom, 
and our liberty than our flag. In the words of Justice John Paul 
Stevens:

       It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of 
     religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who 
     share our aspirations.

  Our flag represents We the People--the most successful exercise in 
self-government in the history of the world.
  In 1989 in Texas versus Johnson, the Supreme Court of the United 
States in a narrow 5 to 4 decision, invalidated the laws of 48 States 
and an act of Congress depriving the people of their right to protect 
the most profound and revered symbol of our national identity. In 1990, 
Johnson was followed by the decision in United States versus Eichman, 
which held unconstitutional a Federal statute passed by Congress in the 
wake of the Johnson decision.
  House Joint Resolution 79 proposes to amend the Constitution to 
restore the authority of the Congress and the States--which was taken 
away by the Supreme Court--to pass legislation protecting the flag from 
physical desecration.
  I believe, as do many of my colleagues, and eminent jurists such as 
former Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Hugo Black--ardent 
defenders of the first amendment--that the Constitution, properly 
interpreted, allows Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the U.S. flag.
  Justice Black bluntly stated:

       It passes my belief than anything in the Federal 
     Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning 
     of the American flag an offense.

  The Solomon-Montgomery amendment will overturn the opinions of the 
Supreme Court in Johnson and Eichman by restoring the authority to 
Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag.
  This amendment poses no threat to free speech. As legal commentator 
and columnist Bruce Fein testified before the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution:

       I don't think [the flag desecration amendment] really 
     outlaws or punishes a person's ability to say anything or 
     convey any idea. Indeed, every idea that is conveyed by 
     burning a flag can clearly be conveyed without burning the 
     flag using your vocal cords, for example, and therefore it 
     doesn't, in my judgment threaten to dry up rich political 
     debate.

  As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his dissent in the Johnson case, 
the physical desecration of the flag:

       . . . is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar 
     that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in 
     not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others.

  In protecting the flag from physical desecration we will do nothing 
to impede the full and free expression of ideas by Americans.
  The people of the United States--through their elected 
representatives--have the power and the right to amend the Constitution 
under article V. After the amendment is ratified by the States, 
legislation will need to be crafted to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag.
  In an unprecedented demonstration of public support, the legislatures 
of 49 States have called on this Congress to exercise its power under 
article V and to submit a flag protection amendment to the States for 
ratification. We should not ignore the 49 legislatures which have 
called for action. We should listen to them and pursuant to article V.
  Our flag was raised at Iwo Jima, planted on the moon and drapes the 
coffin of every soldier who has sacrificed his or her life for our 
great country. It is a national asset, a national asset which deserves 
our respect and protection. Indeed our flag is a national asset which 
deserves to be protected from physical desecration as much as the 
Capitol Building itself, or the Supreme Court, or the White House.
  I say to my colleagues, ``If you want to protect the flag, this 
unique national asset, from physical desecration, you must support the 
Solomon-Montgomery constitutional amendment. There is no other way.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
be granted an additional 10 minutes of time for general debate to be 
controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and that 
the minority be granted an additional 10 minutes of general debate to 
be controlled by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] which would 
give each side 40 minutes of general debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?

[[Page H6416]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise as a patriotic American and a 
veteran today to debate under a very restricted rule the consideration 
of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States. If adopted, this amendment would represent 
the first time in our Nation's history that we will have altered the 
Bill of Rights to limit freedom of expression.
  Along with other constitutional amendments being considered, this 
Congress, relating to the budget, to term limits, to school prayer, the 
flag desecration proposal can be viewed, in my view, as a broad-ranging 
effort by the Republican majority to alter our fundamental national 
charter and to unintentionally undermine our commitment to individual 
liberty.
  I deplore flag burning, but I am concerned by amending the 
Constitution we will be elevating a symbol of liberty over the liberty 
that it protects and provides itself. What I mean is that the true test 
of any nation's commitment to freedom, to freedom of expression, lies 
in its ability to protect unpopular expression such as flag 
desecration. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote as far back as 
1929, the Constitution protests not only freedom for the thought and 
expression we agree with, but freedom from that thought that we hate. 
By limiting the scope of the first amendment's free speech protections, 
the supporters of the flag desecration amendment will be setting a most 
dangerous precedent. If we open the door to criminalizing 
constitutionally protected expression related to the flag, it will be 
difficult to limit further efforts to censor speech; certainly it would 
be hard to justify a constitution which bans flag burning but does not 
prohibit burning a cross or the Bible.
  Mr. Speaker, once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitation of 
freedom of speech and religion will not be far behind. I quote former 
solicitor general Charles Free, who testified:

       Principles are not things that you can make an exception to 
     just once. The man who says that you can make an exception to 
     a principle may not know what a principle is, just as a man 
     who says that only once let's make two plus two equal five 
     does not know what it is to count.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how excited I am that finally we are 
going to have the chance to pass this amendment that will restore the 
flag to its rightful position of honor. It has been a long time coming 
since that tragic day back in 1989 when five Supreme Court Justices 
decided it was OK to burn the flag and thereby hurt so many feelings 
around this country. Just ask all of the supporters you see here in 
this gallery and all over this Capitol here today in their uniforms, 
who put thousands of hours into the grassroots effort to pass this 
amendment. That is why I am so proud to be on the floor today 
sponsoring this amendment on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are going to hear the same arguments against 
this amendment that we have heard for years now. I respect the opinions 
of those opponents. That is their first amendment right. But, Mr. 
Speaker, supporters of this amendment come to the floor today with the 
overwhelming support of nearly 80 percent of the American people. All 
around this Capitol today you see all of the major veterans 
organizations who, along with 100 organizations making up the Citizens 
Flag Alliance, have asked for this amendment to be put forth to the 
American people. They are the people who have spearheaded this 
grassroots effort. In fact, you can see for yourself the stack of over 
1 million names of all our constitutions that are right here on the 
table. One million. I invite all Members to come over here and take a 
look at them.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps most impressive is the resounding support from 
the States around this country. Forty-nine out of the 50 States, and 
that is what is in this book, 49 of 50 States, have asked Congress to 
pass this flag protection amendment and send it to them for 
ratification. This amendment, not one watered-down or changed by 
amendment. Mr. Speaker, when have 49 out of 50 States agreed on 
anything?
  Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this amendment claim it is an 
infringement of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, and 
they claim if the American people knew it, they would be against this 
amendment. Well, there is a recent Gallup poll taken of people outside 
the beltway, that is real people,
 you know, real down-to-earth people. Seventy-six percent of the people 
in that poll say no, a constitutional amendment to protect our flag 
would not jeopardize their right of free speech. In other words, they 
do not view flag burning as a protected right, and they still want this 
constitutional amendment passed, no matter what.

  Mr. Speaker, we should never stifle speech, and that is not what we 
are seeking to do here today. People can state their disapproval for 
this amendment. They can state their disapproval for this country, if 
they want to. That is their protected right. However, it is also the 
right of the people to have a redress of grievances and amend the 
Constitution as they see fit. They are asking for this amendment.
  Therefore, I am asking you to send this amendment to the States and 
let the American people decide. That is really what this is all about, 
speaking of Old Glory, Mr. Speaker, and America. It is what makes us 
Americans and not something else. Over the past two centuries, 
especially in recent years, immigrants from all over this world have 
flocked to this great country. They know little about our culture, they 
know nothing about our heritage, but they know a lot about our flag. 
They respect it, they salute it, they pledge allegiance to it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the flag which has brought that diverse group 
together. It is what makes them Americans. No matter what our ethnic 
differences are, no matter where we come from, whether it is up in the 
Adirondack Mountains of New York where I come from, whether it is Los 
Angeles, CA, it does not matter what our ideology is, be it liberal or 
conservative, we are all bound together by those uniquely American 
qualities represented by that flag behind you, Mr. Speaker.
  It is only appropriate that the Constitution, our most sacred 
document, include within its boundaries a protection of Old Glory, 
which is our most sacred and beloved national symbol. All that lies 
before us now, all that is required, is for each of us to get the 
patriotic fire burning in our belly and come over here and vote for 
this. We need 290 votes. Get over here and let the American people 
decide. Put this out to them.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. If we are going to do what the gentleman is 
advocating, why don't we describe what the flag is here in the Congress 
and pass a constitutional amendment permitting the Congress to prohibit 
flag burning? Otherwise all 50 States write a different definition of 
desecration and all 50 States write a different definition of what the 
flag is.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, is it not funny, for 200 years nobody 
infringed on this? We are just going to put the Constitution back to 
where it was before five out of nine judges tore down this Constitution 
and said this protection of the flag was invalid.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Three of the five judges were Republicans, Mr. 
Solomon.
  Mr. SOLOMON. So what?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. So why not pass laws here today that will stand 
the test of time, rather than having 50 different laws? We have a 
substitute that just says it is going to be one law. Does that not make 
more sense?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman's substitute is in order. Offer it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I will. I hope you vote for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. 

[[Page H6417]]

  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 79.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 
79. This legislation typifies the GOP leadership's mad rush throughout 
the 104th Congress to stifle individual rights and freedoms in our 
great country merely to appease certain constituencies. Last week we 
saw over 1 million Americans denied representation when voting was cut 
off in this Chamber so that Republicans could get to a fund-raising 
dinner.
  Every time I turn around the Republicans are trying to amend the 
Constitution which has served this country well for all these years. 
They want to amend the Constitution against a woman's right to choose. 
They want to amend the Constitution to mandate the balancing of the 
budget. They want to amend the Constitution to mandate school prayer. 
They want to amend the Constitution to mandate term limits. Now they 
want to amend the Constitution so they can cut off the very free speech 
and open expression that defines our democracy simply because they feel 
benefits will flow to them politically by its passage. I say: let us 
end this charade once and for all.
  I agree with my colleagues and the vast majority of Americans who 
find the act of desecrating the flag absolutely distasteful. However, 
it is a form of expression and, therefore, must be protected under the 
first amendment.
  When it comes to amending the Constitution, we must always ask the 
questions Is it the right thing to do? and What would James Madison and 
the other framers of the Constitution do?
  It is my belief that, with respect to flag desecration, they would 
not favor any change in the Constitution which they wrote and none in 
the Bill of Rights, the rock upon which our democracy has stood for 
over 200 years.
  When I ask myself ``What makes America great?'' at the top of the 
list is the first amendment. Worldwide, millions have struggled, 
fought, and died to experience the freedom of expression which is such 
an integral part of our society that it is often taken for granted. On 
the hierarchy of national treasures, it reigns supreme.
  Madison knew this. The first amendment was not drafted with 
exceptions. A few have since been created by the Supreme Court for 
public safety and the like, but never for what some, or even most of 
us, might deem to be offensive forms of political speech or protest. 
Political demonstrations were the foundation of our Nation and remain a 
vital part of the democratic process. That heritage is not ours to 
change. When we took the oath of office, ``to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States,'' no one suggested an exception for 
popular campaign issues.
  The good fortune which all of us in America share is the right to 
live in and enjoy the benefits of the greatest country in the world. I 
love the United States and bristle at anyone who chooses to defile any 
national symbol, including the flag.
  However, for me, the bottom line is simply the question of which is 
more important: the flag or the Constitution. One is a treasured symbol 
of our pride and patriotism, made of cloth that some people will tear, 
burn, or trample. The other is a set of basic principles which embody 
the best of what is American.
  Mr. Speaker, does it make sense to canonize the symbol by utterly 
destroying what it represents? I do not believe so and, therefore, do 
not support House Joint Resolution 79. It is misguided and it is wrong-
headed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 79.
  Mr. Speaker, the first amendment is the touchstone of our 
constitutional democracy. It enriches our national discourse by 
permitting all views--however obnoxious--to enter public debate. It 
guarantees the political equality of all citizens by protecting the 
right of the least popular among us to express our opinion.
  The first amendment represents a national promise to tolerate 
dissent. The Supreme court repeated that promise not too long ago when 
it ruled that any meaningful protection of speech must protect 
political speech even when we do not like it, even when it involves 
dishonoring the flag.
  The flag is a beautiful symbol of the United States, of our history, 
of our constitutional principles--and of our struggles to be a more 
perfect democracy. It is precisely because of its power as a political 
symbol of the liberties we have fought to defend and extend that we 
need to uphold the right of individuals to free expression. To amend 
the Constitution to censor the content of political expression would 
erode the very liberties for which the flag is a symbol.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say one of the reasons our flag has become so 
important and such an important symbol is because there was such 
substance behind it. I find it very sad that we are rushing today to 
change this Constitution with very little debate, after over 200 years 
of not doing it, when at really the same time we are going to have a 
budget coming shortly that is going to take $32 billion worth of cuts 
out of veterans programs and another $7 billion worth of cuts out of 
veterans health care over the next 7 years. It seems to me we are going 
to be gutting the substance that this very symbol stands for.
  We also, in this great rush to do this today, are dealing with the 
time where we just have the majority decide they are going to close the 
flag office. No more flag flying over the Capitol for American citizens 
who buy those flags and want that symbol.
  What does that mean?
  I think we are really trying to distract people almost from what is 
really going on in this body by this action today, and I find it very 
sad. When you read this amendment, this amendment does not say flag 
burning. This amendment says flag desecration. What does that mean? A 
32-cent stamp with a flag on it could be cancelled and someone could 
consider that desecration, because we the Congress will not just be the 
only ones defining that. All the States will be able to define what 
that means, too. It could very clearly be different in different 
places.
  So you hear flag burning, but you better read, because when you read, 
it is something entirely different, and the standard is going to be 
very different. I wonder why this rush, why this hustle, why we cannot 
really debate this openly and why this now.
  When you look at what the facts are, they tell us that there were 
just a few flag burnings. In fact, there were three in 1994, and there 
were none that they had on record, according to Congressional Research, 
the year before. Yes, zero, none.
  So why the rush to this symbol? I think it is to fog what we are 
doing to the subtance of being an American.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from the June 21 
Rocky Mountain News that I think puts the flag desecration issue in 
perspective.
  I'm personally affronted by flag desecration, but, like the editorial 
writer, I am more affronted by big government efforts to stifle the 
free speech the flag represents.
  That's why I have joined my colleagues, Representative David Skaggs 
of Colorado and Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona, in sponsoring the 
alternative resolution to the proposed constitutional amendments to ban 
flag desecration that the editorial talks about. The resolution simply 
reaffirms the place of honor that the American flag holds and states 
that respect for the flag cannot be mandated, especially at the expense 
of the first amendment guarantee of free speech.
             [From the Rocky Mountain News, June 21, 1995]

                         Symbolism to the Fore

       According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 
     three flag-burning incidents in 1994--yes, all of three. 
     There were none the year before. Zero. Doesn't flag-burning 
     sound like a practice that is virtually irrelevant to the 
     vast majority of this nation's 260 million citizens?
       Yes, but even so, flag-burning remains an irresistible 
     topic for many politicians. This has been the case since 
     1989, when the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was a 
     form of expression protected by the First Amendment. That 
     decision was seized by President George Bush and others, and 
     the political impetus for a constitutional amendment has 
     never died.
       Indeed, no fewer than 279 members of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives are now co-sponsoring a resolution that would 
     amend the Constitution to permit Congress and the states to 
     prohibit physical desecration of the flag. A vote could occur 
     this month.
       Needless to say, we hold no brief for the odd flag burner, 
     but simply see little point in passing a constitutional 
     amendment to outlaw the practice. At the very least, such 
     amendments should deal with issues of great moment, for which 
     there is an upsurge of popular demand. Congressional term 
     limits would be a good contemporary example. Many issues of 
     an older vintage come to mind, too, such as voting rights and 
     the prohibition, and then legalization, of alcoholic 
     beverages.

[[Page H6418]]

       But there has been no great popular movement for a 
     constitutional amendment on flag-burning. If asked by a 
     pollster, most citizens indicate they favor the idea, but it 
     has been driven forward since its inception by politicians.
       As Democratic Rep. David Skaggs points out, not the least 
     of the problems with flag-burning amendments is how far to 
     extend the protection. What about flags with 48 stars? Or 
     small American flags attached to clothing? How about those 
     mini-flags that are planted atop tables and cakes? And what 
     constitutes desecration?
       To be sure, the authors of the Bill of Rights probably 
     meant only to protect speech involving actual verbal or 
     written utterances. Yet even if the Supreme Court's flag-
     burning decision is dubious, there is no doubt that the 
     protest act itself is meant as a political statement. Why 
     such eagerness to suppress dissident, if obnoxious, views?
       Skaggs and Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., are offering an 
     alternative resolution to the House that honors the flag but 
     leaves the Constitution untouched. Don't expect it to 
     succeed, though. Not when there is a chance to corral a 
     practice that has occurred an average of 1\1/2\ times 
     annually during the past two years.

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint 
Resolution 79.
   Mr. Speaker, what is proposed here today is not unprecedented. We 
are proposing to overturn a Supreme Court decision which is wrong, just 
as wrong as the Dredd Scott decision which provoked the 13th, 14h and 
15th amendments to be proposed by Congress, just as wrong as the 
Supreme Court's decision invalidating the income tax which resulted in 
a constitutional amendment, and just as wrong as the Supreme Court's 
decision in the first decade under our Constitution on court 
jurisdiction that provoked the 11th amendment to be ratified by the 
States after being proposed by the Congress.
  So the question before us here today is whether or not you agree with 
the 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court that flag burning is protected 
free speech. If you think it is protected free speech, go ahead and 
vote no on this constitutional amendment. If you object to the Supreme 
Court's decision, vote aye, and you are not setting a new precedent, 
because that has been done at least five times in the history of this 
country, when Congress and the States have flat out said those judges 
over there are wrong. They are wrong this time, and we ought to pass 
this amendment and send it to the States for ratification.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 79, 
a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
  I am a Vietnam veteran, a combat veteran. I am not sure I know why I 
have to state that credential, as though somehow my credentials would 
not be valid to speak in opposition to this amendment were I not a 
combat veteran. Let me lay that issue to rest. You can be for this 
amendment or against it whether you ever served in uniform or in 
combat. We are all Americans and our patriotism should not be 
questioned wherever we stand on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is bringing fundamental change to the Federal 
Government. We are altering the very relationship Washington has with 
the States and the American people. And that should continue to be our 
focus.
  This year we have voted on two constitutional amendments--one to 
require Congress to balance the budget, the other to limit terms of 
Members of Congress. I supported both amendments. They either proposed 
to alter the institutions of our National Government or to 
fundamentally change the way Congress conducts its business.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a crisis of disrespect for the American 
flag as a symbol of this great country. There is not a rash of flag 
burning. In fact, the Congressional Research Service reports that there 
were all of three incidents of flag-burning in 1994. We can count on 
our fingers the flag burning incidents since the Supreme Court ruled 
that such behavior--despicable though it may be--is constitutionally 
protected. I disagreed with that Court decision. I do not believe our 
Founding Fathers contemplated that a physical act of desecration of the 
flag would be construed as speech. Nonetheless, that is the ruling, and 
it is one that we can live with.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the many questions this proposed 
amendment raises--does it include flag patches or a uniform? Are 
partial reproductions of flags covered by the intent of the amendment? 
Suffice it to say that this amendment very simply is not necessary.
  We honor our flag with our behavior every day. We show our respect in 
large ways and in small ways. But this body could do nothing more 
fundamental to honor our country--and its symbols--than by restoring 
fiscal responsibility to this Government.
  So let us get on with the business we were sent here to do. Let us 
balance the budget, let us return responsibilities to the States, let 
us empower the American people. We do not need to pass a constitutional 
amendment on the flag to show that we love and respect this great 
symbol of America. We cannot legislate patriotism and we cannot pass 
laws to make people love their flag.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to set the record straight. They are saying that 
flags had not been burned around the country, and they are going back 
to 1994. Only two blocks from here, Mr. Speaker, they burned two flags 
on June 14. A fellow had a nice cake down there and was passing out the 
cake, and two nuts came up and started burning the American flag. The 
Interior Department tried to stop them.
  So we need this bill. They are burning the flags only two blocks from 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, some years ago, this House voted on a 
constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag. I voted 
against that amendment because I felt--and still do--that the 
Constitution should be amended only as a last recourse. I had hoped a 
statute prohibiting desecration of the flag would reach the same end. 
The statute passed but was overturned by the Supreme Court.
  Once again, Congress is considering a flag desecration amendment. 
This time, I plan to vote for it.
  It is not that my views about the flag have changed; I have always 
felt that desecration should be against the law. And it is not that my 
views about the Constitution have altered; changes to this document 
must be kept to a strict minimum. But given the fact that a law will 
not stand, I believe a constitutional amendment is warranted. I do not 
believe we endanger our freedoms by protecting our flag.
  Like every Member of Congress, I am constantly aware of our flag. I 
salute it on the House floor in the morning; I often bring a flag to a 
school or a firehouse when I am home. When I review a parade--on 
Memorial Day, Veterans Day, or the Fourth of July--I never see the flag 
pass without my heart expanding with love.
  And I am constantly aware of how Americans revere their flag.
  The various anniversary celebrations of World War II demonstrated so 
strongly the significance our flag has for veterans. Men and women who 
had never heard of Okinawa or Iwo Jima followed the flag to those 
distant battlefields so democracy could survive.
  To Americans, our flag is unique. This amendment recognize this 
uniqueness in our Constitution in a special way.
  I have only once before supported a Constitutional amendment, 
believing that the Constitution was a near-perfect document. I now 
believe that the Constitution will be brought even closer to perfection 
by adding to it a special place for our flag. For this reason, I will 
support this amendment today.
                              {time}  1245

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], an outstanding member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page H6419]]

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, to my right here is the reason why this amendment makes 
very little sense. Let me first preface by saying that I, too, like the 
gentleman from New York, served our country's armed services. I was 
doing it to protect not only the flag but what the flag stands for. I, 
too, like the gentleman, if I am walking on the street and I see 
someone hurting our flag, will grab him and slap him around, not 
because he does not have the right to do it but because he is being 
stupid.
  The problem with this amendment is that it really cannot be enforced 
fairly. Here are symbols of the flag. The question to be asked is, does 
this amendment cover these symbols? Will every State uniformly speak to 
this issue? So if you wear a soccer shirt with the American symbol on 
it and you sweat it up or you are a terrible soccer player, will that 
offend somebody and therefore be covered by this amendment?
  How about those tacky ties to the far right? One is orangy red; the 
other one gets even worse because it tries to imitate the flag in a 
miserable way. That tie really does not look good on anyone, but will 
it look better on someone and, therefore, be OK? That is a question.
  On July 4, this weekend, people throughout this country will be 
eating cake made out to look like the American flag. Some will be 
light. Some will be full of cholesterol. Is that offensive to someone? 
That is a question to be asked.
  Get ready for this. You see this flag here? This could be covered by 
this amendment. This flag was made in Taiwan. If you really want to 
talk about offending the flag, should not all flags be made in this 
country by American workers? Buy America, only American flags.
  Right here we have a young woman who looks very good in a flag. She 
has got a flag skirt on. How about someone who does not look good in 
that flag?
  Up here is the symbol of my hometown, Mayaguez, PR, where I was born. 
It has the Puerto Rican flag and the American flag as symbols of the 
Commonwealth. Some statehooders use that symbol to express their desire 
to be the 51st State. Some people who believe in independence or 
Commonwealth find that offensive to put both flags together. Some might 
decide that that is improper for their flag or for their Commonwealth, 
and how would they be protected under this amendment?
  The point is a simple point. Do any of these symbols of the American 
flag get covered under this amendment? If so, why will you not let us 
discuss the issue of what constitutes the flag and what constitutes 
desecration of the flag?
  I realize that we have an amendment, but we wanted to amend piece by 
piece to be able to discuss this. The gentleman from New York should 
know that.
  I would think, my colleagues, that the best way to protect our flag 
is not to worry about what constitutes the flag and what constitutes 
desecration. If that flag could speak to us, it probably would tell us 
to stop this silly debate and to do what it stands for. It would tell 
us to feed the children that are hungry. It would tell us to take care 
of the senior citizens who need Medicare. It would tell us to stop 
disliking each other along racial lines. It would tell us to respect 
each other. If you do that, you honor the flag. If you put this as a 
question, you make a mockery of the flag.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, this is the 
American flag. I do not think there is any, and I certainly hope there 
is no, school child in America from the seventh district of Georgia to 
the first district of New York to the third district of California that 
does not know that this is the American flag. It is defined in statute. 
And even if it were not, there is a very commonsense and very broad 
understanding in America, obviously not to some Members of this Chamber 
on the other side, as to what is the American flag.
  Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker, about what we are not doing here 
today, just as we are clear about what we are doing here today. We are 
not amending the Bill of Rights. We are not limiting free speech, which 
is what the Bill of Rights talks about. We are limiting offensive 
conduct. Congress does that every year when we look at our criminal 
code. There is nothing wrong with that. There are precedents for it 
every single year of our Union. That is all that we are doing.
  The constitutional amendment that is contained in this resolution is 
very narrow; it is very clear. And more important, Mr. Speaker, the 
American people are demanding it.
  They are demanding that we do for them the one thing, the only avenue 
that they have left open to them by the Supreme Court of the United 
States: To give voice to their sentiments, to give voice to their 
patriotism and protect this flag. If we were today to deny them that 
opportunity, and that is all I would say to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, that is all we are doing, is giving them the 
opportunity to do what the Supreme Court has said: This is the only way 
you can accomplish what you, the American people, want to do. If we 
deny them that right, that would be the height of everything that we do 
not stand for here in this Congress. We stand for representative 
democracy based on our Constitution.
  Let us not, Mr. Speaker, let us not deny to the American people what 
they are demanding in overwhelming numbers. The stack here before me is 
but a very small token of that. I urge strong support and adoption of 
this resolution for the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate a constitutional amendment to ban flag 
desecration, the following questions must be answered. Do people have 
greater freedom in Communist China and Iraq, where protests that offend 
the government are crushed violently? Or do people in the United States 
have more freedom, where offensive political protest is 
constitutionally protected? In the United States, the flag flies on the 
mast of freedom and liberty. In China and Iraq, the flag flies on the 
mast of totalitarian oppression. In which country does the flag fly as 
a true symbol of national pride?
  Some people have said that the last election was a call for freedom 
from Government intrusion. According to this analysis, people across 
the Nation who felt that Government had become an oppressive force 
voted for less Government and more individual freedom. The 
constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag turns this 
analysis on its head.
  I am disgusted and offended by the act of burning the American flag. 
Burning or otherwise desecrating the flag is a stupid, mean, and 
reprehensible act. I cannot comprehend why anyone living in our great 
Nation would want to desecrate this beloved symbol of our country. 
However, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is 
symbolic political speech, protected by the first amendment to the 
Constitution--the cornerstone of our freedoms.
  As Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute said, ``The principles at stake 
could not be more simple or clear. Indeed, they are the principles at 
the core of the American vision. The right of the individual to be free 
is the right to do what one wishes short of violating the rights of 
others. That includes the right to do or say what is popular, for sure. 
But it includes, as well, the right to do or say the unpopular. For it 
is then, when our actions give offense, that our freedom is put to the 
test. It is then, precisely, that we learn whether we are free or 
not.'' Pilon then quotes Sir Winston Churchill's observation that ``the 
United States is the land of free speech.''
  When I was sworn into office, I took an oath to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. That document and the principles it 
embodies have made our country the greatest in the history of the 
world. For more than 200 years, it has endured--through times of 
tranquility and tremendous crises. Through two world wars and a civil 
war bloodier and more costly to our country than both world wars 
combined, the Constitution has preserved our freedom. Through the 
Korean war and then through the long years of wrenching involvement in 
Vietnam, the Constitution has protected the freedom of the people from 
the oppression of Government.
  The U.S. Constitution has made ours a better country than any in the 
world because it 

[[Page H6420]]
has guaranteed that certain basic individual rights are more important 
than the powers of Government. The Constitution says that certain 
inalienable rights, such as liberty, cannot be invaded by Government--
Federal or State--no matter how well-meaning the Government might be.
  At times in our history, when we feared the Constitution was not 
strong enough to protect the rights of every citizen regardless of 
their situation in life, we amended it to provide greater protection of 
individual rights. For example, the 13th amendment prohibited slavery 
and the 19th amendment allowed women to vote.
  But never, never, in our history, not because of our greatest fears 
or in our darkest despair, never have we jeopardized our Bill of 
Rights. We may very well do that today. And for what terrible threat 
are we willing to risk our most fundamental constitutional right? Has 
there been an epidemic of flag desecration sweeping the Nation? Have 
any of any colleagues seen anyone desecrate the flag? Why, when we have 
been through such tough times and accomplished so much as a Nation, why 
would we let a few jerks who have desecrated the flag limit everyone's 
freedom.
  I have two sons, Tim and John. I would not be my father's son if I 
left my children--or any other American--with fewer freedoms than my 
father has given me. We are the greatest Nation on Earth in no small 
part because of the individual freedoms contained in the Constitution 
and the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were 
good enough for Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin and good 
enough for our Nation to become the world's greatest, it is good enough 
for this Congress and this Nation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My 
respect for the flag and reverence for the flag stems from many, many 
years of service as an Army officer, a graduate of West Point. Indeed, 
this is not just rhetorical reverence, it is reverence born by 
experience.
  I am offended when the flag is abused, deeply offended. But today we 
are considering a constitutional amendment which I think, although 
attempting to preserve the symbol of our freedom, encroaches 
substantially on the substance of our freedom. I cannot describe that 
phenomenon any better than the words of James Warner, a former marine 
flier in Vietnam who was a POW. He wrote an opinion letter back in 
1989, when this was being debated before.
  Mr. Warner was captured by the Vietnamese. He was being tortured. In 
fact, at one point the Vietnamese officer showed him a picture of 
American protesters burning a flag and the interrogator said, ``People 
in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are 
wrong.''
  Mr. Warner replied, ``No, that proves I am right. In my country, we 
are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with 
us.''
  I do not think we should be afraid of freedom. I think we should in 
fact support freedom. If we were to pursue a constitutional approach to 
preserving the flag, it cannot be this approach, because just on 
technical merits, this fails miserably. As my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Serrano], indicated, physical destruction or 
desecration of the flag is something that encompasses a range of 
things. Is underwear in the shape of the flag a physical desecration? I 
believe in many, many cases, it is disrespectful, but is it 
constitutionally desecration?
  More than that, some States could say it is; some States could say 
no. We would be living in a situation where if you were wearing an 
American flag tie in one State and crossed the border, you could be 
arrested. We must reject this amendment. Indeed, we must support the 
substance of our freedoms.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I fully support 
this amendment which an overwhelming majority of the American people 
support and feel strongly that it is an important addition to the 
Constitution. Through their elected representatives, the people have 
spoken: 49 of the 50 State legislatures, including my State of 
Virginia, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass this 
amendment.
  The American flag is the most powerful symbol of the United States. 
It represents the ideals of freedom, equality and liberty on which this 
Nation was founded. The Stars and Stripes have led our Nation, our 
Armed Forces in conflict time and again, reassuring our troops and 
reminding them of what they were fighting for.
  Many Americans have given their lives carrying that flag and 
protecting it. Many Americans are outraged when we think of our grand 
flag being desecrated. We are not altering the Bill of Rights as some 
in the minority has said. I am a staunch defender of first amendment 
rights. I do not believe that burning a flag is free speech despite 
what the Supreme Court has said in two wrong-headed decisions.
  Talking about the flag is free speech. Criticizing America and its 
Government, for those who care to do so, is free speech. But physically 
desecrating an American flag is not. Americans know speech when they 
see it, and they know that what Gregory Lee Johnson and Sara Eichman, 
the defendants in those court cases, did to the American flag is not 
free speech.
  The American people want us to confirm what one of the verses of 
America the Beautiful asks our Nation, ``confirm thy soul in self-
control, thy liberty in law.''
  Pass the amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara], a member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, a new Member of Congress and a great patriot.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Joint Resolution 
79, the amendment to protect the flag. Many members of my immediate 
family including myself have served in the Armed Forces to protect the 
American flag. My father, a decorated veteran of World War I, was the 
first member of my family to serve in the Armed Forces of the United 
States of America.
  He did not fight in World War I and earn a Silver Star for someone to 
burn the flag that he served under. My brothers, veterans of World War 
II, did not fight for someone to burn the flag that they fought to 
defend. From my family's record of service I have learned both great 
respect and love for my flag.
  Moreover, I have long supported the effort to protect the American 
flag from desecration. Unlike my father and brothers, my battle is not 
on foreign soil. But I defend our flag in the most ironic of all 
places--the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I have joined 
them in the battle to protect our flag.
  Our American flag must be protected. It is more than a mere symbol of 
our Nation. Our flag is the living embodiment of what this Nation 
stands for, freedom, liberty, justice, and equality. When someone 
destroys our flag he is saying that he would destroy those values for 
which our flag stands. He is saying that he does not believe in 
justice. He does not believe in liberty. He does not believe in 
equality. He does not believe in the United States of America.
  I assure my well meaning opponents, this debate is not about 
curtailing protest or an infringement of first amendment rights. Most 
forms of protest are patriotic and very American. In fact, many 
competing protest movements have as their center piece our American 
flag.
  Our flag flies above the protesting factions proudly casting a shadow 
on the protesters below. Our flag unites these people. Our flag proves 
to the world that while we may disagree, we all are united by one 
common bond--we are Americans.
  In closing I would like to share with you a section of a poem given 
to me by one of my constituents, Mary Smith, of Fayette County, PA.

       ``Old Glory'' is my nickname and proudly do I wave on high. 
     Honor me, respect me and defend me with your lives and 
     fortunes. Never, never let the enemy bring me down from this 
     place that I hold so high because, if you do--If you do--I 
     may never return.

  Please, vote to protect the flag.

[[Page H6421]]


                              {time}  1300

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as the House moves closer to a constitutional amendment 
to ban flag burning, I am reminded strangely enough of the book of 
Exodus. When the Israelites were given the Ten Commandments, they were 
warned against graven images as symbols of God. The wisdom of this is 
obvious. It is easy to confuse the symbol of something with what that 
symbol represents, and what that symbol symbolizes, so one worships the 
statue instead of what the statue represents.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is about to make a similar mistake, confusing 
the flag with what it symbolizes. I remember when I came home from 
Vietnam, after spending 4 years in the Marine Corps, I read about 
incidents where students were insulting servicemen and waving North 
Vietnamese flags instead of American flags, and I started to think ``Is 
this what I and members of my platoon were fighting and dying for?''
  It took a few years for me to realize that the right to be obnoxious, 
the right to be unpatriotic, was the essence of what we are fighting 
for. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, just as surely as it means 
the freedom to be wise. No government should ever be so powerful as to 
differentiate between the two.
  I understand the anger and the frustration of people when they hear 
about malcontents who burn the flag, and most of the time they do that 
to get attention. I was raised to respect the flag, and I cannot 
understand anybody that would do otherwise. However, if these 
malcontents can get us to alter the Constitution, the very premise and 
foundation of this country, then they have won and we have lost. I read 
about a southern State legislator who said that nothing is more stupid 
than burning the flag and wrapping oneself in the Constitution, except 
burning the Constitution and wrapping oneself in the flag.
  When we accept the principle of free speech, we have to recognize 
that it is both a blessing and a curse. We have to understand that the 
reasoned voices of good men will often be drowned out by the blustering 
of fools. We have to understand that the government will not be able to 
protect us from speech which is imprudent or offensive, in most cases, 
and we accept all of this as the price of freedom.
  The work of Betsy Ross is beautiful. The flag is an honored symbol 
which deserves reverence and respect. However, it is meaningless 
without the work of Jefferson and Madison. How do we protect and show 
respect for the flag? We are good family members, we are good fathers, 
good mothers, we serve our country, we serve our community, we serve 
our Nation, and we serve our family.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I revere the flag, I respect the Constitution, and for 
those reasons, I rise in opposition to the constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our flag and 
Constitution and against this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago today, on June 14, I rose on the floor of 
this Chamber to lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 
On June 14, of course, we celebrate Flag Day.
  It will come as no surprise to my colleagues to learn that Flag Day 
is observed with a great sense of history and pride at Fort McHenry, in 
Maryland's Third Congressional District, which I have the honor to 
represent. At 7 p.m. that evening, 8,000 Marylanders gathered at the 
fort from which Francis Scott Key watched the rockets' red glare, to 
participate in the Pause for the Pledge.
  The Pause for the Pledge is organized and directed by the National 
Flag Day Foundation, which is also based in Baltimore. The foundation 
began in 1982 to promote Flag Day. Since then, the foundation has 
received more than 100,000 requests from all over the United States for 
information on scheduling ceremonies to observe the Pause for the 
Pledge. This year, more than 600,000 Americans will visit Fort McHenry, 
seeking to learn more about the stirring events that occurred there in 
the War of 1812.
  We are here to debate the very serious issue of amending the 
Constitution. Since Francis Scott Key peered through the ``dawn's early 
light'' for a glimpse of the ``broad stripes and bright stars'', we 
have added only a dozen new provisions to the Constitution, and none 
that would compromise the Bill of Rights, as the constitutional 
amendment before us today would do.
  The overwhelming majority of my colleagues now propose that we 
provide a measure of constitutional protection for the flag, our most 
treasured national symbol. I understand their feeling for the flag, and 
their anger at those few misguided fools who would seek attention by 
desecrating it.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, in the past 2 years 
there have been three instances of individuals burning our flag. The 
Supreme Court has ruled, wrongly in my judgment, in a 5-to-4 decision, 
that State statutes aimed at criminalizing such behavior do not stand 
constitutional scrutiny.
  Considering the split opinion on the Supreme Court, we should 
continue to pursue statutory means of protecting our flag. By pursuing 
a statutory approach, we will protect both our flag and our 
Constitution.
  Today we are here debating a constitutional amendment to protect our 
flag. The Republican leadership has given us no opportunity to vote on 
a statutory approach. In thinking about whether the flag needs 
protection, however, I have found no need to look to the Constitution. 
Instead, I would encourage my colleagues to look to the American 
people. There they will find the flag in good hands, and well-
protected.
  I have mentioned the events 2 weeks ago at Fort McHenry, and the work 
of the National Flag Day Foundation. Flag Day provides a special 
occasion on which Americans proudly show their colors and demonstrate 
their love of our country and our flag.
  Next week we will observe another special day for honoring the red, 
white, and blue. On July 4, Independence Day, millions of Americans 
will march in parades, attend festivals, wave the flag, watch 
fireworks, and gather with their neighbors and
 friends to celebrate our country's birth.

  These 2 days, Flag Day and Independence Day, provide special 
opportunities for honoring our country and our flag. But we do not need 
to look at these 2 days a year to find evidence of the American 
people's feeling for their flag.
  This past weekend, more than 180,000 fans filed into Oriole Park at 
Camden Yards in Baltimore. Before they settled in to watch the Red Sox 
and the Orioles, they joined in the tradition of singing the national 
anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner.''
  Every day of the school year, which ended for most Maryland children 
the day before Flag Day, begins with the Pledge of Allegiance. In my 
congressional district, nearly 100,000 school children, from 
kindergartners through high school, know the Pledge of Allegiance and 
respect the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, every day, in ball parks, in school classrooms, at 
historic sites like Fort McHenry, millions of Americans from all parts 
of the country and all walks of life affirm their affection for their 
country and their flag. I salute their patriotism. We have nothing to 
fear from the pathetic handful of misfits who would burn or otherwise 
dishonor the flag.
  The Constitution sets forth the freedoms we guarantee to every 
American. The flag symbolizes the freedoms protected in the 
Constitution. It has been that way for all of our Nation's history.
  In the minds and hearts of the overwhelming majority of Americans, 
the flag and the Constitution stand together. Neither needs protection 
from the other. Indeed, both the Constitution and the flag derive the 
protection they need from the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], one of the great constitutional 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think first we want to put what we are 
doing in perspective. Every year over 2,300 murders occur in my 
congressional district. We are having cutbacks in health care, we are 
reducing funding for homelessness, we are reducing funding for 
veterans' health care, veterans' pensions, we are cutting back on our 
future by cutting back in education, and here we are, discussing the 
flag.

[[Page H6422]]

  Whatever we do with this amendment, Mr. Speaker, there will be no 
more respect for the flag. Not one of those million people will respect 
the flag any more or less, depending on what we do. What we will have 
if we pass this amendment is a legal quagmire about what is a flag and 
what is desecration. The flag is burned more today in American Legion 
halls and Boy Scout troops than anywhere else, because that is the 
ceremony you use for disposing of the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, the flag and the principles for which it stand do not 
need protection from the occasional imbecile who protests without 
realizing that he is destroying the very symbol of his right to 
protest, and somebody that cannot figure out that his method of 
protesting cannot possibly benefit his cause.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this amendment, we will be 
sending a message to the American people that we are saying that 
Americans do not need the criminal code to enforce their patriotism.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 79, I am proud to be here today along with Congressmen 
Solomon and Montgomery, as well as all those patriotic Americans, past 
and present, who are with us today in the galleries and in spirit, as 
we take this giant step forward in our long struggle to adopt an 
amendment to the Constitution which will forever protect our majestic 
and glorious flag from those ungrateful and disingenuous individuals 
that purposefully desecrate it. I believe this amendment will be an 
excellent addition to our Constitution--a document I believe to be the 
greatest invention ever created by the mind and hands of man--and I 
urge all my colleagues to support it.
  When the Court ruled in 1989, in a 5 to 4 decision, that flag burning 
in public protest was an act of free speech protected by the first 
amendment, it did not only free Gregory Johnson, a miscreant who danced 
around a burning flag chanting, ``Red, white and blue, we spit on 
you!,'' it also nullified the flag-protection laws in 48 States.
  A vast majority of Americans were, and still are, outraged over the 
Texas versus Johnson decision. Unfortunately, the only sure way of 
reversing this decision is for the Congress to report to the States for 
ratification this wonderfully crafted constitutional amendment. The 
Congress has failed in its previous attempts, but this time I think we 
have the votes to push it through.
  This amendment is long overdue, and while being a veteran is no 
litmus test of patriotism, as a veteran especially, I feel it is 
imperative that our beloved symbol of nationhood and freedom be 
guaranteed the respect that it deserves since it represents the souls 
of all those departed American heroes who fought so valiantly to 
protect it for over the last 200 years.
  Mr. Speaker, before closing, I want to reiterate my strong support 
for House Joint Resolution 79 and thank those grassroots groups, 
especially the veterans organizations, who worked so tirelessly to 
rally the necessary support for this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a 10th generation American who 
realizes that every country has had a flag and most have a 
constitution, I would remind my colleagues the one thing that makes us 
unique is the Bill of Rights. I do not think we need to trifle with it. 
I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, debating the rule, I showed everyone my tie 
that my son got me, and my wonderful flag earrings that my 13-year-old 
daughter got me. I wore it today because if this amendment were to 
become part of the Constitution, I could be arrested for wearing this.
  I do not feel unpatriotic. We fly our flag at home on holidays. I 
love my country. I love the flag. What I love more than the flag, Mr. 
Speaker, is the Constitution that stands behind that flag. We have had 
our Bill of Rights for 204 years. I have heard that this is not about 
the first amendment. That is not so, because the Supreme Court has made 
a ruling, and the Constitution provides that it is the Court that 
decides final questions of law, not the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I will never vote to amend the first amendment. I think 
real conservatives do not want to amend the first amendment or any of 
the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives do not try to amend the 
Constitution three times in 6 months.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentlewoman to yield for the 
purpose of saying to people, particularly our veterans, I encourage 
Members to look at the timing of this, the timing of it. Within 24 
hours this House, including a majority who vote for amending the 
Constitution, will vote to cut $17,900,000,000 out of veterans' 
benefits.
  Within 24 hours from where that clock is now, the House of 
Representatives, and a majority of whom are going to vote for this 
amendment, will have voted to cut $32 billion below today's veterans 
services. Do Members know what the timing of this amendment is? It is a 
duck, a dodge, a camouflage. It is a dupe, a ruse, a subterfuge.
  If people are veterans and they are worried about fewer hospitals, 
they should not worry about that, we are going to save the flag for 
them. They should not worry about too few outreach centers or losing 
physicians or losing pharmacies, the Republican leadership is going to 
save the flag for them. They should not worry that they do not have any 
veterans' nursing homes; my veterans' friends, the Republicans, are 
going to save the flag for them. If they are Desert Storm victims, they 
should not worry about the fact that they are getting inadequate 
service.
  Rudyard Kipling a long time ago wrote about a fellow that came back 
named Tommy Atkins, a veteran. This is what he wrote:

     Now it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy go away;''
     But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins 
           to play.
     Now it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy fall be' 
           ind,''
     But it's ``Please to walk in front, sir,'' when there's 
           trouble in the wind.
     You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' 
           all:
     We'll wait for extra rations if you treat us rational.
     Yes, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, and ``Chuck him out, 
           the brute!''
     But it's ``Savior of his country'' when the guns begin to 
           shoot.
     Yes, ``It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, and anything you 
           please;
     But Tommy ain't no blooming fool, you know, Tommy can see.

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the veterans of our country are the first to 
recognize that the march toward a balanced budget is absolutely 
necessary for the national security of our Nation, for the standard of 
living that applies to every American citizen, and for the future 
security of our country and everyone in it. The veterans are in the 
front on that march, just as on every other march.
  In the meantime, there is a missing element in this debate. That is 
the heart of Americans. That heart, that collective heart, was 
horrified beyond belief when they watched on television the hostage 
crisis in Iran, when our enemies were burning the American flag and 
otherwise desecrating it. That horror was magnified a thousand times 
when they saw American citizens, our fellow Americans, doing the same 
thing on domestic grounds.
  That heart can tolerate no longer any further desecration of the 
symbol that binds all our American hearts together. If I had it in me, 
I would add 

[[Page H6423]]
another amendment to make the English language the language of our 
Nation, because only the flag and the language are the unifying symbols 
of our country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], one of the great new constitutionalists on 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have risen many times in 
this cherished Hall in defense of the Constitution of the United 
States. I do so again today. Our flag is but a symbol of our democracy, 
but our democracy and the freedoms which make it unique and strong are 
not defined by a symbol, but by the guarantees in our Constitution and 
our Bill of Rights.
  Most of those guaranteed freedoms often do not enjoy a majority 
support. In some cases, they were written into the Constitution to 
protect them against the majority. That is what makes our democracy 
unique. That is what makes America America. What do we gain by 
protecting the symbol if we fail to protect the rights it symbolizes?
  The supporters of this amendment will argue that they are the true 
patriots, but where were these patriots when the constitutional 
principles of our democracy were under attack during the first 100 days 
of this Congress? Where were these patriots when we voted on the 
language of the fourth amendment?
  Mr. Speaker, I come from North Carolina, a State that refused to 
ratify the U.S. Constitution until the Bill of Rights was incorporated 
into it. It is a State that recognized in 1792 that our fundamental 
rights were so important that they had to be delineated in the charter 
of this Nation. Today I stand in support of that same charter, and I 
stand patriotically in support of that same charter.
                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hall as I heard the remarks from 
the gentleman from Montana which were quite disturbing to me, being a 
Desert Storm veteran.
  We all have the intellectual abilities to spin this however we want. 
Those who are going to vote against this amendment are going to be 
scared to death going back to their districts. I can understand that. I 
also respect your intellect. None of us here challenges your 
patriotism.
  Let me do say, though, that I believe that the flag is definitely a 
national symbol that is worthy of respect and should be protected 
against acts of disgrace. That is what this issue is about. None of us 
that will vote to support this amendment challenge the patriotism of 
those who are going to vote against this amendment, so stop the 
spinning there and trying to spin politics into this one, also.
  I think this is a great credit to our system, where we have 49 States 
out there come to us and they say, this is what the American people are 
asking of us. There are some in this body that are going to say no to 
that. I think that is really unfortunate.
  We should listen to the American people. Because the American people 
when they say, ``We are upset with the direction of the country,'' 
there are a lot of things that they say about that. One of these is a 
symbolic vote and one of substance here by supporting this amendment to 
prevent desecration of the flag.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], who has worked very, very 
energetically on the proposal before us.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution, and for the first time 
amending the Bill of Rights, is an extremely serious step. We should 
take it only under the most compelling circumstances. The few idiots 
who misguidedly believe that flag desecration will further their cause 
should not cause us to weaken the first amendment.
  What is the grave danger to the Republic that will be remedied by 
this amendment? There is none. What case can be made that this 
amendment enhances our constitutional order? None. And absent a 
significant evil to be avoided, or a significant improvement to be 
made, we should not undertake the most serious step of all acts of 
Congress--an amendment to the Constitution.
  We have heard a lot this year about cost-benefit analysis in other 
contexts. What about now? The costs: a real if subtle paring down of 
the rights of open and free expression; a softening up of the first 
amendment, making subsequent and more damaging cuts into its protection 
of freedom that much easier; perhaps the prospect of years of 
litigation about the multiplicity of definitions of ``flag'' and 
``desecration'' which will abound under this amendment.
  The benefits: Old Glory will be protected, even as the magnificent 
freedoms for which it stands are diminished.
  Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy and freedom, the 
freedom to speak our minds without interference from Government. And 
while isolated acts of disrespect for the flag may test our tempers, we 
should not let them erode our commitment to freedom of speech.
  The first amendment and its guarantee of free and open political 
expression is at the very heart of this Nation's tradition of freedom 
and self-government. We change it at our great peril.
  We do not need to amend the Bill of Rights to show our respect for 
the flag. Respect for the flag should not be mandated, especially at 
the expense of the first amendment's guarantee of free speech. It 
cannot be mandated. That respect, to be genuine, to be a respect that 
truly honors the flag, cannot be a legal requirement. It must flow from 
the natural love of our freedom-loving people for the beautiful 
standard of our Nation and the exquisite symbol of our freedoms.
  The great irony here is that a constitutional amendment will 
ultimately render respect for the flag into a Government mandate, and 
so sadly will contribute to its own undoing.
  Let us not leave a tear in the Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history, we are on the verge 
of amending--and weakening--the Bill of Rights. What a shame.
  I can think of no better invocation on this debate than the words of 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: `` * * * we should be eternally vigilant 
against attempts to check the expression of opinions we loathe * * *''
  As a veteran, I have great pride in the American flag. I know the 
strong feelings of patriotism and pride in flag and country which 
motivate the supporters of this proposal.
  I too am fiercely proud of the values and ideals the flag symbolizes. 
Our flag should command the deepest respect. I believe the flag 
commands that respect because it stands for a nation and a community 
strong enough to tolerate diversity and to protect the rights of those 
expressing unpopular views, and even expressing them on some 
regrettable occasions in an offensive manner. It is our Nation's strong 
commitment to these values, not the particular design of our flag, that 
makes the United States an unparalleled model of freedom and, in my 
opinion, the greatest of all the nations.
  As an American, I am deeply offended by any act of disrespect to the 
flag, including physical desecration such as flag burning. But it would 
be a mistake if, in the attempt to prohibit disrespect for the flag, we 
show greater disrespect for the Constitution and for the essential 
liberties of a free people now guaranteed by the Constitution.
  There are only a handful of flag burning incidents each year--
according to the Congressional Research Service, only three in the past 
2 years.
  Amending the Constitution, and for the first time amending the Bill 
of Rights, is an extremely serious step. We should take it only under 
the most compelling circumstances. The few idiots, who misguidedly 
believe that flag desecration will further their cause, should not 
cause us to weaken the first amendment.
  What is the grave danger to the Republic that will be remedied by 
this amendment? There is none. What case can be made that this 
amendment enhances the constitutional order? And absent a significant 
evil to be avoided, or a significant improvement to be made, we should 
not undertake the most serious of all acts of Congress--an amendment to 
the Constitution.
  We've heard a lot this year in other contexts about cost/benefit 
analysis. What about now? The costs--a real, if subtle, paring down of 
the rights of open and free expression; a softening up of the first 
amendment, making subsequent and more damaging cuts into its protection 
of freedom that much easier--a school 

[[Page H6424]]
prayer amendment, perhaps; the prospect of years of litigation about 
the multiplicity of definitions of ``flag'' and ``desecration'' that 
will abound under this amendment. The benefits--Old Glory will be 
protected--even as the magnificent freedoms it stands for are 
diminished.
  Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy and freedom--the 
freedom to speak our minds without interference from Government. While 
isolated instances of disrespect for the flag may test our tempers, we 
should not let them erode our commitment to freedom of speech. The 
first amendment, and its guarantee of free and open political 
expression, is at the very heart of this Nation's tradition of freedom 
and self-government. We change it at our great peril.
  We do not need to amend the Bill of Rights to show our respect for 
the flag. Respect of the flag should not be mandated, especially at the 
expense of the first amendment guarantee of free speech. I cannot be 
mandated. That respect, to be genuine, to be a respect that truly 
honors the flag, cannot be a legal requirement. It must flow from the 
natural love of our freedom-loving people for the beautiful standard of 
the Nation and the exquisite symbol of our freedoms. The great irony 
here is that a constitutional amendment will ultimately render respect 
for the flag into a Government mandate and so, sadly, will contribute 
to its own undoing.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to the Constitution, the 
supreme law of our Nation, proclaims that, ``Congress shall make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' This principle of 
free speech is an absolute, without proviso or exception. The citizens 
of the newly free colonies had lived through the tyranny of a 
repressive government that censored the press, prevented meetings, and 
silenced those who would speak out to criticize it. They wanted to make 
certain that no such government would arise in their new land of 
freedom and the first amendment--as with all 10 amendments of the Bill 
of Rights--was a specific limitation on the power of the Government to 
prevent free expression.
  We have lived for more than 200 years true to that original 
principle: that personal utterances, expressions or writings, however 
offensive to others, or however critical of our Government, cannot be 
repressed by a majority in our Congress.
  Now there are those who would like to write an exception, who would 
for the first time in our history to qualify that right written by the 
first Congress 200 years ago. Their burden is a heavy one. Only the 
most dangerous of acts to the very continuance of our Republic could 
possibly be of sufficient import to require us to qualify in any way 
the principle which lies at the bedrock of our free society.
  That act they claim is the desecration of the flag, in protest or 
criticism of our Government, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such an act is 
exactly the kind of expression our Founders intended to protect, that 
they themselves had torn down, spit on, and burned the Union Jack in 
protest of the British Government's oppression; and that their greatest 
fear was of a central government of our own so powerful that individual 
protests and criticisms could be silenced.
  We have lost our way in America if we believe criticism of the 
Government should now be curtailed. We have forgotten our history. We 
have laid our Constitution and the Bill of Rights aside.
  The act of desecrating the American flag is abhorrent in the extreme, 
an outrage to the sensibilities of patriotic Americans and 
representative only of the perpetrators' small minds, lack of judgment, 
and ignorance of the history and meaning of our country. But Mr. 
Speaker, it is not an act that threatens in the least our existence as 
a Nation. Rather, our toleration of it reaffirms our commitment to free 
speech, and to the supremacy of individual expression over governmental 
power, which is the essence of our history, the essence of America.
  The real threat to our Nation, to the principles that have guided us 
for 200 years, comes from changing them.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate has been good for all of us. We 
are all learning more about the Constitution, and that is what it is 
all about.
  I was reading opinions from constitutional scholars, Steven Presser 
of Northwestern University among them, and they keep coming back to the 
idea that blowing up of buildings, doing crazy things on the streets is 
really not an expression of freedom and goes beyond common sense. 
Therefore, burning the flag is beyond common sense and, therefore, the 
flag amendment does not hurt the first amendment freedom of speech. I 
think that is a very, very strong point, that when you burn the flag, 
you are going beyond the common speech or the common sense that 
individuals are entitled to in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, there are more signatures--and I have been around here 
for quite a while--that is the most signatures I have ever seen from 
the American people, over 1 million signatures saying that they want a 
constitutional amendment. I want to commend the American Legion and 
other veterans' organizations, plus the Citizen Flag Alliance, for 
going out. This is what the people want, Mr. Speaker. They want a 
constitutional amendment; over 80 percent of them in a poll have said 
that. We ought to give them what they want.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this fight 
and for the great work he has done. I have to agree with him with 
respect to burning the flag. That is not a statement, that is not 
speech. That, as Judge Rehnquist said, is an inarticulate grunt. There 
are a lot of other ways to express yourself rather than lighting a 
fire, and this is not speech. I think the gentleman is right on that. I 
thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for House 
Joint Resolution 79. As has already been stated, this amendment is 
supported by 49 State legislatures and more than 80 percent of the 
American public. I hope that when the day ends, it will also have 
received the resounding support of this Chamber.
  Since the birth of our country, the flag has been the accepted symbol 
of our national unity, pride, and commitment to democracy. It was the 
inspiration for our national anthem, was raised in victory for the 
immortalized moment of Iwo Jima, was placed on the Moon to proclaim the 
U.S. conquering of space, and is waved by millions of Americans at 
parades, rallies, and sporting events.
  The flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is the embodiment of all 
that the brave men and women of our country have fought, sacrificed, 
and laid down their lives for.
  We cannot allow the U.S. flag to be set on fire, spit upon, and 
trampled as a form of political expression. These acts are not speech; 
they are examples of destructive conduct that insult every patriotic 
American.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the dean of the House.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, behind you stands the great flag of this 
beloved country, the symbol of our liberty, the sign of our freedom, 
the hopes of our people. I love it, I revere it, and I have served it 
in World War II and for 40 years in this body. It is a precious 
national treasure, and it deserves to be honored by all.
  But I have also in my hand something else which is even more precious 
to any free man in this country. It is the embodiment of our liberties. 
It defines our freedom, it lays out the structure of our Government. It 
sets forth those things which distinguish Americans from any other race 
in the world. It is the document which defines how an American is 
different from any citizen of any other Nation.
  This morning I had a call from a veteran who, like me, served his 
country. In that he urged me to protect the flag, but he said to do so 
by protecting the 

[[Page H6425]]
Constitution. He shares with me the disgust for those who would 
dishonor the flag. However, he reminded me, more importantly, that by 
voting for this amendment I would create a monster that would trample 
the rights that he fought to protect.
  If this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire 
history of the United States that we have cut back on the liberties of 
Americans. That is not something which I want on my record.
  The flag is precious. It deserves honor. But remember, it is the 
symbol of the country and of the Constitution. The Constitution, 
however, Mr. Speaker, is the soul of this country. It, above all 
things, must be preserved and protected.
  I would remind my colleagues that we take with pride and pleasure the 
privilege of pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States. But 
each 2 years when we are sworn in to the Congress of the United States, 
we take a solemn oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the 
United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. The 
Constitution is one of the most extraordinary documents ever written. 
Insofar as Government is concerned, it is the most perfect document of 
Government ever written. It is the freedom of expression which is set 
forth in this great document which the Supreme Court has said is at 
stake here.
  In two recent decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is 
unconstitutional for the States and the Federal Government to enact 
laws prohibiting flag burning. I find that regrettable, but on careful 
evaluation, I understand that we are talking really about the 
protection of rights of American citizens regardless of how odious that 
exercise might be.
  We do not protect the flag by defaming the Constitution. The flag is 
the symbol. I urge my colleagues to protect the Constitution, the 
definer and the glory of our liberties.
                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in this Congress.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment, 
I learned early in life that the flag of the United States represents 
something very special and should be treated with respect. My parents, 
as descendants of Swedish immigrants who came to this great land in 
search of opportunity, taught me to respect the flag by their example. 
I learned to remove my hat when the flag passes by; to never let the 
flag touch the ground; and, with hand over heart, to be silent as the 
Star Spangled Banner is played and the flag is raised.
  Today, you can barely hear the national anthem above the noise at 
athletic games, school assemblies and other public events. People wear 
shirts and shorts made out of the U.S. flag, and receptions feature 
flag cakes--which will be cut--and flag napkins--which will wipe 
mouths. As those examples illustrate, flag desecration takes many 
forms. However, the worst abuse has occurred when some individuals have 
burned this cherished national symbol in protest.
  In 1989, the Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 margin struck down a Texas 
law--and all other State and Federal efforts--making flag desecration a 
crime, arguing that such a statute was inconsistent with freedom of 
expression as guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. In reviewing Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissenting 
opinion, I found myself in agreement with his perspective when he 
wrote:

       For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a 
     unique position as the symbol of our Nation . . . The flag is 
     not simply another `idea'' or ``point of view'' competing for 
     recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and 
     millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical 
     reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or 
     philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the 
     First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress and the laws 
     of 48 out of the 50 States, which make criminal the public 
     burning of the flag.

  Justice Rehnquist went on to reference a unanimous 1942 Court 
decision which said:

       It is well understood that the right of free speech is not 
     absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are 
     certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, 
     the prevention and punishment of which have never been 
     thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include 
     insulting or ``fighting'' words--those which by their very 
     utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate 
     breach of the peace.

  This year, our own Texas Legislature commemorated the 50th 
anniversary of the raising of the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima by voting to 
ask Congress for a constitutional amendment to exempt flag desecration 
from first amendment protection. The grassroots support for such an 
amendment is so strong that 49 legislatures have pledged to ratify such 
an amendment.
  Amending the U.S. Constitution should be done only in rare 
circumstances. I still believe we must be very cautious about limiting 
the freedom of expression and speech as guaranteed in the Bill of 
Rights. However, during the past 5 years I also have been deeply 
troubled by the increasing cynicism and negativism toward our 
Government. The culmination of these negative feelings resulted in the 
tragedy in Oklahoma City. While I will continue to defend the right of 
every citizen to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I 
am disturbed both by the violence of a few individuals and the 
nonviolent but pervasive cynicism many Americans feel towards their 
country. It is time for us to better encourage a respectful attitude 
toward the American ideals which our flag represents.
  I always have believed that physical desecration of the flag should 
be prohibited. At the same time, I sincerely have hoped that we could 
protect our flag without amending our beloved Constitution. After much 
deliberation, a review of recent court history, and a deep concern 
about a growing, negative and disrespectful national attitude, I have 
come to the conclusion that the way to honor the flag at this time is 
by amending the Constitution.
  I wish that recent circumstances were not dictating this course of 
action. However, with a somber attitude and a great love of the country 
for which our flag stands, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the tentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, this morning an elderly gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Stephen Ross, stoped by my ofice to speak with me. 
Mr. Ross is a survivor of Dachau, where he was imprisoned and tortured 
by the Nazis for over 5 years, starting when he was a 9-year-old boy.
  He was liberated from that hellhole, where almost his entire family 
was killed, in 1945 by the U.S. 7th Army. One young American tank 
commander stopped to comfort him as the young Mr. Ross wept. That Army 
commander wiped away the boy's tears with a piece of cloth and gave it 
to him.
  Later on, Mr. Ross realized that the cloth was a small American flag 
taken from the tank. Since that day, Mr. Ross has carried that flag 
with him every single day in a small velvet bag, a sacred symbol.
  Mr. Ross wants that flag to be protected. As he said to me, ``Protest 
if you wish. Speak loudly, even curse our country and our flag. But 
please, in the name of all those who died for our freedoms, do not 
physically harm what is so sacred.''
  I understand and respect the arguments of those who oppose this bill, 
but I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a distinguished civil rights proponent before he 
came to the Congress.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Our flag is a powerful symbol. It represents the freedoms and 
individual liberty that make the United States the greatest democracy 
on earth. It makes me sick to see any person burn our flag.
  But I am appalled when I hear my colleagues try to tell that person 
that he or she cannot burn the flag.
  I would say to my colleagues the right to desecrate our flag is 
protected by the most important document in our country--the Bill of 
Rights.
  There would be no United States of America without the Bill of 
Rights. The States refused to join the union until they were assured 
that the rights of our citizens would be protected.
  And what is the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? 
Freedom of speech. The freedom to disagree. The freedom to have 
political beliefs--and to express those beliefs publicly and openly.
  More than any other freedom, this is what makes our country great.
  Our freedom, our individual rights and liberties, are what our flag 
represents. When we deny our citizens the 

[[Page H6426]]
right to desecrate the flag, we diminish these freedoms. When we 
diminish our freedoms, we diminish our flag, our country, and 
ourselves.
  Our flag, while a great symbol, is still just a symbol--a symbol of 
our rights and freedom. What is worse, destroying a flag, or destroying 
the liberty that flag represents?
  Mr. Speaker, we must not choose the symbol over the real thing. This 
resolution is an affront to the flag. It is an affront to the Bill of 
Rights. This amendment will do more to desecrate the flag than any 
bonfire--or any protest.
  If Old Glory would speak, she would cry for us. She would weep.
  Old Glory is strong. She has stood the test of time. She has stood 
the test of the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and Vietnam. Old 
Glory does not need 435 Members of Congress to defend her. She is not 
crying out for our help.
  I urge each and every one of you to look within yourself, to stand up 
for freedom. Show the world that the United States is, indeed, the 
greatest Nation on earth.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment--it 
is the only way, the sure way, to protect our flag.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the flag is a symbol of our 
country. The founders of our country, when they contemplated free 
speech, did not envision the burning of our national symbol.
  There are many forms of expression that are legitimate, and this is 
not one of them. Servicemen and women have died in support of the 
country and what the flag represents. Burning the flag is as 
inappropriate as yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater when no fire 
exists.
  I was proud to sponsor and vote for the Pennsylvania House resolution 
in 1989 that recommended that we in Congress now approve a 
constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of our flag. 
Forty-eight other States have now joined.
  I am hoping that the House will, in fact, pass this and move it on to 
the Senate and the people of the United States will know that we, in 
fact, uphold the flag, believe in the flag, and believe in this 
country. God bless you all.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker I have been preceded in the well by several 
Members who spoke eloquently and personally of reverence for our 
freedoms as symbolized by the flag: the gentlewoman from Florida who 
fled the oppressive Castro regime for her freedom; the gentleman from 
Korea who immigrated to America for great freedom and opportunity. In 
Castro's Cuba, South Korea, mainland China, and the old Soviet Union, 
there was one common thread. Show disrespect to the hammer and sickle, 
you go to jail. In Cuba, China, Korea, all the tottering oppressive 
regimes, show disrespect to their symbol, you go to jail.
  Until today, America was different. We had a Bill of Rights that was 
the beacon of liberty to oppressed people around the world. When they 
throw off the chains of oppression, they do not endeavor to copy our 
flag. They endeavor to copy our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
  Vote ``no''. Do not be afraid to be free. Save the Constitution and 
the Bill of Rights.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, there are two compelling reasons to support 
this legislation--the letter and the spirit of the law.
  Title 36, chapter 10, section 176 of the U.S. Code states that ``The 
flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living 
thing.'' If it is illegal to commit acts of violence against persons or 
property as a means of expression, and the flag is considered a living 
thing, then prohibiting acts of violence against the flag is entirely 
consistent with previous interpretations of the first amendment.
  Just as important, Mr. Speaker, is the spirit of that law, which 
makes it clear that our flag is more than a piece of cloth, it is the 
symbol of freedom to millions of people around the world.
  Whether it is being flown by a Navy ship off some foreign shore, 
waving proudly over the U.S. Capitol, or fluttering from the window of 
a house on the Fourth of July--our flag represents everything for which 
this Nation stands--and as such, it should be treated with respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 
79.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I was sitting there just listening and it occurred to me that we are 
trying to decide what speech means and the protection of speech and 
expression under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have said on 
other occasions that our Maker has endowed us with minds that can allow 
us to look at the same set of facts and arrive at conclusions 180 
degrees apart from one another.
  I use that to justify the thinking of Members on the other side 
sometimes, but this is carrying it too far. Anyone, including the 
Supreme Court, that cannot look at a dictionary definition of what 
speech means and expression means and decide the correct way on this 
question is beyond me.
  If we were to say that burning or desecrating a flag is speech and 
expression, we could also say that tossing a bomb into a building is 
our way of free speech and expression. Put another way, you can cuss 
the flag, you can call it all kind of names, you can speak at length 
against the flag, but you cannot do the act of desecrating or 
destroying it.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green, who has been a strong supporter of this 
amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud cosponsor of 
this resolution. There is a need to set aside our flag as a special 
item and in a special place; an exception to the freedom of speech. 
That is what this constitutional amendment is about.
  We can disagree on particular language that we have, and I am sure 
that the U.S. Senate will even make some changes in it. But I think 
what we are doing today is so important. We need to make the flag 
designation a separate symbol of our country. Once again, I rise again 
in proud support of this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I love our country and I love our flag, and several years ago in this 
body I voted for a law, a statute, that would have made it illegal to 
desecrate the American flag. I would vote for such a statute again, but 
the Supreme Court in its wisdom declared such a law unconstitutional, 
and may I point out that the Supreme Court appointees, conservative 
Republican appointees, appointees of Reagan and Bush, declared the law 
unconstitutional.
  So the question we have now is should we amend the Bill of Rights for 
the first time in American history? Should we tamper with our 
Constitution, which is sacred, to do something which really is not a 
threat to the Republic? The idiots that burn the American flag, and I 
hate them, are not that many. Why highlight them? They are no threat to 
the Republic. This is what they want.
  I do not think we should tamper with the Constitution. I do not think 
we should amend the Constitution. Several years ago, someone before 
mentioned Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany had a statute to make it a crime 
to desecrate their flag. I do not think we want to follow in their 
footsteps. While we abhor what these idiots do, we should not desecrate 
our Constitution. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been many points made in the debate today. I 
want to read a statement by Chief Justice Rehnquist which I think puts 
this issue in perspective in a way that we have not seen it put in 
perspective thus far. The Chief Justice said:


[[Page H6427]]

       The significance of the flag, and the deep emotional 
     feelings it arouses in a large part of our citizenry, cannot 
     be fully expressed in the two dimensions of a lawyer's brief 
     or of a judicial opinion. But if the Government may create 
     private proprietary interests in written work and in musical 
     and theatrical performances by virtue of copyright laws, I 
     see no reason why it may not . . . create a similar 
     governmental interest in the flag by prohibiting even those 
     who have purchased the physical object from impairing its 
     physical integrity. For what they have purchased is not 
     merely cloth dyed red, white, and blue, but also the one 
     visible manifestation of 200 years of nationhood--a history 
     compiled by generations of our forefathers and contributed to 
     by streams of immigrants from the four corners of the globe, 
     which has traveled a course since the time of this country's 
     origin that could not have been ``foreseen . . . by the most 
     gifted of its begetters.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the most thoughtful 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I love America. I love the 
Constitution. I love all of the symbols of our free society, our 
democracy.
  My ancestors loved America. They loved America even when America did 
not love them. My ancestors loved America when they were not free to 
pray to their God. They loved America when they were not free to rally 
or protest. They loved America even when they had to die to help 
America live up to her ideals.
  Their sacrifices instilled in me an undying loyalty and commitment to 
always defend the Bill of Rights. It is the Bill of Rights that gave my 
ancestors hope that there could be a democracy for all people, even 
people who look like me.
  This amendment being offered here today endangers the most profound 
protection guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights, the right to 
disagree, the right to confront, the right to rally, the right to 
march, the right to protest.
  The flag is, indeed, a precious symbol, a powerful symbol, but no 
symbol is more powerful than the powerful ideas embodied in the Bills 
of Rights that guarantees to us all the freedom of expression, the 
right to express ourselves as a proud and determined people.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in making a decision today on the proposed 
constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag, I was 
confronted with the fundamental question of our democracy. That 
question is: What is it that makes us free?
  The flag is a symbol, perhaps the sacred symbol, of our freedom, but 
the Constitution is the guarantee of our freedom. The flag reminds 
people throughout the world of everything we stand for, but the 
Constitution is the bedrock upon which we stand.
  The flag touches our mystic chords of memory, but the Constitution is 
not about the past only, but our future as well.
  The founders made it possible for the Congress of the United States 
to change the flag tomorrow, its color, its shape, its size. But the 
Constitution can only be changed when the great weight of the Nation 
comes to believe that human liberty is at stake.
  Like each of my neighbors, I pledge allegiance to the flag. Yet each 
of us who have the honor to serve our Nation has taken a higher oath 
before God and man to uphold the Constitution. At the heart of that 
great document is the Bill of Rights, and at the center are 10 words 
that settle forever the issue of whether the State or the individual is 
our Nation's sovereign. ``Congress,'' the majestic first amendment 
begins, ``shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Speech 
we admire and speech we despise, protest we support and protest we 
condemn, beliefs we embrace and beliefs we reject, nonviolent actions 
we applaud and nonviolent actions we deplore, all are protected here.
  I honor the flag. I revere everything it represents. But in the end, 
I cannot vote for this amendment.
  Those who fought for the flag, those of us who defend its honor today 
do not fight for a piece of cloth, no matter how treasured it is, but 
for an idea now more than 200 years old that human liberty, even the 
liberty to disagree, is the greatest treasure of mankind.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand in the most sacred shrine of freedom in the 
history of the Earth, and if we abandon the Bill of Rights here, where 
will it then find a home?
  I urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. It is very appropriate that I am allowed to 
speak right after that previous speech, because I take a different 
point of view.
  The burning of the flag is a behavior. it is not free speech.
  When you find a book you do not like, you do not burn down the 
library. When you argue against a government policy, which you have the 
right to do under the first amendment, you do not blow up a Federal 
building, and the sooner that person get the death penalty, the sooner 
we can reaffirm our constitutional liberties.
  But this flag is more than just a colored piece of rag. It is a 
symbol of liberty and justice. It is beyond free speech. It is a 
foundation of liberty, and you do not tear down the foundations because 
you do not like an action of government or the people in government.
  We would not amend the Constitution if it were not for the Supreme 
Court ruling, unless we do make it clear in the Constitution the States 
and the people therein cannot protect their own flag.
  We find this 5 to 4 decision disheartening. We decry this 5 to 4 
ruling, and we are now allowing the States and the people therein to 
have their voices be heard.
  So this debate is not about free speech. It is about the preservation 
of a great experiment in liberty.
  Can we continue to speak about our elected officials and the 
government without tearing down our foundations and falling, like most 
democracies have done over the 2,000-year history that we are so 
familiar with? And the answer is ``yes.''
  Give liberty a chance. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I also love the United States of America and the 
principles of liberty and justice guaranteed in the Constitution which 
established our Nation. I would lay down my life to protect those 
rights and our Nation.
  I also love and respect our flag, which is the symbol that represents 
all that our Nation stands for. But we err if, in our attempts to 
protect the symbol, we damage the rights which the symbol represents.
  Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801, said, ``If 
there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or change 
its republican form, let them stand as monuments of the safety with 
which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat 
it.''
  My fellow Americans, if there be any among us who wish to desecrate 
this flag, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the liberties and 
freedoms which it represents.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for giving me the 
opportunity to have this time. I thought that was very, very fair, and 
I appreciate it, along with the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this amendment is adopted. This is not the last 
vote. This amendment will go to the Senate. Then, if it is adopted, it 
will go to the different States, and it will take three-fourths of the 
States to ratify this amendment.
  So I would certainly hope that today will give the first step forward 
in a constitutional amendment to protect the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

[[Page H6428]]

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the proposed 
constitutional amendment, and it does not do what many of the people in 
opposition to it have said.
  I have no problems with defining a flag. We can do that through 
implementing legislation. Once it has gone through the process, as the 
gentleman from Mississippi has talked about, and three-fourths of the 
States have ratified this proposed constitutional amendment, it will 
come back to here, and the Congress at that time will have to pass 
implementing legislation. I have no difficulty with that.
  One of the things that I disagreed strongly with the Supreme Court, 
and many Supreme Court decisions I have disagreed with, and that was 
the one on flag burning. In my opinion, that Supreme Court, in its 
decision, amended the Constitution of the United States because it said 
for the first time that I know of, that actions, not words, were 
protected by freedom of speech. The act or the conduct of burning a 
flag was protected by the speech provisions of the first amendment. I 
strongly disagree with that.
  I find no problem with proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
that would say that that action, not the words, the action, is not 
protected by the Constitution.
  So I just remind everybody here that, in my opinion, the Supreme 
Court has already amended our Constitution, and it was a 5-to-4 
decision. It could very easily have been the other way, and we would 
not be here today.
  So I have no difficulty at all in proposing and supporting this 
constitutional amendment so that flag desecration will no longer be 
possible, hopefully, in the United States after we go through the 
process. Surely it will take several years, but that, to me, is 
worthwhile, and there is nothing wrong with this Congress, because it 
has done it in the past, in the past years has said the Supreme Court 
was wrong, and we have had constitutional amendments to change what the 
Supreme Court has done.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time 
to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], who will close the debate.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this topic is a great one for patriotic speeches, and we 
have certainly heard some sincere ones on both sides of this issue 
today, that in itself perhaps the best illustration of what the first 
amendment, freedom of speech, is all about.
  But this debate symbolizes more than just a venting of patriotism. It 
highlights the perversions which the Supreme Court has allowed in the 
name of free speech, and the very Constitution that both sides to this 
argument have revered in their comments allows us, through the process 
we are engaged in at this very minute, to correct those perversions of 
that Supreme Court.
  For those who would suggest that this proposed constitutional 
amendment would in any way detract from the original first amendment, I 
would suggest quite the opposite is true. Freedom of speech is elevated 
in importance as much by what it excludes as by what it includes.
  For those who would suggest that someone would intentionally violate 
this law by wearing clothing that has a flag on it, I suggest, is a 
hollow argument, indeed.
  As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, ``Even a dog 
can tell the difference between a man who unintentionally stumbles over 
him and the one who intentionally kicks him.'' Certainly, we can do the 
same with regard to desecration of the flag.
  A nation that tolerates every form of behavior, no matter how 
demeaning, under the passport of free speech will eventually find that 
it has very little power to govern, indeed.
  I support this constitutional amendment to protect our flag. You do 
not have to love it. You do not have to leave it. But you should not be 
allowed to burn it.
  If it is, indeed, the symbol of liberty and that symbol can be 
destroyed, can the freedom that it symbolizes it be far behind?
  I suggest not. I urge you to support this amendment to protect the 
freedom that all of us hold so dear.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I have a deep and abiding respect for our 
flag and what it symbolizes. Freedom is our greatest commodity. The 
flag is our greatest representation of that freedom. We should never 
take lightly the supreme sacrifice our fallen soldiers have made in 
defense of freedom. Likewise, I do not believe we can take lightly the 
freedoms their sacrifice entrusted to us.
  One of the most important liberties our Founding Fathers gave us, and 
one of the most important liberties our soldiers died for, is the 
freedom of expression. If everyone in America is truly free to express 
opinions, each of us will undoubtedly be disgusted by someone's views 
or actions at one time or another. Nothing enrages me more than when 
someone burns our flag. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the people 
who are disrespectful of the flag should move us to limit personal 
freedom and amend the Bill of Rights, something that has never been 
done. If any limits, no matter how reasonable they appear to us, are 
placed on the freedom of expression, we will open the possibility that 
other limits can be placed on our freedoms in the future.
  Each of us must decide how we will be patriots to our hallowed past. 
I believe defending the freedom of expression is patriotic. I also 
believe doing what I can to serve the people of the Second District, 
including our veterans, is patriotic. Others, such as veterans 
organizations, have shown their continued patriotism in part by 
educating young people about what this great symbol represents. 
Educating young people about its significance, rather than mandating 
respect, is the only way to build the true and enduring reverence our 
flag deserves.
  It is ironic that many of the congressional champions of the 
amendment to prohibit flag burning are advocating harsh reductions in 
veterans programs to finance substantial tax cuts for higher income 
Americans. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown has indicated that 
35 to 40 veterans medical centers will close and the jobs of more than 
50,000 professionals providing care to veterans will be eliminated as a 
part of the congressional Republican budget plan that includes tax 
cuts. Sadly, passing a flag burning amendment when no pressing problem 
exists appears to be, not a display of patriotism, but a gesture to 
provide political cover for my colleagues who are financing tax cuts on 
the backs of veterans.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to 
recommit House Joint Resolution 79 with instructions offered by my 
colleague from Texas.
  House Joint Resolution 79 would amend the Constitution of the United 
States prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. I too am 
concerned about the treatment of our flag; in 1989 I supported the Flag 
Protection Act. However, the language of this proposed amendment, as it 
stands, raises serious questions as to its exact extent and intent.
  Mr. Bryant's motion to recommit with instructions, in my opinion, 
clarifies this amendment by establishing guidelines for Federal and 
State courts and legislatures to follow when interpreting and 
developing future laws. The motion calls for a definition of what 
constitutes a flag, as well as the proper procedure for the disposal of 
a flag. Together with its decided definition of ``physical 
desecration'', this motion ensure the amendment will lead to clear and 
specific laws.
  For over 200 years our Constitution and the Bill of Rights has stood 
strongly protecting the freedom of the citizens of this Nation without 
ever being amended. Today, Congress is attempting to amend arguably the 
most precious doctrine within the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the 
first amendment guarantee of free speech. We must not, and can not 
enter into this process without proper consideration and understanding 
endangering the strength and integrity of our most valuable liberty and 
freedoms protected by the first amendment. The flag is a symbol of our 
freedom, but the Bill of Rights is the substance of our freedoms and 
rights.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Bryant motion to 
recommit with instructions and provide at the very least some specifics 
to this proposed constitutional action.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, America celebrated flag 
day. Millions of American men and women all across the country 
retrieved their Star Spangled Banner from the basement or attic and 
proudly displayed it to honor the day. For many families, the flag 
itself is a tradition. Perhaps it was a grandfather's flag, or a gift 
from a son or daughter serving in the military. Perhaps it even draped 
the coffin of a sister or brother who made the ultimate sacrifice for 
the United States.
  Whatever the case--the American flag means something special and 
personal to each and every one of us. It represents our 

[[Page H6429]]
freedom, our liberty, and our common bond. It is the emblem of a unity 
to which every fourth-grader has pledged their allegiance in homeroom. 
In the House of Representatives, we begin every day with that same 
pledge. We pledge allegiance to the flag because of ``the Republic for 
which it stands.'' As a veteran, I believe that our flag is our 
Nation's most enduring symbol.
  It is unfortunate and saddening that some disagree. They use the flag 
to express an opinion or make a statement. I think that this is wrong. 
Burning our flag is simply wrong, and should be outlawed. As an 
original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag 
desecration, and with nearly 280 of my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, I am working to protect the flag and what it stands 
for.
  I plan to vote today for this constitutional amendment. Our goal is 
to pass the amendment this year and to present it to the States for 
ratification. Forty-nine States have already passed resolutions 
requesting that Congress pass this amendment banning the desecration of 
our American flag.
  We hold high respect for the flag not because of what it is but 
because of what it stands for. We have rules which define the proper 
way to display, store, and maintain our flag. These rules were 
established for a reason. They were established so that we would not 
grow complacent about our flag, and hence our unity and our freedom. 
They protect our flag so that we remember the high price we paid for 
our freedom and personal liberties. Our flag reminds us that we are one 
nation, one People--regardless of our diverse backgrounds, religions, 
or heritage.
  Our flag reminds us of who we are as Americans, and deserves the 
utmost honor, esteem, and protection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of all the 
rhetoric, the question boils down to whether or not the flag and the 
American ideals it symbolizes should be protected by our constitution.
  To me the flag is about freedom; about liberty and equality in a 
nation made up of various cultures; about the American veterans who 
braved the foreign warlords to preserve our freedoms and to ensure that 
future generations of Americans can live in the security of life, 
liberty and pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. Speaker, here in Washington we are constantly reminded of the 
dedicated men and women who died in battle, in lands far away, for the 
preservation of our country and the ideas for which it stands. The 
flag, now as then, serves as remembrance for the gift of freedom given 
to us by those fallen heroes. Should they have died knowing that future 
generations would permit the desecration of the very symbol for which 
they lay buried in foreign cemeteries?
  Thanks to those veterans who fought and died for our freedom, and 
promulgated on the idea of the ``melting pot'', the United States 
represents a community where heterogeneity is championed and 
individualism, regardless of race, creed, sex or color, is revered. 
Hence, we, as Americans, have a unique opportunity available to us. 
Where Alexander the Great failed to keep his holdings together, and 
diversity crippled the Roman Empire, our unity under one flag affords 
us the unique opportunity to maintain a harmonious multicultural 
superpower. Being the first successful community of its kind in 
history, maintenance does not come easily.
  Mr. Speaker, what bonds our seemingly different people into one 
nation, one soul? Values, ideas, hopes, dreams, all symbolized in our 
common denominator, the flag. The unity inherent in the flag is beyond 
measure. What does a person from New Jersey have in common with person 
living in Wyoming but born in Nepal? They are both Americans, and they 
both possess an allegiance to our country and the recognition that such 
allegiance manifests itself in an allegiance to the flag. Without a 
doubt, the flag remains the best symbol of solidarity for our country.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the flag embodies all that Americans 
treasure. The vast imagery the flag evokes points to that very fact. 
Who hasn't seen paintings of Betsy Ross sewing a garment that would 
consolidate a collection of English colonists in defiance of a King who 
refused to give them representation. A new and improved system of 
government is why Betsy Ross created the flag; democracy is what we 
got.
  Who can say they haven't seen the statue of the Marines storming the 
island of Iwo Jima to raise Old Glory high above the fray. Freedom is 
why those soldiers raised the flag; liberty is what we--what the 
world--got.
  Who hasn't heard the story of Francis Scott Key as he sat aboard a 
British frigate and watched our flag continue to flutter above the 
devastation in Fort McHenry. Sheer amazement is why Mr. Key wrote down 
what he saw; an understanding of the transcendently unifying nature of 
our flag is what we got.
  Burning or desecrating the flag is a destructive act, Mr. Speaker. It 
is not free speech. And it is only a small fringe group who even care 
to mutilate, desecrate or burn the flag. In fact, the vast majority of 
Americans support a constitutional amendment to protect this symbol of 
freedom. Indeed, it is time the Congress of the United States act to 
protect our flag.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to call attention to an oversight in the 
text of House Joint Resolution 79, the constitutional amendment to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 
While it may seek improbable that an amendment of only 20 words can 
contain an important oversight, the amendment would grant Congress and 
the States the power to pass laws to prohibit the physical desecration 
of the flag.
  So, it is conceivable that some States will pass restrictive laws, 
some States will pass more lenient laws, and some States will not do 
anything. And it is conceivable that flag desecration would have 
various State definitions, unless Congress chooses to make a standard 
of desecration and Federal penalties for such actions. Of course, if 
such congressional action were taken, or such standardized definitions 
were adopted by Congress, then all the arguments we hear today that it 
is up to the States to determine what is desecration, and all the 
arguments we hear today that this is a transferring of Federal power to 
the States, fly out the window.
  If Congress instead defers to the States, and chooses to let the 
States make their own determinations, then it is possible that flag 
burning and other acts of desecration would be made illegal in the 
several States, but there would be no similar Federal law for the 
territories and the District of Columbia. We could then have the 
incredibly ironic situation where flag burning would be illegal 
everywhere but here, and those who would burn flags as an expression of 
their free speech or in protest of some cause would be able to do so 
legally in the Nation's capital.
  In the case of Guam, and the other far flung American territories of 
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas, and Puerto Rico, the territorial governments would have no 
power under this amendment to act one way or the other to prohibit flag 
desecration. As you know, Mr. Speaker, but as many of our colleagues 
tend to forget, the flag also flies over there.
  Should this constitutional amendment be adopted by the States, then I 
intend to introduce legislation to give the territories and the 
District of Columbia the same authority as the States to prohibit flag 
desecration. My concern is that as the new federalism emerges to 
transfer powers to the States, as this amendment represents, let's not 
forget to transfer powers to the territories, too. If it does not make 
sense for Congress to act for the States, it makes even less sense for 
Congress to act for Guam, 10,000 miles away.
  Or, conversely, if Congress were to legislate a restriction on free 
speech only for the territories and the District, places where American 
citizens have no voting representation, what is that saying about the 
value of our constitutional rights? What is the Congress saying when it 
legislates restrictions on the basic freedoms in the Bill of Rights for 
the territories that do not even vote in this body? Would it not seem 
more logical for Congress to allow such decisions to be made by the 
territories in recognition of their lack of representation? If Congress 
tries to dictate to the disenfranchised Americans in the territories 
what it would not dictate to the States, maybe then flag burning would 
become the protest of choice for those Americans in the territories who 
value their freedoms as much as any other American.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 79, the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag 
desecration. While I am aware of the deep and sincere feelings of many 
Americans concerning this emotional issue, I am also mindful of my duty 
as a Member of Congress to act in the best interest of the people I 
represent and in the best interest of the U.S. Constitution I have 
sworn to uphold.
  We cannot and should not, in an attempt to protect the flag, trample 
on the freedoms so many of our bravest citizens have fought and died to 
protect. As Members of the U.S. Congress, we must not shirk our 
responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people by 
disregarding the dangers to all of our civil liberties this resolution 
symbolizes.
  The bill before us today, House Joint Resolution 79, seeks by 
constitutional amendment, to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
American flag. The objective of this amendment is to overturn the U.S. 
Supreme Court's decisions in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
  In Texas versus Johnson, a majority of the Supreme Court considered 
for the first time whether the first amendment protects desecration of 
the U.S. flag as a form of symbolic speech. Like the State argued in 
Texas versus Johnson, proponents of this resolution argue that flag 
desecration results in breaches of the 

[[Page H6430]]
peace and attacks the integrity of the our national symbol of unity. 
The majority opinion of the Court correctly responded that the 
desecration was ``expressive conduct'' because it was an attempt to 
convey a particular message.
  The Supreme Court also correctly held that the State may not use 
incidental regulations as a pretext for restricting speech because of 
its controversial content or because it simply causes offense. Justice 
Brennan concluded that ``If there is a bedrock principle underlying the 
first amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression 
of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or 
disagreeable.''
  Mr. Chairman, I find the desecration of the American flag abhorrent, 
but I find the compromise of the principles the flag represents 
absolutely unacceptable. This attempt to infringe upon the proud 
American tradition of dissent is the hallmark of authoritarian States, 
not democracies. Voting against this resolution is a vote for the 
Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, but most importantly it is a 
vote for the freedom and democracy the flag symbolizes.
  In addition to compromising our first amendment rights this 
resolution is defective on its face because it fails to define what 
constitutes a flag, or constitutes desecration. The resolution simply 
gives Congress and the States sweeping powers to criminalize a broad 
range of acts falling far short of flag burning or mutilation. This 
kind of broad amendment to the Constitution will certainly lead to 
State and Federal flag protection legislation that violates the rights 
the flag represents.
  Mr. Chairman, amending the U.S. Constitution is a serious business. 
This is one of the most important and sacred acts that can be taken by 
a Member of Congress. With very little opportunity for open hearing, 
and with limited debate, this resolution has been placed before us. A 
measure of this kind required detailed analysis of the impact it may 
have on the American people, and the greatest pillar of the American 
Republic: The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution--but no such 
review has, or will, take place.
  During a period when the House of Representatives is slashing public 
assistance and medical benefits to the poor, our children, the elderly 
and veterans across this Nation we are faced with this cynical attempt 
to protect the flag. Individuals who wish to protect the flag should 
first protect the citizens who hold the flag so dear.
  In the current rush to force this bill through the House, the liberty 
of the American people and the Constitution I have sworn to uphold will 
certainly be compromised. I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote 
against this resolution.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
and in support of the Constitution of the United States.
  For over 200 years, the Constitution of the United States and the 
Bill of Rights have endured as real, physical symbols of the values of 
this country. Never in our Nation's history has Congress passed a 
constitutional amendment to curtail the freedoms guaranteed by these 
documents. After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that we 
must not do so now.
  The issue of free-speech inherent in the flag-burning argument is far 
too important to be politicized or trivialized through name-calling and 
scare tactics. The values and freedoms embraced by the Constitution are 
so fundamental to this Nation, that we should defend against any 
attempts to relinquish these rights.
  Let me clearly state that I do not condone flag burning. I strongly 
oppose it. Flag burning--for whatever reason--is offensive to me and to 
all patriotic citizens. It is repulsive to see people burning our flag. 
I stand alongside patriotic citizens and veterans, nationwide, in 
condemning flag burners everywhere. Yet, even these unpatriotic acts of 
protest must remain protected if the essential freedoms our Founding 
Fathers and veterans have fought for are to mean anything. We cannot 
protect freedom by taking away freedom.
  The Stars and Stripes has always had a special meaning for my family 
and me. My father, a World War II Marine veteran, was born on Flag Day, 
June 14. In proudly serving his country during the war, my father 
successfully fought against the tyrannical and strong-handed 
suppression of freedom of Nazi Germany. The flag under which he fought 
symbolizes the constitutional freedoms for which he risked his life. 
Let us not chip away at these real fundamental beliefs and freedoms for 
protection of the symbol.
  For over 200 years, the Bill of Rights has never once been amended. 
Historically, lawmakers have been unwilling to tamper with these 
liberties, reflecting an appropriate reverence for the Constitution and 
a hesitance for turning this document into a political platform. Yet 
amending the Constitution in order to prevent a few disgruntled 
citizens from expressing their views creates a special exception in the 
definition of free speech, opening up the door for further clarifying 
of our God-given freedoms.
  By overwhelming numbers, Americans have chosen to display the flag 
proudly. And what gives this deed its patriotic and unique symbolism is 
that the choice was freely made, coerced by no man, out of respect for 
the symbol of freedom. Were it otherwise--should respectful treatment 
of the flag be the only choice for Americans--this gesture would mean 
something different, possibly something less.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that at the same time we 
stand here pledging our respect for the flag and to the veterans who 
fought under it, the majority will soon pass a package of cuts to the 
hard-fought and long-earned benefits to our Nation's veterans and 
senior citizens. The Republican budget agreement, which I strongly 
oppose, calls for $32 billion in cuts to veterans programs over the 
next 7 years as well as a $270 billion cut in Medicare spending over 7 
years. At the same time, the majority's budget calls for a $245 billion 
tax break for our Nation's wealthiest citizens. It is unfortunate that 
the same veterans who so proudly fought under this flag will soon be 
denied the benefits for which they fought and worked all their lives.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to proudly express my 
respect for the flag and for the constitutional freedom it symbolizes 
and for the men and women who fought for these freedoms. Yet, I must 
remain faithful to my sworn duty to protect the Constitution from 
attacks on its integrity, and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, behind the Speaker's rostrum 
stands the glorious symbol of the United States--our flag--the most 
beautiful of all the flags, resplendent with colors of red, white, and 
blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story that of 50 States 
descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it and I revere it. I 
have served it with pride, in the Army of the United States, actively 
in one war and in reserve status in another. Like millions of young 
Americans in all the wars of this country, I have served under this 
great flag, symbol of our Nation, our unity, our freedom, tradition, 
and the glory of our country.
  This small book, my dear colleagues, which I now hold up in my hand, 
is the Constitution of the United States. It is not so visible as is 
our wonderful flag, and regrettably oftentimes we forget the glory, the 
majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and rule 
of order, the document which defines our rights, liberties, and the 
structure of our Government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 
1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity and 
defined the rights of the people of this great republic. As Chief 
Justice Burger, Chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the 
U.S. Constitution observed in his remarks on the Constitution.

       The work of 55 men at Philadelphia in 1787 was another step 
     toward ending the concept of the divine right of kings. In 
     place of the absolutism of monarchy the freedoms flowing from 
     this document created a land of opportunities. Ever since 
     then discouraged and oppressed people from every part of the 
     world have made their way to our shores; there were others 
     too--educated, affluent, seeking a new life and new freedoms 
     in a new land.
       This is the meaning of our Constitution.

  Justice Burger observed the Declaration of Independence was the 
promise, the Constitution was the fulfillment.
  This is the most successful and magnificent document ever to create a 
government. The Government which is the product of the agreement of the 
people on this Constitution is the most successful government that has 
ever served free men, now over 200 years old, and still a wonder of the 
world.
  The Constitution was designed to assure that it could be amended, but 
only with difficulty. High hurdles were imposed on successive 
generations, lest it be too easy to amend, and lest it be too easy to 
impair the greatness of this wonderous document by unwise actions taken 
in the haste of a moment of passion or folly.
  We are today compelled to debate in a process constrained by 
inadequate time. We are told we must choose between the glorious symbol 
of our Nation and the great, majestic fundamental document which is the 
soul and the guardian of principles which not only define the structure 
of our Government, but the rights of every American.
  This is not a choice that I like to make, and it is not a choice that 
other Members of this body like. There is regrettably enormous 
political pressure for us to constrain rights set forth in the 
Constitution to protect the symbol of this Nation. And yet when we make 
the decision today, we must keep in mind that we are choosing between 
the symbol of our country and the soul, and the guardian principles of 
our democracy.

[[Page H6431]]

  I call upon this body and all Americans to understand the issue 
before us. I believe that if Americans understand this issue, they will 
come to the same wise conclusion. Like other Americans, I say the 
Pledge of Allegiance to our flag with reverence and pride. I join my 
colleagues here in reciting this great pledge to our Nation's flag as I 
do in joining my constituents at home in frequent public ceremonies in 
saying this important Pledge of Allegiance to the dear flag of this 
country.
  I again hold up before you the Constitution of the United States, a 
small document, successfully amended only a few times, and wisely 
subject to strong constraints on attempted amendments. On many 
occasions, because of the difficulty in amending this wonderful 
document, unwise attempts to amend it have thankfully not come to 
fruition.
  The Constitution says ``the 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 * 
* *''

  That right of freedom of speech is absolute, not in any way 
constrained. And there is no power in the Congress to abridge the 
freedom of speech.
  That is the question before us here. Only here, we are called on to 
not simply pass a law, but rather, to amend the Constitution itself, or 
to permit the States to do so.
  The Constitution is the soul of our Nation, the guiding principles of 
both government and protection of our liberties. It is the Constitution 
which makes being an American so unique and which gives us such 
precious quality and character to our lives as citizens of this great 
Nation.
  The Supreme Court is hardly a group of leftwing antigovernment 
protestors, but rather a group of conservative men and women, given 
lifetime tenure, to carry out one of the most singularly important 
responsibilities in our Government--the interpretation of our 
Constitution and laws. That court has said plainly and clearly that 
freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment is a right so 
precious that it may not be interfered with by a statute which 
criminalizes the conduct of anyone who ``knowingly mutilates, defaces, 
physically defiles, burns, or maintains on the floor or ground or 
tramples upon'' a United States flag, United States, appellant v. 
Eichman, et al. 496 U.S. 310. In this case and in the case of Texas v. 
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, a similar conversion was reached.
  My colleagues, we are compelled to choose--a great symbol of the 
Nation, our beloved flag, or the majestic Constitution of the United 
States and the great 10 amendments to that Constitution, the first 
amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
  In this there is only one choice, defend the majesty and glory of the 
Constitution. Protect, support, and defend the Constitution and the 
rights guaranteed thereunder.
  Like the rest of my colleagues, I pledge allegiance to the flag, 
regularly in this body. But, I remind all here and elsewhere, that 
every 2 years each Member of Congress takes a great and solemn oath, to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is a far higher and greater 
responsibility than that which we take in any of our other activities 
as citizens. It is a precious commitment to the people of the United 
States, to those who have served here before us, to those who will 
serve here after us, and to all Americans throughout history.
  In this oath we honor all those who have loved and served this 
country. And, we commit solemnly to all Americans from the first days 
of its founding until the end of time, that the principles of our 
Government will be protected and defended by us against all, regardless 
of how powerful politically they might be or how wonderful a cause that 
they may assert. When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend 
the Constitution in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to 
defile or dishonor the flag is a great wrong, but recognizing that the 
defense of the Constitution and the rights that are guaranteed under it 
is the ultimate responsibility of every American.
  Whether we hold elective office, or whether we are simply citizens 
living our day-to-day lives under the protection of the Constitution, 
this commitment is to defend our greatest Government treasure. When I 
cast my vote today, it will be for the Constitution, it will be for the 
rights enunciated in the Constitution, it will be against wiping away 
or eroding the constitutional rights of Americans in even the slightest 
way. I remind my colleagues of their oath and I call on them for keen 
awareness of that oath to defend and support the Constitution. The 
great and awesome oath binds me to a duty of the greatest importance to 
all Americans past, present, or future.
  We do not defend our beloved flag by passing the first amendment to 
our Constitution to reduce the rights of Americans. Honor our flag. 
Honor a greater treasure to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this 
bill.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  It is interesting to note that this debate is taking place almost 5 
years to the day since the last time the House considered amending the 
Constitution to protect the flag. The intervening years have been ones 
of momentous change.
  As we approach the conclusion of the bloodiest century in human 
history, the United States has emerged as undisputed leader of the 
world community. The individualistic, democratic values that are the 
hallmark of our society are in ascendancy everywhere and America has 
never been more secure from foreign threat.
  Yet all is not well here at home. The heinous crime perpetrated in 
Oklahoma City this spring raises anew questions about America's social 
fabric, of whether, in William Butler Yeats' terms, the center--that 
is, civilization--can hold.
  In what may be the most disturbingly prophetic poem in Western 
civilization, ``The Second Coming,'' Yeats wrote:

     Turning and turning in the widening gyre
     The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
     Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
     Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
     The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
     The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
     The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of 
           passionate intensity.

  ``Surely,'' Yeats continues, ``some revelation is at hand.''
  The question is of what that revelation might be.
  In America today hate is one the rise; prejudice is bubbling. There 
is growing doubt, if not fear, of the very values--such as free 
competition within the rule of law--that have impelled America to the 
position of unprecedented preeminence on the world stage it now 
occupies.
  It is in this context that the amendment before us has been brought 
forward. It is an attempt to affirm all that is good about our great 
country. It is, in the words of our distinguished colleague from 
Illinois and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, ``an 
effort by mainstream Americans to reassert community standards. It is a 
popular protest against the vulgarization of our society.''
  This is an honorable motive, and I am reluctant to oppose it.
  Moreover, this amendment is championed by organizations--particularly 
the American Legion, VFW, and DAV--which represent those without whose 
sacrifices this country and its values would not exist. Had it no been 
for our Nation's veterans, the only
 competition in the world today would be between totalitarianism of he 
left and totalitarianism of the right.

  These are honorable men and women, and I am reluctant to oppose them.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this amendment because I am 
convinced that to do so is to undercut the very essence of the system 
of governance for which the flag itself stands.
  At the heart of our democracy is a struggle, an ongoing conflict of 
ideas for which the Constitution provides the rules. It is in this 
conflict that the e pluribus unum--the ``one out of many,'' as the 
motto borne on the ribbon held in the mouth of the American bald eagle 
on the Great Seal of the United States puts it--arises. And it is 
precisely this unity in multiplicity for which our flag with its 50 
stars and 13 stripes stands.
  The genius of our Constitution lies in the ways in which it 
structures and ensures the continuity of this conflict of ideas which 
is our democracy. It does so through the system of checks and balances 
and separation of powers with which it structures our Government on the 
one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression it provides in 
the first amendment on the other. The former ensures that the fight is 
always a fair one and that no momentary majority uses its temporary 
advantage to destroy its opponents; the latter ensures that no idea, 
however obnoxious, is excluded from the consideration in the debate.
  It should be stressed that the protection provided by the first 
amendment is a two-edged sword. In fact, the Bill of Rights does not 
exempt ideas and the actions that embody them from criticism, but 
ensures they are exposed to it. As Jefferson put it in his ``Act for 
Establishing Religious Freedom'' in Virginia:

       Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . 
     she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has 
     nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human 
     interposition disarmed of her natural weapon, free argument 
     and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is 
     permitted freely to contradict them.

  Thus any abridgment of the protections provided by the first 
amendment, no matter how nobly motivated, would diminish freedom and in 
all likelihood precipitate, in this instance, more symbolic incidents 
tarnishing the flag than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, 
great care must be taken not to take actions in the name of protecting 
the flag that 

[[Page H6432]]
have the effect of misinterpreting the meaning of the flag.
  In this assessment, the distinction between liberties to protect and 
symbols to rally behind must be made. Freedom of speech and freedom of 
religion require constitutional protection. The flag, on the other 
hand, demands respect for what it is--the greatest symbol of the 
greatest country on the face of the Earth. It is appropriate to pass 
laws expressing reverance for the flag and applying penalties, wherever 
possible, to those who would trash it, but I have grave doubts the 
Constitution is the right place to address these issues.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I find it abhorrent that someone would 
desecrate the flag of the United States of America. But I will not 
support an amendment to the Constitution to prevent it.
  When I think of the flag, I think about the men and women who died 
defending it. What they really were defending was the Constitution of 
the United States and the rights it guarantees.
  My colleagues in Congress, and I, sought to address this problem when 
we overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. I don't feel 
anyone should be allowed to desecrate the flag. I wish the Supreme 
Court had decided in favor of the law, but regretfully, by a vote of 5 
to 4, it declared the act unconstitutional.
  Congress anger and frustration with the decision led us to consider 
an amendment to the Constitution. Keep in mind the Constitution has 
been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. 
This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave 
blacks and women the right to vote, and guarantees freedom of speech 
and freedom of religion.
  Republicans have proposed amendments to the Constitution to balance 
the budget, mandate school prayer, impose term limits on Members of 
Congress, institute a line-item veto, change U.S. citizenship 
requirements, and many other issues.
  Amending the Constitution is an extraordinarily serious matter. I 
don't think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push 
us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag, and 
there is no constitutional amendment.
  I love the flag for all that it represents--the values of freedom, 
democracy, and tolerance for others--but I love the Constitution even 
more. The Constitution is not just a symbol. It defines the very 
principles on which our Nation is founded.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Joint Resolution 
79, the resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit 
desecration of the American flag.
  The last time that the House considered a constitutional amendment 
allowing the States or Congress to prohibit the desecration of the 
American flag was June 1990. This vote followed an earlier decision by 
the Supreme Court which struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989 
that had passed the House overwhelmingly the year before. And, although 
the constitutional amendment failed, I strongly supported both the 
amendment and the Flag Protection Act
  Although the Supreme Court agrees that desecrating our flag is deeply 
offensive to many, it has twice overturned laws that bar flag burning. 
In both cases, the decision has been handed down by the narrowest of 
margins, 5 to 4. Such distinguished constitutionalists as Justices 
Stevens and White hold that burning of the U.S. flag is not an 
expression protected by the first amendment. Instead, they believe that 
flag burning is an action, a repugnant action. And, therein lies the 
distinction. Burning a flag is conduct, not speech.
  I believe strongly in this amendment, although I believe it to an 
issue on which patriotic Americans of good faith can, and do, have 
legitimate differences. Many assert that burning a flag endangers no 
one. Using that standard, one would then assume that we would not see 
the inherent violation of decency of throwing blood on the U.S. 
Capitol, painting a swastika on a synagogue, or defacing a national 
monument. These actions also endanger no one. And, yet, laws have been 
wisely enacted to prohibit these actions.
  I feel very strongly that we must do all we can to protect our flag. 
This constitutional amendment is a necessary good-faith measure that 
defends our most treasured national symbol.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, I was one of only 17 
Republicans in the House of Representatives and the only Republican 
from the Pennsylvania delegation who did not support the constitutional 
amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
  I did not arrive at this decision easily. Polls showed an 
overwhelming majority of Americans supporting the amendment, and my 
Republican colleagues and President Bush were lobbying hard for its 
passage.
  Only after painful reflection did I come to the conclusion that the 
amendment would diminish the first amendment and make martyrs of the 
twisted lowlifes who defile the flag for public attention. Although I 
deplore flag burners and despise their cheap theatrics, I have greater 
reverence for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and refuse to 
give these pathetic individuals and their sorry causes the stature that 
a constitutional amendment provides.
  When I learned that the flag burning amendment would be coming to the 
House floor again for a vote, I dug out my old files on the flag 
burning amendment to review the constituent letters I received after 
the 1990 vote.
  Many constituents were irate with me, and they didn't sugarcoat their 
feelings or pull any punches. I was invited to ``stick it where the sun 
don't shine.'' I was told that I was ``as guilty as the flag burners'' 
and ``should hang my head in shame.'' I convinced several lifelong 
Republicans to join the Democratic Party. And I was instructed by 
several of my strongest supporters and closest friends to remove their 
names from my mailing list.
  But not all of the mail was as negative as one might imagine. In 
fact, a majority of the letters were supportive of my vote.
  As I read these letters from former servicemen, widows, and disabled 
veterans who explained what patriotism meant to them and why they 
opposed the flag burning amendment, I realized that many were far more 
eloquent than any statement or speech I could compose. So rather than 
read a prepared statement that merely outlines my views, I would like 
to read passages from several of the letters I received and let some of 
my constituents speak for me.
  One reads:

       Dear Congressman: I had four and one half years in the 
     United States Army. Three of those years were overseas 
     helping to fight a war to keep fascism and Nazism away from 
     our shores. I was not drafted. I volunteered to serve my 
     country. I love and respect the flag as much as anyone, but I 
     love the freedom for which it stands more so.

  Another reads:

       Dear Congressman Clinger: My father tried to raise his sons 
     as patriots. Only time will tell if he succeeded. I enlisted 
     on my 17th birthday and served in the submarine force. This 
     was my way of trying to preserve our land as a nation of free 
     people. It would have been tragic to risk my life for 
     freedom, only to have it voted away.

  A third one reads:

       Dear Congressman Clinger: I am a 100% service-connected, 
     double amputee veteran of the Korean War. I agree with you on 
     your vote on the flag burning amendment. Please feel free to 
     use my name or letter to support your position as stated.

  A fourth letter reads:

       Dear Mr. Clinger: I am not a resident of your voting 
     district. I am a disabled Vietnam era veteran. I could easily 
     have avoided service, however, I chose to serve my country 
     when it was not a popular thing to do. It was a difficult 
     choice. I see that you recently made a difficult and 
     unpopular choice; the choice to vote against the 
     Constitutional amendment prohibiting burning of the U.S. 
     flag. I am glad that you had the courage to vote against this 
     amendment and I thank you for standing up for the ``Bill of 
     Rights.''

  Finally, the shortest, but probably the most poignant, struck a chord 
with me:

       Dear Congressman Clinger, I support your vote on the flag 
     amendment.
       If the day ever comes when we must ensure patriotism by 
     statute, it will already be too late for our country.

  The point is it isn't too late; we don't need to ensure patriotism by 
statute. The vast majority of Americans have a deep-seated respect for 
the flag and fly the flag proudly. We shouldn't let an ignorant few 
force us to compromise the integrity of the Constitution and the Bill 
of Rights--the true source of our Nation's greatness.
  If we really want to stop the burning, we should not adopt this 
measure. A constitutional amendment will turn a fool's act of cowardice 
into a martyr's civil disobedience, and encourage more dimwits to burn 
the flag.
  Preserving and exercising the first amendment's guarantee of freedom 
of expression, not suppressing it, is the best way to combat this 
disgraceful behavior. We must ridicule those fringe elements and expose 
them for what they are: despicable, grandstanding losers who are 
beneath contempt and unworthy of any attention whatsoever.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing three 
military bases, many active and retired military personnel, and a large 
group of patriotic civilians who all have strong feelings of respect 
for the American flag. As a proud cosponsor of the flag desecration 
constitutional amendment, I strongly believe in protecting the American 
flag and everything that it symbolizes. Old Glory, the most respected 
and recognized symbol in our country, represents the continued struggle 
for freedom and democracy. Far too often people disregard and betray 
all that the flag has stood for throughout our history and continues 
to. The flag is the physical embodiment of that for which many men and 
women have sacrificed their lives. To desecrate the flag is to 
desecrate them. We owe it 

[[Page H6433]]
to these unsung heroes to continue the job they started by ensuring 
passage of this constitutional amendment. Our flag is a unique symbol 
of our country's heritage that deserves the highest degree of respect 
and dignity.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, as a former Army intelligence officer, as a 
former major in the U.S. Army Reserve, and as a Member of Congress who 
is sworn to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support this proposed 
amendment.
  More than a half century ago, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to 
this country and told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Truer 
words were never spoken.
  Time and again throughout our history, the greatest tragedies have 
occurred when we have allowed our fear or anger to lead us into drastic 
overreaction.
  The redbaiting of the 1950's with its blacklists and purges, arose in 
response to the fear of the Soviet Union. Even at the time, many 
Americans realized that Senator McCarthy's crusade was not the way to 
respond to the threat of communism. With 20-20 hindsight today, 
virtually all Americans regret the national hysteria that caused so 
many lives to be ruined.
  In the 1940's it was our justified anger over the Empire of Japan's 
attack on our naval installation at Pearl Habor, HI, that led this 
Nation to ignore the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and 
force 120,000 Americans from this homes and into internment camps 
simply on the basis of their Japanese ancestry.
  It is unfortunate that President Roosevelt, in authorizing that 
action, failed to appreciate the wisdom of his own warning on the 
dangers of fear.
  Today, we are faced with a situation in which a few individuals have 
on occasion set fire to the American flag. That is an action which, as 
a former Army officer, as a Member of Congress, and as an American, I 
find repugnant.
  Our response to these incidents will say a lot about this country. 
Will we once again allow our anger to overrule our reason? If this 
resolution were to pass, the answer would unfortunately be ``Yes.''
  Our response to flag burning should be to denounce it.
  However, this resolution goes so far as to narrow the provision of 
the Constitution which guarantees to all Americans the freedom of 
speech and the freedom of political debate.
  That is unnecessary, it is an over-reaction, and it represents an 
action which is far more dangerous to the future of this Nation than a 
few misguided flag burners.
  This resolution will do nothing but cut off the Constitution's nose 
to spite its face. In an effort to deny the right of a few people to 
express an idea we despise, it would place at risk the right of all 
Americans to freedom of speech.
  I would have hoped that this Congress would have learned more from 
the mistakes of history than to take this road. The vote today in the 
House will tell us whether that is true.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this misguided 
resolution, and vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 79, an amendment to the Constitution to allow the 
banning of the desecration of the American flag.
  It is a crucial amendment, one aimed at restoring a civility and 
patriotism that our Nation seems to have been lacking in recent years.
  For the better part of two centuries, democracy in America has been 
characterized by vibrant and rich debate. Disagreement has been a 
hallmark of our system of government; the competition of ideas has 
helped make us the greatest nation on Earth. Unanimity on political 
matters has never been achieved, and it has never been pursued. It has 
been the freedom to disagree, to criticize, and to dissent that has 
made the United States so worthy of our loyalties.
  Indeed, the freedom of expression is something so precious as to be 
worth fighting and dying for. This freedom of expression has enabled 
individuals to engage in the great American discourse, a legacy which 
will go down in history as perhaps our Nation's finest accomplishment.
  Yet in recent years, it seems as if a once eloquent discourse has 
become something of a rough, almost violent argument. As individuals in 
the public arena raise their voices, it appears that nothing is sacred.
  Almost every constituent with which I speak, no matter what political 
stripe he or she is, agrees on at least one point: They demand that a 
degree of civility be returned to the public debate. And this amendment 
is one of the first and one of the few legislative steps we can take to 
answer these demands.
  The flag is a symbol of our heritage; it represents our common 
institutions and traditions. It has stood for peace and democracy 
abroad, and justice and progress at home.
  For two centuries, millions of our finest men and women have 
sacrificed to defend the flag and all that it stands for. They have 
risked their lives in every corner of the world so that we may enjoy 
the liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution.
  Yet there are some in our society who would abuse the freedoms and 
privileges our land provides. They do such offensive and outrageous 
things to the symbol of our Nation that they cause us to propose 
amendments to the Constitution.
  House Joint Resolution 79 will help remind the American people of the 
debt we all owe to those who have fought and died for the freedoms we 
enjoy.
  This would be an altogether healthy development for the United States 
and one which a great majority of the people would applaud.
  But the need for this amendment runs even deeper than these positive 
effects.
  If a society that holds the freedom of expression as a right of all 
citizens wishes to remain free, then that society needs to state some 
kind of baseline to that expression. Without that baseline, such a 
society would soon devolve to anarchy. And out of anarchy, there will 
come no freedom of speech.
  To the contrary, if we want to continue the excellent American 
tradition of freedom of speech, then at the very least we must all 
agree on one thing: It is the U.S. Government and its institutions that 
allow us to exercise that speech. And as the symbol of those 
institutions, the flag ought to be protected from heinous and debasing 
acts.
  You see, those that speak out against this amendment in defense of 
the freedom of speech are threatening their own freedom.
  By leaving nothing sacred, not even the symbol of hope and liberty 
for billions around the world, we are doing a great disservice to all 
those who have come before us, and all those who will come after. In 
fact, we threaten the freedom of speech itself.
  House Joint Resolution 79 represents the opportunity to do just what 
Americans across the country are pleading for: namely, returning 
civility to the public arena.
  It would allow States and Congress to prohibit the gross mistreatment 
of our national symbol, and help restore a faith in our institutions 
that has been sorely missed by the public at large. Protect Old Glory 
and the freedom of speech, support House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would seek to amend 
our Nation's Bill of Rights for the first time in American history. 
This is the wrong way to honor the American flag which is intended to 
symbolize the freedoms first set forth by our Nation's Founders in the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  There is a very real question about why this amendment is before the 
House today. It seems that there have been very few, if any, reports of 
flag desecration since the late 1980's when the flag became embroiled 
in a Presidential political campaign. I will venture to predict, 
however, that efforts to pass this amendment will prompt some 
malcontent in our society to engage in the very act some would 
prohibit. There will always be a few who will do anything to claim 
their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy in this case.
  Still, simply stated, the most important question before us today is 
whether we should carve out a constitutional exception to first 
amendment protections under the pretext of saving the flag. The issues 
before us involve legal matters but, more importantly, they also 
involve fundamental questions about the nature of our democracy and the 
freedoms we will celebrate in less than a week on July 4.
  The United States has always been a beacon of freedom to the world 
because of the principles of liberty set forth by our Nation's 
Founders. This was true over 200 years ago and it is true today. Our 
freedoms have endured and prevailed over monarchists, Fascists, and 
Communists. This is due in large part to the fact that our Nation's 
Founders enshrined in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights an 
unyielding commitment to liberty. This commitment finds its most noble 
expression in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And one of 
the most fundamental elements of this amendment is the idea that each 
person should be free to express his or her views, no matter how 
repugnant they may be.
  The freedom of speech embodied in America's first amendment is 
celebrated here in the United States and around the world. It has 
provided inspiration to prisoners of conscience who have struggled in 
foreign lands against dictatorship. It has been repeatedly upheld by 
the U.S. Supreme Court as one of our Nation's most important 
constitutional principles. Our right to free speech is something that 
makes us uniquely American.
  No one has ever attempted an outright repeal of our first amendment 
right of free speech. Instead, there have been efforts over the course 
of our history to nibble away at these rights. This periodic pressure 
to erode the full expression of free speech in our Nation has always 
been dangerous. Such efforts 

[[Page H6434]]
have always raised basic questions of where do we stop if we start down 
the slippery road of curbing speech or expressions that some may find 
offensive. Such a selective defense of liberty has always threatened to 
eat away at the very foundations of our democratic values. These are 
the true threats to our Nation's most sacred principles.
  We see an example of this danger today in the proposed amendment to 
prohibit the desecration of the flag. It is an important step in the 
wrong direction.
  I would stress at this point that I share the belief of many 
Americans that desecration of the U.S. flag is an offensive act. 
Burning the American flag is an extremely despicable way for any 
individual to express their views on the U.S. Government, its laws, or 
the flag itself. I also understand that American veterans feel 
especially offended to see the flag that they have served under 
desecrated. As someone who is proud to have worn the uniform of the 
U.S. Army, I am also disgusted to see our flag desecrated at any time 
by malcontents who seek to draw attention to an issue by burning the 
American flag.
  Yet, the real issue before us is how committed we are to the Bill of 
Rights and the guarantee of free speech set forth in the first 
amendment. The question is whether we are willing to defend the right 
of free speech even while we condemn the acts of those who would 
express their views by burning the American flag.
  I have every right to join the vast majority of Americans in 
condemning those who would burn our Nation's flag. Yet, I have taken a 
solemn oath to defend the Constitution and that also requires a defense 
of the first amendment. I refuse to let the actions of a few despicable 
malcontents who would burn the flag lead me to take an action that 
would erode the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights. I cannot permit myself to join with those who would honor the 
flag by weakening the first amendment.
  Supreme Court Justice William Brennen said it well, ``we do not 
consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we 
dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the U.S. flag is best honored by 
upholding all of the traditions of freedom outlined in the U.S. 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years, the American flag 
has been a symbol of all that was good, honorable and just in our great 
Nation. Unfortunately, on June 21, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that 
the American flag could be burned just like any other piece of cloth. 
This amendment will remedy this gross error.
  I am proud to say that I am an original co-sponsor of this amendment 
and strongly support the flag desecration constitutional amendment. 
Throughout the U.S. history, during wars abroad and at home, the one 
symbol that unites this great Nation is the flag. Since Congress last 
voted on the flag desecration issue, 49 States, including my home State 
of North Carolina, have passed resolutions requesting Congress give 
them the opportunity to protect the American flag by ratifying such an 
amendment.
  We should have the deepest gratitude for those wartime heroes who 
fought and died for our freedom. We should be humbled by those who gave 
their lives in defense of those things we treasure as Americans. We 
should be in awe of the ultimate symbol of these acts of patriotism and 
heroism. With every act of flag desecration, we are allowing patriotism 
and heroism to be mocked.
  Opponents of the flag desecration amendment argue that this is an 
infringement on free speech and the first amendment. This amendment 
will simply restore what was the law of the land for more than two 
centuries. The flag is a unique symbol in our society. No other act 
arouses the amount of outrage as flag desecration. This amendment will 
simply give the States the power to decide on what is and what is not 
flag desecration. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bi-partisan 
amendment. Our greatest national treasure deserves no less.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, here we go again.
  Here we go again spending time on a sound-bite solution to an issue.
  The symbol of our flag is very important to me. It was in my hometown 
of Philadelphia where Betsy Ross sewed the first flag. But that's not 
all that happened in Philadelphia. The Constitution and its first 
amendment were also written there.
  Our goal here is to honor America. And it is an admirable goal to pay 
homage to this, the greatest Nation on Earth.
  But the flag--no matter how beautiful and special--is a symbol. 
Justice Jackson said this more than 50 years ago in a landmark decision 
about pledging allegiance to our flag: ``The use of an emblem or flag * 
* * is a short cut from mind to mind.''
  We can honor America and pass on to our children reverence for our 
country in much more genuine ways. First, as Members of Congress we 
should spend every day in this institution living up to the highest 
ideals of democracy and constitutional Government.
  Second, we should do our best to preserve and expand debate and free 
speech. Free speech is the essence of democracy and the energy that 
drives our Nation.
  Burning the flag is speech; it is hideous speech but it is speech. 
Oliver Wendell Holmes said this about offensive speech: we need to 
protect the ``freedom for the thought we hate.''
  It is unfortunate that we are spending our time passing this 
amendment. There's a better way. The next time someone desecrates our 
flag--I would rather spend my energy defending our Nation by 
challenging this ugly form of speech, through speech. That's the way to 
pledge allegiance to America.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as an original cosponsor of 
House Joint Resolution 79, in strong support of this legislation to 
protect our flag from desecration. I congratulate my colleague and 
friend from New York for introducing this measure and for his 
persistence in bringing it to the floor today.
  Because of what America is, our flag should always be one of our most 
cherished and revered symbols. Therefore, I was astounded and gravely 
disappointed by the 1989 Supreme Court decision legitimizing 
desecration of our flag as protected conduct. I was one of those in 
Congress at the time who immediately afterward introduced legislation 
to reverse it.
  However, I must tell you that I took this step not at all lightly. I 
believed that to reverse this decision of the Supreme Court, one course 
and one course only was open to us: Amending the U.S. Constitution. 
Today we seek to do just that with this legislation authorizing the 
Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag 
of the United States.
  My friends, I have to tell you that I never believed that the issue 
involved is one of free speech--that burning the flag is a form of 
protest against government policies. The American flag does not stand 
for any particular government policy or decision or official. It stands 
for the United States of America, and to desecrate it means that 
America should not exist--that freedom and democracy should not exist--
that, in fact, right to peaceful protest should not exist. I cannot and 
will not support this idea.
  It has been said that allowing the desecration of the flag is the 
best way to prove we believe in equal freedom for those with whom we 
disagree. The late Senator from Illinois, Everett M. Dirksen, once 
answered this argument. He called it false and sour.
  ``A person can revile the flag to his evil heart's content,'' he 
said, but it is only if his contempt takes physical form--such as 
trampling, tearing, spitting on and burning the flag--that he can be 
punished. Only his violence is punished. I could not agree more.
  Let me repeat, I say that by protecting our flag we deny no one the 
right of free speech or of peaceful political protest. I will defend 
the right of anyone to get up and say whatever is on his mind. That is, 
in fact, the entire point: By defending the flag we ensure that this 
right never will be denied.
  All we ask is that the flag be accorded the same respect we offer to 
those who protest under its freedoms.
  If livings symbols of freedom and liberty mean nothing, if the ideals 
and not the evidence are all that matter, why don't we just open up the 
National Archives and tear up the Constitution and Declaration of 
Independence? They're just fading, old pieces of paper, aren't they?
  The fact of the matter is that they are much more than that. They 
have told generations and generations of immigrants seeking a better 
life--immigrants like my parents and some of yours--that here in 
America we believe it is an individual's right to choose, to control 
his own destiny.
  Senator Dirksen had it right--he said that:

       Reverence for our stars and stripes is but our simple 
     tribute to the republic and to all of its hopes and dreams.

  In this country, we do not pledge allegiance to a king or a President 
or even a piece of old parchment.
  We pledge allegiance to a flag because its bright stars and bold 
stripes mean something that no other flag on Earth today means: Here in 
America, the people are the Government, and for that reason we will 
always be free.
  No, it is not lack of commitment to the flag and the great freedoms 
and ideals it symbolizes that make me uneasy.
  What disturbs me is that we as a Nation must go to these lengths--to 
the extreme of amending the document upon which all of our national 
history and heritage rests--to reconfirm these very national beliefs.
  We cannot hold ourselves apart, we cannot claim that we are 
Americans, and at the same time believe that this flag should be burned 
or otherwise desecrated.

[[Page H6435]]

  This flag means America, it means that we should be able to disagree. 
How can anyone believe otherwise? How could anyone not choose freedom 
over tyranny, justice over injustice, liberty over servitude? This 
flag--our flag--stands for these great ideals. It is hope, dreams, the 
very best man can offer the world and the future.
  Our cemeteries are filled with the bodies of those who had great 
dreams of productive lives with loving families--dreams that were 
forfeited in order that you and I and our children would be able to 
lead better lives.
  Our freedoms have been bought and paid for by their sacrifice, and we 
own it to them to ensure that this country can be all that it was meant 
to be.
  That does not include contempt and desecration--it requires 
determined, constructive effort every day. All of this and more is 
woven into those few yards of cloth. We need to remember that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this valuable and 
needed legislation today. Protect our flag and ensure that it's 
protections will never be compromised.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 79. I take great pride in supporting this resolution which 
will protect Old Glory, from being desecrated. Contrary to what this 
resolution's opponents say, we are not trampling on the Bill of Rights. 
Indeed, we are ensuring the rights of millions of Americans who find 
burning the American flag to be offensive to their beliefs.
  It does not make sense to argue that burning the American flag is a 
protected form of expression. It is a felony to burn U.S. currency, 
even if a political statement is being made, and it is illegal to 
damage a Postal Service mailbox. But you can burn the American flag. 
This makes no sense.
  Until 1989 the Supreme Court upheld State laws that prohibited the 
desecration of the flag. In 1989, the Supreme Court overturned a Texas 
statute that prohibited the desecration of the flag. Consequently, 
Congress passed a Federal law that prohibited the desecration of the 
flag. Once again, the Supreme Court overturned a statute that barred 
flag-burning. Faced with these two decisions, A constitutional 
amendment is the only way to give the American flag the protection it 
so dearly needs. This amendment will provide Congress and the States 
with the constitutional authority to protect the flag, authority that 
they had prior to the Supreme Court's intervention in 1989. This 
amendment itself will not prohibit desecration of the flag, it will 
simply return this authority to the States.
  Public opinion polls show that more than 80 percent of the American 
people support this amendment. Forty-nine State legislatures have 
passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass this amendment and send 
it to the States. One needs only to look at the Iwo Jima Memorial to 
witness the powerful nature of the American flag. The American flag is 
a symbol throughout the world for liberty and justice and we should 
treat it with the utmost respect and admiration, not just for what it 
symbolizes but also for countless numbers of soldiers and others who 
fought, served and died protecting it. In a country as wonderfully 
diverse as ours, the American flag serves as a national symbol of 
unity. No matter who you are, whether you are rich or poor, African-
American or Irish-American, male or female it is our flag that reminds 
us of our common history and our heritage.
  The American people want us to pass this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary 
constitutional amendment.
  All of us here today respect and honor our flag. We all feel so proud 
when we see the Stars and Stripes on a front porch.
  We all agree that the flag is a treasured symbol of our democratic 
ideals and the values we hold most dear to our hearts. And, we all 
agree that damaging that symbol is disgraceful and should never be 
condoned.
  The key question is, are we truly prepared to amend the Bill of 
Rights for the first time ever, to begin eroding the freedom of speech 
and expression? Our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights as a 
guarantee against the abuses and tyranny they had fled. These 
inalienable rights have stood the test of time and survived for 204 
years. Are we prepared to begin placing qualifications on the first 
amendment? What provision of the Bill of Rights will be next?
  If we start down the slippery slope of eroding fundamental rights 
like free speech, where will the assault on individual freedom we all 
take for granted end? What is the logical extension?
  I am disturbed by the remarks of American Legion National Commander 
William Detweiler, who stated, ``Burning the flag * * * is a problem 
even if no one ever burns another American flag.'' These comments show 
an alarming lack of perspective. Is Congress going to begin amending 
the Constitution to prohibit actions which do not even occur? There is 
no rampant abuse of the flag occurring in this country. There has not 
been a major incident in 5 years. But know full well, as soon as we 
pass this amendment, someone will burn a flag just to get in the news.
  Old Glory has a special place in our Nation's history and damaging it 
is disgraceful. But we should not let a few isolated hooligans and 
malcontents blackmail us into whittling away at the Bill of Rights.
  Moreover, our flag, while revered and held in honor, is a secular 
symbol and thus should not be worshiped. It should not be elevated to 
the exalted status this amendment would confer.
  That is why I am perplexed by the use of the word desecration in 
connection with the flag. The word actually means ``to violate the 
sanctity of,'' a definition with obvious religious undertones.
  William Safire, one of the most conservative commentators in America 
today, addressed the question of the flag's true secular symbolism 
eloquently. In 1990 he wrote,
       * * * in this democracy, nothing political can be 
     consecrated, ``made sacred.'' * * * Any attempt to make the 
     nation's flag sacred--to endow this secular symbol with the 
     holiness required for ``desecration''--not only undermines 
     our political freedom but belittles our worship of the 
     Creator.

  He continued,

       Should we respect the flag? Always. Should we worship the 
     flag? Never. We salute the flag but we reserve worship for 
     God.

  Mr. Speaker, in spite of my deep respect and affection for our flag, 
I will vote against this constitutional amendment. This amendment would 
alter our Bill of Rights for the first time in more than 200 years to 
prohibit an act which almost never occurs. It is ironic that this 
amendment's sponsors are using our Nation's symbol of freedom to begin 
eroding that freedom.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this unnecessary constitutional 
tampering.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 79, legislation I have cosponsored to allow Congress 
and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the American 
flag.
  As we debate this long overdue legislation to correct a 1989 Supreme 
Court ruling that allowed for the desecration of the American flag, I 
cannot help but recall my good friend and constituent Charles Allen, a 
veteran who served in the Navy during World War I. He is a legend at 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital at Bay Pines which he 
helped build. Later he served on the hospital's maintenance team and 
upon his retirement devoted thousands of hours as a hospital volunteer 
and donated thousands of dollars to the volunteer services program. 
Although Charlie died 4 years ago, he is buried at the National 
Cemetery at Bay Pines and is with us in spirit during every memorial 
day and Veterans Day program.
  Perhaps the greatest gift left to us by Charlie Allen was a special 
tribute to the American flag he wrote and recited at Memorial Day and 
Veterans Day services for more than 25 years. It is a stirring tribute 
to Old Glory which I would like to share with my colleagues.

       It is my privilege and high honor to direct your attention 
     to this beautiful flag of our beloved country. It is, and 
     should always be displayed in the proper place and conditions 
     where it is accorded the position of highest honor and is a 
     constant inspiration to every loyal citizen. It demands 
     unswerving loyalty and wholehearted devotion of the 
     principals of which it is the glorious representative. It is 
     the majestic emblem of freedom under constitutional 
     government.
       Beneath its protective folds, liberty, equality, and 
     fraternity have become the heritage of every citizen--while 
     the opposed of many nations have found peace and happiness in 
     the land over which it floats.
       Each time I see Old Glory wave against a clear blue sky.
       I know that deepest reason that our flag will always fly.
       And so I set about to write just how it made me feel.
       To see the banner fluttering, our guardian so real.
       I will not say, as others did, for which each color stands.
       I'll only state this grand old flag a Nation great 
     commands.
       And that each mother's sons of us would more than gladly 
     give.
       Our blood, and yes, our very life so it can wave and live.
       The flags of many empires have come and gone, but the Stars 
     and Stripes remain.
       Alone of all flags, it has the sanctity of revelation. He 
     who lives under it, is loyal to it, is loyal to truth and 
     justice everywhere. For as long as it flies on land, sea, or 
     air, Government of the people, by the people, for the people, 
     shall not perish from this earth.
                                     (Charles Allen, WW I veteran)

  Before his death, Charlie willed his tribute to the flag to another 
legend of Bay Pines and our local veterans community, Mr. W.B. Mackall. 
He is a leader of Florida's Citizen 

[[Page H6436]]
Flag Alliance who now carries on the tradition of reciting this tribute 
at the appropriate events.
  Mr. Speaker, as a veteran and as one who dedicated his life to other 
veterans and to our Nation, it is most appropriate that Charlie Allen's 
word from the heart about the American flag be a part of this historic 
debate. In just a few sentences, he captures its essence and the urgent 
need to protect the Stars and Stripes from those who would desecrate 
it. Those who would trample on our flag also trample upon our Nation, 
the honor of Charlie Allen, all those who went before him into battle, 
and all those who will go into battle in the future in defense of our 
Nation and our way of life.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, the flag of the United States is very 
dear to almost every American. To see it desecrated evokes anger among 
most of us because it is such a powerful and important symbol. The flag 
makes us proud and reminds us of what we, our friends and relatives and 
our forefathers have sacrificed to ensure it will continue to symbolize 
peace, strength and above all, freedom.
  The Supreme Court has ruled that statutes which prohibit flag 
desecration violate the first amendment protection of freedom of speech 
and are unconstitutional. Therefore, it has become necessary to amend 
the Constitution so that Congress and the states may enact legislation 
protecting the flag. The constitutional amendment before us today 
provides such power; no more, no less. It states: ``The Congress and 
the States shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States.'' I support this narrowly drawn amendment to 
allow us to protect the flag, our symbol of all that we are as a 
people.
  The most important part of this debate, and one we won't decide 
today, is how a future Congress will define two important terms in this 
amendment. Those terms are ``physical desecration'' and ``flag.'' This 
will require careful and thoughtful consideration to make sure we 
protect both our flag and our right to free speech.
  Some would argue that we cannot protect the flag through a 
constitutional amendment, because to do so would restrict the right to 
free speech. The first amendment protects a wide variety of expression 
of ideas and the means by which these ideas are conveyed. For example, 
the spoken word, a gesture, and picket signs are largely protected by 
the first amendment. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that first 
amendment does have reasonable limits. The Supreme Court has ruled that 
the first amendment does not protect one from yelling ``fire'' in a 
crowded movie theater or from provoking a riot. It has also allowed 
restrictions on when, where and how speech is conveyed in public.
  Let me illustrate with a hypothetical situation. Assume that I am the 
owner of a business on Main Street in town and the mayor decides to 
close Main Street. I can express my dislike for the mayor's decision by 
giving a speech against the idea in a public square or by holding a 
picket sign. However, the town can legally regulate when, where and how 
I can do these things. In my example above, the town could prevent me 
from screaming my speech through a megaphone at 2 o'clock in the 
morning. It could
 also prevent me from throwing a paint bomb at city hall. But it cannot 
prevent me from expressing my dislike of the mayor's decision to close 
Main Street.

  It will be necessary for a future Congress to be thoughtful in 
defining the term ``physical desecration.'' Obviously, the definition 
cannot be so narrow that it prevents burning of a soiled or tattered 
flag. That is considered a respectful means of disposal. However, it 
should not be so broad as to prevent a flag being present at a protest 
against a certain government action. Such a prohibition would not 
involve physical contact with the flag and would not, therefore, 
involve any changes to the flag.
  The definition of ``physical desecration'' will depend upon how a 
future Congress defines ``flag,'' which will be just as difficult. What 
exactly is a flag? I have no problem with the traditional ``flag'' that 
is flown on a flag pole in front of a house or city hall or above the 
Capitol. Similarly, a flag on a stick distributed at a Fourth of July 
parade seems clearly to be a flag which deserves protection. But what 
about a flag emblem on a sweater or on a shoe? What about a flag cake 
or a flag tie on the Fourth of July? Or a video picture of a flag that 
is transformed into the face of a politician? Is this video emblem a 
flag capable of desecration?
  These are the very detailed and difficult questions which a future 
Congress must resolve if the amendment is adopted and ratified by the 
States. I support this amendment because I believe in protecting the 
flag. However, I also support the amendment because in the process of 
defining ``flag'' and ``physical desecration,'' the American public 
will see just how challenging it is to define what is and what is not 
protected by the first amendment. This civics lesson will increase our 
understanding of the freedoms which our flag symbolizes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 173, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.

                          ____________________