[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1228]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. VINCE SNOWBARGER

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 12, 1997

  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating an amendment 
to the Constitution which will give the people's elected 
Representatives the authority to protect our Nation's most important 
and enduring symbol. This emblem is a powerful distillation of our 
commitment to individual freedom and constitutional democracy. The fact 
this image is sewn onto the shirt sleeves of Boy Scouts and emblazoned 
on the heat resistant tiles that protect our Nation's space shuttle 
fleet, is further testimony to this symbol's relationship to the 
American character.
  This American flag is more than a banner to lead armies. It is the 
rallying point for our national conversation about freedom. Many have 
died defending this Nation, not because some great royal family or 
despot commanded it, but so that each American would continue to enjoy 
the blessings of liberty. There is a reason why veterans' organizations 
like the American Legion support this measure. These men and women 
know, perhaps more than others, what it means to defend America. Their 
sacrifice is memorialized in the flag itself. The red stripes, which 
are so recognizable, are representative of the blood spilled by 
America's sons to defend our treasured liberty. These Kansans of the 
American Legion want us to stop hoodlums and thugs from desecrating the 
flag to attack their legacy.
  This flag represents America's historic and principled past and these 
struggles to extend freedom to all Americans. However, it is more than 
just a symbol of past triumphs. This flag is important to all freedom 
loving people around the world who long to construct for themselves a 
similar constitutional order. When Chinese dissidents wanted to 
communicate the desire for American-style liberty, they chose our flag 
to convey that message. They didn't want to be Americans; they wanted 
the freedom that our flag represents.
  It is curious to me, Mr. Speaker, that opposition to flag protection 
persists. Our country has long recognized the icons and trademarks of 
American business through the patent and copyrighted acts. These 
corporate symbols are a valuable form of property that companies spend 
millions of dollars each year to augment and enhance. We have given 
America's business community the right to protect and defend their own 
emblems. Why should the most sacred and important symbol of America be 
treated differently?
  At the very least, we should be allowed to criminalize violent 
destruction of our flag. This act approximates a personal attack on 
veterans and patriotic Americans. Remember, as other members--like the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee--have pointed out, we 
have carved out this type of narrow restriction on expression before. 
Consider our hate crime laws that prohibit individuals from engaging in 
certain types of abhorrent speech to which constitutional protection 
does not apply. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, acts of contempt like burning a 
cross or displaying racial epithets do not amount to ``speech,'' in the 
common meaning of the word. To the contrary, these activities fall into 
a class of behavior meant only to frighten, intimidate, and discourage 
the very political discourse contemplated by the Framers of the 
Constitution.
  To put all of these issues together, Mr. Speaker, when individuals 
see an American flag passing in a Labor Day parade or in the fist of an 
enthusiastic child cheering a returning hero, they feel proud. When 
Americans see or hear about the desecration of their flag, they feel a 
tremendous pain. This is not a question about free speech or the right 
of dissent. Burning a flag is not speech. Nor is it dissent. Dissent is 
saying how you disagree. It implies a dialog.
  This amendment is about preventing an attack on American citizens, 
collectively and individually. That is why our Kansas Legislature, and 
the legislatures of 40 other States, have petitioned this Congress to 
act. We owe it to these Americans, and Americans yet to be born, to 
extend protection to this transcendent national symbol.

                          ____________________