[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4785-H4787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 33, 
  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL 
              DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 217 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 217

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 33) 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 previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two 
     hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
     offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his 
     designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. 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 is a fair and appropriate rule for consideration of 
a constitutional amendment. This is not something we do every day. The 
rule provides the minority with two bites at the apple by making in 
order a substitute as well as the motion to recommit. It should 
engender no opposition, and I urge all Members to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States flag is a cherished symbol of the very 
best our Nation represents. It signifies the lasting ideals that have 
come to define our Nation, ideals that men and women have risked and 
often lost their lives for; ideals like freedom.
  There are some well-intentioned, honorable Americans who will assert 
that it is precisely this freedom that allows us to defile our flag. I 
politely disagree with those folks. The flag may be just a symbol, but 
burning it flies in the face of the respect that we have for our 
liberties, our Constitution, and our history as a Nation. Worst of all, 
it strikes a devastating blow to our national unity, and our unity is 
what makes us great. While we all come from different backgrounds and 
may worship different gods, we can all come together as Americans under 
our flag. We can disagree on the most challenging issues in our great 
democracy and have great debate, but at the end of the day we know that 
our flag is still flying and it represents all of us together, united. 
The soldier serving overseas understands it in the same way that the 
World War II vet saluting ``Old Glory'' on Memorial Day does. It is an 
unspoken pride and it comes from the heart. It is not something easily 
explained. It is something easily understood.
  Today, we have the opportunity to affirm our commitment to our 
uniquely American values and to uphold the will of the American people. 
I say that because 49 States, including my home State of Florida, have 
asked us to take action to protect the flag. This will require amending 
the Constitution, an action which is not to be taken lightly. But it is 
an action that our Founding Fathers deemed appropriate on issues of 
integral national importance, and I believe this is one of them. This, 
I believe, is what the American people are asking us to do, for those 
individuals who have fought to preserve our freedom and for those 
individuals who are interested in the future of our country.
  I urge support for this rule, and I urge thoughtful consideration on 
the final vote on the matter before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in 
cosponsoring this resolution to prohibit desecration of the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, as one who served in World War II, I served not only to 
defend our flag but also, and probably even more importantly, I served 
to defend the ideas for which the flag stands.
  Still, I do not 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 so many American citizens find offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, every time I meet with American Legion veterans, they 
tell me their number one priority is protecting the flag that they 
fought so hard to defend. I think this is the least this country can do 
for these men and the many other Americans who risked their lives for 
the United States to grant that wish to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a man whose experience on 
behalf of his Nation is well-known to those who know him. We are very 
proud to have him be the author and lead speaker on this.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that even 
though I am the author of this amendment, I am not the author of this 
amendment. I was just flying close wing on Congressman Solomon, a 
Marine Corps who always hates to hear that the Navy owns the Marine 
Corps. Jerry Solomon since 1990 has persevered on this particular 
issue. When he retired, he asked myself and his replacement to push the 
issue, to bring it before the American people and have a constructive 
dialogue.
  In 1989, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court wiped out 200 years of 
tradition. In 1990, there was another vote but just for a resolution. 
The Supreme Court acted again with the same five individuals. The 
Supreme Court has told us that this is the only way to proceed, and 
many legal scholars agree.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say from the onset, some of my colleagues have a 
difference of opinion on this issue. This has won by over 300 votes 
every time it has come up and we will pass this here today with over 
300 votes. But I would chastise anybody that would characterize an 
opponent of this particular issue as nonpatriotic. As a matter of fact, 
I would stand side by side with that individual, because people have 
different beliefs on this issue. Fortunately, they are in a minority of 
those.
  Secondly, that 85 percent of the American people feel that those 
individuals are wrong that oppose this particular amendment. Forty-nine 
States have asked us to pass this amendment, and their legislatures and 
the governors. The 50th State has actually passed this in the House and 
the Senate but not in the same year, and they plan to do it.
  Some people will say that this is an unnecessary Federal statute, but 
yet the Supreme Court told us that this is necessary.
  I would ask my colleagues not to bring a circus event, of bringing 
bandanas, underwear, those kinds of things with the American flag on 
them. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
the desecration of an American flag.
  There would be those people that say it abridges the first amendment. 
Legal scholars again disagree, that this is expressive conduct, not 
actual speech; that no one is prevented from expressing themselves on 
an idea such as the flag through speech, or any other manner, except 
for the desecration of a flag.
  We are not talking about burning handkerchiefs or underwear as some 
of my colleagues have brought forward or other things. We are talking 
about the American flag. This amendment is supported by 120 different 
organizations. The Flag Alliance has put together a

[[Page H4786]]

 grassroots. Eighty-five percent of the citizens, 49 States, and prior 
to the Supreme Court decision, by one vote, 48 States already had laws 
in which they did not feel that the first amendment was abridged.
  In 1995, this House passed this 312-120. We lost it by three votes in 
the Senate. Since that time, we have had a change in the Senate to 
where now we can pass this bill in the Senate. This bill can go 
forward. In 1997, we passed it in the House but we got tied up with 
other judiciary legislation and it was not taken up in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity that we have been waiting for 
since 1989, not only in the House and in the Senate, the American 
people, but every State legislature in this country that disagree with 
the minority dissenting views on this particular issue. The Citizens 
Flag Alliance has put together a good coalition. Jerry Solomon, the 
original author of this, has put together a coalition.

                              {time}  1515

  And for those that would chastise us saying this is a political 
issue, I would beg difference with them. For many of us, and including 
my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), this is a 
deeply reserved and caring issue for us, important to the core, to the 
heart, and to the mind and the soul. If anything, this brings unity to 
people, it brings freedom and the idea of what the flag stands for, and 
for those reasons we go forth with this amendment with hope and prayer 
that this amendment will pass in the House and Senate, it will be 
ratified by three-quarters of the States, which we agree that it will 
be.
  I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) of the subcommittee 
and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the support of this 
amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, I support the 
amendment. I want to commend former Member Mr. Solomon and the Duke-
ster, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and all those 
involved.
  My colleagues, in some cities in America it is illegal to kiss in 
public. It is illegal to sing and yodel in public. It is illegal to 
ride a skate board. It is illegal to burn trash and to burn leaves, but 
someone can burn the flag. In America it is illegal to tear the labels 
off of pillows, it is illegal to touch or desecrate a mailbox, but 
someone could literally rip the stars and stripes off our flag.
  Beam me up.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to all the scholars. They say the 
Constitution allows for Americans to burn the flag, and the courts have 
ruled that Americans can burn the flag. That is why today we must 
change and move the process to change the Constitution.
  Let me remind Members the first Constitution permitted and allowed 
slavery, slavery. The first Constitution allowed and in fact treated 
women and Native American Indians like cattle. That was wrong, and it 
was right to change the Constitution.
  The bottom line is a people who do not honor and respect the flag do 
not respect their neighbors or their country, and a people that do not 
honor and respect the flag do not actually respect themselves, nor our 
great freedoms.
  I say today if dissidents wish to express their first amendment 
rights and to proclaim their political statements: Burn their money, 
Burn their brassieres, Burn their pantyhose, Burn their BVDs, But leave 
the flag alone.
  The flag is sacred, and it is time that we start protecting it and 
paying tribute and honor to our flag which represents our great 
republic.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from California earlier that said that those of us who oppose this 
amendment should not be challenged on our patriotism. That certainly 
should be true. But I do rise in support of the rule because obviously 
it is constitutional to amend the Constitution; that we cannot object 
to. But I do have questions about what we are doing to the spirit of 
America, the spirit of the Constitution in a desire to protect a 
symbol.
  Not too long ago Hong Kong was taken over by Red China. The very 
first law that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make it illegal to 
burn a flag. The first time Hong Kong ever had that law, the British do 
not have a law like this. Red China, as soon as they took over Hong 
Kong, they pass a law to make it illegal to burn a flag.
  But it does not stop there. On an annual basis we, the Congress, 
require the State Department to report to us any human rights 
violations around the world. The human rights violations in Red China 
are used specifically to decide whether or not they will get Most 
Favored Nation status. Last year, in 1998, the report came to the 
Congress in April of this year, and it reported that indeed there were 
violations of human rights. What were the human rights violations that 
we are condemning by this report and we are going to use against the 
Red Chinese? Two individuals burned the Hong Kong or the Red Chinese 
flag.
  I think it is just a little bit hypocritical if we want to claim the 
Red Chinese are violating human rights because somebody there burned 
the flag at the same time we intend to pass that law here.
  The spirit of the Constitution did not require this. We have had 212 
years of our history since the Constitution was passed. We have not had 
this pass. We have not required this. Where is the epidemic? I cannot 
remember ever seeing, and of course I am sure it has been on television 
where an American citizen burned the flag. It must happen; it will 
happen again. As a matter of fact, it will probably happen more often 
because there will be more attention given to it once this law is 
passed.
  Where I see the burning of the American flag, where I get outraged is 
when the foreigners are doing it because they are so defiant about our 
policies around the world. But that is a lot different. We are not 
dealing with that hatred toward America that we are dealing with here.
  We are dealing with a few deranged individuals that were willing to 
challenge the spirit of the Constitution. They say this is not free 
speech, but it is indeed expression, just as religion is, just as the 
study of philosophy is, just as our personal convictions. To say that 
this is not protected under the Constitution, the current Constitution, 
I think is quite wrong. I think we do protect that.
  And, yes, one would say this is egregious, this is horrible, to burn 
this flag. But that is the purpose of the first amendment, to protect 
obnoxious and uncomfortable speech.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to what the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) has said about the Chinese's first act was to ban the 
burning of flags, I understand that was also the same act of Adolf 
Hitler.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just simply wanted to make a couple of comments before I yield 
back. I think that the flag is obviously very much part of our life 
every day here. We start out with the pledge, many of our institutions. 
When we sing the national anthem, whatever occasion, before sports 
events, we speak of what so proudly we hailed before the twilight's 
last gleaming. When we have the tragedy of death in our military, we 
have the presentation of the flag at the ceremonial part of that 
process, and I think quite often the flag is so much part of our life 
that when somebody desecrates it in any way most Americans are 
outrageously offended.
  I suppose for many overseas who still see the American flag as the 
last best hope for freedom and opportunity it must be puzzling if that 
flag is devalued in its homeland, in the United States of America. What 
would that mean if one sees Americans burning the American flag? It is 
a curious message to send.
  I believe that there are limitations on the first amendment. I think 
they

[[Page H4787]]

have been recognized, I think they are appropriate for public safety 
and public well-being. They are well understood. I believe this is an 
area where a case can be made clearly for the well-being of the United 
States of America and its people. We should accept the responsibility 
of protecting the one symbol that unites us, our flag.
  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.

                          ____________________