[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 82 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3726-H3756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 54, PROHIBITING 
       THE PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 163 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 163

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 54) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to 
     prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
     States. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The joint resolution shall be debatable for two 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit. The motion to recommit may 
     include instructions only if offered by the minority leader 
     or his designee. If including instructions, the motion to 
     recommit shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides a fair and a reasonable way to 
consider the proposed constitutional amendment to allow this Congress 
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States 
of America. Let me go through the steps that we will follow.
  First, there is 1 hour of debate on this rule, which is equally 
divided between the majority side and the minority side. After voting 
on the rule, there will then be 2 hours of debate on the proposed 
constitutional amendment. That time is equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
who happen to be on different sides of this issue, although this is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation offered here today.
  Then the rule allows for a motion to recommit, which may include 
instructions if offered by the minority leader or his designee.

                              {time}  1045

  This would be the opportunity for the minority or those in 
opposition, since many of the minority are cosponsors of this 
legislation, it would allow those in opposition to offer an amendment 
or a substitute and have it voted on in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin this debate, I would like to provide some 
background on how we got here today, and it is a shame that we even 
have to be here.
  Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson in 1989, 
48 States and the Federal Government had laws on the books prohibiting 
the desecration of the American flag.
  In the Johnson case the Supreme Court held by a bare 5 to 4 margin 
that the burning of an American flag as part of a political 
demonstration was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment 
to the Constitution.
  In response to the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag 
Protection Act of 1989 under suspension of the rules by a record vote 
of 380 to 38.
  Then in 1990, in the case of the United States versus Eichman the 
Supreme Court in another 5 to 4 decision struck down this statute, 
ruling that it infringed on expressive conduct protected by the first 
amendment.
  Within days, the House responded by scheduling consideration of a 
constitutional amendment to protect the flag from physical desecration. 
The amendment received support from a substantial majority of the 
House, but unfortunately fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote 
for a constitutional amendment. The vote at that time was 254 to 177.
  Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, 49 States have passed resolutions calling 
on Congress to pass an amendment to protect the flag of the United 
States of America. In here are the resolutions of those 49 States.
  Subsequently, in the last Congress, we mounted a new effort to pass a 
constitutional amendment to protect the flag against physical 
desecration. We were successful in achieving the required two-thirds 
vote in the House for the first time on this constitutional amendment. 
The vote then was 312 to 120, and that was substantially higher, 22 
votes higher than even needed to amend the Constitution.
  Unfortunately, the Senate fell just a few votes short of the needed 
two-thirds. The vote there was 63 to 36, and consequently the amendment 
was never put out to the American people to ratify.
  Now we are set to begin the final push to victory, my colleagues, in 
order to try to pick up the few extra votes needed in the Senate. The 
language of the amendment offered this year is significantly different 
from the 1990 and 1995 versions, and this is important for Members to 
pay attention to, especially over in the other body, because many of 
those that voted against it last time voted against it because it 
contained a provision which allowed individual States to pass laws 
prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. Those 
versions provided that the Congress and the States shall have power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
  The version introduced, that I introduced this year, deletes the 
words ``and the States'' so that only Congress will have the power to 
prohibit physical desecration of the flag. This eliminates the concern 
of those who might have voted against it in years past that were 
worried about possible confusion which could be caused by different 
laws in each State.
  Now, if this is adopted, there will only be one national law dealing 
with this issue. Since the whole purpose of this constitutional 
amendment is to protect the national flag, it makes sense, I guess, 
that there be a national policy to achieve that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us undertake this lightly. The Constitution is a 
document that has stood the test of time over two centuries. The 
Founding Fathers wisely made it very difficult to amend this 
Constitution of ours. Our goal then is not really to change the 
Constitution. Our goal is to restore the Constitution to the way it was 
for the first 200 years of this great Nation of ours, up until 1989. 
And had the Supreme Court not suddenly reinvented

[[Page H3727]]

the Constitution by a 5-to-4 vote, something that was never there 
before, we would not even be here today on this floor. But the Supreme 
Court did take away the right of the people acting through their 
elected representatives to protect their flag, and we propose today to 
restore the right of the people to protect that flag.
  This is not an idea that just a few people dreamed up, my colleagues. 
We are responding to the will of the overwhelming majority of the 
American people by restoring to the Federal Government power to protect 
the flag of this Nation.
  Stacked on this table right next to me now are more than 3 million 
signatures, 3 million signatures of people from all walks of life, and 
I would invite Members to come over and take a look at them, 3 million 
signatures from my colleagues' congressional districts. These 
signatures were gathered by the American Legion and the Citizens Flag 
Alliance. Many of the people that my colleagues see sitting up here in 
the audience today, from more than 100 organizations, organizations 
that I think represent a real cross section of America. In fact, when 
we look at these petitions, they are from people from all walks of 
life, from religious organizations, not just veterans' organizations, 
and every single veterans' organization in America has signed these 
petitions. But they come from religious organizations like the Knights 
of Columbus and the Masonic orders. They come from civic organizations 
like the Polish and Hungarian and Ukranian federations. Many of these 
people were immigrants that came to this country. From fraternal 
organizations like the Benevolent Order of Elks, Moose International, 
and the Federation of Police; in fact, all of the police organizations 
across this country, and from many, many other groups, totaling more 
than 100, like the National Grain and Future Farmers of America.
  But perhaps most impressive again is the resounding support from the 
States around this country which I pointed to before, 49 out of 50 
States, and that is what is in this book that I showed my colleagues a 
minute ago.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the opponents of this proposal have tried to 
make it sound as if this is some kind of a threat to freedom of speech. 
The first amendment states, quote, Congress shall make no law abridging 
freedom of speech, but if this amendment is adopted and implementing 
legislation is adopted to follow it, every American will be just as 
free as they are today to say anything they want to about our flag or 
our country. However much I would disagree with that kind of sentiment, 
they will be free to say insulting things about the flag or about our 
country, and I would like to remind our colleagues that under the first 
amendment even freedom of speech is not unlimited.
  For example, speech that is likely to incite an immediate violent 
response like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not allowed under 
the laws of this country. It is not protected under the first amendment 
rights. Obscenity is not protected, and libel is not protected. One 
cannot go and stand on a crowded street corner or in a residential 
street corner in the middle of the night and disturb the peace. That is 
against the law, and it is constitutionally against the law.

  Mr. Speaker, this proposed constitutional amendment gives Congress 
only, only Congress, the power to prohibit physical desecration of our 
flag. It does not give Congress power to limit what anybody can 
actually say. As my colleagues know, if they reach into their pocket 
and they have a dollar bill, they own that dollar bill, it is theirs. 
But it is against the law for them to burn it, and it ought to be 
against the law to burn the symbol of our country, the American flag.
  Furthermore, I will note that the power to protect the flag was used 
judiciously for the first 200 years of this Nation's history, and there 
is no reason to suspect that it will be used any differently in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last two centuries, and especially in recent 
years, immigrants from all over this world have flocked to America 
seeking what my colleagues and I enjoy, and that is freedom that is a 
decent safe way of life, and they knew little about America and about 
our culture and about our heritage. The face of America is changing, 
and these people when they come here, the one thing they did know: the 
American flag.
  I can recall a number of years ago when I led a delegation to a place 
called Hanoi in Vietnam, and we sat across from those Communists and we 
begged them to give us back the remains of fallen soldiers, and they 
refused to do it. And later on when we left there, we went to a place 
called Thailand where there was a refugee camp with 180,000 people out 
in the wilderness in the middle of nowhere, and to get there we had to 
fly first by plane and then by truck over a dirt road, and as we 
approached that refugee camp 10 miles away, there began to be people, a 
few people on either side of the road waving little American flags. And 
as we proceeded further, there were more and more people, children and 
old people, and they were all waving little American flags. And as we 
got near the camp, there was more than 10,000 people lining this dirt 
road. And I was taken by one particular sign that was almost as wide as 
the rostrum up there, and on that sign it said: America, please take us 
home. And when I got out of that truck and I sat and talked with those 
people, they were not asking us to take them home to America. They were 
asking us to make it possible for them to go back to their home.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the American flag means. It is the symbol 
of this country. It is what binds us together, and particularly with 
the changing face of America. That is why we need to prohibit the 
physical desecration of this American flag, and that is why I would ask 
all of my colleagues to come over here in a few minutes, vote for the 
rule and then vote for this very, very, very important proposed 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, my dear friend, Mr. 
Solomon, the former marine, but they tell me, Mr. Speaker, there is no 
such thing as a former marine. It is just a marine. So I respect my 
colleague, my chairman, my marine who did a great job in explaining the 
issue before me.
  I join my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] not only 
in supporting the rule, but also in cosponsoring the bill to prohibit 
desecration of the flag. Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to serve in 
World War II, and I did serve to defend our flag, but more importantly 
I served to defend what our flag stands for. Still I cannot believe 
that people should be allowed to desecrate the flag. I think there are 
far better ways to express unhappiness than by engaging in an act that 
thousands and thousands of people find so offensive.
  I have met with veterans groups many, many times, and they inform me 
that their No. 1 priority is protecting the flag that they fought to 
defend. I think the very least this country can do for these men and 
women who risk their lives defending the United States is to grant them 
that wish.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a gentleman who distinguished himself in the 
Vietnam war as a Marine lieutenant.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way to begin this debate than 
by recalling the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said, 
and I quote, we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check 
the expression of opinions we loathe, unquote.
  Amending the Constitution and for the first time in our history 
amending the Bill of Rights is an extremely serious matter, and we 
should consider it only under the most compelling circumstances. Those 
who propose this amendment, and they propose it in the deepest good 
faith and patriotism, should be obliged nonetheless to meet an exacting 
standard of proof, proof that clearly demonstrates a serious threat or 
need, a threat or need which goes to the fundamental structure of 
national government, one which can be addressed only through a change 
in our national charter and one for which the benefits of that change 
clearly outweigh the costs.
  The proponents of this amendment cannot meet that standard. Where is

[[Page H3728]]

the threat, Mr. Speaker? Where is the need? A few zealots misguidedly 
believe that flag desecration will further their cause.

                              {time}  1100

  But their idiocy provides no excuse for us to weaken the first 
amendment. 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 our Nation's tradition of freedom 
and self-government. We change it at our grave 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 not at the 
expense of the first amendment's guarantee of free speech. More to the 
point, respect cannot be mandated. To be genuine, to be a respect that 
truly honors our flag, it cannot be a legal requirement. It must flow 
from the natural love of our freedom-loving people for the beautiful 
standard of this Nation and the exquisite symbol of our freedoms.
  As Justice Jackson said in the West Virginia State Board of Education 
case back during World War II, ``To believe that patriotism will not 
flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead 
of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the 
appeal of our institutions to free minds.''
  As a Marine veteran and as an American, I have great pride in the 
flag. I vividly remember what it felt like to get back to the compound 
and see the flag flying there, and I think I understand the strong 
feelings of patriotism and pride in flag and country that motivate the 
supporters of this proposal. Unfortunately, in their understandable 
passion to protect the flag, they ask us to undermine the Bill of 
Rights.
  As a veteran and as an American, I too am deeply offended by any act 
of disrespect to the flag, including physical desecration and flag 
burning. Like the proposal's supporters, I too am fiercely proud of the 
values and the ideals that our flag symbolizes. But it would be tragic 
if, in our rush to prohibit disrespect for the flag, we showed greater 
disrespect for the Constitution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just say to the gentleman that just spoke, I have great 
admiration and respect for him and certainly respect his opinion on 
this, but he asked the question, where is the need?
  Well, I guess we would have to go and ask the gold star mother that I 
talked to last week, where is the need and how she felt about it. I 
guess we could ask anyone who has lost a loved one how they feel about 
it, but I guess more than anything else we could ask the disabled 
veteran who a few years ago witnessed the burning of an American flag. 
This man was crippled, crippled from war, and he was so overcome that 
he jumped into the fray and he was injured, and then a lawsuit was 
brought against him.
  Those are the kind of emotions that come about with something like 
this, and that is why we need the amendment that would ban the physical 
desecration of the American flag so that those kind of instances do not 
happen. Anyone can criticize the flag; anyone can criticize the Supreme 
Court building right over there, but one cannot go over and physically 
desecrate that Supreme Court building, one cannot physically desecrate 
the American dollar, as I said before, and one should not be able to 
physically desecrate the American flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss] a member of the Committee on Rules, a very 
valuable member who is a cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules. Certainly his leadership and commitment have prevailed in 
bringing us here today, and I have nothing but the greatest admiration 
and commendation for what he is doing.
  Mr. Speaker, the stars and stripes is certainly one of our greatest 
and most enduring monuments. It may be cloth, but it lasts longer than 
the monuments of steel, the monuments of cement, and the other 
monuments that we have made, because it is a monument in our heart. Its 
remarkable simplicity of design has made it perhaps the most 
universally recognized symbol around the world. It is literally a 
symbol of hope to millions and millions of people as the representation 
of freedom and democracy. There is actually a place in the world where 
there is freedom and democracy.
  It is the subject of our National Anthem. When we count the stars, it 
shows our historical growth and the unity as the United States of 
America. It is the inspiration for our war fighters, as we have heard 
testimony here this morning. It is the beloved welcome home sign for 
Americans traveling abroad. But even more than that, it is a visual 
reminder of the millions of Americans who have shed their blood and 
lost their lives in defense of liberty for the United States of 
America. These are our fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, grandparents, 
spouses, people we may never have the chance to know again.
  So as a nation we proudly display the flag in respect of their 
courage and the rights they fought to defend. They are the brave who 
made possible the fact that our homes are in the land of the free.
  This amendment clearly has the weight of public opinion behind it. 
More than four out of five Americans believe that we should have laws 
to protect the symbol of freedom from physical desecration. Mere 
statutes have proven ineffective, strangely enough, because of curious 
and, I would say, wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions passed by the 
narrowist of margins. Since those rulings, in fact 49 out of 50 States 
have passed resolutions asking the U.S. Congress to ensure that States 
have the right to protect the flag.
  Now is the time for Congress to get on with it. This has been a 
challenging process. There is nothing more integral to the lives of all 
Americans than our Bill of Rights. We all understand that here. But we 
would certainly never do anything that will infringe on our most sacred 
and protected freedoms.
  But this proposed amendment will not interfere with our right to free 
speech. Anyone who wishes to express his or her ideas about our flag is 
certainly free to do so, and accept the consequences. As the Chairman 
has said, this narrow amendment will simply preclude physical 
desecration of the flag.
  I would say in my district in southwest Florida that burning a flag 
could well be more of a threat to public safety and public order than 
screaming ``fire'' in a crowded theater, which the court has said is a 
permissible restraint on free speech.
  This is an overwhelmingly popular idea whose time has come. As we 
look toward Flag Day this Saturday, we want to be able to send to our 
Nation's veterans and in fact to all Americans the simple gift of 
knowing that the flag that stirs their hearts, that so many have fought 
for and so many have died for will be as sacred and secure as the 
freedom and the liberty that it embraces.
  I personally feel, if one burns the flag of the United States of 
America, one is burning a little piece of me, because I feel I have a 
little piece of that flag and I suspect every American feels that way. 
I think if one tears the flag, one is tearing a little piece of me. I 
think every American feels that way.
  I would suggest that we do not want to encourage that kind of thing; 
we should discourage it, and I would suggest that in the event that 
there is an incident involving the flag, the side of law and order 
ought to be on those who are protecting the flag, not on the side of 
those who would destroy one of our most sacred symbols.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations and a veteran Air Force member during the 
Second World War.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am 
pleased to rise in support of the Solomon proposal, House Resolution 
163, to protect our flag from desecration. Those of us who have seen 
these acts of

[[Page H3729]]

desecration find it abominable, and I think this is an excellent 
measure to protect a banner that we all hold dear to our hearts 
throughout our Nation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am in support of this rule. I can think of a better rule. I 
would have liked the rule to be more open. I had a substitute for the 
particular amendment that we are proposing to the Constitution, but 
that will not be permissible. However, I will vote for the rule.
  I have to compliment the authors of this legislation, recognizing 
that this cannot be done with legislation, that we have to alter the 
Constitution, because if one writes legislation, obviously it would not 
be constitutional. So therefore, I think the authors of the proposal 
should be complimented.
  Also, they deserve some credit for courage, because it is my 
understanding that this will be the first time that we will alter the 
Bill of Rights, and in doing so, I think we should do this with a great 
deal of thoughtfulness.
  The courts, as we know, have quite frequently limited our freedom of 
speech. This is why we have the Istook amendment. The courts have ruled 
out voluntary prayer in schools, so we are trying to compensate for 
that with the Istook amendment, and I am a supporter of that, but this 
amendment is quite different. Instead of expanding the right of free 
expression, this is curtailing the right of free expression and for 
that reason I will be opposing the legislation.
  We have no flag crisis, and I am quite concerned that once this has 
passed into the Constitution, it might incite more flag burnings and 
more flag desecration. Actually, under the Constitution, a more 
permissible way and more proper way of dealing with the problems that 
the courts have presented us, is for we as a Congress to withhold the 
jurisdiction from the courts, and then allow the States to write the 
legislation that was ruled unconstitutional.
  As a matter of fact, even this amendment, as proposed, we could 
change two words and make it an acceptable amendment to those of us who 
interpret the Constitution in a strict manner. All we would have to do 
is the States could write the laws instead of Congress. The first 
amendment starts out and says the Congress will write no laws, the 
Congress will make no laws restricting freedom of expression. But here, 
the last time this amendment came up, they included the States, it said 
the Congress and the States could write the regulations and the rules, 
but now it says only the Congress.
  I thought we were for less government. I thought we were for less 
centralization, less police forces up here. I am quite sure that this 
will become the job of the BATF. I guess we will have a BATFF next, 
because they will have to police the flag abuse.
  There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this. One is that it 
is not only a freedom of speech issue, it is also a property rights 
issue. Withholding and restricting flag burning of other people's flags 
and Government-owned flags and on Government property, that certainly 
is legitimate. But freedom of speech and freedom of expression depends 
on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in 
other people's churches; it is honored and respected because we respect 
the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free 
expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. But once we deal 
with the property, no matter how noble the gesture, I think that we 
have to be very, very cautious in this manner.
  The original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the 
Constitution was never that we would be so involved in writing 
regulations and legislation of free expression in an attack on private 
property ownership, and then again, it really defies the ninth and 
tenth Amendments. We would be much better off taking the part of the 
Constitution that allows us to remove the jurisdiction from the courts 
and, thus, then permitting the States to write the laws as they see 
fit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say before recognizing the next speaker that certainly this 
Member of Congress would stand and defend any American citizen's right 
to freedom of speech. I do not consider burning the American flag an 
expression of speech. I think it is a hateful tantrum.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Stearns], a very distinguished Member.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is 
probably appropriate that I come to speak after my colleague on this 
side of the aisle spoke. He talks about amending the Bill of Rights, 
and that is not what we are doing here. He talks about protecting the 
first amendment. Let me point out to him that freedom of speech is not 
absolute. He might believe that freedom of speech is absolute, but it 
is not, it has never been. That is why we have on the books obscenity 
laws.

                              {time}  1115

  We have on the books public decency laws. So when he talks about the 
freedom of speech being absolute, I do not agree with him. I would also 
like to say to him and to others that express his opinion, we have in 
this country 49 States, 11 more than the 38 needed for ratification, 
that have called on Congress to submit a constitutional amendment 
protecting the American flag against physical desecration. We would be 
clearly lacking in our representation of the American people if we in 
this body deny it. So those Members of Congress that come from those 49 
States where they have asked for ratification, it is on their 
conscience if they vote against this.
  Mr. Speaker, when I think about this issue I am reminded of Theodore 
Roosevelt when he once said, ``There is no room in this country for 
hyphenated Americanism.'' I feel that desecration of this flag is a 
dishonor to over 1 million men and women who have died defending this 
country.
  Our military personnel protect our country's unity, freedom, and 
value symbolized by the American flag. Mr. Speaker, burning the flag is 
not a method of speech or expression. It is a measure, a clear measure 
of hatred for our country. Our flag represents America's past, its 
present, its struggle and, of course, its promise for a great future.
  As an American, I cannot accept the Supreme Court's decision which 
allows the American flag to be set on fire, spit upon, trampled as a 
form of political expression protected by the Constitution. That is 
where the problem many of us have is, where the Supreme Court is 
allowing people to set it on fire, to spit upon it, and trample it as 
political expression.
  For more than two centuries Old Glory has exemplified the ideals our 
Nation was founded upon, including its constitutional rights. I remain 
an ardent supporter of the first amendment; however, I feel strongly 
that this freedom should not be an excuse for the scornful action of 
flag desecration. Burning the flag is not simply an expression of 
personal opinion. Mr. Speaker, it is an act of violence, an act of 
violence against a national symbol which represents the intangible 
spirit of liberty.
  Again, I say to my colleagues, the freedom of speech is not absolute. 
The need for a flag protection amendment is a commonsense issue that 
resonates throughout this country. A vote for this amendment will put a 
stop to the erosion of decency and mutual respect facing our Nation. 
Americans do not see it as a partisan or an ideology issue, and neither 
should we.
  Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by pointing out and reminding my 
colleagues if 49 States, 11 more than needed in the 38 for 
ratification, have called upon Congress to submit a congressional 
amendment protecting the American flag against physical desecration, 
why do not we?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking minority member.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding 
time to me, Mr. Speaker.
   Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Florida about 
five Supreme Court cases that prove that the statement that the 
gentleman uttered about action being equated with speech is not 
correct. Would that impress the gentleman at all?

[[Page H3730]]

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there is also----
  Mr. CONYERS. I ask, would it impress the gentleman at all?
  Mr. STEARNS. I could find another five Supreme Court decisions that 
would refute the gentleman's argument.
  Mr. CONYERS. I have my five, and we are going to have general debate 
for 2\1/2\ hours, so I would ask the gentleman to go get one, OK?
  Mr. STEARNS. We will be glad to come back here.
  Mr. CONYERS. I will yield the gentleman time to show me a case.
  Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman asked me a question. Can I pose a question 
to him?
  Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. That is the end of our discussion.
  Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman will not allow me to pose a question to 
him?
  Mr. CONYERS. Of course not.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that all of the court 
decisions the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] referred to were 5 
to 4 decisions. They could just as easily have gone the other way. If 
Justice Hugo Black, one of the most famous liberals of the Court, had 
been there, he would have voted with us on this particular issue. He 
said it is not an infringement on first amendment rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 163, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 54 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 54

       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 shall have power to prohibit the physical 
     desecration of the flag of the United States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 163, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on House Joint Resolution 54.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
during the consideration of House Joint Resolution 54, an additional 20 
minutes of debate be granted, equally divided and controlled by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. flag has long been a source of inspiration for 
Americans. The Stars and Stripes waving over Fort McHenry in Baltimore 
Harbor inspired Francis Scott Key to pen our national anthem in 1814. 
One of the most poignant images of World War II has been memorialized 
in the Iwo Jima Monument, which captures the moment when U.S. soldiers 
hoisted the American flag on Mount Suribachi.
  Old Glory has had a profound impact on the citizens of this country 
throughout the years. There is no greater symbol of our unity, our 
freedom, and our liberty as Americans than our flag. In the words of 
Justice John Paul Stevens, it is a symbol of our freedom of equal 
opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples 
to share our aspirations.
  Until less than a decade ago, most States and the Federal Government 
enforced laws prohibiting flag desecration. However, in 1989, in Texas 
versus Johnson, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5 to 4 
decision, invalidated the laws of 48 States and an act of Congress 
which protected the flag. The court thus deprived 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 response to the Johnson decision.
  The amendment before the House today would overturn these Supreme 
Court opinions by restoring the authority of Congress to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag. Nothing in this amendment or in the 
legislation that will be adopted subsequently will prevent anyone from 
expressing any idea or viewpoint they wish to express.
  No one will be prevented from expressing contempt for the flag, 
contempt for the country, contempt for the people in power, contempt 
for the Constitution, or contempt for anything else. The flag 
protection amendment simply grants Congress the power to restrict one 
type of conduct, that is, conduct involving the physical desecration of 
the American flag, which some have chosen as a crude means of 
expression.
  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.
  By allowing Congress to protect the flag from physical desecration, 
we would do nothing to impede the full and free expression of ideas by 
Americans. The first amendment would remain as strong as ever.
  Freedom of speech is indeed central to our political system. 
Protecting freedom of speech is essential to protecting all the other 
freedoms that we cherish as Americans. Without freedom of speech our 
system of representative democracy would become a sham.
  As the Supreme Court recognized in New York Times Company versus 
Sullivan, we as Americans have a profound national commitment to the 
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, 
and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and 
sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public 
officials.
  But that does not mean that individuals have a totally unlimited 
right to engage in whatever conduct they choose simply because it is 
done under the banner of free expression. The government has a well-
recognized right to place restrictions on obscenity, libel, fighting 
words, and fraudulent statements. The government may prohibit 
individuals from parading through the streets naked, even though those 
individuals do so in the name of free expression.
  Such restrictions in no way impede the robust and wide open debate of 
public issues. We all agree that the government should not attempt to 
suppress ideas because they are offensive or disagreeable, but as 
Justice Stevens states in his dissent in Eichman:

       It is equally well settled that certain methods of 
     expression may be prohibited if [a] the prohibition is 
     supported by a legitimate societal interest that is unrelated 
     to suppression of the ideas the speaker desires to express; 
     [b] the prohibition does not entail any interference with the 
     speaker's freedom to express those ideas by other means; and 
     [c] the interest in allowing the speaker complete freedom of 
     choice among alternative methods of expression is less 
     important than the societal interest supporting the 
     prohibition.


[[Page H3731]]


  A prohibition on the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States easily satisfies this test. There is a compelling societal 
interest in maintaining the physical integrity of the flag as a 
national symbol by protecting it from acts of physical desecration. 
Such protection can be afforded without any interference in the right 
of individuals to express their ideas, whatever they may be, by other 
means.
  The interest of the American people in protecting the flag far 
outweighs any interest in allowing the crude and inarticulate 
expression involved in burning, shredding, trampling, or otherwise 
desecrating our flag.
  The American people overwhelmingly support a flag protection 
amendment. We have testimony here to that fact on the table. A recent 
national survey found that, given the chance, 81 percent of American 
voters would vote for this amendment being considered by the House 
today. In addition, 49 of the 50 State legislatures have passed 
resolutions calling on Congress to pass an amendment to allow 
protection for the American flag. This amendment, supported 
overwhelmingly by the American people, recognizes that there are limits 
to what can be done under the banner of freedom of expression. It 
recognizes that the American people want to draw a line at this point. 
They want to draw a line to protect the American flag. The flag belongs 
to the American people. It is a symbol of our Nation, and no one has a 
right to desecrate it.
  The Stars and Stripes is more than a piece of cloth. It was raised at 
Iwo Jima, planted on the moon, and has draped the coffins of thousands 
of Americans who have sacrificed their lives for our great country. It 
is a national asset. As Justice White has written, the flag is a 
national property. So it is fitting and necessary that this Congress, 
speaking for the American people, should pass this amendment to protect 
and preserve this symbol of our great Nation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  [Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.]
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the second annual flag-burning 
discretion legislative attempt. Last year it was not able to arrive in 
time for Flag Day, so it was held over for July 4, but this time, 
although the budget is out of whack and disaster relief is still 
unresolved, we are able to get this piece of legislation up.
  I am happy to join with the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary to engage in this 
discussion for a couple of hours.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, we are the lawmakers of the land. That presumes that we 
understand the law. It also assumes that we know something about what 
the Supreme Court said, Mr. Speaker. What the Supreme Court has said, 
and I want to correct myself, I said that there were five decisions, 
there are seven decisions, which I will bring out to my colleagues one 
at a time, and I will put it in nonlegal discourse so that everybody, 
no matter what side of the issue they are on, will understand what the 
current state of the law is at this moment. It is not what some Members 
have misrepresented it, perhaps accidentally, to be during the debate 
on the rule.
  Now, for those who know what Hugo Black would have done if he had 
voted on flag burning, that is wonderful. Hugo Black never voted on 
flag burning, so only the chairman of the Committee on Rules would know 
what a deceased Supreme Court jurist would have done had the issue come 
before him. Wonderful.
  I will tell what one conservative jurist named Anthony Scalia has 
done on the Supreme Court on which he presently sits; that is, he has 
voted with those of us who realize that flag burning is an expression 
of speech protected by the first amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
quotation from Justice Black? Would the gentleman like to hear the 
words of the Justice himself?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in managing the time on that 
side.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. N-O.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has 1 hour to do all the 
quoting he wants.
  May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that speech is protected; that action 
is protected speech under the first amendment. I do not care what 
anybody once said. At least as we disagree on this subject matter, let 
us pretend that we understand what the law is. It is there in the 
books. We have got it in our offices. It is on the computer. Members 
can ask a staffer. But do not misrepresent the law while I am managing 
this bill on the part of the Democrats today. If my colleagues do, if 
time permits, I will try to correct them as we go along.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to point out that the gentleman's questioning with respect to 
Justice Black is totally unjustified. We do not have to guess what 
Justice Black would have thought on this subject. Justice Black spoke 
on the subject.
  If the gentleman had read the committee report, the gentleman would 
have seen the statement from Justice Black. Justice Black said, ``It 
passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars'' a 
State from ``making the deliberate burning of the American flag an 
offense.''
  If the gentleman would like the citation, he will find it in the 
committee report.
  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.
  I rise today in support of this amendment protecting the Nation's 
flag. This Saturday we do celebrate Flag Day. I can think of no better 
way to honor the flag and what it represents than by passing this 
amendment. Our Nation's flag represents freedom and tolerance around 
the world. Scores of Americans have fought for the symbol. Many have 
died for it. I will vote today to honor those sacrifices by protecting 
our flag.
  We Americans have many rights, many freedoms, but desecrating the 
symbol of those freedoms does not exemplify those rights; it dishonors 
them. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of Americans support the idea of 
protecting the flag and nearly every State has a law supporting it and 
protecting it. In passing House Joint Resolution 54, we are recognizing 
the desire to protect it.
  During this Congress I hope the other body will also accord the flag 
its due respect and send the amendment out to be ratified.
  Mr. Speaker, in passing House Joint Resolution 54, Congress does not 
act to restrict speech. It acts to acknowledge our rights by protecting 
that which represents them, our national symbol.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I address my remarks to the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution because he quoted former Supreme Court 
Justice Black. The quote that he made does not come out of any case 
that Justice Black ever decided. It is in no decision. It refers to the 
Justice referring to what each State should do.
  Now, either the gentleman does not understand that or he is trying to 
fool somebody. I do not know which.
  Now, ask me to yield.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. No.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman has difficulty apparently comprehending the plain words 
that are in an opinion written by Justice Black. I have difficulty 
understanding why the gentleman has such difficulty.
  I will point out the last time I recall the gentleman from Michigan 
standing on the floor and citing a Supreme Court case, he was actually 
citing a case that had been decided by a district court, and had to be 
corrected by the ranking member on the subcommittee. I am not surprised 
that the gentleman is having difficulty understanding the words of 
Justice Black.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], ranking member on the Subcommittee

[[Page H3732]]

on the Constitution, distinguished attorney and former State 
legislator.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the point, we find ourselves 
considering yet another constitutional amendment on the floor. Mr. 
Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is not a major societal 
problem in America, and yet we find ourselves for the fourth time this 
session voting on a constitutional amendment. There are others, a slew 
of others still pending. This amendment, if ratified, will for the 
first time in over 200 years reduce our first amendment rights to free 
speech and expression.
  The first amendment has made this country the envy of the world. It 
has protected us from religious and political upheavals that have led 
to the demise of numerous other federal governments. It has been a 
great success, not a failure. The first amendment is our friend and not 
our enemy. We should, therefore, resist the political temptation to 
abridge this freedom for short-term political gain.
  At the hearing we had on House Joint Resolution 54, we heard 
testimony that the flag is a symbol of national unity, patriotism, and 
freedom. I agree. But in a direct affront to the liberty interests on 
which this country was founded, the resolution is seeking to prohibit a 
form of political expression. Just as we are free to express our love 
for the flag in a free country, those with contrary opinions should 
also be free to express their feelings. Freedom is not a popularity 
contest. If this were the case, we would never need a Bill of Rights. 
Popular speech does not need protection.
  Instead, our rights only come into play when there is a need to 
protect the unpopular speech or religion from the tyranny of the 
majority. In fact, if this amendment is adopted, the only practical 
effect of the enactment of criminal statutes against flag desecration 
will be the jailing of political protesters. The idea of jailing 
political dissidents is obviously inconsistent with our tradition of 
freedom. I would ask that the Members consider this consequence before 
they start chipping away at the first amendment.
  Let us not be confused. We are not, in this amendment, trying to 
prohibit flag burning. The truth is that burning a flag is considered 
the only proper way to dispose of a worn-out flag, and therefore flags 
are routinely burned by members of the American Legion in patriotic 
flag retirement ceremonies. This amendment, however, has nothing to do 
with the act of burning or causing any type of physical harm to the 
flag. This is not the concern of the supporters of the amendment, and 
that is why the term ``desecration'' is used in the amendment rather 
than ``burn,'' ``tear,'' or ``destroy.''
  Instead, they are seeking to prohibit the use of the flag in 
situations where they disagree with the content of the expression. In 
other words, one can burn a flag if one is saying something nice about 
the flag, but one would be prohibited from burning the flag if they are 
saying or thinking something that government officials consider 
offensive. This is absurd because the Government has no business 
deciding which political speech is permissible or impermissible.
  If we were just talking about conduct, we would be able to, we have 
to look at the effect of this amendment. We can prohibit forms of 
expression like we can prohibit parades, but we cannot prohibit one 
kind of parade by Democrats and not the same kind of parade by 
Republicans. If one can, if we are talking about flag burning, we 
cannot talk about burning the flag when there are good patriotic 
expressions but prohibit burning the flag when we do not agree with the 
expressions being made.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are not addressing situations where 
someone steals a flag and burns it. Stealing and destroying someone 
else's property is already against the law. So we have already been 
down the road of patriotic but coercive legislation.
  I remind my colleagues of the World War II era Supreme Court cases 
dealing with the statutes compelling school children to pledge 
allegiance to the flag. We got so wrapped up in our drive to compel 
patriotism that we lost sight of the high ideals for which the flag 
stands, because despite our disgust for seeing Nazis force their people 
to hail Hitler, we in this country were passing laws that forced school 
children to salute and say a pledge to a flag even if such acts 
violated their religious beliefs.
  Fortunately for the American people, the Supreme Court put an end to 
this coercion in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of 
Education versus Barnette. Justice Jackson wrote on behalf of the 
majority in the Barnette decision when he wrote,

       If there is any fixed star in our Constitution, it is that 
     no official, high, or petty, can prescribe what shall be 
     orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters 
     of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their 
     faith therein.

  Unfortunately, it does not seem that we have learned from the 
eloquence and clarity of Justice Jackson's opinion in Barnette, and 
instead we are here today poised and anxious to prescribe what shall be 
orthodox in politics and nationalism, even though we have no business 
governing a free society in this manner.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, our prescription is unknown. The text of 
the resolution reads: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Even after the 
hearing, we still have no idea of what desecration will entail or what 
shall constitute a flag. Any criminal statute enacted under this 
amendment will therefore be inherently vague and unworkable. In fact, 
at the hearing at least one witness supporting the constitutional 
amendment agreed that the use of the flag in advertising could be 
considered desecration, and in fact some jurisdictions have criminal 
statutes on the books prohibiting use of the flag in advertising.
  Mr. Speaker, furthermore, we have a question of what is a flag? Is a 
flag tie a flag? Do we have a national interest in that tie? Is that a 
national asset? Based on the flag code, wearing a flag tie could be a 
criminal offense. Considering that both an American Legion 
representative and a Member of Congress were wearing flag ties on the 
day of the hearing, I would hope that we would take a closer look at 
what could be the unintended consequences of this amendment. But of 
course we all know that the practical effect of the criminal statutes 
would be that they would only be enforced against political protesters, 
and that is why the amendment restricts speech and is not protecting 
the flag.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to be guided by the 
words of Justice Brennan when he wrote,

       We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, 
     for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished 
     emblem represents.

  Therefore, let us not betray the freedom our flag represents.
  I urge the House to stand up for the high ideals the flag represents 
by opposing House Joint Resolution 54.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
resolution, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the House 
floor today in favor of this important constitutional amendment.
  When the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] asked me to replace 
Mr. Sonny Montgomery as the lead Democrat on the flag protection 
resolution, I was honored and eagerly accepted the role. However, it is 
important to note that this is not a Republican issue, nor is it a 
Democratic issue. It is an American issue.
  The flag is a symbol of our great Nation and all that we stand for. 
No other American symbol has been as universally honored or has 
bestowed such honor as our flag. We pledge allegiance to the flag at 
the start of each day here in the U.S. House of Representatives, as do 
schoolchildren throughout the United States. Our national anthem 
immortalizes the importance of our flag to our soldiers who fought for 
our freedom. Our flag is a symbol of our freedom.
  The flag, being the symbol of American freedoms and ideas, ought to 
be protected with the same vigor with which we protect the very 
freedoms and rights it represents. Our Nation's flag deserves respect, 
care, and protection. Willful desecration of the flag is

[[Page H3733]]

an insult to all Americans, especially to those who fought to uphold 
the flag and maintain our freedom.
  This constitutional amendment to give to Congress the power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag in no way contradicts or 
weakens the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. There has 
always been some limitations on the freedom of speech.
  As mentioned earlier, prior to 1989, when States had flag protection 
statutes in effect, the American people did not complain that their 
freedom of speech was being unfairly restricted. In fact, in a recent 
poll, over 80 percent of Americans did not believe that the physical 
act of burning the flag was an appropriate expression of freedom of 
speech as guaranteed by the first amendment.
  In addition, flag desecration, such as burning, trampling, spitting, 
and defecating on the flag is not actual free speech but is expressive 
conduct. Expressive conduct is understandably afforded a lower level of 
constitutional protection than actual speech.
  This is an American issue, and the American people want the right to 
protect their flag. Forty-nine State legislatures, including my home 
State of Illinois, have passed memorializing resolutions asking 
Congress, asking us here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 
Senate, for the opportunity to ratify a constitutional amendment 
protecting the flag. Two hundred eighty Members of Congress, from both 
parties, from all regions of the United States, have listened to their 
constituents and have cosponsored this important resolution.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 
54. We must seize this opportunity to restore the American flag to its 
rightful place of honor and give the American people the right to 
protect their greatest symbol, the American flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt].
  (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
today offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], an 
amendment to the Constitution that will give back to the American 
people the right to protect the one symbol that represents our great 
country more than any other, the American flag.
  America is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave, and 
many of our country's best and brightest fought hard and gave their 
lives to protect this Nation. Now we must fight to protect the symbol 
of all that this country stands for, the American flag, the sacred 
emblem of our country and our heritage of liberty that was purchased 
with blood and sorrow.
  Each time the flag is desecrated in America today, it is a slap in 
the face to the men and women who gave their lives to honor this 
country. By placing the flag in front of our homes and our businesses, 
we show honor to our veterans, and by desecrating it we show them 
disrespect.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me today in pledging 
allegiance to our flag.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise to speak against the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, as we move closer to amend the Bill of Rights for the 
first time in our Nation's history, I am reminded of what the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] said at the opening day of this session of 
Congress, and I quote, ``On the altar of Almighty God, I have sworn 
eternal hostility to the forces that would bind the minds of men.''
  That statement is arguably the most moving statement to individual 
freedom I have ever heard. Though I am no Thomas Jefferson, I too swore 
an oath before this Chamber to defend the Constitution, and the Bill of 
Rights in particular. For that reason, I strongly oppose the measure 
before us.
  Jefferson did not pledge to fight for the freedom of good men, of 
wise men, or of inoffensive men. Until God himself sits in judgment, 
these distinctions will always reside in the minds of those with power.
  Jefferson realized that the only way to defend freedom of good men is 
to defend the freedom of all men. The test, in fact the only test of a 
government's commitment to free speech is how it deals with the most 
unpopular, the most offensive and the most ill-conceived of messages.
  We all know what would happen to anyone who burned the flag in Cuba. 
We all know what would happen to anyone, and we have seen it, who would 
burn the flag in China at Tiananmen Square. What is remarkable to me, 
however, is hearing my colleagues suggest that we have something to 
learn from China or Cuba; that patriotism requires us to become a 
little bit more like the oppressive regimes that we most often daily 
criticize.
  Throughout the cold war years, we continually reminded ourselves that 
freedom is not free. One cost of freedom is eternal vigilance against 
those foes from without and from within. Another is vigilance against 
the sort of creeping majoritarianism that values freedom from insult 
more highly than freedom of speech.
  The unavoidable cost of freedom is the fact that people will use 
freedom in insulting and sometimes idiotic ways. The few malcontents 
who burn flags seek our outrage. They need it to draw attention to 
their causes. If we ignored their actions or maybe just throw a bucket 
of water on them, they would soon realize that they were wasting their 
time.
  Today, we not only give what they are doing the outrage that they 
seek but we enshrine it in the highest document in the lands. We are 
wrapping this gift in some pretty expensive paper. That expensive paper 
is the Constitution, whose liberties were bought with the blood of our 
forefathers. Is this the right thing to do?
  In the play, ``A Man for All Seasons,'' Sir Thomas Moore is 
questioned about whether the law should be used to protect bad men. He 
is even asked if it is wise to cut through the law to get at the devil. 
This is his response, and I quote:

       And when the devil turned round on you, do you really think 
     you could stand the winds that blow against you and blow 
     against them? All the laws being flat, I would give the devil 
     protection of the law for my own safety's sake.

  Today we are asked a question much like the one asked Thomas Moore. 
Today we are asked to cut through the Bill of Rights to get at a 
particular devil: people who burn the flags. But the constitutional 
limitations which protect them are the same as the constitutional 
rights which protect us from oppressive governments.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that, no matter what anyone says, the House 
seems to value the work of Betsy Ross above the work of Madison and 
Jefferson. In my opinion, the practical effect will be to weaken both 
and to increase the pressure to restrict other kinds of speech. Thus, 
we will find ourselves cutting through the first of several swaths to 
the Constitution to get at various devils. May God help us should the 
devil turn round on us.
  Our Nation's flag deserves our respect and protection. The best way 
to show respect for that symbol of freedom is good works, to be loving 
parents, competent teachers, and responsible legislators. We honor 
those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country by living 
those ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this issue being a 
freedom of expression issue, and it certainly is. Obviously, the 
American Legion that burns the flag does it differently than the 
hoodlum on the street, so it does involve an expression of some ideas; 
that we are limiting that ability for any individual to make this 
expression.
  I am convinced that this is historic. This is the first time that we 
have worked hard in undermining the Bill of Rights. Some have said that 
the first amendment cannot be absolute, but in some ways it can be. 
What we say and do in our homes and churches should be absolute, and we 
should be able to say and do things.
  The restrictions on speech is when we get involved in lying and 
slandering

[[Page H3734]]

and doing harm that way. Yes, then there is a limitation. But that is 
different. When we are in our churches, we should have absolute right 
of freedom of speech.
  But there is more to this than freedom of expression. This is a 
property rights issue. That is why I am so disappointed with some of my 
colleagues that have pushed this as an amendment, because this is an 
attack on property rights. The question seems to be asked very rarely 
but should be asked: Who owns the flag?
  If somebody burned the flag, who owns the flag? They are saying 
everybody owns it? How does that happen? Can we not buy a flag anymore? 
Do we believe in collectivism now; that everybody owns the flag and 
everybody is responsible for it, and we will all do exactly as we are 
told? That is not part of our system.
  We guarantee the right of free speech through property rights, 
through the reverence that we give to our churches or our radio 
stations or our newspapers. Nobody has the right to march into our 
church and preach any religion to us or march into a newspaper or march 
into a radio station. So in this case we are dealing with a piece of 
property that should be respected as property. And I think we are 
attacking that just as much as anything else.
  Also, it is disappointing to see that this amendment is actually 
worse than the last amendment that came to this House floor, because at 
least the last amendment recognized that maybe the States could write 
regulations. Under the original Constitution, in the original intent of 
the Constitution, it would have been permissible for States to write 
regulations of this sort. It was our courts that have come in and 
started to overregulate freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
  For instance, I am quite comfortable in agreeing with the Istook 
amendment. Because of the courts, again, we have lost the concept of 
property in our public schools. In a private school we know what we are 
allowed to do. But in a public school everything becomes fuzzy. So the 
courts come in and say, all of a sudden, we cannot even have a 
voluntary prayer.
  So the Istook amendment approaches completely opposite of what we are 
doing here, because this is restriction of expression, it is a 
restriction on the private property ownership, and it really attacks 
the 9th and 10th amendments. Because before, even where the States had 
been permitted to write laws, they are not permitted under this 
legislation. Only the Congress shall make the laws.

                              {time}  1200

  I thought we were supposed to make the Federal Government smaller as 
conservatives, not bigger. Here we are adding a new role for the BATF. 
We have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and we are going 
to have a BATFF in order for those individuals to go out and regulate 
the flag use. And this is Federal.
  Just think of how the RICO laws may apply to this. One individual in 
one group may do something wrong; everybody in that group can be held 
guilty for that. What if there happens to be someone in there that has 
done it deliberately in order to get at the group? Could this be 
entrapment? Has our FBI ever been known to do this?
  I think it is a dangerous thing that we are doing. Why are we so 
fearful? It is implied at times that if we do not endorse this 
amendment we are less patriotic than the others. I think that is wrong 
to imply that we might be less patriotic. From my vantage point, from 
having been involved in politics for a few years, the real attack is 
not on our liberties. The real attack in this institution is the attack 
on the Constitution, and this does nothing to address it.
  It is almost like window dressing. We are upset and feel guilty and 
in a mess and cannot do anything. All we need to do is pass a flag 
amendment and it is going to solve the problem of the attack on the 
Constitution, which is continuous and endless. We do not need more 
legislation like this. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution 
that will, for the first time, alter the Bill of Rights.
  I really think those individuals who are pushing this have courage to 
get out front and say yes, for the first time, we will curtail the 
authority or the expressions and the rights of the Bill of Rights.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], one of the finest legal minds 
on the Committee on the Judiciary, and I would ask him to yield to me 
briefly.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my friend, the 
gentleman from Chicago, Il [Mr. Lipinski], who made the point that it 
is expressive conduct, but not free speech, in defining the flag 
burning situation.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] if he 
has any cases or constitutional theory that would explain how he 
separated flag burning out of free speech but put it into expressive 
conduct, which I presume is not covered by the first amendment?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. 
I say to the ranking member of the committee, I do not have any here 
right now, but I will be very happy to reach out and try to get them 
back here prior to the time we have a vote on this issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been engaged in a 
long-standing debate with my colleagues on the Republican side of this 
House about the definition of what is conservative and what is liberal. 
And every time I come here, I try to start this way so that I put this 
debate in context for my friends.
  I should start it, ``Here we go again.'' That is one of their 
conservatives, Ronald Reagan, that was his ``Here we go again.'' 
Because it has always been my philosophy that the most conservative 
position in America is to defend the most conservative document in 
America, and that is our Constitution.
  So how my colleagues could start with a Contract With America that 
had two proposed constitutional amendments in it has always been kind 
of disconcerting to me, because they keep calling themselves 
conservatives and it seems to me that that is inconsistent.
  How in the 2-year period of that revolution we had introduced in the 
U.S. House of Representatives a total of 118 proposed constitutional 
amendments, how they can continue to call themselves conservative, I do 
not understand.
  How in that 2-year period of that conservative revolution we voted 
more times than on constitutional amendments than in any congressional 
term over the last 10 years, and my colleagues can still call 
themselves conservatives, I do not understand.
  Things from the balanced budget amendment to the term limits 
amendment, to the flag desecration amendment that is back again, to 
super majority requirement for tax increases, to voluntary school 
prayer, line-item veto, right to life, provide no person born in the 
United States on account of birth shall be a citizen here. I mean, a 
basic constitutional right.
  Here we go again. Campaign finance reform in the Constitution, my 
conservative friends. Repeal the 22d amendment. Abolish the Federal 
income tax in the Constitution, my friends. Establish English as the 
only language, the official language of a nation that is a nation of 
immigrants, in the Constitution. And they are calling themselves 
conservatives.
  These are the conservatives in this body calling themselves 
conservatives. And here we go again. Here we go again. These are not 
conservatives. These are radicals. It is a radical notion to amend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Now, having debunked this notion that those of us who are standing up 
for the Constitution are the radicals, as opposed to the people who 
have offered this amendment, now let me go to the notion that we are 
somehow unpatriotic because we are standing up for the Constitution.
  Why do I love my country? Does it have anything to do with the color 
of the flag? It has to do with the principles that that flag stands 
for. That is all it has to do with. And every time

[[Page H3735]]

we diminish those principles, we diminish our rights as American 
citizens. We honor the flag by honoring the ideals that it represents, 
and among those ideals is freedom of speech, whether we like what 
somebody is saying or whether we do not like what somebody is saying.
  The Supreme Court said, ``The bedrock principle underlying the first 
amendment is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an 
idea simply because society finds the idea itself disagreeable.'' That 
is the bedrock principle on which the first amendment is founded.
  What is the ultimate test of religious freedom? It is whether we 
tolerate those who have a religion that is different than the one that 
we have, not whether we are defending some particular form of religion. 
It is a bedrock principle of the things in the Bill of Rights.
  Now let me go to a third notion here, that we can start amending the 
Constitution based on polling data. The majority of the American people 
want the Constitution amended, so let us go out and amend the 
Constitution. It is the order of the day. It is fashionable. Is that a 
conservative philosophy or a radical philosophy?
  As a philosophical matter, the liberties outlined in the Bill of 
Rights are fundamental freedoms intended to be impervious to changing 
political tides, my friends, not wax and wane, depending on who is in 
the majority this year or next year or this day or the next day. The 
idea of the Bill of Rights is that there are a set of guaranteed rights 
that no one, including a majority of Americans, can take away from 
American citizens.
  That is what tyranny by the majority is. My colleagues have heard 
that term used: tyranny by the majority. The majority can vote and take 
some basic constitutional human individual rights that I have. 
We cannot do it in our democracy.

  Now lest my colleagues think I stand here as some raving radical or 
even raving conservative, let me tell my friends that I stand here in 
the tradition of all the people of North Carolina. This amendment 
would, for the first time in our Nation's history, 204 years or more, 
amend the Bill of Rights; and it is a Bill of Rights that the State of 
North Carolina stood up for from the very beginning.
  We refused to join the Nation, refused to join this Union because it 
did not have a Bill of Rights in this Constitution. We refused to 
ratify the Constitution in August 1788 by a vote of 184 to 83 because 
the delegates of North Carolina at their ratifying convention wanted a 
Bill of Rights included in the Constitution.
  It is in that tradition that I stand here, not in some tradition of 
being liberal or conservative. It is a human rights, a historical 
tradition. The delegates believed that in order to secure freedom there 
had to be rights and those rights had to be inviolable. My colleagues 
can do it by the majority. They all are the majority this year, but 
they might not be the majority next year. So are we going to go back 
and amend the Constitution and change it back when you are out of the 
majority?
  My friends, get a hold on what we are doing here. This is about 
protecting the individual liberties of our Nation that every single one 
of us would fight and die for; our ancestors fought and died for them, 
and we would fight and die for them again today if we had to do it. But 
passing this constitutional amendment ain't got a thing to do with 
fighting and dying for those principles. Having the guts to stand up 
and say this is a farce, this is a degradation of our Bill of Rights, 
that is what our Nation is about.
  My colleagues all can vote the popular tide all they want, but those 
of us who know what the historical significance of the Bill of Rights 
is will stand our ground and hold out our chest and say we are 
Americans, too. I hope my colleagues will not forget it, whether they 
are conservative or liberal. This is about protecting American values. 
That is what this debate is about. Let us get a hold.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], I suppose, I thought I heard him say he was 
representing the State of North Carolina. I have here Resolution No. 
230 from the State of North Carolina legislature asking for this 
amendment.
  The gentleman also said that he was critical of conservatives' 
efforts to undermine the Constitution. I would just pose the question, 
did we undermine the Constitution when we added all of the Bill of 
Rights to the Constitution? I do not think so. Did we undermine the 
Constitution when we added the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments on civil 
rights? I do not think so.

                              {time}  1215

  Did we undermine the Constitution when we gave 18-year-olds the right 
to vote? I do not think so. And I could go through the other 27, but, 
Mr. Speaker, let me just tell my colleagues I cannot tell them how 
excited I am that we are finally going to have this opportunity to pass 
this resolution with more than 300 votes here today, far more than the 
290 that we need. And I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], the subcommittee chairman, for steering this amendment on to 
this floor so soon. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski] over on the other side of the aisle, one of the good 
Democrats, who is the bipartisan cosponsor, the main cosponsor, of this 
legislation, for bringing it here today.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time, as I said earlier today, since 
that tragic day in 1989 when five Supreme Court justices, only five out 
of nine, said that it was unconstitutional to ban flag burning. Just 
ask all of the supporters one sees here today all over the Capitol in 
their uniform who put thousands of hours into the grassroots efforts to 
pass this amendment. That is why I am so proud to be on the floor today 
as the main sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are hearing the same old arguments that we have 
heard for years now, for 8 years. I respect those opinions. That is in 
their first amendment rights, to get up and say what they are saying 
here today. But, Mr. Speaker, supporters of this amendment come to the 
floor today with overwhelming support, with nearly 80 percent of the 
American people, 80 percent. Can they be that wrong? All around the 
Capitol today we see all of the major veterans organizations who, along 
with 100 organizations, make up the Citizens Flag Alliance and 
numbering more than 12 million American citizens. They have asked us to 
pass this amendment today. These are people who have headed this 
grassroots movement.
  In fact we can see for ourselves the stack of over 3 million 
signatures right there on this table from all constituents from all 
walks of life. They are people from all walks of life, from religious 
organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Masonic Orders, Mr. 
Speaker, from civic organizations; as I mentioned before, from 
immigrant people that have come to this country. They are Polish and 
Hungarian and Ukrainian and a lot of other backgrounds. They support 
this legislation from fraternal organizations like the Benevolent Order 
of Elks and the Federation of Police, and it goes on, and on, and on; 
others, like the National Grange, the Future Farmers of America. These 
are not just veterans who have served their country; this is a cross-
section of America asking for this amendment. And again as I have said, 
49 out of 50 States have asked for this amendment to be sent to them so 
that they can ratify it. After all, Mr. Speaker, can 49 out of 50 
States be all that wrong?
  Some opponents of this amendment claim it is an infringement on 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 Gallup Poll just taken recently of the American people, and 
they ask them, and these are real people, Mr. Speaker, these are not 
people just here inside the beltway. They are out there in real 
America, outside this beltway. Seventy-six percent of the people said, 
no, a constitutional amendment to protect our flag would not jeopardize 
their right of freedom of speech. That is the overwhelming majority of 
the American people, not just a simple majority.
  In other words, the American people do not view flag burning as a 
protected right, and they still want this constitutional amendment 
passed no matter

[[Page H3736]]

what. That is what they said in the poll: No matter what, pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we should never stifle speech, and that is not what we 
are seeking to do here today. People can state their disapproval of 
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 people to redress their grievances and to amend the 
Constitution as they see fit. That is what our forefathers gave us the 
right to do, and they made it very difficult to do. They are asking for 
this amendment.
  Therefore I am asking my colleagues to send this amendment to the 
States and let the American people decide, not just here in this 
Congress. Even if my colleagues are opposed to this amendment, give the 
American people the right to make this decision. My colleagues should 
not try to make it themselves.
  And lastly, Mr. Speaker, over the last two centuries and especially 
in recent years, immigrants from all over this world have flocked to 
this great country of ours knowing little about our culture and little 
about our heritage. But they know a lot about our flag, and they 
respect it, they salute it, they pledge allegiance to it. And Mr. 
Speaker, it is the flag which has brought this diverse country of ours 
together. It is the flag that will keep us together no matter what our 
ethnic differences, no matter where we come from, whether it is up in 
the Adirondack Mountains where I live, or Los Angeles, CA, St. Louis, 
MO, or Dallas, TX. It is the common bond which brings us to this point 
where we can elevate the Stars and Stripes above the political fray.
  That is why it is bipartisan here today with an overwhelming 285 
Members, Republicans and Democrats, supporting this amendment. That is 
why my colleagues must come over here and they must vote yes on it and 
give the people that they represent the chance to ratify it. My 
colleagues owe it to those people, and they owe it to America.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, this argument is a strong argument. I 
realize there are different points of view. One can have a difference 
of opinion without having a difference of principle. I am a veteran 
myself, but whether one is a veteran or not, as my colleagues know, I 
want to do everything I can to honor the flag, to protect the flag 
because too many people have died in too many wars not to honor that 
flag and to protect that flag because it means sacrifice. It means that 
people have given their life to protect this great country.
  That is why I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 
54, the American Flag Protection Amendment.
  This Saturday is Flag Day, a day when Americans all around this 
Nation will be flying the Stars and Stripes from their homes and 
businesses in honor of their heritage. Flag Day is celebrated on June 
14 in memory of the day in 1777 when the Continental Congress adopted 
the Stars and Stripes as the official flag of the United States.
  While the American flag has changed through the years, the principles 
for which it stands have not. My colleagues, the flag is a national 
asset which deserves our respect and protection. We salute it, pledge 
allegiance to it, fly it from our homes and businesses. When we turn to 
the flag with head held high and hand over our heart, we give due honor 
to those who have defended this great Republic.
  Please honor these brave men and women and vote ``yes'' on Senate 
Joint Resolution 54. I have no doubt that it is going to pass by a 
resounding number of votes today to send a message across the United 
States that we honor this country, and this is the country that honors 
freedom. This is the symbol for all other countries in the world to 
look at America as the place where we can cherish the flag as well as 
to look at the United States Capitol as a monument for freedom and 
peace in the world.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman], a great legislator.
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers must be very puzzled 
looking down on us today; and instead of seeing us dealing with the 
very real challenges that face our Nation, they see us laboring under 
this great compulsion to amend the document that underpins our 
democracy and trying to give this Congress a great new power at the 
expense of the people, the power for the first time to stifle dissent. 
The threat must be great, they must be saying, to justify changing the 
Bill of Rights for the first time and decreasing, rather than 
increasing, the rights of the people.
  And what is the threat? Is our democracy at risk? What is the crisis 
in the Republic? What is the challenge to our way of life? Where is our 
belief system threatened? Are people jumping from behind parked cars 
waving burning flags at us trying to prevent us from going to work? 
Trying to grind America to a halt? Do we really believe that we are 
under such a siege because of a few loose cannons? Need we change the 
Constitution to save our democracy?
  The real threat is not the occasional burning of a flag but the 
permanent banning of the burners. The real threat is that some of us 
have now mistaken the flag for a religious icon to be worshipped rather 
than the symbol of our freedom that is to be cherished. Rather than 
allowing someone to insult them by demeaning the flag, they would 
diminish our Constitution.
  These rare but vile acts of desecration that have been cited by those 
who propose changing our founding document do not threaten anybody. If 
a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened, democracy is not under 
siege, freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened, my colleagues; 
we are offended. And to change the Constitution because someone offends 
us is in itself unconscionable.
  The Nazis, Mr. Speaker, the Nazis and fascists and the imperial 
Japanese army combined, could not diminish the rights of even one 
single American; and yet in an act of cowardice, Mr. Speaker, we are 
about to do what they could not.
  Where are the patriots? What ever happened to fighting to the death 
for somebody's right to disagree? We now choose instead to react by 
taking away the right to protest. Even a despicable low-life social 
malcontent has a right to disagree, and he has a right to disagree in 
an obnoxious fashion if he wishes. That is the test of free expression, 
and we are about to fail that test.
  Real patriots choose freedom over symbolism. That is the ultimate 
contest between substance and form. Why does the flag need protecting? 
Burning one flag or burning a thousand flags does not destroy it. It is 
a symbol. But change one word of our living Constitution of this great 
Nation, and it and we will never be the same. We cannot destroy a 
symbol. Yes, people burn the flag, but, Mr. Speaker, there it is again, 
right in back. It goes on. It cannot be destroyed. It represents our 
beliefs.
  Now, poets and patriots will tell us that men have died for the flag. 
But that language itself is symbolic. People do not die for symbols. 
They fight and they die for freedom. They fight and they die for 
democracy. They fight and they die for values. To fight and die for the 
flag means to fight and die for the cause.
  Let us remind ourselves we did not enter World War II because the 
Japanese sunk a bunch of our flags. There happened to have been ships 
filled with men tied to the other end of those flagpoles, and our way 
of life was threatened.
  We love and we honor and we respect our flag for what it represents. 
It is different from all other flags. And I notice we do not make it 
illegal to burn some other country's flags, and that is because our 
flag is different. No, it is not different because of its shape; they 
are all basically the same. And it is not different because of its 
design; they are all similar. And no, not because of the colors. Many 
have the same colors. Our flag is unique only because it represents our 
unique values, it represents tolerance for dissent. This country was 
founded by dissenters that others found obnoxious.

                              {time}  1230

  And what is a dissenter? In this case it is a social protestor who 
feels so

[[Page H3737]]

strongly about an issue that one would stoop so low as to try to get 
under our skin and to try to rile us up to prove his point, and have us 
react by making this great Nation less than it was. And how are we 
going to react?
  Dictatorships crack down on people who burn their nation's flags, not 
democracies. We tolerate dissent and dissenters, even despicable 
dissenters.
  What is the flag, the American flag? Yes, it is a piece of cloth. It 
is red, white, and blue with 50 stars and 13 stripes. But what if we 
pass this amendment and desecrators make flags with 55 stars and burn 
them? Will we rush to amend our law again? And if they add a stripe or 
two and set it ablaze, and it surely looks like our flag, but is it? Do 
we rush in and count the stripes before determining whether or not we 
have been constitutionally insulted? And what if the stripes are orange 
instead of red? What mischief are we doing? If it is a full-size color 
picture of the flag they burn, is it a crime to desecrate a symbol of a 
symbol? What are we doing?
  Our beloved flag represents a great nation, Mr. Speaker. We love our 
flag because there is a great republic for which it stands made great 
by a Constitution that we want to protect, a Constitution given to our 
care by giants and about to be nibbled to death by dwarfs.
  Mr. Speaker, I call upon the patriots of the House to rise and defend 
the Constitution, resist the temptation to drape ourselves in the flag 
and hold sacred the Bill of Rights. Defend our Constitution and defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time. I want to express my appreciation to him for his 
leadership on this issue, as well as the principal sponsor, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 54, 
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the American flag. I am a proud cosponsor of this 
resolution and am committed to seeing it sent out to the States for 
ratification.
  Like so many other State legislatures, my own State of Arkansas has 
called on the U.S. Congress to pass this amendment. It is time that we 
responded to their calls.
  Mr. Speaker, the only real objection that I hear concerning this 
resolution is that somehow protecting the flag infringes upon free 
speech. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a very close 
decision, a 5-to-4 decision, ruled that desecrating the flag is to be 
considered speech that must be protected. What if, what if one of those 
judges voting in the majority had voted with the other side and said 
that burning the flag was conduct that can be regulated and prohibited? 
Would the opponents say that we need to amend the Constitution to 
protect that very fundamental right to burn the flag? I doubt that they 
would suggest that.
  So they place more confidence in one judge of the Supreme Court that 
could have gone either way versus 80 percent of the American people 
that say we need this amendment to the Constitution and the flag should 
be protected.
  With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court is wrong. 
Burning the flag is not speech, but is actionable conduct. The Supreme 
Court is wrong, the American people are right; the flag is deserving of 
protection. More than 1 million people have fought and died defending 
not just the flag, but the very ideals for which it stands. Whether on 
the shores of Normandy or in the sands of Iwo Jima, the American flag 
has flown as a tribute to freedom. The clarion call of the Liberty Bell 
is echoed every day when the American flag is unfurled at home and 
abroad, and it should be protected.
  It is commonly accepted that the physical desecration of the American 
flag is an affront to the memories and families of those who gave their 
lives so that future generations might live free from tyranny and 
oppression. We honor their sacrifice by protecting that precious symbol 
for which they died.
  The flag is special, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 
pointed out. It is a symbol that is flown at half mast during times of 
tragedy in our country. It is the flag that is draped over the coffins 
of our soldiers. It is a special symbol in our country, and in memory 
of those who have fought and paid the ultimate price for our freedom, 
the star spangled banner is deserving of protection.
  The flag must continue to wave o'er the land of the free with 
respect, dignity, and honor in the schoolyards of our children, on the 
porches of our neighborhoods, and yes, even in the trenches when 
Americans are called upon to protect this country. The resolution 
before us today brings us one step closer to that goal. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me the time and for providing such outstanding 
leadership, along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], on 
this issue.
  I believe that the American flag is a sacred symbol of our great 
Nation. This symbol of our freedom and democracy is worthy of being 
protected. We owe it to the thousands of service men and women 
throughout our history that have sacrificed their lives for the ideals 
represented by the American flag. The flag serves as a remembrance to 
those who were called upon to make that ultimate sacrifice. Is it wrong 
to honor their memory by protecting their symbol? No. This concept is 
neither Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal. Voting for this 
legislation is an all-American idea to protect our flag and our 
country.
  There are some who will argue that ending desecration of our great 
flag will have the effect of attacking our first amendment right to 
freedom of speech. Not so. So where in this amendment is speech 
limited? Americans will still be free to say whatever they desire, no 
matter how repugnant it may seem to others. Nothing is more un-
American, Mr. Speaker, than nonviolent speech. There are many 
expressions that are not protected under free speech, such as shouting 
``fire'' in a movie theater.
  Mr. Speaker, why should the action of burning the flag be protected 
when it is most used to incite violence and hatred. I remind my 
colleagues that Supreme Court Justices Earl Warren, Abe Fortas, and 
Hugo Black have each written opinions that protecting the flag from 
physical desecration is consistent with the first amendment. The symbol 
of our freedom must be protected.
  There is widespread support for this amendment across the Nation. 
Forty-nine States have expressed the desire for approval of this 
amendment. I would also remind my colleagues that congressional 
approval of the amendment will only clear the first hurdle in the 
process. Three-fourths of the State legislatures must still pass the 
amendment for it to become law. The extremely rigorous nature of the 
amendment process ensures that there must be a groundswell of unified 
public support for this to become law, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``aye'' for House Joint Resolution 54.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady], for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss for words here, after having sat 
here and listened even in the wake of the rather irrational debate last 
year by some of those who opposed the constitutional amendment similar 
to that which we are proposing today, who took the well of this great 
body and quite with a straight face said they did not know what the 
flag of the United States of America was, because the debate, and I 
hesitate to use that word, the shouting on the other side today, the 
indeed literal raving on the other side against this really is 
something that I never thought I would witness anywhere, much less in 
this body.
  I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps only in Washington, DC, could 
people again, quite with straight faces, take the well of this House 
and call a constitutional amendment that simply gives the right of the 
people of this country the opportunity to pass laws in the Congress 
defending the flag of this country, only in Washington could

[[Page H3738]]

somebody with a straight face call those people radicals, or 
extremists. Yet perhaps it is not really that much of a surprise, Mr. 
Speaker, because many of these same people believe that it is 
mainstream to recognize homosexual marriages, believe that it is 
mainstream to recognize homosexual rights in virtually every other 
aspect of our society, and yet have the audacity to claim that those 
tens of millions of Americans, alive and dead, who have defended our 
country, to call us Nazis for simply standing up, Mr. Speaker, and 
saying that our flag deserves protection, and the people of this 
country are asking for it, indeed demanding it, and yet they, those who 
oppose this amendment, not only call those of us who support it Nazis 
and extremists and against human rights, apparently now it is a human 
right, according to the folks on the other side of this issue, to 
desecrate the flag of this country.
  Let us though, Mr. Speaker, put this in proper perspective, and I 
think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has done that very, 
very eloquently, in reminding the citizens of this country that it is 
not extremist, it is not radical, it is not nazism, it is not 
dictatorial, to simply say that the people of this country ought to 
have the right to have their Congress as a manifestation of the will of 
the vast majority of people in this country to be able to pass a law 
protecting our flag against desecration.
  Indeed, what might perhaps very legitimately be properly labeled as 
radical are people who take the well of this House and say that the 
people of this country should be denied that basic right which, indeed, 
perhaps comes closer to being a human right than what they view as a 
human right, and that is the right to destroy the one enduring 
universal symbol of this country, and that is the great flag of the 
United States of America.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the other supporters of this 
important piece of legislation for recognizing the American people's 
right to have this voted on and to say to the other side, shame on you 
for standing up here and saying that the American people should be 
denied that right. That is all this constitutional proposal does is 
simply allow the people of this country, through their State 
legislatures, to do something that the Supreme Court has said is the 
only way that we, the people of this country, can protect the flag, and 
that is through this amendment and through laws enacted thereafter.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, our flag commands the deepest respect 
because it stands for a Nation and a community that is strong, strong 
enough to tolerate diversity and protect the rights of those expressing 
unpopular views, and even expressing them on some regrettable occasions 
in a particularly offensive way. It is our Nation's strong commitment 
to those values, not the particular design of our flag, that makes this 
country an unparalleled model of freedom and the greatest of all 
nations, and it was because of those values that I was proud to serve 
my country in uniform in Vietnam.
  Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy and freedom, the 
freedom to speak our minds, to question, to criticize and discuss 
freely, without interference from the Government. The depth of our 
commitment to that freedom is tested and measured in precisely those 
cases like flag-burning where the views expressed are especially 
offensive.
  How do we honor the liberty for which the flag stands? By diminishing 
the liberty in order to protect the symbol? Justice Brennan put the 
proposition wisely and rightly in the Johnson case a few years ago, and 
I quote, ``Nobody can suppose that this one gesture of an unknown man 
burning a flag will change our Nation's attitude toward a flag. The way 
to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel 
differently. . . It is to persuade them that they are wrong. We do not 
consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we 
dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.''
  Today there is a strong movement to limit the scope and the reach of 
the Federal Government. It is ironic that at this time some would seek 
to amend the first amendment for the first time and to bring government 
regulation to selected forms of political expression. That would be a 
terrible mistake. Our Nation is strong enough to tolerate diversity and 
protect the rights of all citizens, even those with unpopular views.
  The even greater irony is that a constitutional amendment ultimately 
would render respect for the flag into a government mandate, and so, 
sadly, to contribute to its own undoing.
  What is the grave danger to the republic that would be remedied by 
this amendment? There is none. What case can be made that this 
amendment would enhance our constitutional order? Absolutely none. And 
absent a significant evil to be avoided or some significant improvement 
to be made, we simply should not undertake the most serious of all acts 
of Congress, an amendment to the Constitution.
  We have heard a lot lately about cost-benefit analysis. What about 
now? The costs: A real, if subtle, paring down of the rights of open 
and free expression, a little softening up of the first amendment, 
making subsequent and more damaging cuts into its protection of freedom 
that much easier; probably years of litigation about the meaning of the 
terms ``flag'' and ``desecration'' that will abound under this proposed 
amendment.

                              {time}  1245

  The benefit? Old Glory will be protected, even as the magnificent 
freedoms for which it stands are diminished. We are given a choice, Mr. 
Speaker. We may allow a few fools a year to tear the flag, or we may 
deny them, yet in the process tear the Bill of Rights itself, a small 
price for the protection of all liberty, an unthinkable price for the 
erosion of liberty.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as one of the cosponsors of this 
resolution, I rise in strong support of it. The flag of the United 
States of America is unique among all the symbols of this great Nation. 
No other symbol of our country is so universally recognized or beloved 
by its people.
  Since it was first flown more than 200 years ago, it has represented 
our unity as a people, our unity based upon the diversity of a people 
whose heritage traces back from all parts of the world. Some of our 
families came to America to escape religious persecution. Some, like my 
own parents, came here to escape political repression. But under the 
protection of the American flag, we have been one people with a common 
bond, regardless of our individual ancestries.
  Our flag has been carried into battle since the Revolutionary War. 
Thousands have died for the American flag and what it represents, and 
in turn have had it draped on their coffins in a silent but powerful 
recognition of their ultimate sacrifice. We honor it annually on Flag 
Day. We in the House of Representatives begin each day by reciting the 
Pledge of Allegiance that begins: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of 
the United States of America.''
  Our commitment to it is a reflection of our country's commitment to 
its people. The American flag is a symbol of American might and 
resolve, but it is also a symbol of hope and freedom. It is a symbol of 
the freedom secured by so many at such a great price. To desecrate it 
is to desecrate the memory of those who died for it. To burn it is to 
incite the general public.
  Clearly we have created legitimate limitations on speech: fire in a 
theater, the burning of a cross, the painting of swastikas; those have 
been determined as crimes. I ask my colleagues, in special recognition 
of that history, that we give it the special protection that it 
deserves today.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

[[Page H3739]]

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute and 
30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is recognized for 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of the initiative to try and make certain that we do not allow our flag 
to be desecrated.
  I think we as a Nation have far too few symbols of what it means to 
be the freest and most formidable democracy on the face of the Earth. I 
think rather than, as so many of my Democratic colleagues and 
particularly liberal Democrats have suggested, that this is outrageous 
and basically an invasion of our rights as provided in our 
Constitution, I could not disagree more wholeheartedly. I think that 
this is a protection that we fight for in our democracy. We need to 
have a few symbols of what it means to be an American. That is what 
this is all about.
  As Professor Parker of Harvard University, who at one time worked for 
my dad, persuasively argued, that rather than a process for limiting 
free speech, this amendment is a democratic vehicle for the highest 
expression of free speech. The amendment is a way for people, through 
their elected representatives, to establish a baseline, a national 
standard for robust and wide open freedom of speech. Simply put, 
amending the Constitution is a way of protecting the first amendment as 
it now stands. In the words of Professor Parker, ``It is not fiddling 
with the first amendment, it protects the first amendment.''
  The time is long overdue for defining what we are as a Nation dare to 
believe in and uphold as sacred. The American flag, which so many have 
fought and died for, deserves the protection of this amendment. The 
time has come, Mr. Speaker, to draw that line in the sand and protect 
the American flag as a symbol of our national unity.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the previous speaker that a friend of 
ours in the Senate from Massachusetts and another friend of ours from 
the State of Rhode Island have a contrary view.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, in America it is illegal to burn trash, 
but you can burn the flag. In America it is illegal to remove a label 
from a mattress, but you can in fact rip the stars and stripes from our 
flag. In America it is illegal to damage a mailbox, but you can destroy 
our flag.
  Some people believe today that this debate is not about the flag, 
that this debate is about the Constitution. Let us talk about that. The 
original Constitution allowed slavery. The original Constitution 
treated women like cattle. The original Constitution treated native 
American Indians like buffaloes. The original Constitution needed to be 
changed then. The Constitution needs to be changed now.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about a flag, this is a debate 
about national pride. A people that do not in fact honor and respect 
their flag is a people that does not honor and respect either their 
neighbors or their country.
  If America wants to protest, if Americans want to make political 
statements, burn your brassieres, burn your pantyhose, your BVD's, your 
credit cards, burn your dollar bills, take a sledgehammer and destroy 
your car, but the Congress of the United States should say, leave our 
flag alone. Today's debate, Mr. Speaker, is not about the flag. That is 
for sure. It is about our national pride.
  Let me tell every Member, those soldiers who were carrying that flag 
up the hill, they were not crawling, groveling, trying to hide from the 
fire, they were upright. They had that flag up there for everybody to 
see what that flag meant. They knew they may not come back, but their 
children would see that flag and their children would respect that 
flag.
  Today's debate is not about the flag, it is about national pride and 
national respect. I submit, Mr. Speaker, if we as a Congress are going 
to start reinforcing national pride and respect in our countrymen and 
in our country, we should change this Constitution. It was right years 
ago and it is right and fitting today.
  I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I commend 
this legislation, and I would hope we would get enough votes to pass 
it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would explain to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] who has lectured us about brassiere and pantyhose 
burning, mailbox bashing, burning of trash, my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], those are not symbolic speech. 
They are not protected by the Constitution.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Just a little common sense, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I proudly and passionately 
rise today to support this amendment that prevents the desecration of 
the symbol of freedom, the symbol of opportunity, the symbol that was 
created with bloodshed. Many of our forefathers gave everything, their 
life, for this symbol. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for their 
leadership on this issue, and for allowing me to participate. I am also 
fiercely proud to join 280-some colleagues in sponsoring this important 
amendment that will allow Congress to protect our symbol of freedom, 
our symbol of opportunity.
  I think it is important to point out precisely what this amendment 
says. It simply says that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States. It does not 
prescribe how that should be done.
  Rather, what it does do is restore to Congress the authority to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and really what this 
means is that it restores the power to the American people via their 
elected representatives, and not to live with changes brought about by 
a very liberal judiciary.
  As Justice Rehnquist noted, 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 almost mystical 
reverence. All should. In my view, it is literally the fabric which 
binds us together. It is the symbol of who we are and the emblem we 
rally around when times get tough.
  A gentleman by the name of Mike Ashmond in my district was an 
immigrant from Iran. He knew what it was like not to live in freedom. 
He went to Germany first, learned of the freedoms of America, moved to 
America to run his business, and he loves our American flag. Instead of 
cutting the ribbon in his business recently he raised the American 
flag, and he stated, ``I want to be able to look out my office window 
and see the symbol of freedom and opportunity. I want to look out my 
dining room window and see the symbol of freedom and opportunity, and 
everywhere I go around my community, because the American people need 
to realize the price paid for freedom and the freedom and opportunity 
that it stands for.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, an important member of 
the committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
very much for his kindness in yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly do acknowledge as the sponsor of this 
amendment that the American people have spoken loudly and resoundingly. 
There is something great about this debate this afternoon. It is a 
reflection on what America is all about. America is about disagreement. 
America is about preserving the Republic.
  I realized when I went to this well that I would be a rather lonely 
person,

[[Page H3740]]

that the numbers are against me; that in fact the wave of the popular 
vote says to pass this amendment. But I stand here very proudly, 
because I live in a nation that allows me and my dissident voice to be 
able to speak in opposition. Sometimes the tyranny of the majority must 
be opposed.
  As a youngster I used to idolize Abe Lincoln, taught in our schools 
as a benevolent leader who freed the slaves. Now I understand as an 
adult that he sought to preserve the Union against, of course, the 
opposition of a great deal of the majority. Sometimes you must stand 
lonely to preserve the Union.
  So I stand to preserve this Union today. I stand in opposition to my 
State, the State of Texas. I stand in opposition to those who I have 
sat and watched on television, for I was not allowed at that time to 
rise up and be drafted, tears in my eyes as we fought in the Vietnam 
war. I heard my grandmother tell stories of wondering whether her boys 
would return from World War II, and yes, friends and neighbors were in 
the Korean war, and I watched those in my neighborhood go off to 
Kuwait.
  Yet, this amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress 
of grievances.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I call the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
``John'' because I appreciate his steadfast view on the Constitution. 
It is because of his tradition and that of Barbara Jordan that I carry 
this Constitution with me on a daily basis.
  It is because of that that I recognize that we are fighting today not 
so much for the flag and the symbol of freedom but we are fighting to 
preserve this Union. I do not need to be in the well and shout. There 
is nothing more that I can say that will convince those of my 
colleagues who are prepared to vote almost unanimously for this 
amendment.
  But I can tell them, having traveled across this land and having the 
privilege of traveling internationally, I can assure them that Bosnia 
would have wanted to have a constitution and a nation that did not see 
the bloody fight. I can assure them that there would have been more 
preference to the burning of a flag than a Mideast war or the war in 
the Congo or Liberia or the war that rages in Northern Ireland.
  I say to the children, of which those who have gone to the floor have 
said they truly have a reason to pledge allegiance to the flag of the 
United States because it is in fact a symbol of freedom, that freedom 
goes beyond the material of a flag.
  I wish I could have been there as we penned the Star-Spangled Banner 
because I think that is a symbol of freedom. A tarred and marred flag, 
probably torn and burned, but yet still waving, caused the inspiration 
of the Star-Spangled Banner. It was the value that had been preserved. 
It was freedom that had been won. We had won this.
  And to the veterans, let me simply say to them, I understand the 
message that is given to them as they go into battle. That battle is 
that they fight for the flag. But, no, they fight for Mrs. Jones or 
they fight for Mrs. Kazarazz or Mrs. Lee or any other ethnic group that 
have come to this Nation for freedom.
  Yes, let me say something to my colleagues. There is a tragic, tragic 
story being unfolded in Denver, CO. I can say with the deepest of 
feeling in my heart, I wish that Tim McVeigh had burned a flag and not 
bombed and killed 168 Americans whose loved ones cry every day for 
their loss.
  It is important that we understand what this constitutional amendment 
does. It is, in fact, an amendment that says that Congress has a right 
to define what type of desecration would be legal or illegal. That in 
and of itself is a denial of freedom, the very fact that we do not even 
know what we are trying to do. We do not know what we will claim as 
illegal. We do not know what we will deny a citizen the right of 
freedom of expression.
  I have come from a time when those of us who look like me could not 
speak, could not ride in the front of the bus. I am grateful for those 
of goodwill who saw that if we left one person outside the circle, this 
could not be an equal nation. Well, we are going to do that today.
  I leave Members with these words: ``The sacred rights of mankind are 
not to be rummaged among old parchments or musty records. They are 
written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the 
hand of the divinity itself, and can never erased or obscured by mortal 
power.'' Alexander Hamilton.
  John Marshall said, ``A Constitution intended to endure for ages to 
come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human 
affairs.''
  We have not seen a flag burned for almost 20 years.
  Then I want to say to my colleagues what Benjamin Franklin said. At 
the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was 
asked, ``What have you wrought?'' He answered, ``A Republic, if you can 
keep it.''
  That is my challenge for this day, and I will remain lonely in this 
well, for I am going to try and keep this Republic and vote on the side 
of freedom of this Constitution, the first amendment and the Bill of 
Rights that has not been amended.
  And might I just say, in tribute to someone that I hold with great 
respect and carried this Constitution, Barbara Jordan would certainly 
say today, I wish we would all stand to keep the Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, it is without question that I rise in opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 54--proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.
  My colleagues, when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of 
Independence, he wrote that: ``We, therefore, the Representatives of 
the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, solemnly 
publish and declare, that these colonies are * * * free and independent 
States * * * and we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our 
fortunes, and our sacred honor * * * our sacred honor.''
  My colleagues, that is what the American flag stands for--honor. But 
it also stands for something even more sacred--freedom. Freedom of 
expression as contained in the first amendment and the Bill of Rights.
  ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech.'' 
This amendment, if passed, for the first time in our Nation's history, 
would cut back on the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of 
expression that is the bedrock of our democracy, and one of the 
fundamental guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.
  In his 1859 essay on liberty, John Stuart Mill recognized the public 
good and enlightenment which results from the free exchange of ideas. 
He writes: ``First, if any expression is compelled to silence, that 
opinion for aught we can certainly know, be true * * * secondly, though 
this silenced opinion be in error, it may, and very commonly does, 
contain a portion of the truth * * * thirdly, even if the received 
opinion be not only true but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to 
be and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will by most 
of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice.''
  The American system of Government is itself premised on freedom of 
expression.
  On the subject of freedom of expression, Professor Emerson notes: 
``Once one accepts the premise of the Declaration of Independence--that 
governments derive `their just powers from the consent of government'--
it follows that the governed must, in order to exercise their right of 
consent, have full freedom of expression both in forming individual 
judgments and in forming the common judgments''.
  In the 204 year history of the Constitution of the United States, not 
one single word of the original Bill of Rights has been altered. What 
is the urgency and need to change the Bill of Rights now. There is 
none.
  It is my firm belief that this effort to amend the Constitution of 
the United States, like other efforts by this same body to amend the 
Constitution, is an exercise in misjudgment and a severe waste of 
precious time.
  It is rare that a flag is ever burned in our country as a form of 
political speech or otherwise. From 1777 through 1989, only 45 
incidents of flag burning were reported; since the 1989 flag decision, 
fewer than 10 flag burning incidents have been reported per year.
  The flag is a symbol. It is a symbol of freedom, not freedom itself. 
When given the choice, I chose freedom over symbolism. For it is 
freedom that allows me to choose the symbols that represent what I 
believe. Am I offended by the burning of the flag? Yes. But am I 
threatened by it? No. Where is the imminent threat to freedom in 
burning the flag? It

[[Page H3741]]

is simply not present. The real threat are those who seek to amend the 
Constitution of the United States and severely limit the prized 
protection of freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights.

  It is evident that this is not the first time that we have visited 
this issue. Congress, in an effort to protect the American flag, passed 
the first Federal flag desecration law in 1968, which made it illegal 
to ``knowingly'' cast ``contempt'' upon ``any flag of the United States 
by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon 
[the flag],'' which additionally imposed a penalty of up to $1,000 in 
fines and/or 1 year in jail. In 1969, the Supreme Court in Street v. 
New York, 394 U.S. 576, held that New York could not convict a person 
based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag.
  In 1972, the Supreme Court in Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, held 
that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small 
cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law 
making it a crime to publicly treat the U.S. flag with ``contempt.'' 
The Court ruled that the Massachusetts law was vague and thus, 
unconstitutional.
  In 1974, the Supreme Court in Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 
overturned a Washington State ``improper use'' flag law which, inter 
alia, made it illegal to place any marks or designs upon the flag or 
display such an altered flag in public view.
  In each of these three cases, the Supreme Court failed to review the 
case under the protection of the first amendment.
  It was not until 1989, 21 years after the adoption of the 1968 
Federal flag desecration law, that the Supreme Court addressed the 
issue of flag desecration as it related to the first amendment. In 
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of 
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that Texas law--making it a crime 
to desecrate or otherwise mistreat the flag in a way that the ``actor 
knows will seriously offend one or more persons''--was unconstitutional 
as applied.
  Gregory Johnson was a member of the Revolutionary Communists Party 
who was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican 
National Convention in Dallas, TX, after he set fire to a flag while 
protestors chanted, ``America, the Red, White and Blue, we spit on 
you.''
  In a 5 to 4 decision written by Justice Brennan, the Court first 
found that burning the flag in political protest was a form of 
expressive conduct and symbolic speech subject to first amendment 
protection. The Court also determined that under United States v. 
O'Brian, 391 U.S. 367 (1967), since the State law was related to the 
suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be 
upheld if Texas could demonstrate a ``compelling'' interest in its law. 
The Court found that Texas' asserted interest in ``protecting the 
peace'' was not implicated under the facts of the case. While the 
Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving 
the flag as a ``symbol of national unity.'' This interest was not 
sufficiently compelling to justify a ``content based'' legal 
restriction--that is, the law was not based on protecting the physical 
integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect 
it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others.

  In an unequivocal show of contempt for the holding of the Supreme 
Court in Texas versus Johnson, Members of Congress who supported the 
Federal flag desecration statute hastily amended it in an effort to 
make it ``content neutral'' and conform to the constitutional 
requirements of Johnson. As a result, the Flag Protection Act of 1989 
sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances. This was 
attempted by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast 
contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term 
``flag'' so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third 
parties.
  After a wave of flag burnings in response to passage of the Flag 
Protection Act, the Bush administration decided to test the law. One 
incident on the Capital steps in Washington, DC and the other incident 
in Seattle resulted in the Federal District Court judges in each 
jurisdiction striking down the 1989 Flag protection law as 
unconstitutional when applied to political protesters. Each judge 
relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson in reaching their 
decisions.
  In 1990, the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of these cases 
consolidated as U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310. In a 5 to 4 decision, 
the Court upheld the lower Federal courts ruling, thus striking down 
the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding 
the effort of Congress to adopt a more content neutral law, the Flag 
Protection Act continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic 
speech. The Court ruled that the Government's interest in protecting 
the flag's ``status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national 
ideals'' was related ``to the suppression of free expression'' and that 
this interest could not justify ``infringement on first amendment 
rights.'' The 1989 law was still subject to strict scrutiny because it 
could not be justified without reference to the content of free speech.
  The decision of the Supreme Court did not put the issue to rest. In 
1990, after the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected 
House Joint Resolution 350--an amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
specifying that ``the Congress and the States have the power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' 
This failed to get the necessary two-thirds congressional majority by a 
vote of 254 to 177 in the House and 58 to 42 vote in the Senate.
  In 1995, Congress considered the same amendment, House Joint 
Resolution 79, in the form of two separate resolutions. In the House, 
the measure passed by a vote of 312 to 120, but a similar measure in 
the Senate, Senate Joint Resolution 31, failed by a vote of 63 to 36, 
thus not getting the necessary two-thirds majority of the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, after all of this posturing by Members of Congress in 
both Houses, here we are again wasting time on the same unnecessary 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The only difference 
between the resolution that we have before us today, House Joint 
Resolution 54, and the resolution which failed in the 104th Congress, 
House Joint Resolution 79, is that House Joint Resolution 54, gives the 
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States to Congress only, and not to the States. This is the same Trojan 
horse that was destroyed in the 104th Congress, just a little lighter.
  The first amendment implication of this resolution is most damaging. 
If passed, this would be the very first time in the history of 
our Nation that we altered the Bill of Rights to place a severe 
limitation on the prized freedom of expression. This would be a 
dangerous precedent to set, thus opening the door to the erosion of our 
protected fundamental freedoms.

  The amendment, as written is vague. It states that, ``Congress shall 
have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States.'' What does the term ``desecration'' actually mean? Is 
it the burning of the flag? Flag burning is the preferred means of 
disposing of the flag when it is old. The Court noted in Texas versus 
Johnson, that according to Congress it is proper to burn the flag, 
``when it [the flag] is in such a condition that it is no longer a 
fitting emblem for display.'' What criteria will be used to determine 
when the flag is no longer fit for display and can thus be burned 
without penalty.
  When it comes to potential infringements on first amendment rights, 
Americans need to clearly understand what would be a violation of the 
law. This amendment clearly involves an issue of freedom of expression, 
which is critical to our Democratic system. Adoption of this resolution 
would amount to a severe restriction of the Bill of Rights.
  Surrounding the definition of ``desecration'' is its religious 
connotation. Webster Dictionary defines ``desecrate'' as ``to violate 
the sacredness of.'' The word ``sacred'' is defined as ``consecrated to 
a God or having to do with religion.'' It is not necessary to include 
the religious word ``desecration'' within the Constitution and clause 
unnecessary tension and confusion with the religious clause of the 
first amendment.
  Let me turn my attention to the unwisdom of unnecessarily amending 
the constitution and playing with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution 
should not be amendment based on the whims of Members of Congress. 
There is no urgent need to protect the flag of the United States via an 
amendment to the Constitution. The pressing need for this proposed 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States is simply not 
present.
  Mr. Speaker, our veterans fought bravely for the beliefs and values 
of the American people, not the symbols of the American people. The 
flag of the United States is a symbol. It is a symbolic representation 
of the beliefs, values, and views associated with freedom. Our brave 
soldiers and veterans, both men and women, fight on behalf of the 
United States. They fight to protect the people of the United States. 
They fight to protect the beliefs and values of the people of the 
United States; and our soldiers and veterans die protecting those 
beliefs. Our soldiers and veterans died for the beliefs of the American 
people; not the flag.
  In quoting the legal philosopher, Lon Fuller, on amending the 
Constitution, he stated that, ``we should resist the temptation to 
clutter up the Constitution with amendments relating to substantive 
matters. We must avoid the obvious unwisdom of trying to solve 
tomorrow's problems today and the insidious danger of the weakening 
effect of such amendments on the moral force of the Constitution.'' I 
continue to share this quote with my colleagues because they continue 
to try to follow the unwise path of unnecessarily amending the 
Constitution. Since the beginning of this Republican-majority Congress, 
Members have tried a number of times to amend the Constitution. This is 
absurd.

[[Page H3742]]

  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on House Joint Resolution 54.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Green].
  (Mr. Green asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic that I am on the 
opposite side of my colleague from Houston, and I only have 1 minute. I 
will try and say it quickly.
  I rise as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 54. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor this session and last session. I think it is so important 
that we recognize, though, that freedom of speech has limits on it. And 
as much as I defend the right of someone to disagree with what I say on 
the floor or anyone says on the floor, we also have some limits.
  That flag that we have is a symbol of that freedom. Now, granted, it 
is carried into battle. I would hope that our service personnel would 
carry the Constitution with them, too. But the flag is that symbol. 
That is why I think it is important that we pass this constitutional 
amendment today and send it on to the States for their ratification.
  The burning of our national symbol is something that huge majority 
finds that we should change. This amendment is trying to protect those 
intangible qualities that the Bill of Rights represents, and it also 
represents our flag. I ask that we pass this with the two-thirds vote 
and hopefully the Senate will also.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] here today.
  Woodrow Wilson, our President earlier in this century, once said the 
flag is the embodiment not of sentiment but of history. It represents 
the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do 
and live under this flag.
  We are not talking about a symbol. We are talking about our history. 
We are not limiting the first amendment. We are not saying you cannot 
criticize an elected official. We are not saying you cannot protest a 
governmental policy. We are not saying you cannot investigate an 
alleged violation.
  But we are saying that the flag of the United States of America, 
where our soldiers have fought and died for the freedoms that we hold 
so dear in this country, where they have fought for the freedoms of 
Europe and fought to defeat Hitler, where we have carried flags in 
civil rights marches for equality in this country, that is something 
unique and special. That cannot and should not be burned.
  That flag that is staked on the moon, that flag that is symbolized at 
Iwo Jima, and this flag that hangs over ``in God we trust'' is not an 
insignia and not merely a symbol. It is the United States of America's 
history. It is our truce. It is our reverence, and we should protect 
it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 26 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today and join so many 
of my colleagues as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of House 
Joint Resolution 54, the flag desecration amendment.
  Many individuals have given their lives, have made the ultimate 
sacrifice to protect the values that are embodied in our flag. To 
desecrate the flag, I think, is to belittle the sacrifices of our 
patriots. Forty-nine out of fifty States, including my home State of 
New Jersey, have passed resolutions urging the adoption of a 
constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of our flag.
  We often talk about listening to the people in this body. We talk 
about how important it is to listen to what the citizens of the United 
States are looking for from us, their elected representatives. Mr. 
Speaker, I think that in this particular case it is time for us to 
listen to the will of the people. We cannot deny the will of the people 
on this particular issue, because it is so overwhelming from every 
segment of society that this is what we should do, and we cannot 
forsake the service of our veterans.
  This weekend I will observe Flag Day in the small down of Clayton, 
N.J. As I meet the veterans in that community, I would love to be able 
to tell them that we in the House of Representatives of this U.S. 
Congress overwhelmingly passed this resolution that will enable us to 
protect our flag. I think it is the least we can do for the citizens of 
the country and for our veterans.
  In Clayton we will celebrate the flag as our national monument. No 
single statue or memorial embodies our national civic pride like the 
values of our flag. Vandalizing the Washington Monument or the Liberty 
Bell in Philadelphia would be considered a despicable crime and would 
be dealt with very severely. The flag should receive nothing less. It 
should receive the same measure of respect and protection.
  I urge my colleagues, think about what is at stake here and please 
support this bipartisan amendment that would protect our flag.
  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, I am proud to support House Joint 
Resolution 54, which gives the Congress and the States the power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. This has over 
280 cosponsors who share my commitment to giving back to the American 
people the authority to protect our flag.
  Opponents of the flag protection amendment say it threatens free 
speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. ``Surely one of the 
high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil 
and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be 
murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.''
  Talking about the flag is free speech. Criticizing our Government, 
for those who care to do so, is free speech. But desecrating the 
American flag is an offensive physical act, not speech to be protected 
by the first amendment. We can have open and free debate on issues 
without resorting to burning our flag in public.
  The U.S. flag is more than a piece of cloth. It is the symbol of our 
freedom. It represents the sacrifice of those who gave their lives to 
win and preserve our way of life. Too many Americans have carried our 
flag into battle against tyranny and oppression around the world for us 
to tolerate the public desecration of the flag.
  Those who doubt the need to honor and protect our flag need only 
visit the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington, VA, to be reminded of the 
heroic sacrifice made by our military veterans who carried our flag 
into harm's way in faraway battles at Iwo Jima and elsewhere. Justice 
Rehnquist noted the irony that ``government may conscript men into the 
Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but 
the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under 
which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right that 
wrong.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  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 of the United States of America to 
prevent it from being desecrated.
  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 and 
the rights and freedoms it guarantees.

[[Page H3743]]

  In the 101st Congress, my colleagues and I sought to address this 
problem when we overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. 
I do not feel anyone should be allowed to desecrate the flag. I wish 
the Supreme Court had decided in favor of the law, but regrettably, by 
a 5-to-4 vote, it declared the act unconstitutional.

                              {time}  1315

  Congress' anger and frustration with the decision has led us to 
consider amending the Constitution. Our Constitution has been amended 
only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the 
same Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and of religion, 
and eventually outlawed slavery and gave blacks and women the right to 
vote.
  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. Too many. Amending the 
Constitution is an extraordinarily serious matter. I do not think we 
should allow a few obnoxious attention seekers who choose to desecrate 
the flag to push us into a corner. They have become more important than 
anyone else and we should not allow them to do this, especially since 
no one is burning the flag and there is now no constitutional amendment 
to prevent it from being desecrated.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Riley].
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, the American flag is a symbol of freedom, 
equal opportunity, religious tolerance and good will to other people of 
the world who share those values. An attack against it is much more 
than a burning of a piece of cloth or a matter of free speech. Simply 
put, it is an attack against the ideals that made our Nation great and 
the men and women who fought and died for those principles.
  Mr. Speaker, those who stand before us today and argue that the 
constitutional amendment to protect the flag is, in effect, a repeal of 
the first amendment's right to free speech vastly miss the mark. This 
amendment is not an attempt to limit speech. Our flag is the property 
of a free people, a symbol of a free society and a national treasure 
bought and paid for with the blood of countless brave Americans.
  I believe we have a clear and moral obligation to protect the 
American flag from physical desecration. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe we must vote today in favor of the flag protection amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time, and I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that when 
I was on the floor earlier this morning he asked me several questions 
and suggested I bring back some Supreme Court cases talking about my 
speech, and I went back and skipped lunch to get all this information 
for him, so I am here to present it to him.
  The gentleman questioned the distinction I made between pure speech 
and expressive conduct. Indeed, I have been challenged; I think a 
couple of people asked me this question: Is there legal authority that 
supports such a distinction? And as I mentioned, I am pleased now this 
afternoon to provide the gentleman with that information.
  The leading Supreme Court case in this area was decided in 1968 in 
United States versus O'Brien. The Court upheld against a first 
amendment challenge the conviction of someone who burned his draft 
card. The Court sustained his conviction on the basis that there was 
indeed a constitutional difference between expressive conduct, such as 
burning one's draft card, maybe someone burning the flag, and pure 
speech in that it would be easier to uphold a statute that would 
regulate the former; that is, expressive conduct.
  In O'Brien, the Supreme Court held:

       We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless 
     variety of conduct can be labeled speech whenever the person 
     engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.

  And I have cited the case number and the page and everything.
  The Court concluded that prohibiting the burning of a draft card was 
constitutional because it was ``an appropriately narrow means of 
protecting the government's substantial interests * * * and condemns 
only the independent, noncommunicative impact of conduct.''
  So we cannot burn a draft card. We cannot burn a draft card. And we 
are just saying we cannot burn a flag.
  Let me finish.
  Mr. Speaker, this distinction has been accepted by a long line of 
Supreme Court cases, so this distinction has been accepted--now, the 
gentleman asked for additional Supreme Court cases, here we go--has 
been accepted by a long line of Supreme Court cases decided since 
O'Brien. Indeed, Texas versus Johnson; United States versus Eichmann.
  The Court applied the same test in those cases as they did in the 
O'Brien case. While the result they reach by a narrow margin was 
different than I myself would have reached, they did not question 
O'Brien's distinction between pure speech and expressive conduct.
  So I am glad that I could answer the question for the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I ask my studious lunch-giving colleague to stay on the floor.
  It is wonderful they have courses on constitutional law. It helps us 
all. Because they take the cases and then they go back and review them 
and they distinguish between the cases.
  In the Johnson case that the gentleman cites from 1989, 491 U.S. 397, 
guess what? They accepted the O'Brien conclusion from the finding in 
the Johnson case. That is to say, sir, we cannot argue O'Brien about 
flag burning. We can argue it about something else, like draft cards, 
but we cannot argue it about flags. And guess what we are dealing with 
today? Flag burning.
  So I give the gentleman a passing grade only for his effort.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield me more time, in 
addition to a passing grade?
  Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely not.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. It is unfortunate that in the pursuit of a free and open 
debate, the gentleman from Michigan has been unwilling to yield 
additional time.
  I am still trying to understand the gentleman's point. We all know 
that there is a disagreement with the Supreme Court decision or a 
couple of Supreme Court decisions. That is no revelation. That is why 
we are here today.
  For anyone who has not figured that out, we are here because we 
believe the Supreme Court wrongly applied the test that the gentleman 
from Florida is talking about, and other doctrines that have been 
developed over the years, to the case of flag burning. That is why we 
are here.
  We are driven to this because, as a last resort, we are going to 
amend the Constitution to correct the mistake that they made.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. That is why we are 
here, and it is because the cases favor our side that the gentleman 
brought this proposed constitutional amendment.
  I am glad the gentleman did. It does not prove that we are wrong, it 
proves that the Supreme Court agrees with our position and the 
gentleman is attempting to change it.
  My dear friend in the well, one of the most considered constitutional 
scholars we have, is wrong in trying to argue O'Brien for his side. It 
does not apply.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
John Porter, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to the Constitution, the supreme law 
of our land, proclaims that Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech or of the press. The principle of free speech in our 
Constitution is an absolute, without proviso or exception.
  The citizens of the newly freed Colonies had lived through the 
tyranny of a

[[Page H3744]]

repressive government that censored the press and silenced those who 
would speak out to criticize it. They wanted to make certain no such 
government would arise in their new land of freedom. The first 
amendment, as with all ten amendments, was a specific limitation on the 
power of government.
  Throughout the 210-year history of the Constitution, not one word of 
the Bill of Rights has ever been altered. But the sponsors of this 
amendment today, for the first time in our Nation's history, would cut 
back on the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. I 
submit that only the most dangerous of acts to the existence of our 
Nation could possibly be of sufficient importance to require us to 
qualify the principle of free speech which lies at the bedrock of our 
free society.
  The dangerous act that threatens America, they claim, is the 
desecration of the flag in protest or criticism of our Government. Now, 
Mr. Speaker, desecration of the flag is abhorrent to me, as to anyone 
else. It is offensive in the extreme to all Americans. But it is hardly 
an act that threatens our existence as a nation.
  Such an act, Mr. Speaker, is in fact exactly the kind of expression 
our Founders intended to protect. They themselves had torn down the 
British flag in protest. Our founders' greatest fear was of a central 
government so powerful that such individual protests and criticisms 
could be silenced.
  No, Mr. Speaker, we are not threatened as a nation by the desecration 
of our flag; rather, our tolerance of this act reaffirms our commitment 
to free speech and to the supremacy of individual expression over 
governmental power, which is the essence of our history and the very 
essence of this country.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I just wish to acknowledge the ongoing debate here between 
myself and the gentleman from Michigan.
  I would say to the gentleman that I think he is correct in the sense 
that the Supreme Court did not agree with the O'Brien case. They did 
not agree in this case, but we in Congress are now saying they should 
have agreed.
  The O'Brien case, United States versus O'Brien, was in 1968. 
Obviously, the gentleman and I both realize that men and women who are 
on the Supreme Court make different decisions in different periods of 
the American history; because we can go back and look at some of the 
decisions they made at the turn of the century, back in the 19th 
century, and today the gentleman and I would not agree. We would have 
unanimous opinion that we do not agree with those Supreme Court 
decisions.
  Likewise, I am sure, another 100 years from now, God bless this 
wonderful country still remains intact and we are all working for 
democracy, we will not agree. But in this case Congress has the final 
say-so. So all we are saying in this legislative debate today is what 
they said in 1968 was relevant and we think they should abide by it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Paul].
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to point out that the word ``desecrate'' is a very important 
word. We have talked about it all day but have not yet defined it. It 
means to deconsecrate. What I want to know is when we have consecrated 
the flag.
  We are holding the flag in the highest of esteem, and yet liberty is 
really what should be on the pinnacle. Liberty and the Constitution. 
When we undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we undermine 
liberty and then we diminish the value of the flag.
  But to deconsecrate something means that the flag was consecrated. I 
want to read what that means. It means ``To make, declare or set apart 
as sacred,'' or, such as a church, ``To set apart for the worship of a 
deity. To change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood 
of Christ.'' Who and when did we raise this flag to this level? Have we 
deified the state to this extent?
  We very often complain about the state taking over parental rights, 
and here we are now saying that to do anything to the flag is a 
desecration, which means that we have consecrated the flag. To 
desecrate means to abuse the sacredness of the subject of sacrilege; 
that we cannot commit blasphemy.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my two remaining minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some observations here. No. 1, 
House Joint Resolution 54 is the following: ``The Congress shall have 
the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States.'' That means that when we pass this and the Senate 
passes it, we will have the ability to make a law to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag.
  I have heard a considerable amount of tyranny of the majority on this 
floor today. Yet in order to have this pass, we here in the House of 
Representatives, one of the two most democratic bodies in the entire 
world, have to produce 290 votes. The U.S. Senate has to produce 67 out 
of 100 votes. Then three-fourths of the States of the United States of 
America have to approve this.
  After all that is done, then we have the ability to write a law to 
protect the physical desecration of the flag. That seems to me to be 
the most democratic way we could possibly go about this. It cannot be 
tyranny of the majority when we have that many concerned, democratic 
individuals involved.
  On top of that, it seems to me that most of the arguments that we 
have heard today against this resolution have really been arguments 
against a law that would prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. 
That law has not been written. It will only be written after a long, 
concerted effort to pass this resolution.
  Once again, I say to my colleagues, support the flag, pass House 
Joint Resolution 54.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Emerson].
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 54, the Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment. I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this amendment to provide Old Glory with 
the complete and unqualified protection of the law.
  Our flag is an enduring symbol of America's great tradition of 
liberty and democratic government. Missouri's own Harry Truman hailed 
the special importance of Old Glory when he signed the Act of Congress 
which established June 14 of each year as National Flag Day.
  With Flag Day just 2 days from now, it is altogether fitting and 
appropriate for the House to pass the constitutional amendment to 
outlaw its desecration. Countless brave Americans have followed our 
flag into battle. More than 1 million have died in its defense. These 
men and women, our soldiers and veterans, stood in harm's way to defend 
the flag and the principles which it represents. Please let us not 
diminish their sacrifices and their courage by looking the other way at 
the desecration of America's proudest symbol.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the flag protection 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, there are two clear schools of 
thought that have emerged in the annual debate over flag burning. The 
first school of thought is that we can compel patriotism. The second 
school of thought is that we cannot compel patriotism. And so, we have 
heard, I think, a better debate than I participated in in earlier 
years; and I commend the Members of the Congress on all sides for a 
debate that I think will be studied and examined by those who will come 
after us and the American people as well.
  Because at the same time that we are reminding the Chinese Government 
of their need to safeguard the civil liberties in emerging Hong Kong, 
we find ourselves on the verge of modifying our own Bill of Rights to 
limit freedom of expression in these United States, to limit freedom of 
expression. By adopting a constitutional amendment that would then 
allow Congress to prohibit flag desecration, we would be joining the 
ranks with countries like China,

[[Page H3745]]

like Iran, like the regimes of the former Soviet Union and the former 
South Africa.
  So I believe if we are to continue to maintain the moral stature in 
matters of human rights, it is essential that we remain fully open to 
even unpopular dissent that may take the obnoxious form of flag 
burning.
  Indeed, the Committee on the Judiciary has been authorized by its 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, to 
take a CODEL to Haiti at the end of this month. I am grateful to him 
for that because I will be leading that trip. The law of Haiti on this 
subject provides that burning, mutilating, or degrading or otherwise 
profaning their national flag is punishable with forced labor up to 
life. That is Haiti now.
  So it is the judgment of many of us that the true test of a nation's 
commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect the 
unpopular forms of expression. It is the most imperative principle of 
our Constitution that protects not just freedom for the thought and 
expression we agree with, but for the freedom for the thought we 
despise. And here we are again. There is no doubt that symbolic speech 
relating to the flag falls squarely within the ambit of traditionally 
respected speech. We have talked about that all morning and afternoon.
  Seven Supreme Court cases, seven, count them. Our Nation was born in 
the dramatic, symbolic speech of the Boston Tea Party, and our courts 
have long recognized that expressive speech associated with the flag is 
totally protected speech under the first amendment.
  Now most Americans deplore burning of an American flag, as we do. It 
is our allowance of this conduct that reinforces the strength of our 
constitutional liberty. In one case, a Federal judge back in 1974 wrote 
that the flag and that which it symbolizes is dear to us, but not so 
cherished as those high moral, legal, and ethical precepts which our 
Constitution teaches.
  The genius of the Constitution lies in its indifference to a 
particular individual's cause. The fact that flag burners are able to 
take refuge in the first amendment means that every citizen can be 
assured that the Bill of Rights will be available to protect his or her 
rights and liberties should the need arise.
  The adoption of the flag desecration amendment would diminish and 
trivialize our Constitution. If Congress begins to second guess the 
court's authority concerning matters of free speech, we will not only 
be carving out an awkward exception into a document designed to last 
for the ages, but we will be undermining the very structure created 
under the Constitution to protect our rights.
  Madison, he warned against using the amendment process to correct 
every perceived constitutional defect that is the style in this 
Congress. Dozens and dozens of amendments. Do not like it? Change the 
Constitution. You do not like it? Well, you could write a statute, but 
let us put it in the Constitution so they will not be able to take it 
out.
  So as a practical matter, this proposed constitutional amendment is 
not drafted very well, it is poorly drafted, and it will open up a 
Pandora's box of litigation. The Congress will come back and now make 
it enforceable. Not only are its terms open-ended and vague, but the 
resolution gives us no guidance, none, as to its intended 
constitutional scope or parameter.
  So while those who supported claims that we are merely drawing a line 
between legal and illegal behavior, in actuality, we are drawing no 
line at all, merely granting the Government open-ended authority to 
prosecute those dissenters, go get them, that use the flag in a manner 
that we in Congress deem inappropriate.
  But unlike other open-ended provisions of the Bill of Rights which 
constrain the power of the state against the individual, the flag 
desecration amendment represents an unchartered invasion of our 
liberties rather than a backup mechanism to prevent the Government from 
usurping our individual rights.
  So please, there are a few Members in the Congress that have not made 
up their mind, please, to those few Members, let us show where 
America's strength really lies. Join us in rejecting this unsound, 
inappropriate, intemperate, and unreasonable invasion into the Bill of 
Rights. I urge a ``no'' vote on the matter pending in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues would 
not interrupt me until I am through because I would like to complete my 
argument.
  I want to preface my remarks by saying there are good people on both 
sides of this argument. There are no good guys or bad guys here. A very 
respectable case can be made against the amendment, and it has been 
made by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and others, without question.
  But a very good case and, in my judgment, a better case can be made 
in support of the amendment; and we hope to do that. We hope we have 
done that today. I would like to introduce the gentleman from Illinois, 
[Mr. John Porter] my constituent, my friend, my neighbor, standing 
there clutching the flag to his bosom because next to him is the coffin 
of his 21-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Christian Porter, who died in 
Operation Desert Storm.
  This picture speaks more eloquently than anything I could say; and I 
hope my colleagues will take a look at it and, if they get a chance, 
look at the eyes of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman standing by the casket.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in thinking as we think. We are not a 
bunch of yahoos, unlettered, unwashed jingoists. We have some pretty 
distinguished people who agree with us: Chief Justice Earl Warren, 
Justice Hugo Black, Justice Abe Fortas, Chief Justice Rehnquist, 
Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Byron 
White. These people knew a little something about the Constitution.
  And so this is not a one-sided debate at all. There is authority, 
there is scholarship on both sides of this issue.
  Now there are two important questions in this dispute. First, is flag 
burning conduct imbued with speech and hence protected by the first 
amendment? Those of us supporting this amendment shout no to that 
question despite a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in Texas versus 
Johnson in 1989.
  I think the average person knows the difference between freedom of 
speech and vandalism. Almost any act can be called expressive speech. 
Blowing up a building can be expressive speech, urinating in public can 
be a political statement. Why, the courts have declared nude dancing 
and dial-a-porn services as free speech. To burn an object is to 
demonstrate one's contempt for it, not speech. It is the antithesis of 
speech. It is not a form of argument. It is an act of contempt for the 
very idea of reasoned argument. Flag burning is no more speech than a 
child's temper tantrum.
  And to suggest that the Founders and Framers intended to protect such 
public displays of childish pique, to suggest that this is what the 
first amendment free speech clause protects is demeaning and it is 
degrading.
  Free speech has never been absolute as our laws against libel, 
slander, copyright infringement, and so many more prove. By freedom of 
speech the Founders meant the freedom to make reasoned arguments about 
matters touching the common good. They did not mean a freestanding 
right to say anything one wants, any time and any place.
  Freedom of speech is a freedom inherent in the dignity of the people, 
and the Government should honor it and protect it so that democracy 
might flourish. But democracy is possible only where a civil society 
can deliberate the common good freely, openly and publicly.
  The notion that our highest value is self-expression has confused 
some of

[[Page H3746]]

our leaders. What the highest court has done, by a margin of one vote, 
no less, is draw the line between speech and conduct at a point that 
maximizes expression, lest anyone's personal fulfillment be stifled. 
But America cannot long survive the selfishness of autonomous 
individuals as its highest value.
  There is another value; that with our rights come responsibilities, a 
value well expressed and embodied in our national symbol, the flag. By 
reducing freedom of speech to yet another freestanding personal 
autonomy right, the Supreme Court has once again weakened the once 
strong fabric of our constitutional democracy and has once again struck 
a blow against the idea that it is a civil society, not merely 
autonomous individuals, that makes democracy possible.
  As for the substance of the issue, to think seriously about flag 
protection and flag burning means thinking seriously about the nature 
of American democracy. The Founders and the Framers pledged their 
lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to a democratic experiment 
of self-governance that engaged the moral energies and the imagination 
of the people. Democracy for that generation of Americans was not 
simply a matter of procedures. Democracy was an ongoing test of a 
people's capacity to be self-governing. Democracy was not a matter 
simply of rights. It was a matter of duties with rights understood as 
the freedom to do what we ought, not simply what we like.
  Procedural democracy, democracy reduced to an array of legal and 
political procedures, would have made no sense to Jefferson and Madison 
and all the rest. They were interested in the substance of democracy. 
They were interested in the Republican virtue that would make democracy 
possible.
  As my colleagues know, to have a successful monarchy, all that is 
needed is a virtuous king. But to have a successful democracy, what is 
needed is a virtuous people. We look around this Chamber, we see the 
splendid diversity of America, we see men and women whose great 
grandparents came from virtually every corner of the globe. What holds 
this democratic community together? A common commitment to certain 
moral norms is the foundation of the democratic experiment, and just as 
man does not live by bread alone, human beings do not live by abstract 
ideas alone. Those ideas and ideals have to be embodied in symbols.
  And what is a symbol? A symbol is more than a sign. A sign simply 
conveys information; a symbol is much more richly textured. A symbol is 
material reality that makes a spiritual reality present among us. An 
octagonal piece of red metal on a street corner is a sign. The flag is 
a symbol. Vandalizing a no parking sign is a misdemeanor. But burning 
the flag is a hate crime because burning the flag is an expression of 
contempt for the moral unity of the American people that the flag makes 
present to us every day.
  I said there were two questions. The second question is why do we 
need this amendment now? Is there a rash of flag burning going on? 
Happily there is not. But I believe in my heart we live in a time of 
serious disunity. Our society is pulled apart by the powerful 
centrifugal force of racism, ethnicity, language, culture, gender and 
religion. Diversity can be a source of strength, but disunity is a 
source of peril. We Americans share a moral unity expressed so 
profoundly in our country's birth certificate, the Declaration of 
Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, Jefferson wrote, 
the truth that all are equal before the law, the truth that the right 
to life and liberty is inalienable and inviolable, the truth that 
government is intended to facilitate, not impede, the people's pursuit 
of happiness. Adherence to these truths is the foundation of civil 
society and of democratic culture in America.
  And what is the symbol of our moral unity amidst our racial, ethnic 
and religious diversity? Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, the flag. In 
seeking to provide constitutional protection for the flag we are 
seeking to protect the moral unity that makes American democracy 
possible. We have spent the better part of the last 30 years telling 
each other about the things that divide us. It is time to start talking 
about the things that unite us, that make us all together Americans. 
The flag is the symbol, the embodiment of the unity of the American 
people, a unity built on those self-evident truths on which the 
American experiment rests, the truths which are our Nation's claim to 
be a just society.
  Let us take a step toward the reconciliation of America and toward 
constitutional sanity by adopting this amendment. The flag is our 
connection to the past and proclaims our aspirations for the future. 
There may be no flags burning right now, but it is worthwhile to 
elevate our flag in our consciousness, to catch the falling flag and to 
hold it high as the embodiment of those ideals which we have in common. 
Too many brave Americans have marched behind it. Too many have come 
home in a box covered by a flag. Too many parents and widows have 
clutched that flag to their hearts as the last remembrance of their 
beloved one. Do not treat that flag with anything less than reverence 
and respect.
  About 183 years ago during the British bombardment of Baltimore, 
Francis Scott Key looked toward Fort McHenry in the early dawn and 
asked his famous question. To his joy he saw that our flag was still 
there. And he might be surprised to learn that our flag is even planted 
on the Moon. But most especially it is planted in the hearts of every 
loyal American, and we should clutch it to our bosom, as John Porter 
does every day of his life.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 54, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
  In both 1990 and 1995, Congress debated and voted down proposed 
constitutional amendments to ban flag burning; yet once again, with a 
Federal budget that is far from being balanced, with entitlement 
programs in desperate need of reform, and with an overwhelming Federal 
tax burden on American citizens, we are again on the floor debating 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a patriotic American. I am a proud American. I am a 
Navy combat veteran. I know the deep patriotic feeling that the flag 
elicits, especially when I am in a foreign country, when I stand to say 
the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of our congressional day or 
at a rally, or when I see a flag neatly folded into a triangle and 
presented to a grieving family. I also have feelings of disgust and 
outrage when I see on TV people desecrating the flag. But I still do 
not support this amendment.
  In the past two years, I have supported two constitutional 
amendments--one to require Congress to balance the budget, the other to 
limit terms of Members of Congress. These amendments would have 
fundamentally altered the focus of our national Government and changed 
the way Congress conducts its business.
  This amendment does not do either. In fact, there is not a crisis of 
disrespect for the American flag, like with the Federal budget. In 
fact, the Congressional Research Service reports that there were all of 
10 incidents of flag burning in 1996. We can count on the fingers of 
two hands the incidents of flag burning since the Supreme Court ruled 
that such behavior--despicable though it may be--is constitutionally 
protected.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there are many questions associated with 
this amendment. Are partial reproductions of flags covered by the 
intent of the amendment? What about the popular American flag clothing 
that can be found in department stores in every mall in this country?
  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 to ban flag desecration to show that we love and respect this 
great symbol of America.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't legislate patriotism and we can't legislate 
love of the American flag. We can honor our country and our flag by 
carrying out our responsibilities to our great Nation.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, as the only New York State Representative on 
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and as the chairman of the 
Veterans' Subcommittee on Benefits, I rise today in support of House 
Joint Resolution 54, the flag desecration amendment.
  It is our Nation's flag that serves as constant reminder of those who 
have bravely fought for the United States of America, so that we may 
never forget the principles of freedom, independence, and democracy 
which it so proudly represents.

[[Page H3747]]

  I am a proud cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 54. I am honored to 
join with my colleagues in making sure that our most treasured symbol, 
and the millions of veterans that fought under that symbol, are not 
forgotten.
  The American people have spoken on this issue. A national pole 
conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide in 1996 reveals that 81 percent of 
Americans said they would vote for an amendment to protect their flag. 
In fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans have asked that we pass 
this amendment and send it back to the States for ratification.
  Military personnel will attest that the very sight of Old Glory gives 
them a renewed sense of purpose and hope. For some, the flag symbolizes 
comradery, spirit, and the preservation of our Nation's values.
  I truly believe that America's values should be reflected in our 
laws. While teaching our children to pledge allegiance to our flag we 
must also send the message that it is wrong to allow America's greatest 
symbol to be desecrated with impunity.
  Not only do I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in support of the 
flag desecration amendment, I encourage them to display the red, white, 
and blue prominently, let it serve as a proud reminder of the freedom 
it symbolizes for our country.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 54, in support of protecting the flag of the United States 
from desecration.
  The majority today will find that the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States is conduct which is not expressly protected 
by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment of the Bill of 
Rights. It is similar to other types of conduct that carry misguided 
messages of hate--such as burning a cross in a yard, or painting a 
swastika on a synagogue, or exploding a Federal building. These are not 
protected free speech. They are not protected by our Constitution. They 
are conduct.
  And today, 2 days before Flag Day, we address the protection of our 
flag from desecration.
  The flag of the United States represents our country, our ideals, our 
people, and our history. It represents the motto of our Nation, ``E 
pluribus unum:'' out of many, one. It is a symbol of the United States 
of America here and around the world. Under the Stars and Stripes, men 
and women have fought and given their last full measure of devotion. 
This idea is very close to me, because like many others I served my 
country in the military.
  I am reminded by a tale of an American soldier who was captured in 
battle in Vietnam. He was a prisoner of war. He was subjected to the 
injustices and deprivations of the enemy. What kept him together was a 
project in which he used scraps of thread and any material he could 
find to sew, ever so slowly, an American flag on the inside of his 
garment. Day by day, he worked. On one day, his captors found his flag. 
They took the flag, and they beat the brave flag maker to within an 
inch of his life.
  He survived. He was returned to his cage. And he began once again to 
sew his flag in defiance of his captors.
  For this man, for every American who has had a flag flown at half 
staff or half mast in their honor, for every American who gave the last 
full measure of devotion for this country, for every American who has 
had a flag enclosed in their casket or passed on to the surviving 
generation, and for the strength and unity of America, let us pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Joint Resolution 54, the flag desecration constitutional amendment. As 
the Nation prepares to celebrate Flag Day, it is most fitting that we 
pass this measure and pay tribute to our American flag, our sacred red, 
white, and blue symbol of liberty.
  Nearly 200 years ago a tattered and worn American flag flew over Fort 
McHenry amidst dense smoke and heavy artillery fire. Every American now 
knows the words of tribute penned by Francis Scott Key, describing how 
after a night of intense fighting, he looked upon Fort McHenry in the 
early light of day and saw Old Glory, with its broad stripes and its 
bright stars, still flying high. Today, above the pristine Capitol of 
our great Nation, the flag still flies high so that all of the world 
might look upon our Nation and know that we indeed are the land of the 
free and the home of the brave.
  Our American flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty that every 
American should look upon with patriotic fervor. It flies gloriously 
over our national buildings, monuments, and parks, quietly over the 
graves of the dedicated men and women who have bravely served in our 
Armed Forces, proudly in all our schools and courthouses, and 
reverently in our churches and places of worship.
  This is our American flag. Regardless of race, creed, or color, the 
Stars and Stripes symbolizes for every American all that is good and 
right in our Nation. It honors both the living and the dead who have so 
honorably served and sacrificed in the U.S. military, and it honors the 
families who work hard every day serving their communities, helping 
their neighbors, and pursuing the American dream. It is a symbol of 
strength and protection to our schoolchildren, a symbol of liberty to 
those who look upon the United States from distant shores, and a symbol 
of honor and justice to every freedom-loving American.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our American flag. May it always fly high over 
our great land, our America the beautiful.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at a 
deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our 
country--the burning of the U.S. flag. Behind the Speaker stands our 
flag; the most beautiful of all the flags, with colors of red, white, 
and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story of 50 States 
descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it. I revere it. And I 
have served it in war and peace.
  However, today I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 54, the 
flag amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend 
our Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout our history millions of Americans have served 
under this flag during wartime; some have sacrificed their lives for 
what this flag stands for: Our unity, our freedom, our tradition, and 
the glory of our country. I have proudly served under our glorious flag 
in the Army of the United States during wartime, as a private citizen, 
and as an elected public official. And like many of my colleagues, I 
treasure this flag and fully understand the deep emotions it invokes.
  But while our flag may symbolize all that is great about our country, 
I swore an oath to uphold the great document which defines our country. 
The Constitution of the United States is not as visible as is our 
wonderful flag, and oftentimes we forget the glory and 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.
  The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is 
different from a citizen of any other nation of the world. And it is 
because of my firm belief in these principles--the same principles I 
swore an oath to uphold--that I must oppose this amendment. Because 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 as defined in the Bill of Rights.
  Prior to the time the Supreme Court spoke on this matter, and defined 
acts of physical desecration to the flag under certain conditions as 
acts of free speech protected by the Constitution, I would have happily 
supported legislation which would protect the flag. While I have 
reservations about the propriety of these decisions, the Supreme Court 
is, under our great Constitution, empowered to define constitutional 
rights and to assure the protection of all the rights of free citizens 
in the United States.
  Today, we are forced to make a difficult decision. There is, 
regrettably, enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set 
forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this Nation. This 
vote is not a litmus test of one's patriotism. What we are choosing 
today is between the symbol of our country and the soul of our country.
  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 guaranteed under it, is the ultimate 
responsibility of every American.
  I urge my colleagues to honor our flag by honoring a greater treasure 
to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
54, a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from physical 
desecration. The American flag holds a sacred place in our Nation's 
identity, representing the millions who have made sacrifices in its 
defense and for the preservation of freedom. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this important legislation.
  Amending the Constitution is done only when absolutely necessary, and 
when it is clear it is the will of the public, not just a whim. I am 
confident that this legislation meets that high standard. This 
amendment has been introduced in several Congresses, and support has 
grown in every session. In fact, during the last session, this 
legislation passed the House overwhelmingly with strong bipartisan 
support, falling short in the Senate by a mere three votes.
  A constitutional amendment is the last hope for protecting our flag. 
In 1989, the Supreme Court narrowly decided to strike down existing 
flag protection laws as an infringement on the rights of free speech. 
The action of the Court sent a clear message that stronger actions must 
be taken.

[[Page H3748]]

  Most Americans share the important belief that our flag can be 
protected without infringing on free speech. Throughout our history, 
punishing flag desecration has been viewed as compatible with the 
letter and spirit of our first amendment. Some of the strongest 
supporters of individual rights ever to serve on the Supreme Court--
former Chief Justice Earl Warren, and former Justices Hugo Black and 
Abe Fortas--each have written that the Nation could prosecute for 
physically desecrating the flag without violating the right to free 
speech.
  The views of these great constitutional scholars reflect the same 
commonsense belief of millions of hardworking Americans who understand 
that burning the flag is conduct, not speech. If this amendment is 
approved, and Congress passes a flag protection statute, people will 
still have the right to say anything about the flag, or anything else. 
However, the specific action of physical desecration of the flag would 
be against the law.
  All across racial, socio-economic, and political lines, there is a 
strong belief that the preservation of our flag is vital. In fact, 49 
State legislatures have petitioned this body for strong action. I urge 
Congress to take this historic step to preserve this paramount symbol 
of our national heritage.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, today we will be debating and voting on a 
constitutional amendment to allow the States to prohibit desecration of 
the American flag. I rise today to address this issue, and I would like 
to do so, at least in the beginning, from a historical perspective.
  Our founders, the people who settled this country, were men and women 
of great faith. They came to this country and lived here for a long 
while under the edict of the King of England. They came here to escape 
the suppression of their freedoms, but found as colonists they were 
still under the control of the King. They were not free to speak their 
minds, to criticize the Government. They were not free to assemble, to 
discuss their problems, because the Government, the King, was afraid it 
might end up being a grievance against him.
  They were not free to choose their own religious beliefs according to 
the dictates of their conscience. They worshipped in the Church of 
England, or they did not worship at all. The Church of England has the 
official blessing of the state. The church and the state had formed an 
alliance linking themselves together, so the church never had to fear 
the loss of parishioners to other faiths, and the state could control 
the people through the church.
  Newspapers were not free to criticize the Government, or they would 
be shut down. The Government, if they even suspected a citizen of 
criticizing them, even in private, could take a citizen from this home 
in the middle of the night, charge him with sedition against the 
Government, and that citizen could be jailed or punished without ever 
having been allowed a trial. Time and again, they tried to confiscate 
the firearms of the citizens because they feared an armed protest 
against the Government.
  In short, the people were not free. Government controlled their lives 
in attempts to force its will upon the people.
  As it is always true whenever a government attempts to force its will 
on the people, the people rebelled. They sent away their 
representatives to Philadelphia to form the First Continental Congress, 
and that Congress decided to throw off the bonds of slavery that bound 
them to England. They declared their independence, raised an army, made 
George Washington its commander, and, in their own resolution, won 
their freedom from the oppressive Government of England.
  After the Revolutionary War they went back to their individual States 
and a great debate arose as to whether or not they should even form a 
national government. They so distrusted a central government and its 
potential for ruling their lives that when they thought of a national 
government, all they could remember was oppression.
  But there were certain national issues that had to be dealt with. 
Foreign trade had to be considered, paying off war debts, and so on, 
and so they sent their representatives back to Philadelphia to form a 
Second Continental Congress, and it was this Congress that had the task 
of putting together a new government. They wrote a Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  Notice how they said the ``United'' States of America. Before, they 
were not so united. They had operated under the Articles of 
Confederation, which gave great powers to the individual colonies. They 
has vast disagreements between themselves, and this new government was 
their attempt at becoming united.
  The Constitution they had written said their new government would 
consist of three branches. No. 1, the legislative, would be elected 
from among the people to make the laws; No. 2, the executive, would be 
elected by the people to execute the laws; and No. 3, the judicial, 
would be appointed by the executive and approved by the legislative, 
and they would judge and interpret the laws.
  The judicial, the Supreme Court, was appointed for life, because the 
Founding Fathers knew that if the Supreme Court has to be subjected to 
the popular opinion of the people every so many years just to keep 
their jobs, they may do as members of the legislative branch do and 
vote the popular thing, rather than the thing they believe to be right. 
So they said this sacred trust of judging the law is so important, that 
we will remove this branch from political pressure.
  They took this Constitution that they were so proud of back to the 
people of the 13 colonies to be ratified, to be approved. They said to 
themselves, ``Boy, this will be a snap. The people don't have to worry 
about a king. They get to elect two of the tree branches of government. 
Many rights are reserved for the States. This is the perfect 
government.'' And they must have sighed a sigh of relief. It had been a 
long struggle, fighting the war, putting this new government together. 
Now all it needed was the people's stamp of approval, and that would be 
easy.
  But the people said, ``No, no, not so fast. Sure, this is a form of 
government with which we agree. It allows us to participate. But we 
just got rid of oppression, and this Constitution doesn't say anything 
about our freedom.'' And the people said, ``Wait just a minute. We want 
our basic freedoms guaranteed in writing, or we don't approve this 
government at all.'' The Founding Fathers, being men of great faith, 
some of them ministers, sat down to amend this Constitution, to 
guarantee the people these rights, their freedoms. They wrote 10 
amendments to the Constitution, which have become known as the Bill of 
Rights, and for over 200 years of America's existence, the Bill of 
Rights has remained unchanged, unamended, unaltered.
  I will not mention all of the freedoms articulated in the Bill of 
Rights, but here are just a few: freedom of speech, assembly, religion, 
press, a fair and speedy trial before our peers, the right to bear 
arms, not having to testify against one's self, protection against 
unreasonable search and seizure.
  But we must speak not only of freedom, but of faith, for the two are 
inextricably bound together. Nothing will bolster your faith more than 
to read the personal accounts of these great men of faith in their 
struggle with the concept of freedom.

  My understanding over the years of my own faith has been bolstered by 
my understanding of their concept of faith and freedom. In 1990, when 
this issue was before the Congress, I was struggling to try to make 
some sense out of it, and I took my family up to Gettysburg for the 
weekend. Being from Illinois and representing a couple of the same 
counties Mr. Lincoln represented when he was in the Congress, I have 
been a Lincoln scholar my entire life.
  As I walked over that great battlefield, I was reminded of his words 
on the day he dedicated that field. He started his address with these 
words: ``Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth 
on this continent a new nation.''
  Now, the importance of that opening is this: four score and seven 
years ago did not take them back to the Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights drafted in 1787. Four score and seven years took them back to 
1774 and the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Lincoln considered the 
Declaration of Independence to be the founding document of this Nation, 
the document that bound us together as one Nation.
  And what was the premise of the Declaration of Independence? Let me 
state it for you again in Mr. Jefferson's words, ``We hold these truths 
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by 
their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
  Listen to that again. ``We hold these truths,'' not falsehoods, but 
universal principles, givens, ``* * * to be self-evident.'' They do not 
need to be pointed out or proven or justified. Some things are so true 
that any reasonable examination of the conscience would reveal the 
evidence of their truthfulness. And what is this truth that should be 
self-evident? That all men are created equal and endowed with certain 
unalienable rights.
  Created equal? Well, certainly not by position, or power, or 
influence, or even physical or emotional or mental capacity, but equal 
in the eyes of the Creator with regard to love and respect for their 
being, and equal in the eyes of the law.
  And what are these unalienable rights, these rights that cannot be 
taken away? Life, not death; liberty, our freedoms; and the pursuit, 
not the guarantee, the pursuit of happiness.
  And who endows us with these rights? Does man? Does the State? No. 
The founding document of our country says we are endowed those rights 
by our Creator. Government cannot endow us with these rights. 
Government can only affirm or deny what is already given to us just by 
virtue of having been created by God.

[[Page H3749]]

  President Kennedy spoke of this in his inaugural address, when he 
said, ``These same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers 
fought are still at issue around the globe today. The belief that the 
rights of man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the 
hand of God.'' He went on to say that we dare not forget today that we 
are the heirs of that first revolution.
  President Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, sought to affirm by the 
Government what the Creator had endowed all of our people, equality 
before the law. The Bill of Rights, which our Founding Fathers penned 
some 13 years after the Declaration of Independence, sought to 
articulate some of those God-given rights of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness in a more concrete fashion, and so they guaranteed 
with some specificity what God had already granted, given by virtue of 
creation.
  Now, why do I speak of our country's historical beginning, and 
especially those beginnings with respect to our rights given to us by 
the Creator and acknowledged so by both the Declaration and the 
Constitution? Because of this reason: today we will be debating and 
voting upon a constitutional amendment to make it a criminal offense 
for anyone to desecrate the American flag.
  Some will argue that we should not pass this amendment for various 
reasons. One, how do you define desecration? Some believe wearing 
clothing, ties, shirts, and so on that resemble the flag is a form of 
disrespect and constitutes desecration. Others believe lack of respect 
by not standing or sitting when appropriate desecrates the flag. Still 
others believe that burning or walking on the flag is desecration.
  Many argue the mere act of defining desecration creates a legal 
nightmare for enforcement of such a law. Others point out that millions 
of dollars spent trying to pass and ratify this amendment by three-
fourths of the States could better be spent on veterans' health care 
and other necessities of our people.
  Most agree that the flag is held in higher respect today than at 
almost any other time in our history, as witnessed by only a scattered 
number of flag desecrations in our Nation among 260 million people, as 
well as the tremendous outpouring of flag displays in our country at 
this time. And many wonder aloud why this is even an issue, with all 
the seemingly complex, almost unsolvable problems facing America today.
  Others will say, ``This flag is mine. I earned my money. I went down 
to the corner hardware store. I purchased this flag with my money. It 
is my private property, and Government won't tell me what to do with 
it.''
  But I want us to consider this issue in the light of our beliefs that 
our rights are God-given, what that means to us as a people and a 
nation, and whether we actually believe that as a principle anymore. 
Let me say again that we must speak here not only of freedom, but of 
faith, for the two are inextricably bound together.
  This is what I believe, and I believe it is entirely consistent with 
the beliefs of our forefathers who penned the precious Bill of Rights, 
and I believe it is consistent with the words of my own Bible. If we 
are to examine the nature of the freedom or rights which God has given 
us, then we must examine the nature of God Himself.
  This is what I believe. God is love, unconditional love. He created 
us as an object of His love because love needs an object on which to 
lavish itself. God needed us, so He could love us, so He crated us in 
His image so that He might love us and create fellowship with us so 
that we might love Him in return.
  The Bible says we love because He first loved us. Our response to 
Him, our purpose for being, is to learn to love in the way that He 
loves us, unconditionally, to love others, but especially to love Him.
  God wants our love. But the great loving merciful heart of God knew 
something from the beginning. He knew even before He created us that if 
we were going to learn to love as He does, He had to give us the 
freedom not to love.
  God is God. He is sovereign. He could have created us with no choice, 
no freedom to choose to love or not to love. He could have demanded our 
love, our respect. He is God. But He knew that love that is not freely 
given cannot be real, if we have no choice. He knew that we could learn 
to love only if we are free. Even our love for God must be freely 
given. He will never force you to love Him. So God, creating us as the 
object of His love, gave us a free will to love or not to love, to 
respect or not to respect. He even gave us the freedom not to love Him.
  I am confident our Founding Fathers understood their faith in these 
very terms. They understood that the great loving heart of God was 
grieved when His children chose in the free will that He Himself had 
given them, to hate Him, to despise Him, to sin against love. But they 
also understood that God continued to love, that He continued to be 
patient with His rebellious children, that He had faith that eventually 
love would win them over. And our forefathers said, to the extent 
possible, we will model this Government upon the principles of our 
faith, the principle that we will allow our people the free will to 
choose, to choose to love or not to love, to care or not to care, to 
respect or not to respect, and we will have the faith to believe that 
in their freedom they will choose to love. But, in any case, we will 
not demand it, we will not command it; we will have faith in love 
winning the hearts of our people.
  The issue before us today goes to the heart of that fundamental 
belief of allowing free will with regard to the issue of respect and 
love.
  Of course there are limitations upon the individual citizens' free 
will with respect to the endangerment of the safety, health, or welfare 
of our fellow citizens, but these issues do not touch upon the heart of 
this matter which is criminalizing the manner in which an individual 
chooses to differ with his or her government.
  Do we want to criminalize an act of free will when it comes to 
dissent against the Government? Do we really believe that government 
can legislate love and respect? Remember that the most precious right 
of any American has is the right to speak out against the Government 
when they feel in their hearts that government is no longer responsive 
to their needs.
  It is only the right to dissent which keeps the Government in line, 
and when that right of the citizen is diminished, then the power of the 
Government to control grows proportionately.
  However, those who propose this amendment will say, there are a 
hundred ways to show your dissatisfaction with the Government. You can 
march, you can show up at a town meeting and blast your Congressperson, 
you can organize rallies, you can write letters, you can vote. You do 
not have to desecrate the flag to show your disagreement, and if you 
do, we are going to punish you.
  But what if a citizen is so in disagreement with this Government over 
an action it has taken which he feels is morally and ethically wrong 
and he chooses to emphasize this disagreement in the most emphatic way 
he knows how, not by the sacrifice of a few hours' time marching or 
writing a letter or going to a town meeting, but by taking the most 
precious possession he owns, the American flag, and sacrificing it at 
the feet of his Congress in protest of his Government?
  The question is, Shall we limit dissent against an overbearing 
government to just those ways that do not matter much, to just those 
ways of which the Government approves?
  Justice Jackson wrote words especially relevant here in Board of 
Education versus Barnett in 1943. He said, and I quote:

       The case is made difficult not because the principles of 
     its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our 
     own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the 
     Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually 
     and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate 
     the social organization. Freedom to differ is not limited to 
     things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow 
     of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ 
     as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If 
     there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, 
     it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what 
     shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or any 
     other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word 
     or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances 
     which permit an exception, they do not occur to us.

  This principle of sacrificing that which is most precious occurred to 
me for the first time as a young man when I was growing up. I asked the 
pastor in my church, ``Why did God have to sacrifice the most precious 
thing He owned, His son, as a protest against sin, so we may be 
forgiven? Why could He not have sent something that was not so 
precious, a cow, a goat, a bull, something else? Why was it necessary 
to sacrifice his most precious possession?'' The pastor said to me, 
``Because sacrificing something less precious would not have gotten the 
job done.''
  I believe it should be the purpose of the flag, as it is the 
Constitution, to invite respect and love, but not to command it, 
because that violates the free will of the individual and love and 
respect not freely given cannot be real.
  It is only the insecure that demands and commands love. That is why 
dictators all over the world must have armies to keep them in power. 
But do their people really love a government which demands their 
respect at the point of a gun? Have the events in Eastern Europe the 
last few years taught us nothing?

  America is secure, not because we have an army to defend the 
Government, but because we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, to 
defend the people against the Government. We will remain secure not by 
suppressing the free will of the people, regardless of what national or 
political purpose we believe that serves, but by allowing the free will 
of every single citizen to love or not to love.
  If a country is big enough to say to its people, ``I love you and I 
want you to love me but

[[Page H3750]]

I give you the right not to love if that's what you choose. I'm never 
going to stand over you with a machine-gun in my hand and force you to 
care for me, even though it is your care that I need. You are free to 
love or not to love, to care or not to care, to respect or not to 
respect.'' If a country is that big in its heart that secure in its 
being that loving in its respect for its own people, what choice do you 
think the people are going to make, to love or not to love?
  We have nothing to fear. Neither America nor the flag is in any 
danger, as long as the precious Bill of Rights, which gives both their 
meaning and their purpose, stays as it has for the past 200 years, 
unamended. Listen to the words included in the First Amendment one more 
time: ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.''
  In 1990, when I was struggling with a previous flag amendment vote, I 
wrote this piece of prose which I called ``Family Matters:''
       Glenn?
       Yes?
       It's God.
       Yes?
       Still Struggling?
       Yes.
       What's the problem?
       The problem is I'm nearly 45 years old, and I'm still 
     filled with questions about purpose and meaning and who you 
     are. Who are you anyway?
       I'm love. Unconditional love.
       Who am I?
       You're the object of my love. I created you because I 
     needed you. Love must have others upon which to lavish 
     itself. It creates only that it may love more, and I love all 
     of my creation.
       What's my purpose for being then?
       To learn to love unconditionally. To learn to love me and 
     others in the same way I love you.
       Why should I have to learn that? You're God. Why didn't you 
     just create me in such a way that I loved you automatically?
       Because love cannot be commanded. How can I be sure you 
     really love me, or your neighbor, if you have no choice? I 
     created you to be free, free to choose, because it is only in 
     your freedom that you can truly learn to love.
       But what if I choose not to love you?
       That is the risk love takes. It is always the hope of love 
     that the one upon whom love spends itself will freely choose 
     to return that love. But in any case, it can never demand 
     love be returned.
       What will you do then if I choose not to love you?
       I will continue to love you. I will wait. I will trust. 
     Love never fails.
       Glenn?
       Yes?
       It's Thomas.
       Yes?
       You walked over to my memorial last night.
       Yes.
       Why?
       Because I'm struggling with a decision on a constitutional 
     amendment to alter the Bill of Rights, and I need some help.
       What's the problem?
       Some people burned our flag and the country's upset. The 
     President and several Members of Congress want to forbid the 
     practice.
  What do you want to do?
  I don't know. I'm torn. I'm a history teacher. I've taught the Bill 
of Rights and the Constitution to hundreds of young people. I've 
emphasized the importance of those freedoms that you and others penned 
in that precious document. I've told those children that these freedoms 
cannot be compromised. But now we have this issue with the flag. I love 
the flag. It symbolizes all those freedoms the Bill of Rights 
guarantees. Couldn't we pass just this one amendment?
  Would you be willing to pass a second constitutional amendment 
forbidding the burning of the Bill of Rights?
  No, that's not an issue. Nobody thinks about the Bill of Rights. We 
see the flag a hundred times a day. It's so visible.
  You mean the symbol has become greater in the mind of the people than 
the substance behind the symbol? How did that happen? You were a 
teacher, not to mention a State Senator and now a Congressman.
  Well, what do I do now?
  Maybe you start teaching again, as a Congressman. And trust the 
people to understand. It's the only way to insure that you leave your 
children no less freedom than we left you.
  Dad.
  Yes.
  I hate this place.
  Why?
  For lots of reasons. Your stupid rules that say I have to be in by 
midnight. You won't buy me a car. I'm sick of church every week and 
it's silly activities. There's a lot more. I * * *
  But we fell those things are best for you. It's only because we love 
you that * * *
  Well, I don't love you. Right now I don't love you at all. As soon as 
I'm eighteen I'm out of here.
  Glenn?
  Yes.
  What do we do?
  We remember the proverb, ``Bring up a child in the way he should go 
and when he is old he will not depart from it.''
  Yes.
  We love. We wait. We trust.
  Are you sure?
  Well, I have decided--I am sure the American people love this country 
enough to be able to look past the surface nature of this debate and 
examine its real meaning. The American people, given the chance, will 
show they love this country, and there is no need to force them to do 
it by changing the very document that insures our freedom and invites 
that love.
  And this is the truth. For over 200 years now the faith of our 
Founding Fathers has been justified because we are still the freest 
Bastion on the face of the Earth and every country in the world yearns 
for the freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
  Every nation has a flag, but only America has a Bill of Rights. For 
over 200 years now neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress of this 
Nation has seen fit to change even one small letter in this precious 
Bill of Rights.
  Yes, it is true we have gone through periods of time when rebellious 
children in disrespect for the great goodness of this country have 
shown their contempt. They march, they cry injustice, some burn the 
flag, some join the Communist Party,
  In the 1950's, people demanded a constitutional amendment to forbid 
the Communist Party in this country. In the 1960's and 1970's there 
were flags burned all across America in the civil rights and Vietnam 
war protests, and people demanded then a constitutional amendment to 
protect the flag. Today there are more flags flying in America than 
ever before in our history. The Communist Party is not even on the 
ballot in most States, and gets less than one-half of 1 percent in the 
States where it is on the ballot.
  In the last several years, we have had a handful of people out of 260 
million arrested for desecrating the flag. Some are demanding now 
another constitutional amendment to amend the Bill of Rights, to demand 
that we show respect by not allowing a form of disrespect. The Supreme 
Court said no, and Congress agreed. I was one of the Members of 
Congress that agreed.
  I believe our forefathers would have said, leave them alone. If they 
are desecrating this flag out of meanness or ill will, rather than 
honest differences with their own Government, they will reap their own 
reward. They cannot destroy the Bill of Rights by destroying the symbol 
for the freedoms the Bill of Rights gives us. Their ideas will never 
match up to freedom, no matter what they are.
  Leave them alone. The ignorance of their act will show the bankruptcy 
of their ideas. However, if you take away their free will, even to show 
disrespect, you will do more injustice to the principles upon which 
this government was formed than they ever could.
  Just as we in our sins against the Creator end up bankrupt by our 
rebellion, they will end up the same way in their sins against the 
Nation. Have faith. Have faith that love and freedom will sin. Love 
never fails.
  If we could command respect by the law, we would not need faith, but 
our forefathers said that faith will be the foundation of our freedoms, 
the faith that people, because they are free, will in the end choose to 
be responsible.
  This is the history book from which I taught the principles of 
Government, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. This is my Bible, 
upon whose words I have stacked by life.
  This Fourth of July, because I will do today what I think is 
consistent with my faith, Old Glory for me personally will fly higher 
and brighter than ever before. God bless America, God bless the Bill of 
Rights, and God bless our flag.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will vote today on a ``Flag 
Burning Amendment'' to the Constitution. This issue arouses great 
emotions even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was 
the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag 
burning? It's a nonissue but Congress has managed to make it one while 
avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property.
  There just is no flag ``desecration'' crisis. Where are the 
demonstrators, where are the letters? Will this only lead to more 
discredit on Congress? Only 6 percent of the American people trust 
anything they hear from the Federal Government so why should they 
believe there is a flag crisis requiring an adjustment to the Bill of 
Rights for the first time in our history. Since most of what Congress 
does, leads to unintended consequences, why do we feel compelled to 
solve imaginary problems?
  The American people are way ahead of the U.S. Congress and their 
distrust is a healthy sign the Republic will survive in spite of all 
our good deeds and noble gestures. And that's good.
  What sense of insecurity requires such a public display to reassure 
ourselves we are patriots of the highest caliber, confident enough to 
take on the flag burning movement--a movement yet to raise it's ugly 
head.

[[Page H3751]]

Our political saviors will have us believe that our loyalty to America 
hinges on this lone amendment to the Constitution.
  As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly 
refuses to consider seriously: the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, 
property rights, political propaganda from a government run educational 
system, taxpayer's paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast 
networks, or taxpayer's financing of monopolistic political parties, 
let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the 
world, and the entire welfare state.
  Pervasive bureaucratic government is all around us and now we're 
spending time on developing the next addition to the Federal police 
force--the flag police. Diverting attention away from real problems 
toward a pseudo-problem is not a few technique of politicians.


                               MOTIVATION

  Political grandstanding is probably the greatest motivation behind 
this movement to change the Constitution. It's thought to be easy to 
embarrass those who, on principle, believe and interpret the 1st 
Amendment differently. Those who vote eagerly for this amendment do it 
with good intentions as they laugh at the difficult position in which 
opponents find themselves.
  Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true 
patriotism thus thrive as the mal-contents are legislated into 
submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we 
threaten them with a prison cell, better occupied by a rapist?
  This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such 
misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by 
leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future, and we 
respond by creating the underwear police--surely, flag underwear will 
be deemed a ``desecration''.

  Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing 
free expression a moral good?
  The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from 
Congress' basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and 
mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can 
achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism even if 
it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership?


                              desecration

  Desecration is defined as: ``To divest of a sacred character or 
office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or de-(con)secrate.'' If 
consecrate is ``to make sacred; such as a church or bread and wine,'' 
how can we ``de-consecrate'' something not first ``consecrated''? Who 
then consecrated the flag? When was it done? Sacred beliefs are those 
reserved for a religious or Godly nature, that is, to set apart for the 
worship of a deity. To make holy.'' Does this amendment mean we now 
concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment if passed 
essentially deify the State?
  There are some, I'm sure, who would like to equate the State with 
God. The State's assumption of parental rights is already a deep 
concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept 
the State as our God? We imply by this amendment that the State is 
elevated to a religion--a dangerous notion and one the Founders feared. 
Calling flag burning ``blasphemous'' is something we should do with 
great caution.
  Won't it be ironic if the flag is made sacred--consecrated--and we 
write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to 
steal taxpayer's money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts 
which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of 
``free speech''?
  The flag, indeed, is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and 
freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, have served our country in the 
military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the 
physical cloth of which the flag is woven.
  There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and 
in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the 
real stuff--liberty. The whole notion of legislating against 
desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified 
but shouldn't it matter who paid for the flag? Are there no owners of 
the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property? If 
we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them 
randomly. If there is no individual ownership how can one sell or buy a 
flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on 
whose property? With this legislation the flag will lose its identity 
as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated? 
These are difficult questions but they must be answered.

  Will using a flag as underwear or as a beach towel or a handkerchief 
or flying it upside down become a Federal crime?
  The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars burn flags to 
dispose of them. This respectful ritual is distinguished from a hoodlum 
doing it only by the intent. Are we wise enough to define and legislate 
``intent'' under all circumstances? Intent obviously implies an 
expression of a view. So Congress now feels compelled to police 
intentions, especially if seen as unpopular.
  Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, 
even obnoxious views, including Marxist ideas was the purpose of 
guaranteeing freedom of expression. Of what value is protection of only 
popular and majority-approved opinions? That's a mockery of liberty. 
Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned 
the Soviet flag were shot. A national flag police can only exist in a 
totalitarian state. We should have none of it.
  Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of 
Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a 
radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant, and a case could be 
made they might be even more threatening because their attack would be 
precise and aimed at the heart of American liberty. The answer is the 
political mileage is with the flag and tough luck to those who have 
principled opposition.
  But no one should even squirm or weasel out of the right vote, even 
if threatened with possible negative political fallout.


                    free expression versus property

  The right of free expression and the right to our property are 
inseparable. A free society cannot have one without the other. When one 
is compromised, so is the other. Concentrating on free expression while 
ignoring the importance of owning property sanctions taxpayer's funding 
of the likes of the NEA and a Government propaganda machine like the 
one that permeates our schools from Head Start to the post graduate 
levels. By ignoring the taxpayers right to control all educational 
expenditures, property rights are violated.
  When property rights are correctly honored, free expression is 
guaranteed through that right. The independence of a newspaper, radio 
station, or a church guarantees the use of that property in any free 
expression desired. Remember, no one has the right to use any 
newspaper, radio, or church to exert his or her own opinion as an 
example of ``free speech.'' Catholics have no ``right'' to say Mass in 
a Jewish temple. Certainly in our homes we are protected from others 
imposing their ``free speech'' on us. It's the church property that 
guarantees freedom of religion. The networks or papers need not submit 
to demands to be heard by religious believers as an example of free 
speech. Use of the radio or newspaper by those with strong opinions or 
religious views is only done voluntarily with the permission of the 
owner.
  Yes, it is very important who bought the flag and where it was when 
``desecrated.'' What if it's in a home or in a church for some weird 
reason? Do the police invade the premises? Who gets sent in: the BATF, 
the DEA, the FBI, the U.S. Army, or the flag police? If it's on 
Government property or a Government flag or someone else's flag, that 
is an attack on property and can be prosecuted. By legislating against 
how someone else's flag is being used, the right of free expression and 
property ownership is infringed just as if it were church property or a 
newspaper.

  We work diligently to protect controversial expression in books, 
television, movies, and even bizarre religious activities through the 
concept of private property ownership, as long as violence is not used. 
Is this matter much different?
  We live in an age where it's becoming more common to attack free 
expression and that's a danger we should not ignore. We find one 
political group attacking expression that violates the subjective rules 
of politically correctness while working to prohibit voluntary prayer. 
Now another wants to curtail expression through flag antidesecration 
laws in the name of patriotism. But there is a better way to handle 
demonstrators and malcontents.
  The danger here is that flag burners frequently express a disdain for 
big Government. Curtailing any expression of criticism of the 
Government is fraught with great danger. Will anyone who opposes big 
Government someday be identified as a ``friend'' of the flag burners 
and treated like one since he is expressing an idea similar to the flag 
burners. Just because some people aren't smart enough to express 
themselves in any other way than flag burning, it does not justify the 
careless attack on freedom of expression. Once it's routinely accepted 
that expressing these ideas is dangerous to the status quo, all our 
freedoms are threatened.


                                summary

  This is a dangerous and needless political exercise. Flag burning is 
not epidemic or even prevalent. Why must we continuously find dragons 
to slay? Whom are we trying to reassure? Why do we feel compelled to 
prove, by voting to change the Constitution, that we are true patriots? 
Could it be that Congress' lack of vigilance in defending the 
Constitution has created a sense of guilt that must be purged. But will 
it really compensate for the endless shredding of the Constitution 
through legislation that has occurred throughout this century?
  If we could spend one-tenth of the time on restoring the Founder's 
intent in the Doctrine

[[Page H3752]]

of Enumerated Powers that we have spent suppressing free expression I 
would be a happy person. Instead, we daily shred the intent of 
constitutional law by regulations, taxes, and abusing liberty to a 
point that the Constitution has no relevance. Maybe that's it. If the 
Constitution has no current relevance, it's assumed to be OK to mess it 
up even more with an amendment which will serve only to further 
undermine liberty and threaten free expression.
  What the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts have done in the 
past 50 years to undermine the Constitution is many times more 
disgraceful and dangerous than what any two-bit punk flag burner can 
do--especially if we ignore him. If this amendment is passed, flag 
burners will get more attention, not less. Their cheap message will get 
more publicity than if we had ignored them. The goal of the flag burner 
will be enhanced by the amendment by this extra attention they gain.

  This amendment will do nothing to restore trust in the Federal 
Government. It won't fill the void left by the scandals, the perks, the 
plush pension program, the false promises of the welfare state, and 
pledges to balance future budgets. This amendment will do nothing to 
curtail Federal Government control over education, which indeed does 
infringe on free expression through Government indoctrination. Remember 
it was Government management of our schools in the name of free 
expression, which actually led to the prohibition of voluntary prayer.
  We need to direct our patriotic zeal toward defending the 
Constitution and to the protection of liberty. Lack of this effort has 
led to the impending bankruptcy of the welfare/warfare state. Now 
there's a problem worth directing our energies.
  The flag police are no substitute for our policing our own activities 
and responsibilities here in the Congress. We are endlessly delivering 
more power, in the name of political emergencies, budgetary crisis, and 
Government efficiency, to the Executive--a process not permitted under 
the Constitution.
  We permit Socialists to attack property rights and the fundamentals 
of economic liberty as a right under the Constitution. But those who 
profess respect for private property should not be trapped into 
attacking flag ``property'' when it's used to express unpopular anti-
Government views and even change the Bill of Rights to do so.
  The Socialists know what they are doing but, the antidesecrators act 
out of confused emotions while responding to political pressures.
  We should not further sacrifice freedom of expression with a flag 
amendment, especially when compared to the harm done with taxpayers 
funding of school propaganda and NEA desecration, it is negligible.
  True patriots can surely match the wits of the jerks who burn flags, 
without undermining the first and fifth amendments. We can do better 
than rush to alter constitutionally protected free expression for a 
nonproblem.
  We could easily organize bigger and grander demonstrations to 
celebrate our constitutional liberties for which the flag is our symbol 
in answer to the flag burners. I promise to appear, anytime and 
anyplace, to celebrate our liberties and countermand the flag burners 
who work so hard to offend us.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 54, the constitutional amendment to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the American flag. As I contemplated speaking 
on this issue today I thought about what I should say. I realized that 
the statement that I made on the floor back in 1990 is still relevant. 
As I said back in 1990, I take this time not because I expect to change 
the mind of a single one of my colleagues, nor contribute some profound 
insight or new knowledge to the debate. But I have very deep feelings 
on the matter, and I want my colleagues and my constituents to 
understand those feelings and to judge me by them, for they go to the 
heart of why I love my country and wish to serve it to the very best of 
my ability.
  Mr. Speaker, the first amendment speaks first of freedom of religion, 
then of speech, the press, and assembly. Religion is placed first, 
because many, if not most of the early American colonists who came to 
this country, came to escape the restrictions placed upon religious 
freedom by the kings of England who felt that they ruled by divine 
right.
  No human rules over others by divine right. No flag symbolizing a 
ruler or a state is sacred. To even speak in such terms denies the 
primacy of God in the world, demeans the spiritual basis of freedom and 
democracy and smacks of idolatry. The very term ``desecrate'' means 
``to violate the sanctity of * * *'' and sanctity is ``the quality or 
state of being holy or sacred.''
  No earthly flag is sacred or holy. All earthly rules and governments 
are flawed and imperfect, and must be brought closer to perfection by 
those willing to protest and to criticize, sometimes in shocking terms. 
Protection of that right is at the heart of the first amendment.
  No single act of political protest is more frequent and disrespectful 
to the vast majority of American people than that of burning the 
American flag. I know that every member of this institution is 
personally and deeply offended by the thought of Old Glory burned in 
protest. However, we should be even more offended by proposals to 
fundamentally alter the very principles for which the American flag 
stands. Mr. Speaker, let us try not to move down that road.
  The strength of this Nation has always rested upon the principles of 
freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly as embodied in the 
Bill of Rights. It was for these freedoms that our Founding Fathers 
created the greatest experiment in popular democracy in human history. 
The flag is the physical symbol of those freedoms and although it is 
not sacred, it pains us deeply to see that symbol destroyed by 
malcontents seeking by their shocking behavior to bring public 
attention to their unpopular political positions. In amending the Bill 
of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history, however, we would 
be doing more damage to the integrity of our society then could ever be 
inflicted by a small handful of disgruntled protesters seeking to call 
attention to their views.
  The right to freedom of speech as established by the first amendment 
is not an absolute right. It can be restricted by the law and the 
courts when necessary to protect public's safety, or the rights of 
other individuals. But it stands at the apex of those principles and 
values which were aimed at protecting individual freedom from 
encroachment by powerful and autocratic organs of government. The first 
amendment provides protection for those who express views that we 
believe, as well as those that we abhor.
  In writing the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 
captured the principle in the well-known words of the 18th century 
French author Voltaire: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will 
defend to the death your right to say it.'' Those who wish now to amend 
the Constitution are saying: ``I disapprove of what you are saying, and 
I intend to make it illegal to say it.'' This is what tyrannies do, not 
democracies.
  There may be some who will argue that the Supreme Court erred in 
considering flag burning to fall within the protection of the first 
amendment by virtue of being a form of symbolic speech. I ask those 
persons to look within their minds and hearts and analyze the message 
they received as they watched the Chinese students in Tiananmen Square 
burn the Chinese flag and erect a miniature Statue of Liberty. Was the 
message that fun-loving Chinese students needed to keep warm and 
therefore burned anything available, and that they admired American 
statuary? No, the message was clear to all that they supported freedom 
and democracy and opposed the autocratic regime of the Chinese 
Communist leaders, and were willing to suffer to convey that message. 
And we applaud their heroism.
  That Chinese Government understood the message full well and 
responded to their young people's demands for greater political freedom 
with tanks and guns. Right now, that country is considering a law 
prohibiting flag burning. Throughout history, dictatorships have sought 
to expand their power by prohibiting disrespect of their symbols. That 
was the case in 17th and 18th century England, and of course led many 
citizens to leave their country and settle in America in order to avoid 
prohibitions. In our country, it is not the symbols that are paramount 
to us. It is what those symbols represent that unifies us.

  Love of country and respect for the values of human freedom cannot be 
coerced. A country which seeks to do so will not only fail, but its 
actions will destroy that which it seeks to protect. Some argue that 
the Bill of Rights can stand a little tinkering. Who are these people 
kidding? Don't they realize the risks that such a step would pose? In 
altering the first amendment, we would be heading down a slippery slope 
of further erosions of the freedoms that we hold so dear.
  If flag burning were protected, then the next logical step would be 
banning desecration of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Statute of 
Liberty, and Declaration of Independence. And what about effigies of 
the President? The destruction of any of these--or any items resembling 
these important national symbols--is abhorrent and can be seen as a 
statement of profound disrespect for this Nation. But is that the path 
that we want to head down, given the courts the role of interpreting 
whether a flag printed on a matchbook, a replica of the Statute of 
Liberty, or a copy of the Bill of Rights were destroyed with the intent 
of making a statement against our Government?
  Deep down, I believe that every Member of Congress recognizes the 
dangerous precedent we would be setting in tampering with the first 
amendment. We recognize these risks, but we are being pushed toward 
this decision by crass political opportunists who have already designed 
the 30-second television spots they

[[Page H3753]]

intend to use to advance their own political ends. Thomas Jefferson and 
James Madison would turn in their graves if they saw the work of their 
genius manipulated in this fashion.
  The American flag is among the most powerful symbols in the entirety 
of human history. It has withstood the test of time not because it was 
protected against destruction, but because the ideas which it embodies 
cannot be destroyed--no matter what anyone does to the flag itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the easy vote today would be to vote in favor of 
amending our Constitution. That is what our political pollsters tell us 
would garner the most votes from the American public. We were not 
elected to this institution, however, to take the easy road. Our task 
is a more serious and burdensome one. Each one of us has taken the oath 
to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against 
all enemies foreign and domestic.'' That document--and all that it 
stands for--is not threatened by a small handful of political 
protesters. It is threatened, however, by an effort to amend its most 
central tenet, the Bill of Rights.
  As Justice Anthony Kennedy has argued:

       The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we 
     do not like. We make them because they are right. * * * It is 
     poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who 
     hold it in contempt.

  Nobody likes casting a vote that will be manipulated by high-paid 
political consultants as being a ``vote against the flag.'' It is 
preposterous, however, that we would modify the Constitution for fear 
of self-serving political attacks. In my view, there could hardly be a 
more patriotic act than to vote to protect the sanctity of the Bill of 
Rights. It is not the easy vote, but it is the right one.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
constitutional amendment allowing for legislation to protect the 
desecration of our flag. Throughout history, Americans have fought and 
died for this Old Glory, and we owe it to their memory to protect this 
symbol at home.
  It will indeed be a challenge to at once protect the symbol and also 
protect that for which it stands. Whether flying over the local high 
school or the post office, beckoning foreigners at a U.S. Embassy or 
consulate, covering a crate of aid to victims of strife abroad, or 
drapping a casket of a servicemember killed in action, the Stars and 
Strips has and always will instill a sense of pride and security the 
world over. We have inherited this legacy, from the days Betsy Ross put 
together the patches of cloth, and we should treasure it, preserving it 
for the future, a future of much more diversity, patches of different-
colored cloth.
  So in voting for House Joint Resolution 54, I understand the feelings 
of free speech being restricted. I urge this body to take tremendous 
caution in drafting any future laws which will specify liability and 
penalties. In defending the symbol of the fort, we must not give away 
the fortress, the Bill of Rights. We must not today give up any power 
to vigorously defend and fully guard the liberties enshrined in the 
Bill of Rights in enforcing and adjudicating flag desecration laws.
  We have a duty to those who have come and gone before us, and to 
those that preserve our country as a symbol of freedom the world over. 
Although desecration of Old Glory is itself an expression of speech, I 
can, in good conscience, draw this thin red, white, and blue line.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Unfortunately, I was unavoidably 
detained and could not cast my vote in support of the flag desecration 
amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted for the amendment. As 
a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I continue to pledge my 
support to protect the veterans of our country, as well as the flag of 
the United States of America. The flag is the most esteemed emblem of 
this country--and this amendment will restore the authority to Congress 
to regulate the treatment of our most precious symbol.
  To our Nation's veterans and their families, the flag is more than a 
symbol of our country. It is the cloth under which they defended our 
country and risked their lives. I truly believe that there should be a 
means by which we can show our love and respect for the flag--while at 
the same time monitoring the treatment of this highly important part of 
America.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 54, an amendment of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag.
  I grew up in Seoul, Korea. Not the Seoul we know today: modern and 
democratic. The Seoul I grew up in was an occupied city, invaded by 
Communist forces that had come down from the North and terrorized the 
Korean people. My family lost everything during the Communist 
occupation--including family members and friends, who we saw executed 
in the streets, right before our very own eyes. It was a living Hell.
  I still remember like it was yesterday, the day the American 
soldiers, strong and brave, arrived in Seoul and drove the Communists 
out. Behind them--weathering the shrapnel and bullets--was Old Glory. 
To use, the Red, White, and Blue symbolized freedom and liberty.
  In the midst of the battle zone that was my neighborhood, I stood 
watching the U.S. Marines fight in our streets and drive out the 
Communists. Suddenly, one of the soldiers broke ranks, picked me up and 
carried me out of the line of fire to safety. As he put me down, he 
patted me on the head and gave me two things: a chocolate bar and a 
small American flag. I kept that flag in my pocket, believing, as I do 
today, that it was a good luck charm, the symbolism of everything great 
about America.
  That small flag gave me hope. It symbolized the courage and bravery 
of the young men putting their lives on the line, thousands of miles 
away from their homes and their families. That American spirit, that 
flag, made me want to become an American.
  I owe a debt of gratitude to that flag, and to everything it 
represents. There is no greater symbol of freedom and hope anywhere in 
the world than the Red, White, and Blue. Ask any person in any opposed 
country, and they will tell you.
  So today we again vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit 
desecration of our flag. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution. We cannot allow the symbol of our country, the symbol of 
freedom and liberty, to be dishonored and desecrated. If we do not 
defend our flag, who will?
  Support our flag, vote for this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chairman 
Solomon and the nearly 300 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, who 
recognize the importance of protecting the American flag. It is 
downright repulsive that the very symbol of our freedoms and rights can 
be trampled upon under the guise of the first amendment.
  The flag is what soldiers salute every day, it is what we, as Members 
of Congress, address every morning when we recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance, it is what we hoist during military ceremonies, it is what 
we drape over the caskets of our fallen soldiers, and it is what we 
placed on the Moon in 1969 during one of the proudest moments of my 
life. To minimize the symbolism of what the flag represents is 
reprehensible. Congress should have the ability to protect the sanctity 
of the flag.
  The Supreme Court has ruled that physical desecration of the flag is 
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. This is a mistake 
and the reason why we are here today. Congress cannot pass statutory 
language prohibiting physical desecration of the flag because of this 
ruling. I join an overwhelming majority of my colleagues in protesting 
this decision and protecting our flag.
  Our veterans, those who have fought to protect the freedoms we 
cherish, have asked that the flag that they fought for be protected. 
The Government should attach the same level of importance to the flag 
that we respect and treasure. This amendment is the right thing to do 
at the right time. Let's show our veterans that we respect the flag by 
approving this today.
  I appreciate the opportunity to make my voice heard on this important 
issue and encourage my colleagues to support this measure and send this 
to the States for ratification.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I write today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 54, the constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical 
desecration of flag of the United States.
  As a 26 year member of the New Mexico Air National Guard and the Air 
Force Reserve, I believe that our flag occupies a special place in our 
society, as well as in military protocol. Military members are expected 
to salute the flag of the United States when it passes by in parade, or 
during retreat ceremonies.
  The flag is our unique symbol that signifies the beliefs on which 
this country was founded: liberty, freedom, and democracy. Although we 
have other important national symbols, none are treated with the 
reverence of our flag.
  Although I am a proud cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 54, I was 
unable to vote today in support of this important constitutional 
amendment, due to the fact that I am currently back in New Mexico for 
medical reasons. I voted for a similar amendment in the 104th Congress, 
and would have done so again today, because I believe that the flag 
deserves special protection from desecration.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this resolution, 
I rise as a proud and strong supporter of this joint resolution which 
would amend the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag. I want to thank Congressman Solomon, 
the other 284 cosponsors of the bill, and the alliance of groups and 
individuals for their tireless efforts in support of this bill.
  As Flag Day approaches, it is appropriate that we take this 
opportunity to recognize and emphasize the importance of Old Glory. The 
flag represents something sacred. It may just

[[Page H3754]]

be a piece of cloth, but it symbolizes the sacrifice of millions of 
Americans who have served and died defending our country's promise of 
freedom and opportunity for all. It represents patriotism itself. Those 
who oppose legal barriers against flag desecration say this is a 
restraint on freedom of expression. They are wrong. This cause does not 
diminish the sacred values on which the country is founded, including 
free expression. By protecting the flag we honor these values, we 
uphold them, we strengthen them.
  Many Americans have willingly fought and died defending the flag. By 
legally protecting this unique symbol, we uphold the respect and honor 
they are due. In the freest country in the world, this hardly imposes a 
serious threat on expression.
  We must pass this resolution so that we can provide our Nation's most 
precious symbol with the much needed protection it deserves. Forty-nine 
States have passed resolutions calling upon us to pass this amendment, 
overwhelming public opinion is calling upon us to pass this amendment. 
It is time we answer these calls by passing this amendment. Moreover, 
it is time we send a message to those who would disrespect and dishonor 
Old Glory.
  Again, I want to express my strong support for this resolution and 
strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 54, a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect and revere our flag, all Americans do. It is a 
most treasured symbol of our country's freedom. But a constitutional 
amendment would diminish the freedom of expression that we hold so 
dear.
  Those brave people who struggle for human rights around the world 
look to the United States and its flag as symbols of freedom and 
tolerance. We have seen the tragic cost in other countries of placing 
greater importance upon a nation's symbols then on the freedom of each 
person to speak freely. We recognize that it is not the flag itself, 
but the treasured principles of democracy behind it that we must 
protect at all costs.
  Our flag is a piece of cloth that represents freedom and tolerance. 
But the flag itself must not be mistaken for what it represents. The 
freedoms of the first amendment are too valuable and cherished, too 
hard-fought and hard-won to be restricted by this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this restrictive legislation.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, ``The flag is the embodiment, not of 
sentiment, but of history. It represents the experience made by men and 
women, the experiences of those who do and live under the flag.''
  President Woodrow Wilson knew the real meaning of our flag when he 
made this statement in 1915, and it is a sentiment that I firmly share. 
It is precisely why I cosponsored House Joint Resolution 54, proposing 
an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the 
flag of the United States, and it is why my colleagues should vote in 
favor of this resolution.
  From the hands of Betsy Ross, through the eyes of Francis Scott Key 
during the bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814, to the raising at Iwo 
Jima, our flag has represented the hopes and beliefs of generations of 
Americans. It symbolizes resolve. It symbolizes freedom. It symbolizes 
democracy.
  Over the years, we have had people who have violated the spirit 
expressed by our flag. They have wrongly suggested that the burning of 
the flag is a matter of freedom of speech. Well, if you can't shout 
fire unnecessarily and be protected by the freedom of speech, you 
shouldn't be able to burn our American flag as an expression of speech.
  Our veterans' groups have seen friends and family fall in the line of 
duty protecting our flag. They proudly salute it as it passes by, 
bringing back the painful and glorious memories of times served 
protecting what the flag represents. I can only imagine how they feel 
when someone, who has had the benefit of not having had to go to war 
because of the sacrifices that so many have made, defiles our flag in 
such a disrespectful, demeaning, and childish act of burning it.
  Let us never forget the words of Henry Ward Beecher, the American 
clergyman, editor, and abolitionist, who said: ``A thoughtful mind, 
when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation 
itself.'' We cannot let the world see Americans burn our flag, and then 
hypocritically criticize others elsewhere in the world who do the same 
thing. If it is wrong for others to burn the American flag, then it is 
most assuredly wrong for Americans to burn it. Let our Nation be 
unified in the fact that there are some things too important to defile, 
too important to ignore, and chief among them is our flag.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 14, America will 
celebrate 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 granddad'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 paid 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 freedom, our 
dreams, our liberty, and our common bond. It is the emblem of unity to 
which every fourth-grader has pledged their allegiance at one time or 
another. 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 to make some kind of statement. I think this 
is complete idiocy. Burning our flag is simply wrong and should be 
outlawed. As an original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to ban 
flag desecration, I am working with almost 300 of my colleagues in the 
House of Representatives to protect the flag and what it stands for. We 
are making significant progress; 49 States have already passed 
resolutions requesting that Congress ban flag desecration.
  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 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, religious, 
or ethnic heritage.
  Our flag reminds us of who we are as Americans, and deserves the 
utmost honor, esteem and protection.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, the United State is often referred to as 
the great American ``melting pot''--a blend of many different people, 
cultures, and heritages. The American flag represents this diversity; 
it embodies the values, traditions, and aspirations that bind us 
together as a nation. It stands above our differences and it unites us 
in war and peace. No other symbol is so readily recognized as the 
American flag nor says ``America'' quite so eloquently.
  The beauty and significance of our flag has always inspired Americans 
to provide some measure of protection from abuse. In fact, the first 
flag protection laws were enacted in the 1880's. For more than 100 
years, our flag enjoyed legal protection. In 1984, 48 States and the 
Federal Government had laws to safeguard our flag. Five years later, in 
a 5 to 4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stripped away the 
people's right to shield the American flag from intentional, public 
desecration. Americans were outraged by this decision.
  Mr. Speaker, America is a beacon of democracy and hope in a world 
plagued by turmoil and depression. Flag desecration is a slap in the 
face to all those who have worked to make the United States the model 
among nations and freedom a guaranteed right.
  For these reasons, I intend to support passage of House Joint 
Resolution 54, introduced by my colleague Gerald Solomon, which will 
permit Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of 
our flag. I whole-heatedly support Congressman Solomon's efforts to 
defend the flag. No other American symbol captures the spirit of this 
Nation. It deserves the utmost respect and protection. Americans want 
to have the flag protected. I will vote to defend our flag from harm 
and preserve the rights and freedoms of all American citizens.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would amend 
the Constitution to empower Congress to enact legislation to protect 
Old Glory from desecration. The American flag is a mighty symbol, not 
only to the citizens of this great Nation, but also to those abroad who 
see it flying, at our embassies or on the ships of our naval fleet. It 
represents the freedom of our people, the courage of those who have 
defended it, and the resolve of our people to protect our freedoms from 
``all enemies, foreign and domestic.''
  This is not an issue about what people can say about the flag, the 
United States, or its leaders at any given time. The rights under the 
first amendment are fully protected. The issue here is that the flag, 
as a symbol of our Nation, is so revered the Congress has a right to 
prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is the conduct that 
is the focus.
  Across the river from here, is a memorial to the valiant efforts of 
our soldiers to raise the flag at Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of 
cloth that rose on that day over 50 years ago. It was the physical 
embodiment of all we, as Americans, treasure; the freedoms we enjoy; 
the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism; and the duty we have to 
pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed.

[[Page H3755]]

  The flag is a symbol worth defending. I urge the adoption of the flag 
protection amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of this 
resolution prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States. I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
original sponsor of this legislation, for his dedicated work and 
determination on this important issue.
  As Americans across the country prepare to celebrate our Nation's 
independence, it is befitting that the House of Representatives is 
considering this important legislation.
  For hundreds of years, courageous men and women have fought for the 
ideals and beliefs that our great Nation represents. To the many 
dedicated men and women who have sacrificed for our Nation, our flag is 
not just a piece of cloth, it is not just the symbol of our Nation, it 
represents our inherent belief in our freedoms and our ideals.
  Based upon these strong beliefs of proud Americans across the 
country, 49 State legislatures have passed resolutions asking Congress 
to approve an amendment to the Constitution protecting our flag; 48 
States have enacted flag-desecration laws. Over 80 percent of the 
American people support such an amendment to the Constitution.
  This is not any new issue, yet today, it is more important than ever. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Let us properly protect our flag and all of the ideals that it 
represents. I urge my colleagues to vote for House Joint Resolution 54.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as an original and strongly committed 
cosponsor, this Member rises in support of House Joint Resolution 54, 
the measure before us today which proposes a constitutional amendment 
authorizing Congress to ban the physical desecration of the American 
flag.
  Certainly, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue 
of whether or not it is desirable to change the Constitution to permit 
legislation to protect the American flag. However, opponents of such a 
constitutional amendment are not entitled to sanctimoniously wrap 
themselves in the Constitution citing the first amendment. Our 
Constitution provides a way that Americans can amend it through State 
ratification. Like the majority of Americans and the vast majority of 
this Member's Nebraska constituents, this Member believes it is 
appropriate to propose a constitutional amendment for a legislative 
method to protect the most important symbol of our Nation--the American 
flag.
  This Member disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Johnson 
versus Texas, which overruled the conviction by the State of Texas of a 
protester at the 1984 Republican National Convention for setting the 
American flag on fire. The Court ruled that the burning of the American 
flag was a form of expression protected by the constitutional guarantee 
of freedom of speech. In Congress, this Member has been a strong 
supporter of a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's 
ruling in Johnson versus Texas.
  For over 200 years the American flag has occupied a precious spot in 
the hearts of our Nation's citizens. It is a unique symbol of the 
principles and values which make this country great and which are 
generally shared by American citizens. Many have sacrificed, fought, 
and died under our flag for freedoms forged by the principles and 
values embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in favor of 
the resolution. This is an important step to ensure that States and 
Congress can enact legislation protecting our flag without fear that 
these laws will be ruled unconstitutional.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as Flag Day quickly approaches, I can think 
of no other legislation more appropriate for the House to consider than 
House Joint Resolution 54. As an original cosponsor in both the 104th 
and 105th Congresses, I am pleased to voice my support for the right of 
our citizens to protect the American flag.
  While much of what the Congress considers derives its momentum from 
within the halls of Washington, the genesis and steadfast support of 
House Joint Resolution 54 comes directly from the constituents we all 
have the privilege to represent. Hundreds of residents from the 18th 
Congressional District of Pennsylvania have expressed to me their 
support for the U.S. Government to have the power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag. As House Joint resolution 54 has the 
support of 284 cosponsors, it is apparent proponents from across our 
great country have been equally vocal about their support. Given the 
fact that the cosponsor total is just six votes short of the two-thirds 
majority required for passage, I am confident that this year's vote 
will surpass the vote in the 104th Congress.
  Prohibiting the desecration of our flag does not deny individuals 
their thoughts or opinions, but preserves our national symbol of 
freedom as the most visible form of the ideals of the American people. 
Indeed, our freedom of speech is a result of the supreme efforts of 
those who contributed to our Nation's independence and unity, and who 
see our flag as the embodiment of the American spirit. For those 
individuals who feel differently, I would respectfully urge them to 
find more productive ways to express themselves, rather than involve 
themselves in an act of destruction. In the wake of our country's 
firsthand experience with domestic terrorism and racial tension, House 
Joint Resolution 54 provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate our 
commitment to, and respect for, our national history of uniting our 
diverse population.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting the symbol that 
embodies liberty, freedom, and democracy: our American flag.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Americans cherish their flag and all it 
represents. It is fitting and proper to do everything in our power to 
honor this symbol of America.
  This proposed constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go about 
doing so. The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gave 
us a wise and enduring framework, one which has guided this Nation for 
over 200 years. We should but rarely and in moments of absolute 
necessity alter their work. This amendment does not meet that test. 
However repugnant burning or otherwise desecrating the flag is to us 
individually, flag desecration is not a problem in American society 
today. In the last 10 years, I cannot remember a single instance where 
anyone in Oregon walked up to me and raised this as an issue. To 
elevate a moronic but anachronistic and virtually extinct form of 
protest to the level of constitutionally defined crime, in my judgment, 
is likely to increase the incidence of flag desecration as people turn 
to burnings to gain attention for themselves. This serves the interests 
of absolutely no one other than the extremists who will have been 
handed a new tool for expressing their cause.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment, and 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 310, 
nays 114, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               YEAS--310

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly

[[Page H3756]]


     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--114

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     White
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Farr
     Flake
     Forbes
     McCrery
     Miller (CA)
     Rush
     Schiff
     Smith (MI)

                              {time}  1407

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Forbes and Mr. Capps for, with Mr. Rush against.

  Mr. DINGELL and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution 
was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________