[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.
____________________