[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4787-H4804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL 
              DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 217, 
I call up 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, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 33 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 33

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

     SECTION 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

       The following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the

[[Page H4788]]

     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. Pursuant to House Resolution 217, the joint 
resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
  After 2 hours of debate on the joint resolution, it shall be in order 
to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute, if offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his designee, which shall 
be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 1 hour of debate on the joint 
resolution.
  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 H.J.Res. 33.
  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, House Joint Resolution 33 proposes to amend the 
Constitution of the United States to restore the power of Congress to 
protect the flag of the United States from physical desecration. An 
identical constitutional amendment was approved by the House in the 
105th Congress and a similar measure was also approved by the House in 
the 104th Congress.
  House Joint Resolution 33 provides simply, and I quote, the Congress 
shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
of the United States. The amendment itself does not prohibit flag 
desecration; rather, it empowers Congress to enact legislation to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. Subsequent legislation 
passed by Congress would define, within the parameters established by 
the constitutional amendment, what constitutes the flag of the United 
States and what constitutes physical desecration of the flag.
  Under the amendment, such legislation would not stop anyone from 
expressing any idea or opinion. No one would be prevented from saying 
anything about the flag or anything else. Free, full, and robust debate 
of public issues would proceed unimpeded. The only thing that would be 
prohibited would be conduct involving physical acts against the flag 
which are designed to cause the desecration of the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, we are considering this amendment to the Constitution 
because in 1989, in the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court of 
the United States, by a 5-to-4 margin, ruled that flag-burning is an 
act of expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
  The Congress initially responded to the decision in Texas v. Johnson 
by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989. This statute was 
specifically crafted to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court in 
the Johnson opinion. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court in United 
States v. Eichmann, another 5-to-4 decision, struck down the Flag 
Protection Act as inconsistent with the First Amendment. The court 
stated that even though the Federal statute ``contains no explicit 
content-based limitation. . . . the Government's asserted interest is 
related to the suppression of free expression.''
  Based on the decisions in Johnson and Eichmann, it is apparent that 
the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, would find any meaningful 
flag protection statute unconstitutional. This reality was recognized 
in 1995 by Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger of the Office of 
Legal Counsel, when he wrote, and I quote, that the ``Supreme Court's 
decision in the Eichmann case, invalidating the Federal Flag Protection 
Act, appears to foreclose legislative efforts to protect flag 
burning.''
  As I noted earlier, Texas v. Johnson was decided by the slimmest of 
majorities and it overthrew what until then was settled law; until the 
Johnson decision, punishing flag desecration had been viewed by most as 
compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. 
Indeed, noted civil libertarians such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, 
Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas had unequivocally supported 
the legal protection of the flag.
  In 1969, Justice Black wrote, and I quote: ``It passes my belief that 
anything in the Federal Constitution bars . . . making the deliberate 
burning of the American flag an offense.'' Chief Justice Warren said, 
and I quote again: ``I believe that States and the Federal Government 
do have power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and 
disgrace.'' Finally, Justice Fortas has expressed the view that ``the 
flag is a special kind of personality. Its use is traditionally and 
universally subject to special rules and regulations. The States and 
the Federal Government have the power to protect the flag from acts of 
desecration.'' This constitutional amendment which is before the House 
today is based on the conviction that Warren, Black, and Fortas were 
right, and that both the Johnson and the Eichmann cases were improperly 
decided.
  It is well established that when speech or expressive conduct 
infringes on certain conventionally protected rights and interests, the 
First Amendment does not provide for the speech or expressive conduct.
  As Professor George Fletcher has observed, and I quote, ``Several 
historically entrenched exceptions to the First Amendment illustrate 
this general thesis. Using words to defame another invades the right to 
a good name. . . . Making copies of another's artistic or literary 
creation trenches upon copyright, the author's property right in her 
work. Under circumstances, verbal insults constitute intentional 
infliction of emotional distress, entailing a duty to pay compensation 
for the injury.''
  Obscenity, which undermines fundamental standards of civilized life, 
is recognized as outside the protection of the First Amendment. 
Symbolic speech or expressive conduct can also cause harm by infringing 
on protected rights and interests. It is essential to understand that 
as Professor Fletcher notes, ``there are instances of conduct in which 
the relevant harm is not only to individuals, but to a collective sense 
of minimally decent behavior necessary to sustain group living.'' 
Public nudity, public fornication, and other indecent acts may be 
intended to convey a particular message. The expressive element of such 
conduct does not, however, insulate that conduct from proscription.
  Now, we all agree that the government should not attempt to suppress 
ideas because we happen to find them offensive or disagreeable. But as 
Justice Stevens said in his dissent in Eichmann and I quote: ``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 that 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.''
  A prohibition on the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States easily satisfies the test set forth by Justice Stevens. 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 
with the right of individuals to express their ideas 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.
  Mr. Speaker, 49 of the 50 States have adopted resolutions calling 
upon the Congress to pass a flag protection amendment and send it back 
to the

[[Page H4789]]

States for ratification. The legislatures of these States have 
recognized that the desecration of our flag does harm to our collective 
sense of minimally decent behavior necessary to sustain our life as a 
Nation. The legislators of these States know, as we do, that passing 
another statute will not restore protection for the flag. They know 
that a constitutional amendment is the only means to restore the 
protection for the flag of the United States.
  The constitutional process for amendments established by Article V 
recognizes that the Constitution is ultimately grounded in the will of 
the people. Today, we simply respond to the clear and strong message 
sent to us by the people speaking through the legislatures of 49 
States.

  The purpose of this amendment is not to change the First Amendment. 
There is no problem with the First Amendment. The problem is with the 
Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. The measure 
before the House today is simply designed to correct the novel and 
flawed interpretation of the First Amendment adopted by the court a 
decade ago and to restore the protection which was previously given to 
the flag of the United States.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, summed up 
the case for protecting the flag as well as anyone. He said, ``The 
American flag . . . throughout more than 200 years of our history, has 
come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not 
represent the views of any particular party, and it does not represent 
any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another 
idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of 
ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost 
mystical reverence, regardless of what sort of social, political or 
philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree,'' the Chief 
Justice said, ``that the First Amendment invalidates the act of 
Congress and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which make criminal the 
public burning of the flag.''
  I would submit to the House that the Chief Justice of the United 
States had it right. As we today act under Article V of the 
Constitution, we in this House of Representatives should now recognize 
on behalf of the people of the United States that the physical 
desecration of the flag does not deserve the protection of the law, and 
we should accordingly adopt this resolution and move forward with this 
measure to restore protection for the flag of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for agreeing to manage this 
bill. He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I appreciate the hard and 
continuing work he has put in on this subject matter.
  I would like to join in this discussion to begin by asking the 
question that must be asked of all legislation that comes on the floor: 
What is the problem? In other words, why are we here today? When we 
deal with questions of civil rights, when we deal with questions of 
police abuse, when we deal with questions of international policy, when 
we deal with the crisis in Haiti, we are all brought here because there 
is a problem.
  Does anyone know how many cases of flag-burning have occurred in this 
year or last year, or any of the years? Well, I am glad I asked that 
question, because I will provide my colleagues with the answer. The 
answer is that since 1990, we have had 72 reported cases of flag 
burning that I can bring to my colleagues' attention. I do not know of 
any in recent times. I think it is important that we consider in the 
midst of all of the issues that weigh upon the House of Representatives 
why this measure keeps coming back up time and time again.
  The issue is really around the First Amendment and the Bill of 
Rights, not flag burning because the test that we will be putting the 
Members of this great body to is whether we have the strength to remain 
true to our forefather's constitutional ideals and defend our citizens' 
rights to express themselves, even if we disagree vehemently with their 
method of expression.

                              {time}  1545

  Madam Speaker, I have always deplored flag-burning as a tactic, as a 
strategy, as a policy. But I am strongly opposed to this attempt to 
amend or start the process to amend the Constitution of the United 
States because it simply goes against the ideals and elevates a symbol 
of freedom over freedom itself.
  How ironic that we would now take the symbol and forget the message, 
the purpose which this symbol represents. For if this resolution were 
adopted, and thankfully it has never been finally processed out of the 
legislative system, it would represent the first time in our Nation's 
history that the people's representatives in this House voted to alter 
the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of speech of our citizens.
  So what we are considering here, notwithstanding the explanations 
that it is very popular to do this, is that we are saying that now, in 
the year 1999, over 200 years after the Bill of Rights, we have now 
decided that there was a flaw in the Bill of Rights and we now need to 
make a change. There was a mistake.
  I resist that argument, and it would it seem to me that if we were 
going to alter the Bill of Rights, it would have to be over a measure 
far, far more grave and threatening than merely the conduct, one 
particular form of conduct that we might resent.
  What about burning the Bible? Does that not raise Members' temper a 
few degrees? How obscene it would be to burn a Bible publicly. Of 
course, someone might say, well, sure, we ought to include that, too, 
or we ought to look at that next. But these acts, as despicable as they 
are, are protected speech under the First Amendment.
  So I would say to the Members that the true test of any Nation's 
commitment to freedom, to this freedom of expression, lies in the 
inability to protect unpopular expression, the kinds of things, the 
conduct that we do not like, exactly like flag-burning and Bible-
burning.
  Remember what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated: ``The 
Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression 
we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate, the conduct and 
action we seriously dislike.''
  So what we are really doing is saying that since this is such a 
repulsive act, we are going to take it out from under the protection of 
the Bill of Rights, from the First Amendment. So by limiting the free 
speech protections and the First Amendment, I suggest we are setting 
the most dangerous precedent that has ever come out of the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  If we open the doors to criminalizing constitutionally protected 
expression related to the flag, I am afraid that there will be further 
efforts to limit and censor speech or conduct that we do not like.
  We do not like it, we do not like flag-burning. That is why we want 
to stop it. But guess what, there are some other things that we do not 
like and we may want to start curbing just as well. Once we decide to 
limit freedom of speech in any respect from a constitutional point of 
view, the limitations on freedom of the press and limitations on 
freedom of religion may not be far behind. This is not a road that I 
would like to go down.
  The courts have ruled. The ultimately deciders of what is 
constitutional, they have said that. They have said that flag-burning, 
as despicable as it is, is protected freedom of speech.
  So it is tempting for us, the only people in government that have the 
power, to say we will show the court who is boss, we will show that 
Supreme Court. We will amend the Constitution to outlaw flag-burning. 
We will pass this amendment through the States, and then they will not 
be able to write any more decisions about this conduct that we dislike 
so much.
  However, if we do, we will be carving an awkward exception into the 
document designed to last for the ages, and that with only 27 
amendments, has

[[Page H4790]]

never been modified. We will be undermining the very constitutional 
structure that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison designed to protect 
our rights.
  In effect, we will be glorifying the very people in our national 
community who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while we will 
be denigrating the constitutional vision of James Madison and Thomas 
Jefferson.
  The concern about the tyranny of the majority led the Framers to 
create an independent judiciary, free of political pressure, to ensure 
that the legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of 
Rights. A constitutional amendment like this banning flag desecration 
flies in the very face of this carefully balanced structure.
  Madison warned against using the amendment process to correct every 
perceived constitutional defect. I repeat that warning here, because it 
applies to what we are considering, particularly concerning issues 
which easily inflame public passion.
  Unfortunately, there is no better illustration of Madison's concern 
than this proposed flag-burning or anti-flag-burning amendment. History 
has proved that efforts to legislate respect for the flag only serve to 
increase flag-related protests, as few as they are, and a 
constitutional amendment would be far more inflammatory than even a 
statute.
  Almost as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our 
own Constitution is the harm it would inflict upon our international 
standing in the area of human rights. Consider the demonstrators who 
ripped apart Communist flags before the fall of the Iron Curtain and 
committed crimes against their country. Yet, freedom-loving Americans 
applauded their brave actions.
  If we pass this amendment, we will be beginning to align ourselves 
with autocratic regimes such as those in Iran and the former South 
Africa, and diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in 
all its forms. Let us not do it.
  For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag, 
I just want to read them the two sentences from the Supreme Court's 
1989 decision on the subject, Texas and Johnson: ``The way to preserve 
the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently 
about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can 
imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving 
one's own; no better way to counter a flag-burner's message than to 
salute the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its 
desecration. For in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished 
emblem represents.''
  Madam Speaker, I close with only one additional comment. That is, as 
soon as the polls that are taken on this subject let our citizens know 
that this would be the first time in our Nation's history to cut back 
the First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression, then, guess what 
happens? They do not support the flag-burning proposal.
  So please join with those of us who are patriots in a perhaps deeper 
sense, who really believe that protecting freedom of speech includes 
the kind we abhor, the kinds we like least, the kinds that we detest. 
Join me in opposing this flag desecration amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee who is 
now managing the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the chief 
sponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their views, 
but I would say, Madam Speaker, 85 percent of the American people feel 
those views are wrong, they are absolutely wrong, and 49 States have 
asked us to pass this, and 49 legislatures have asked us to pass this 
amendment.
  We have passed this on the House floor by over 300 votes every time 
it comes up. Unfortunately, the Senate has not reacted in one case, and 
in 1997 the Senate did not have time to take it up. This is the first 
time that we can.
  I would say to my friend, whose 85 percent of the American people do 
not give a rat's rear how many times flag-burning has existed, I ask 
Members to give themselves a vision, Iwo Jima, and the men, Ira Hayes 
and the rest of them that put up that American flag. Now allow some 
hippie to go up there and burn it. They do not care how many times. It 
is the issue.
  Madam Speaker, my colleague brings fear into this, fear that we are 
doing something. Well, this country ran fine for 200 years-plus until 
one liberal Supreme Court said no to 200 years of tradition. Forty-
eight States have laws to protect the American flag. Is that radical, 
that 48 States believed that the First Amendment is not abridged, that 
the First Amendment is not abridged, it is expressive conduct, and the 
Supreme Court has ruled on that?
  There are more Supreme Court Justices in history that have said that 
this amendment is in line and should be passed than there are of the 
five that ruled against this in 1989. And we say that that is wrong.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) does not 
care how many times. The flag in his office was draped over his 
father's coffin. He has that flag in his office today.
  I would tell my colleague that if he cringed at people burning the 
Communist flag, I cheered. My mother and father were Democrats. They 
voted for Ronald Reagan, but they were Democrats. They taught my 
brother and I that the lowest thing on Earth is a socialist and a 
Communist. So if Members want to burn the Communist flag, be my guest. 
My mom and dad are Democrats. I lost my dad.
  I would tell my colleagues, they say that this is despicable to burn 
the American flag. Yet they would allow it to happen. The 85 percent of 
the American people that support this, and we will pass this bill, I 
say to the Members in the minority view, and who will remain so, we are 
going to pass this in the House, we are going to pass this in the 
Senate, and 49 States have vowed to ratify it. All that does is it 
gives Congress the right to proceed.

                              {time}  1600

  It is not a self-enacting bill. The 48 States have got to react to 
what they believe. I believe in States rights.
  So I would say to my colleagues, if one thinks something is 
despicable, change it. If one wants to spread fear, fear of 200 years 
of tradition, it is okay by 85 percent of the American people.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, our Founding Fathers must be very 
puzzled looking down on us today. Instead of seeing us dealing with the 
very real challenges that face our Nation, they see us laboring under 
this compulsion to amend the document that underpins our democracy.
  They see a house of dwarfs trying to give this government 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 and, for the first time, decreasing rather than 
increasing the rights of the people. They see their beloved Bill of 
Rights being eroded into the Bill of Rights and Restrictions.
  What is the threat? What is the threat? Madam Speaker, I ask again, 
what is the threat? Is our democracy at risk? What is the crisis to the 
Republic? What is the challenge to our way of life? Where is our belief 
system being threatened? Are people jumping from behind parked cars, 
waiving burning flags at us, trying to prevent us from getting to work 
and causing America to grind to a halt?
  Do we really believe that we are under such a siege because of a few 
loose cannons? Do we need to change our Constitution to save our 
democracy? Or, Madam Speaker, are we offended?
  The real threat to our society 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 as pagans would, rather than to keep it as the beloved 
symbol of our freedom that is to be cherished.
  These rare but vile acts of desecration that have been cited by those 
who would propose changing our founding document do not threaten 
anybody. If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. If a jerk 
burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. If a jerk

[[Page H4791]]

burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened. My 
colleagues, we are offended. To change our Constitution because someone 
offends us is in itself unconscionable.
  The Nazis, Madam Speaker, the Nazis and the fascists and the imperial 
Japanese army combined could not diminish the rights of even one single 
American. Yet, in an act of cowardice, Madam Speaker, we are about to 
do what they could not.
  Where are the patriots? Where are the patriots? Where are the 
patriots? Whatever 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 malcontent has a right to 
disagree, and he has a right to disagree in an obnoxious fashion if he 
wishes. That is the true 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? 
Is it an endangered species? Burning one flag or burning 1,000 flags 
does not endanger it. It is a symbol. But change just one word of our 
Constitution of this great Nation, and it and we will never be the 
same.
  We cannot destroy a symbol. Yes, people have burnt the flag, but, 
Madam Speaker, there it is again right in back of the Speaker's chair. 
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, Madam Speaker, that language itself is 
symbolic. People do not die for symbols. They fight and die for 
freedom. They fight and die for democracy. They fight and die for 
values. They fight and die for the flag means to fight and die for the 
cause in which we believe. My colleagues would have us change that.
  We love and we honor and respect our flag for that which it 
represents. It is different from all other flags. I notice in the 
amendment that 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 because 
of the colors or the shape or the design. They are all relatively the 
same.
  Our flag is unique, because it represents our unique values. It 
represents tolerance for dissent. This country was founded by 
dissenters that others found to be obnoxious.
  What is a dissenter? In this case, it is a social protester who feels 
so strongly about an issue that he would stoop so low as to try to get 
under our skin, to try to rile us up, to prove his point, and to have 
us react by making this great Nation less than it was.
  How do we react? Dictators and dictatorships make political prisoners 
out of those who burn their Nation's flags, not democracies. We 
tolerate dissent and dissenters, even the despicable dissenters.
  What is the flag, Madam Speaker? The American flag? Yes, it is a 
piece of cloth. It is red and white and blue, and it has 50 stars and 
13 stripes. But if we pass this amendment and desecrators decide to go 
into a cottage industry and make flags with 55 stars and burn them, 
will we rush to the floor to amend our Constitution again?
  If they add a stripe or two and set it ablaze, it surely looks like 
our flag, but is it? Do we rush in and count the stripes before 
determining whether or not we are constitutionally offended? What if 
the stripes are orange instead of red? How do we interrupt that? What 
mischief do we do here? If it is a full-size color picture of a flag 
they burn, is it a crime to desecrate a symbol of a symbol? What are we 
doing?
  Our beloved flag represents this great Nation, Madam Speaker. We love 
our flag. Because there is a 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.
  Madam 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. 
Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) for yielding me this time. I want to start by commending the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his diligent hard work 
on this amendment and to help carry the good work brought forward by my 
predecessor, Gerald Solomon.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today as one of the lead cosponsors and 
supporters of this constitutional amendment. There are many reasons to 
do so. As we know, there is a deeply reserved desire by many Americans 
to protect the flag because they recognize that the American flag holds 
a sacred place in their hearts.
  Prior speakers spoke of the flag serving as a mere symbol. He said 
that this country was founded by dissenters. I would like to say that 
it was not founded just by dissenters, it was founded by dissenters who 
risked their lives, their blood, who took action because it requires 
action to provide freedom. They did so for their flag.
  I would also like the prior speaker and those who would dissent here 
to consider that the Medal of Honor is specifically awarded to those 
who have fought for their flag and on its behalf.
  I take very personally the issue. I recall a year ago my own father, 
a veteran of World War II, passed away. Prior to his passing, one of 
his great concerns was that the flag that is bestowed upon veterans by 
our country for their service be provided at his wake, be shown at his 
wake in the most meaningful way. If it means nothing, then why does one 
have, as their last thoughts, thoughts of the flag? If it means 
nothing, then tell that to those who go to war and march behind it. If 
it means nothing, then those who have gone and given their lives and 
made the ultimate sacrifice have done so because of the flag.
  Further, I believe that, as an elected public official, it is our 
duty to represent the views of an overwhelming majority of Americans 
who want us to restore to them the power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of our flag.
  Madam Speaker, as citizens of the United States, we are concerned 
with protecting individual rights. We fight to protect our freedom of 
religion. We fight to protect our freedom of assembly. Essentially, we 
protect our right to live as free citizens.
  So, Madam Speaker, why would anybody find fault with protecting the 
very symbol of that freedom. Here, in Congress, we are here to pass 
laws to protect and rename old buildings, and laws to protect citizens 
from creditors, and laws to protect citizens from predators. We do 
these things for the right reasons and good reasons. Can we not do the 
same for the very symbol of what is right and good and just in our 
Nation?
  Every Member of Congress takes the time to have his or her picture 
taken with the flag of the United States as a backdrop. Every Member of 
Congress takes the time to march in parades with our flag. Every Member 
of Congress takes the time to present the American flag to groups of 
constituents back in their district. Why? Is it because this is just 
some sort of studio prop? No. It is because the flag is a symbol that 
everyone understands and respects.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot use the flag of the United States as a prop 
and then fail to protect it and what it stands for. We cannot, we 
should not, we must not cave in to intellectual snobbery. Being 
patriotic and sharing a deep love for the American flag is not 
politically incorrect. So let us stop acting like we are all too smart 
to be patriotic.
  Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues will argue today that this 
amendment would infringe on the individual right to free speech. The 
right to free speech is the bedrock of America's founding. I will be 
the first to passionately defend the First Amendment. But burning an 
American flag is not free speech. It is inexcusable conduct that must 
be condemned. We should not protect such reprehensible behavior any 
more than we should protect arsonists and vandals.
  Madam Speaker, I am not alone in this argument. There are many people 
far more distinguished than I who believe that flag burning does not 
deserve to be a constitutionally protected form of speech.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has pointed out,

[[Page H4792]]

nearly 10 years ago to this very day the Supreme Court ruled that flag 
burning was an act of free expression by the slimmest margins, one 
vote. In that case, the four dissenters based their opposition on the 
fact that flag desecration is expressive conduct as distinguished from 
actual speech.

                              {time}  1615

  In this regard they stated that the government's interest in 
preserving the value of the flag is unrelated to the suppression of 
ideas that flag burners are trying to suppress.
  Madam Speaker, let me finish by quoting Harvard law professor Richard 
D. Parker. Mr. Parker is a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat who has 
spoken so eloquently in support of this amendment in the past. He said, 
``The American flag doesn't stand for one government or one party or 
one party platform. Instead, it stands for an aspiration to national 
unity despite, and transcending, our differences and diversity. A 
robust system of free speech depends, after all, on maintaining a sense 
of community. It depends on some agreement that, despite our 
differences, we are `one'; that the problem of any American is `our' 
problem. It is thus for minority and unpopular viewpoints that the 
aspiration to and respect for the unique symbol of national unity is 
thus most important.''
  Madam Speaker, I move to protect that symbol of unity, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have yielded time to several people, and I want to 
thank them for debating this issue. I wanted to accommodate their 
schedules, but now I want to kind of set the framework for this debate 
a little bit.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for already 
during the debate on the rule and the debate on the bill making it 
clear that this is not about one side being patriotic and the other 
side being unpatriotic. I do not think there is a single Member of the 
Congress of the United States that I would dare call unpatriotic. We 
all are patriots. We all believe in our country. This is an honest 
dispute about how we reflect that patriotism.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has gone out of his way, 
particularly this year, to set a framework for us to have this debate 
in a way that we can honor each other and honor our differences on this 
issue. And I was never more proud of the process than I was at the 
hearing that we had on this proposed constitutional amendment when I 
saw my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a 
decorated hero, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a 
Republican also and a decorated hero, on opposite sides of this 
important issue.
  This is not about one side being patriotic and the other side being 
unpatriotic. And I hope that throughout the course of this debate today 
and tomorrow my colleagues will keep that fact in mind and not stoop to 
calling one side unpatriotic or not make this about who is patriotic. 
This is not about that.
  I want to correct my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), who earlier in the debate suggested that this was about 
liberals versus conservatives. It is not about that either, Madam 
Speaker. If we look at the lineup of the members of the Supreme Court 
who decided this issue we will not find the liberals lined up on one 
side of the issue and the conservatives lined up on the other side of 
the issue.
  The members who joined in the opinion to declare the burning of the 
flag a protected expression under the first amendment were Justices 
Brennan, Marshal, Blackmun, Scalia and Kennedy. Three of those five 
justices were Republican justices, Republican appointees, to the court. 
And I do not think there is anybody who is running around these days 
saying that Justice Scalia is a liberal.
  So this is not about liberals versus conservatives. It is about how 
we believe the First Amendment protects us, and what expressions we 
believe ought to be protected, and how we play out our own patriotism.
  Now, I want to acknowledge that the very first time I came to the 
Congress of the United States and debated this amendment I did not 
believe what I just said. I was one of those people who came to the 
Congress saying I do not know how anybody who supports the Constitution 
of the United States could not believe that the First Amendment to the 
Constitution is protective of somebody who expresses themselves by 
burning the flag.
  But over the last four sessions of Congress, and this is the fourth 
time we will have debated this issue in the four terms that I have been 
in the Congress of the United States, what I have started to do is I 
have started to listen to my colleagues, like the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady), who are on the opposite side of this issue. What I have seen 
is that people on our side of this issue have started to listen to the 
other side, and I have heard them start to listen to us. And where we 
are today is a product of listening to each other, because we now 
understand that a patriot like the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) can disagree with a patriot like the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) on this important issue. This is not about who 
is patriotic.
  We are going to recognize today that anybody who comes to this well, 
Republican or Democrat, regardless of which side of this issue they are 
on, is going to be recognized to engage in the debate. We are not 
censoring anybody. If somebody wants some time, I welcome them to come 
and state their position on this proposed constitutional amendment.
  So this is not about patriotism, it is not about liberal versus 
conservative, it is not about Republican versus Democrat. It is about 
how we learned what the first amendment was about, and how we learned 
what patriotism was about, and what we think the Constitution protects, 
and what we think ought to be unprotected by the Constitution. That is 
what this debate will be about.
  So I want to right here welcome and encourage my colleagues to come 
to the floor, debate this important proposal, tell us what their 
experiences have been with the first amendment and how it gets applied 
to them. I invite my colleagues to tell us what their experiences have 
been regarding patriotism, and tell us what their experiences have been 
regarding liberty and honoring the liberties that we have in this 
country. And if my colleagues come to the floor and engage in the 
debate with that attitude, this will be one of the most powerful 
debates ever conducted on the floor of the House.
  I want people to come and debate this important issue, and I want 
them to bring their stories. I want to start by telling my colleagues 
my story.
  I went to law school, and some people say it is the best law school 
in the country, although I am sure we could generate a serious amount 
of debate on that.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would agree with the 
gentleman on that.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
thought the gentleman was going to spring up, because we went to the 
same law school. So it is even about people from the same law school 
disagreeing on this, as my colleagues will see.
  I thought I knew the Constitution. I had studied it. By the time I 
got to the third year of law school, I thought nobody could teach me 
anything else. And then I went into the practice of law in a small law 
firm that was known for its civil rights reputation.
  One day I got a call from my senior law partner and he asked me to go 
down to another county and represent some people who had been charged 
with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest and various and sundry 
other offenses that people get charged with when they engage in 
demonstrations, and I said, fine.
  So I went traipsing off to the next county, and what I found when I 
started to investigate was that a group of Native Americans, with 
tomahawks and other such kinds of instruments, had gathered in front of 
a school to demonstrate and to express their position on an issue. And 
I kept inquiring about what the issue was, and I found

[[Page H4793]]

that those Native Americans were there demonstrating because they did 
not want to go to school with black students. They did not want their 
children to go to school with black students.
  Well, I was black then, I am still black, and I said to myself, now, 
I do not know if I want to be here representing these people who are 
demonstrating against going to school with black kids. And I called up 
my senior law partner and I said, ``Julius, why did you send me down 
here to represent these people knowing what they were demonstrating 
about?'' And he asked me one simple question. He said, ``Do you not 
believe in the first amendment to the Constitution?'' It stopped me 
dead in my tracks.
  I will never ever forget that question that my senior law partner 
asked me on that occasion. It brought home to me, after all the 
education I had gotten about what the first amendment meant, the book 
learning, what the first amendment was really about. It is about 
tolerating the views and defending the rights of people to express 
those views even if they disagree with the views we hold.

                              {time}  1630

  That is what our First Amendment is all about. It did not come as any 
surprise to me later in my legal practice to find that my law firm went 
to represent the Ku Klux Klan. There was not a single person in my law 
firm who believed in anything that the Ku Klux Klan stood for. But when 
it came time to defend their right to demonstrate and express 
themselves, we were right in court there saying we may not agree with 
the ideas they express, but we will defend until the end their right to 
express them.
  I am not here today, my colleagues, to defend people who burn the 
flag. I abhor flag burners. But I am here to defend the Constitution of 
the United States. I am here to defend the First Amendment. I am here 
to defend the freedom of expression. I am here to defend the right of 
people who have views that are contrary to mine to express those views 
and to be heard in a democracy that we call America.
  I believe that is what the First Amendment and our Bill of Rights is 
about. The Bill of Rights was not put in place by the majority to 
protect the majority. It was put in place to protect the minority from 
the tyranny of the majority. And when we diminish that, we diminish our 
constitutional government.
  Now, my colleagues are going to be put in this debate to a clear 
choice. I want to applaud the Committee on Rules, I do not get to do 
that very often, for giving us the opportunity to exercise that clear 
choice. Because the underlying proposed amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States that my friend and colleague from Yale University 
also supports reads like this. It says, ``The Congress shall have power 
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States.''
  My colleague says he does not object to the First Amendment, he 
objects to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. 
That is one choice that we all have to vote on the amendment that has 
been proposed by my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). 
We are going to have an opportunity tomorrow to vote on an alternative. 
It is an alternative that I will offer to this House to be voted on, 
and it reads like this. It says, ``Not inconsistent with the First 
Article of Amendment to this Constitution, the Congress shall have 
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States.''
  So if they believe that the First Amendment is sacred, if they are 
honoring the First Amendment, if they believe that this new guy on the 
block, the new proposed amendment, is important but they want it to be 
interpreted subordinate and in conformity with the First Amendment to 
the Constitution that is currently on the books, I am going to ask my 
colleagues to vote for the substitute, then, because I believe in the 
First Amendment.
  Now, I am not going to say that those who believe that the First 
Amendment is different than my interpretation of it are not patriots. I 
would not dare call my good colleague the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) unpatriotic. I have seen him. He is a wonderful 
patriot. But I submit to this body that we must not put in the 
Constitution an amendment that we believe to be at odds with the First 
Amendment. And if we do, we must make it clear that the First Amendment 
is to be the ruling amendment in our Constitution. It has served us for 
over 200 years, and it will continue to serve us. But it will do so 
only if we allow it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will just speak briefly. I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for the 
spirit in which he has approached this debate concerning this 
constitutional amendment throughout the process, from the subcommittee 
hearing through the subcommittee markup, full committee markup, and now 
on the floor today.
  I believe that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is 
exactly right when he says that no one should question the patriotism 
of anyone who might take a differing viewpoint on this particular 
issue. I understand that those who are opposed to this amendment base 
their opposition on principles that they hold very dear. This is the 
sort of issue which tends to engender passionate feelings. And I 
respect that.
  I just again want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) for approaching this issue and dealing with it on 
the merits rather than on the basis of an attack on the motivations or 
the patriotism of those who have a differing viewpoint.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that if he 
thinks he was opposed to the Ku Klux Klan, my opposition was to those 
that protested in a war that many of my friends lost their lives, but 
yet I would fight for the right for them to protest.
  Many of us felt that the Tom Haydens, the Jane Fondas, and the Bill 
Clintons went too far by protesting in the enemy's camp. That was 
different. But I would also say that 90 percent, 90 percent, of the 
Supreme Court justices through history have supported this amendment. 
It was only one Supreme Court in 1989, the same Supreme Court that in 
1990 by one vote overrode 200 years of tradition.
  That is why 85 percent of the American people, 120 organizations, say 
that this is the correct thing to do and disagree with my colleagues on 
the other side of this issue. They also support the First Amendment.
  When I went into the camps of those anti-war protesters and sat down 
with them, disagreed with them, I supported their First Amendment 
rights to do that. In this amendment, it does not take away from those 
rights. This particular amendment does not enfranchise the First 
Amendment. They still have full ability to speak, to express themselves 
in any legal way outside of the desecration of the American flag.
  Forty-eight States had this prior to that one Supreme Court vote. It 
is wrong, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding my the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 33.
  First I would like to agree with my colleague the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) that what we should hear today and I believe 
what we are going to hear today is a series of speakers on both sides 
talking about their personal experiences and what all of the issues 
arising from this mean to us. I think that is appropriate. That is a 
good debate for us all to have.
  We have heard from my good friend and colleague the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) about how much this means to him and to his 
family. My story is more brief but I think sheds light on my own view.
  I am the first native born American in my family. My parents were 
immigrants. They came to this country as so many other immigrants do, 
even today, because they want for their children the freedoms and 
opportunities that this country offers, more importantly what this 
country should offer.

[[Page H4794]]

  My parents were not born American. That means that they had to 
affirmatively choose to take up the values and the principles and the 
ideals that are the foundation of our citizenship. They did so gladly 
and they did so naturally. I sometimes think that those Americans who 
had to choose to be American, that had to take that affirmative step, 
perhaps they have a greater appreciation for what this country offers.
  At an early age, my parents taught me respect for our Nation, her 
leaders, and her most distinct symbol, Old Glory. I learned that from 
an early age. But I have to admit, Madam Speaker, I never really 
appreciated just how important the flag was as a symbol until I left 
this country, until I lived and worked overseas in a land where there 
was no Declaration of Independence, there was no Bill of Rights, the 
sort of wonderful document that we are all talking about and debating 
and interpreting today.
  As my wife Sue and I traveled around East Africa is where we were, 
every time we saw Old Glory, whether it be at embassies or at private 
homes, our spirits were lifted by what it symbolized not just for us 
but for the rest of the world, nations and people struggling to be 
free. If we fail to protect the flag, that symbol both here and abroad 
is tarnished. And I submit to my colleagues, each time the flag suffers 
physically, our stature in the eyes of the world suffers just as 
clearly.
  If we fail to protect the flag, people around the world may believe 
that we do not care, that we have become tired or complacent or self-
doubting. The flag is a symbol. But in a time where the eyes of the 
world are upon us, symbols matter; and no symbol matters more than our 
flag. Our constituents are not complacent. Our constituents care. Every 
survey ever done tells us that. They want to protect the flag. So 
should we.
  Finally, I think part of the debate is going to be what the First 
Amendment means today. And I think it is easy to draw lines between 
action and thought and expression. We have done so in the past. We have 
created hate crime laws. We do have laws for destruction of symbols 
like gravestones and synagogues and churches. We have done that.
  I urge us all today, as we go through this debate, to follow the 
principles and respect what my colleague has suggested and support this 
House resolution.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself 
served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol 
of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. But I 
served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our 
Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to 
some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.
  We have not had a law against flag desecration in the 212 years of 
our constitutional history. So I do not see where it is necessary. We 
have some misfits on occasion burn the flag, which we all despise. But 
to now change the ability for some people to express themselves and to 
challenge the First Amendment, I think we should not do this 
carelessly.

                              {time}  1645

  Let me just emphasize how the first amendment is written. ``Congress 
shall write no law.'' That was the spirit of our Nation at that time. 
``Congress shall write no laws.''
  We have written a lot of laws since then. But every time we write a 
law to enforce a law, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, 
because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So 
how do you do that? You send an agent of the government to arrest him 
and it is done with a gun. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun. 
So if you are not a patriot, you are assumed not to be a patriot and 
you are doing this, we will send somebody to arrest them.
  It is assumed that many in the military who fought, but I think the 
gentleman from North Carolina pointed out aptly that some who have been 
great heroes in war can be on either side of this issue. I would like 
to read a quote from a past national commander of the American Legion, 
Keith Kreul. He said:

       Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, 
     but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the 
     Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who 
     have protected our banner in battle have not done so to 
     protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner 
     forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs 
     and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A 
     patriot cannot be created by legislation.

  I think that is what we are trying to do. Out of our frustration and 
exasperation and our feeling of helplessness when we see this happen, 
we feel like we must do something. But I think most of the time when we 
see flag burning on television, it is not by American citizens, it is 
done too often by foreigners who have strong objection to what we do 
overseas. That is when I see it on television and that is when I get 
rather annoyed.
  I want to emphasize once again that one of the very first laws that 
Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. The 
very first law by Red China on Hong Kong was to make sure they had a 
law on the books like this. Since that time they have prosecuted some 
individuals. Our State Department tallies this, keeps records of this 
as a human rights violation, that if they burn the flag, they are 
violating human rights. Our State Department reports it to our Congress 
as they did in April of this year and those violations are used against 
Red China in the argument that they should not gain most-favored-nation 
status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy here, if they think that this 
law will do so much good and yet we are so critical of it when Red 
China does it.
  We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be 
interested in the principles of liberty. We should not be careless in 
accepting this approach to enforce a sense of patriotism.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would address my colleague that just spoke in the 
well. Is it not true that the gentleman votes ``no'' on over 90 percent 
of the issues and finds reason not to vote for issues on this House 
floor? Is that true?
  Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will yield, I think that is correct, 
because probably 90 percent of the time, this Congress is doing things 
that are not constitutional, and I think they are very legitimate.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My point is made. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I want to share with Members some words 
written by a third grader:

     ``I feel so proud whenever I see
     my country's flag flying over me.
     The red's so bold
     the white's so clear
     the brightness of the blue is all so dear.
     I love my country
     my family, too,
     but most of all I love
     the red, white and blue.''

  Madam Speaker, these words were written because this child was 
allowed to value our flag, to understand the importance of the 
symbolism embodied in our flag and its importance in representing the 
values of our country.
  Madam Speaker, the child who wrote these words, Carolyn Holmes, is 
grown now. She still values this country. She still values our flag. 
Madam Speaker, we must teach our children values.
  If we allow the desecration of our flag, we allow those who desecrate 
it to teach our children a values lesson which may yield bitter fruit.
  Madam Speaker, this issue is important. We worry about how to help 
our children learn the basic values for a civil society. Respect is one 
of the most important of these. Children need to be taught respect. 
Respect for the flag seems a very good place to begin. Let it spread 
from there to respect for others and their ideas.
  It is important to remember here that it takes the States to ratify 
what we do and it takes the voice of the people in those States. So let 
the people speak. Let them speak.
  Madam Speaker, the flag desecration amendment should be passed.

[[Page H4795]]

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). 
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of House Joint Resolution 33, and I commend the gentleman from 
California for bringing this forward.
  Madam Speaker, it was on June 14, 1777, that the Continental Congress 
passed the first Flag Act, calling for the symbol of the United States 
of America to bear its Stars and Stripes.
  Over the years, the flag has grown to become a symbol of freedom and 
a faithful tribute to those, living and deceased, who have fought to 
protect and preserve peace both here and abroad.
  Madam Speaker, we stand and pledge our allegiance to the flag every 
day, but it is our United States soldiers who salute and serve beneath 
the flag who truly bear the burden of ultimate allegiance. They 
sacrifice their lives to protect our freedom and our liberty.
  Madam Speaker, I want to share with Members a poem by Father Denis 
Edward O'Brien, United States Marine Corps, that shows the special 
relationship our soldiers have with the flag of the United States. I 
quote Father O'Brien:

     It is the soldier, not the reporter,
     who has given us freedom of the press.

     It is the soldier, not the poet,
     who has given us freedom of speech.

     It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
     who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
     It is the soldier
     who salutes the flag,
     who serves beneath the flag,
     and whose coffin is draped by the flag
     who allows the protester to burn the flag.

  Madam Speaker, when we allow our flag, the very essence of our 
country, to be destroyed, in my opinion we dishonor the men and women 
who gave their lives serving under that flag so that every one of us 
could live free.
  I know, Madam Speaker, that many of my colleagues will raise 
important constitutional questions about adding an amendment to protect 
the flag. But when it comes down to it as a representative of the 
people, I believe that we have the support from the majority of the 
American people on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I have had the honor of serving the citizens of the 
Third District of North Carolina for 5 years. I can say with absolute 
honesty that I have never personally spoken with any citizen on this 
issue who did not express support for congressional action to protect 
and preserve the integrity of the United States flag.
  With many of our United States veterans and a majority of the 
American people backing this measure, it has my full and absolute 
support.
  Madam Speaker, I hope this House will support House Joint Resolution 
33.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the constitutional 
amendment to protect the American flag. I want to commend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for bringing this forward. His 
leadership is important in this because of his background. But I also 
want to relate to the American people how I feel that they feel about 
why Congress should be called upon to enact a flag protection 
amendment. They have done this ever since 1989 when the Supreme Court 
did the decision-making as to burning or desecrating the flag. The 
storm of protest coming from the American people since that time, I 
think, has been consistent.
  While public opinion on most issues tends to be volatile, every 
reliable survey, every single one that they have conducted on this 
issue over the last 10 years indicates, shows clearly, that 75 percent 
or better of the American people believe it should be illegal to burn, 
trample or destroy Old Glory. They tell me it is illegal to burn trash, 
but we can burn the flag. It is illegal to destroy Federal property, 
even a mailbox. But it is okay to destroy the flag.
  This indicates that while Americans hold their first amendment rights 
dear to their hearts, they also understand that our flag should be 
honored and protected against senseless acts of vandalism. People can 
still express their views without resorting to vandalism.
  Madam Speaker, the American flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is 
a symbol that reflects the values, the struggles and the storied 
history of our great country.
  I urge my colleagues, those that oppose this amendment, to rethink 
exactly what the flag means to the American people, those who protest 
what has taken place, what took place in 1989. I would urge everyone to 
defend the principles that it embodies by voting for this very 
important amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, today the House has this opportunity to make an 
important statement on behalf of all of us and on behalf of every 
soldier who has fought and died for the principles upon which our 
Nation was founded. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) for introducing this important legislation and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for bringing this measure to the 
floor.
  I have long been a strong supporter of prohibiting the desecration of 
our Nation's flag, and I have served and fought to protect the freedoms 
of our Nation, freedoms represented by our flag, to people throughout 
the world.
  Although opponents of this measure contend that this amendment 
infringes upon the freedom of speech, to that I take exception. While 
we defend the right of any person, no matter how misguided, to argue 
against the principles for which our Nation stands, we should not 
contend that destroying our flag is in any sense such an argument.
  Our flag has been a citadel of freedom and a beacon of hope to the 
world. It has stood with our courageous servicemen and women in two 
world wars, in Korea, Vietnam, in Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Bosnia and 
more recently Yugoslavia, and anywhere that Americans have fought and 
died to oppose oppression. Our flag represents everything good about 
our Nation and its desecration stands as an insult to every American.
  Our flag symbolizes our Nation's great history. Within that field of 
stars and stripes stands the devotion of countless numbers of citizens 
who have loved and honored the principles of freedom and justice.
  In this city of many monuments representing our Nation's pride, honor 
and history, let us take this opportunity to protect the greatest 
monument of them all, our flag, the flag of the United States of 
America. It is proudly displayed as a monument in virtually every 
courthouse, every school, library, city, town and village throughout 
our Nation.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, and in urging my colleagues to support 
this amendment, let me remind my colleagues of the thoughts reflected 
by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who said, and I quote, ``The 
flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality and tolerance, 
ideas that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout 
our history.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and, 
Madam Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues to remember that when the 
Constitution, including every amendment, was drafted the drafting 
fathers assumed they would be reasonable, commonsense applications of 
laws, and I would like to remind my colleagues that the first amendment 
existed, A, because of the fifth article which specifically says not 
only do the legislators of America have a right to amend the 
Constitution when they think there has been a mistake or there needs to 
be something clarified, but they have a responsibility to do it. In 
fact, the first amendment would not be here if the fifth article had 
not been acted on by the legislative body and other legislators.
  Madam Speaker, I want to point out one thing, is that we are not 
talking about the first amendment being restricted. We are talking 
about, as we have talked about with other amendments, that reasonable 
commonsense restrictions are not a threat to our

[[Page H4796]]

constitutional freedoms, but they are the best safeguards that abuses 
and extremist approaches to our first amendment, second amendment, 
third amendment and every part of the Constitution is the greatest 
threat to those constitutional protections.
  As Thomas Jefferson articulated quite clearly his intention for 
freedom of speech and the articulation of the first amendment, and that 
was to encourage the intellectual exchange in our society and not as 
just a protection to the individual who wanted to speak up, but to the 
protection of society so that they could get the intellectual exchange 
and contribute to the dialogue in our community.
  Madam Speaker, the burning of the American flag is not being 
expressed as an intellectual exchange. It is just like somebody 
screaming fire in a movie house. It is someone trying to invoke an 
emotional response. Screaming fire happens to invoke fear. Burning the 
American flag is trying to invoke outrage and purposefully trying to 
invoke an emotional response. That emotional response, just like carnal 
pornography, is not protected under the first amendment. It has never 
been perceived to be protected. The intellectual exchange of 
disagreement about political activity is. But when we get to this 
emotional response I think we have got to be the reasonable, 
commonsense approach and say there are some things like burning the 
flag which do not encourage intellectual exchange in our society.
  And I want to point out again that those who would not change the 
Constitution no matter what, we need sometimes to correct mistakes made 
by the Supreme Court. That is why our Constitution has Article V. I 
think we all agree, I think everyone agrees, that the Dred Scott 
decision was an absolute farce, it was wrong, it should not have been 
done. So the 14th amendment was passed to address that mistake, and I 
think history has proven that the 14th amendment overall was a good 
piece of legislation and was an amendment that was needed.
  Madam Speaker, I think history is going to prove that this amendment 
to the Constitution is desperately needed to correct a wrong the 
Supreme Court has made just recently that they had not for 200 years.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida for the time and the opportunity to share today.
  I join to support this proposal to protect our flag, the red, white 
and blue, the leading symbol of freedom not in just this country, but 
in the world. Much of the world, when they look at that flag, they know 
it means freedom, the greatest freedom in the world.
  My grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden, and he taught me at a 
very young age to be so proud to be an American because he was so proud 
to be an American, and he was so proud of the red, white and blue; it 
meant so much to him. We all know young men who have given it all. 
Today I want to mention three that left the small town I come from of 
Pleasantville, a thousand people. Three young men, Roger, Danny and 
Bruce, went to Vietnam at about the same time. The only one to return 
was my brother Bruce. Roger and Danny gave it all. They left their 
blood in the swamps of Vietnam, they left their life there, they gave 
everything. They gave their future to preserve that flag.
  Four out of five Americans support this proposal. When do we get 80 
percent to agree on anything? Forty-nine States have passed resolutions 
urging us to do this. When do we get 49 State governments of both 
parties to agree on anything?
  This is the symbol of freedom. Should it not have a higher priority 
than money or mailboxes or other things that we are not allowed to 
desecrate?
  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 businessman from my district, an immigrant from Iran, recently 
invited me to the opening of his new facility, and instead of cutting a 
ribbon he run up the American flag on the pole, and he allowed me to do 
that, and he said the reason I want that flag on my pole that looks 
right out my window of my office, because I understand the freedom in 
this country that I did not have in Iran, that I did not have when I 
was in Germany for a short time. I want to look at that flag and never 
forget. He said also outside my window at the house from my dining room 
table I want a flag that I can look out there in light hours and see 
the symbol of freedom that America has presented to the whole world.
  Let us join those, the majority of Americans, the majority of States, 
who realize this is more than a flag. It is a symbol that embodies the 
bloodshed by Americans so that we can be free.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, if there is one bright shining star in our 
constitutional constellation, it is the first amendment of the Bill of 
Rights. That is the amendment that embodies the very essence upon which 
our democracy was founded because it stands for the proposition that 
anyone in this country can stand up and criticize this government and 
its policies without fear of prosecution. But here we are yet again in 
the 106th Congress debating an amendment that would seriously weaken 
the first amendment and freedom of expression in this country.
  Now I want to be clear. I am going to oppose this amendment, not 
because I condone or I do not feel repulsed by the senseless act of 
disrespect that is shown from time to time against one of the most 
cherished symbols of our country, the American flag, but because I 
recognize that our Constitution can be a pesky document sometimes. It 
challenges us, and it reminds us that this democracy of ours requires a 
lot of hard work. It was never meant to be easy. Our democracy rather 
is all about advanced citizenship. It is about the rights and liberties 
embodied in the Constitution that will put up a fight against what we 
believe and value most in our lives. Our Constitution is going to 
challenge us, and it is going to say, ``Hey, you believe in freedom of 
expression or free speech in this country? Let's see how we react when 
someone steps up on their soap box at high noon and expresses at the 
top of their lungs ideas and beliefs that are completely contrary to 
ideas and beliefs that we have fought for and believed in during our 
entire lives.''
  That is what advanced citizenship is about. That is what the 
challenge in the Constitution is for us. And yes, the Supreme Court has 
ruled on numerous occasions that the repulsive disrespect and the 
idiotic act of desecrating the American flag is freedom of expression 
protected under the first amendment.
  As former Supreme Court Justice Jackson said in the Barnette 
decision, and I quote:
  ``Freedom to differ cannot just be limited to those 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 very 
heart of the existing order.''
  There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or 
patriotism than the American flag; I recognize that. But if we pass 
this amendment today, where do we stop? Do we next try to prohibit the 
desecration of the Bible? Or the Koran? Or the Torah? Or perhaps even 
this book that I like to carry around in my pocket to remind me how 
difficult our democracy is? The Constitution? The Declaration of 
Independence? Or the very Bill of Rights itself? They too are symbols 
of our country that young men and women have fought for and died for.
  Let us not go down that path today. We have done pretty well these 
passed 210 years without having to amend the Constitution to deal with 
a few individuals' act of senseless desecration.
  There are other ways of dealing with content neutral acts. If someone 
steals my flag, they can be prosecuted for theft and trespassing. If 
they steal my

[[Page H4797]]

flag and burn it, they can be prosecuted for theft, trespass, criminal 
damage to property. If they burn it on a crowded subway station, they 
can also be prosecuted for inciting a riot, reckless endangerment, 
criminal damage to property and theft. There are other ways that this 
type of conduct can be prosecuted, but if someone buys a flag, goes 
down in their basement and because they do not like the government 
decides to desecrate it or burn it, are we going to obtain search 
warrants and arrest warrants to go in and arrest that person and 
prosecute them? We do not need to do that.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues today, Madam Speaker, to oppose 
this amendment and not change 210 years of history in this country.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for time, 
and, Madam Speaker, if colleagues would listen to the debate today, 
they would conclude that we are here to make a choice between defending 
the flag and defending the Constitution. In fact, the opposite is true. 
What we are here doing today is to try to reconcile our respect and our 
affection for the flag for our respect and our commitment to the 
Constitution.
  I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court decision, but this 
process that we are following today does not do damage to the first 
amendment or to the Constitution. In fact, we are following a 
constitutional process.
  I believe that we owe the blessings of liberty and freedom to those 
who served and sacrificed for this Nation, and as I attend the Memorial 
Day parade or Memorial Day service and I watch the tears streaming down 
the face of those veterans that are there, I know that our flag is more 
than a symbol. Somehow it is a link to the friends that they left on 
the battlefield or their friends who left parts of themselves on the 
battlefield.
  I believe that the desecration of our flag is an insult. It is an 
insult to our Constitution, it is an insult to the liberty and freedom 
that is in it. It is an insult to the sacrifice, and it is an insult to 
the values that these men and women share: Honor and value, valor and 
courage.
  Veterans groups. I think every major veteran group supports this. 
Forty-nine States have expressed to the Congress that we ought to act 
on this.
  I would just urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
that we have here to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit the 
desecration of the United States flag.
  I listened to some of the debate, I respect my colleagues, but this 
is not an issue about speech. What one can say is anything they want in 
this country, but conduct is what we are focusing on.
  I suppose if someone believes that they, in fact, are embodied with 
the right to burn this flag being displayed directly behind me, go 
ahead, but they have to get through me first, and when they do that, 
they really upset me. Now why do they upset me? I suppose that that 
statement written on a blackboard long ago when I was a college student 
at the Citadel that said those who serve their country on a distant 
battlefield see life in the dimension the protected may never know.
  I have seen that flag on a distant battlefield. I understand what it 
represents, the physical embodiment of everything that is great about 
our Nation and perhaps not so great. Each of us individually when we 
see that flag, we get a tingle inside, and it is personal. We should do 
everything we can to protect that which is so vitally important to us 
as a Nation.
  As I listened to some of my colleagues here, I am puzzled. I am 
puzzled because some of those who are in opposition to this amendment 
are also in opposition to our efforts to bring prayer back into school, 
our efforts to revitalize America to find its moral center. I do not 
know how those advocates want to see America. See, America, a little 
over 200 years young; are we going to be seen as some meteor that 
shined brightly but moved quickly across the span of world history?

                              {time}  1715

  Or, do we believe, as I do, if we permit the eyes of our mind to see 
a greater vision, I believe America has what it takes to reach deep, to 
revitalize itself, to find its center, its moral center, its proper 
balance, to seek the greater understanding, to have wise tolerance, and 
to respect each other for an enduring peace. As we do that, there are 
certain things that we have to respect in our society, and one that 
represents the physical embodiment of this Nation, and we are sensitive 
to liberty, is, in fact, Old Glory.
  That is what this amendment is about. I respect the Committee on the 
Judiciary for bringing it to the floor, and I ask all of my colleagues 
to vote for this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Speaker, I can think of no greater symbol of 
freedom, no higher embodiment of American ideals than the flag of the 
United States of America. Since the Revolutionary War, our flag has 
served as a sacred reminder of who we are, what we stand for, and the 
dreams we hope to achieve. Therefore, I am pleased to rise today in 
support of H.J. Res. 33, which reaffirms our national commitment to 
protect our great flag. As in the 104th and 105th Congress, I am proud 
to say that I am once again a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 33.
  Madam Speaker, support for prohibiting the desecration of our flag is 
apparent not just from my constituents in the 18th District of 
Pennsylvania, but from 279 of my colleagues that have cosponsored this 
resolution. Our flag represents the very essence of what it means to be 
an American. By honoring and respecting our flag, we, in turn, honor 
and respect those who gave their lives and lost loved ones in the fight 
to protect this important symbol of America.
  Under our great flag, many different cultures, beliefs, and 
ethnicities can find common ground and come together as one. It is this 
unit and freedom that is represented by our flag and forms the 
cornerstone of America. Throughout our history, the United States has 
called upon her husbands and wives, sons and daughters to travel to 
foreign lands and defend freedom and liberty at all costs. We owe it to 
them to ensure the American flag, the very symbol they fought and died 
to protect, is respected and cherished by all.
  Prohibiting the desecration of the flag does not deny any individuals 
any freedoms or beliefs, but it does serve to strengthen our commitment 
to these very ideals. We should join together in this effort to 
preserve the symbol of our national unit.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the sacrifices of all 
of our Nation's citizens; support the very beliefs that our great 
country was founded upon, and support our great American flag.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this constitutional 
amendment. Not all physical actions constitute free speech, and I am 
hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration is not free speech to 
be protected under the first amendment.
  I believe that the States and Federal Government do have the power to 
protect the flag against acts of desecration and disgrace, wrote former 
Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and present 
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological spectrum, 
including Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, 
Sandra Day O'Connor, and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
  These eminent men and women have not taken a merely political stance 
based upon shallow assumptions. Rather, they rely upon well-established 
principles. ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society'' 
wrote 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.''
  The flaw with the opposition's entire line of reasoning is their 
concept of

[[Page H4798]]

free speech. It is not and never has been the right to do anything you 
want to do any time you want to do it. Rather, it is a precious liberty 
founded in law; a freedom preserved by respect for the rights of 
others.
  To say that society is not entitled to establish rules of behavior 
governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of 
civilization, or to believe that civilization can survive without 
regard to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in 
front of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the 
line for their country is a despicable act not deserving of protection.
  It is well established that certain types of speech may be prevented 
under certain circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, 
libelous, insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the 
limits may be even broader. That is where I will vote to put flag 
desecration, where 48 State legislatures thought it was when they 
passed laws prohibiting it.
  This amendment does not in any way alter the first amendment. It 
simply corrects a misguided 5-to-4 court interpretation of that 
amendment. As Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his 
dissent, ``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the 
burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which 
organized governments are instituted. The 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.''
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to play a part in trying to right that 
wrong.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.  Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 
33.
  Madam Speaker, the American flag is a symbol of our nation's freedom 
and liberty. Today we have an opportunity to protect that sacred symbol 
by approving House Joint Resolution 33, a Constitutional Amendment 
authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
of the United States.
  Our children learn the story of Francis Scott Key waiting throughout 
the night of September 13, 1813 in hopes that the British had not 
broken through the American defenses in Baltimore Harbor. At the break 
of dawn, Key's fears were quieted as he awoke to find that the flag, 
battered with holes ripped by cannon fire, was still flying proudly 
over Fort McHenry. Since the early part of this century, millions of 
visitors have flocked to the Smithsonian to view this huge flag and 
continue to do so today, nearly two hundred years after that fateful 
night in Baltimore. This national symbol is so important that it is now 
being carefully restored so that future generations of Americans can 
reflect on our distinct and glorious heritage.
  American service members have proudly marched, sailed, or flown under 
the flag in every conflict from the Mexican War to the recent Kosovo 
campaign. Just this past April, an American pilot was shot down deep in 
Serb territory while flying a mission during the war in Kosovo. 
Clutching a small American flag that he had kept tucked away in his 
flight suit, the pilot said it was the Stars and Stripes that gave him 
the hope, strength, and endurance that was required to withstand such 
an ordeal. For the benefit of my colleagues who may not have seen this 
story, I will include this story in the Congressional Record following 
my remarks.
  The American Flag is a symbol of courage and bravery. We all recall 
the famous scene of our Marines in World War II raising Old Glory high 
above the blood stained beaches of Iwo Jima, signifying that America 
had just won one of this century's fiercest battles. Today, a sea of 
small flags quietly stands guard over the graves of these fallen heroes 
across our nation's cemeteries. These men and women fought and died to 
protect our nation and the sanctity of our flag, and that is precisely 
why we must approve this legislation today. We must pay tribute to this 
strength and pride of America and her people by honoring Old Glory.
  Madam Speaker, the flag stands for much more than the 50 states and 
13 original colonies. It stands for freedom, liberty, and democracy, 
ideals attributed to our great country by peoples from around the 
globe. The great naval hero John Paul Jones once wrote, ``The Flag and 
I are twins . . . So long as we can float, we shall float together. If 
we must sink, we shall go down as one.'' Madam Speaker, today we must 
heed the words of John Paul Jones. May the flag always fly freely and 
proudly over our land, and may we revere and cherish it forever.

             [From the St. Petersburg Times, April 7, 1999]

         U.S. Flag Gave Downed Pilot Hope While Awaiting Rescue

       Washington--Crouched in a shallow culvert deep in Serb 
     territory, one of the worst moments for the F-117A stealth 
     fighter pilot downed over Yugoslavia came when barking search 
     dogs drew within 30 feet of his hiding place.
       The U.S. pilot reached for a folded American flag that he 
     had tucked inside his flight suit next to his skin and said a 
     silent prayer.
       ``It helped me not let go of hope,'' the pilot said in an 
     interview released Tuesday by the Air Force News, ``Hope 
     gives you strength.
       . . . It gives you endurance,''
       The dogs moved on, and after he spent six hours watching 
     passing headlights on a nearby road, helicopters from the Air 
     Force's 16th Special Operations Group picked him up, backed 
     by support planes that swooped in for the rescue.
       The Pentagon is withholding the pilot's name and details 
     surrounding the crash of his F-117A and his rescue, although 
     senior defense officials say a Serb missile probably shot the 
     plane down March 27. It was the first F-117A to go down in 
     combat.
       The plane went down near Budjenovci, 35 miles northwest of 
     the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, and the pilot bailed out as 
     ``enormous'' G-forces worked against him.
       ``I remember having to fight to get my hands to go down 
     toward the (ejection seat) handgrips,'' he said. ``I always 
     strap in very tightly, but because of the Intense G-forces, I 
     was hanging in the straps and had to stretch to reach the 
     handles.''
       He can't remember reaching the handle. ``God took my hands 
     and pulled,'' he said.
       Although slightly disoriented, the pilot began radio 
     contact with NATO forces as he parachuted toward a freshly 
     plowed field 50 years from a road and rail intersection.
       ``I knew I was fairly deep into Serbian territory,'' he 
     said, but he remembered his training. ``It didn't panic me. I 
     just got very busy doing what I needed to do.''
       After he hit the ground, the pilot buried a life raft and 
     other survival equipment and spent the next six hours in a 
     ``hold-up site''--a shallow culvert 200 yards from his 
     landing site. He made only infrequent radio contact with NATO 
     rescuers in order to avoid detection by Serb forces who might 
     be listening and racing to capture him.
       ``For the downed guy,'' he said, ``it's very unsettling to 
     not know what's going on. You're thinking, `Do they know I'm 
     here? Do they know my locations? Where are the assets and who 
     is involved: What's the plan? Are they going to try to do 
     this tonight?' It's the unknowns that are unsettling.''
       Passing cars and trucks might have been Serb military or 
     police, but the pilot said he couldn't confirm they were 
     looking for him, although search dogs came close.
       ``There was some activity at that intersection,'' he said. 
     ``Thank God no one actually saw me come down.''
       The pilot said he concentrated on staying low and on the 
     American flag, which a fellow airman gave him as he strapped 
     in for his mission at an air base in Aviano, Italy.
       ``Her giving that flag to me was saying, `I'm giving this 
     to you to give back to me when you get home,' '' the pilot 
     said. ``For me, it was representative of all the people who I 
     knew were praying. It was a piece of everyone and very 
     comforting.''
       The airman who gave the pilot the U.S. flag was among the 
     first to greet him when he returned to Aviano and he opened 
     his flight suit to show her he still had it, the Air Force 
     News reported. The airman's name also was withheld by the 
     Pentagon.
       So far, the pilot hasn't rejoined the NATO airstrikes, 
     although he has asked his commanders to put him back into 
     combat. ``All I asked was that I be able to stay here for as 
     long as possible before heading back'' to the United States, 
     he said.
       The distinctive arrowhead-shaped F-117A, which has a 43-
     foot wingspan, is armed with laser-guided bombs and equipped 
     with sophisticated navigation and attack systems. Stealth 
     technology uses curved or angular surfaces to reduce radar 
     reflections.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding me this time. I thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  One of the good things that has occurred in this debate is the 
recognition that no one's patriotism is diminished, and we would hope 
that that is a clear and salient point as we debate this constitutional 
issue.
  Before I came to the floor, I thought for a moment where my 
patriotism

[[Page H4799]]

might have developed. Where did I first refine and understand what a 
glory it is to live and love and be free under the flag of the United 
States of America. I was reminded of going to school, and I am always 
encouraging my youngsters to make sure they pledge allegiance to the 
flag every day, as we do.
  I would hope in every school our children are taught to pledge 
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. It is symbolic 
of all of who we are, and it is symbolic of the fact that we stand as a 
people in this Nation, united, because of the freedom that is offered 
through those who have died, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who 
structured this fragile Nation on the premise of a democratic unit and 
on the premise of a Bill of Rights. Not an afterthought, but rather, 
something that was separate and set aside to reinforce the fact that we 
have freedom of expression.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, be reminded that we have 
lasted these 400 plus years not because we keep people from expressing 
themselves, but we have managed not to have coups and revolutions and 
deposing of leaders in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, because 
people believe they can petition the government. I go to my American 
Legion halls. I am supporting my good friend, Mr. Lee, who is going to 
put up a monument to World War II veterans in my district. We believe 
in exercising pride in our country.
  But this amendment says something different, and I am not sure if it 
is because Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in Dallas, Texas, and I am 
from Houston, against protesting the Reagan administration policies. 
But the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals indicated that the Texas 
law was wrong because freedom of expression is one that is guaranteed 
by the first amendment, and the intent of the burning of a flag is not 
to create a fire, but it is to inflame passions because I am so 
vigorously against policies of the government or otherwise.
  So I thought for a moment, what made me a patriot. Does this 
amendment, my vote for or against it, make me stand taller than my 
neighbor? And I disagreed with myself; it does not. My vote against it 
does not diminish my patriotism, because I stand with the likes of 
Senator John Glenn, a hero who just these past months made us to proud 
of his recent trip into space, and he acknowledged the fact that those 
who served in the Armed Forces risked their lives, believed it was our 
duty to defend our Nation, Senator Glenn said. I can tell my colleagues 
that in combat, I did not start thinking with the philosophy of our 
Nation, I put my life on the line. I fight for the flag because it 
symbolizes freedom.
  Let us fight for the freedom of expression and not vote for this 
amendment; vote it down.
  Madam Speaker, I stand to oppose this amendment to the Constitution 
to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States. This 
effort to amend the Constitution is an exercise in misjudgment and a 
waste of precious time. This is not the first time we have visited this 
issue, and I renew my opposition.
  In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned 
an American flag as means of protest against Reagan administration 
policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing 
flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a 
$2,000 fine.
  After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, 
the case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court 
held that Johnson's burning the flag was protected expression under the 
First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's action fell into the 
category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political 
nature.
  The Court found that fact that an audience takes offense to certain 
ideas or expression does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court 
also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate 
symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages noting 
that ``[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First 
Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of 
an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or 
disagreeable.''
  The flag is a symbol of freedom. The red bars are tributes to the 
blood shed by the colonists who revolted against tyrannical oppression, 
including censorship and the inability to protest government policies. 
The proposed amendment slaps the faces of those marvelous patriots and 
decries the very freedoms for which the flag flies.
  The intent of burning the flag is not to start a fire, but to inflame 
passions. That simple fact is why it is a form of expression protected 
by the First Amendment to our Constitution. And that is why it would be 
a contradiction of the Constitution itself to make this particular form 
of free speech a crime.
  For those who say our brave men and women did not die in all the wars 
the past 200 years to end up have people free to burn our country's 
flag with impunity, I say those patriots died to uphold the notion of 
freedom, including freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
  In 1990, Congress considered and rejected H.J. Res 350--a similar 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Again in 1995 Congress considered 
the same amendment, (H.J. Res. 79), but did not get the necessary two 
third majority vote of the Senate.
  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, because it would open 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 would be used to determine 
when the flag is no longer fit for display and can thus be burned 
without penalty?
  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 ten (10) flag burning incidents have been reported per year.
  After all, the importance of our flag is not in its cloth, it is in 
what it symbolizes. The important thing about symbols is that they 
don't burn. No matter how much cloth goes up in flame, no matter how 
much hatred is hurled at it, our flag is still there.
  American patriotism cannot be legislated, because the right to 
criticize the government is at the very heart of what it means to be an 
American. It was dissent that brought this country into being, and 
dissent has helped make us what we are today.
  Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on H.J. Res. 33.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for 
bringing this to the floor of the House.
  To put this issue in context, I was at Fort Bragg this Monday morning 
for the retirement ceremony for Sergeant Major David Henderson. To see 
over 500 of our finest young men and women of the 82nd Airborne 
assembled behind our colors, just put this whole issue in the proper 
perspective for me.
  I support the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham). Our Nation's history is replete with tales of courageous 
Americans who have ventured to foreign lands to defend the principles 
represented by the Stars and Stripes. These young patriots fought for 
our freedom and democracy, not because they were forced, but because 
they knew in their hearts that their cause was righteous, that making 
the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, liberty, and justice was worth the 
risk. We today, as a Congress, also have the opportunity to do in our 
hearts what we know is right.
  The American flag is a symbol of more than nationhood. It is a symbol 
of the land we love, the home of the free and the brave. It is known 
around the world as a symbol for democracy and the noble ideals that 
characterize our democratic republic: Rights, responsibility, equal 
opportunity, and freedom. I, along with the vast majority of Americans, 
believe that Congress can afford our flag protections consistent with 
the first amendment. It is my duty, it is our duty to defend our flag 
from desecration and to protect

[[Page H4800]]

the honor of generations of courageous Americans who have fought and 
died for the freedoms that all Americans enjoy today.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. Let us remind our colleagues what we are voting on a joint 
resolution 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 .
  Madam Speaker, last night I was at a documentary over at the National 
Air and Space Museum; perhaps many other Members also went. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) was there, and I believe Pete 
Peterson, a former member, was there. The documentary was a film that 
took oral history from the prisoners of war who were in Vietnam, 
particularly Hanoi Hilton, and they took these oral histories that were 
given to the Air Force Academy and made them into the film, and it 
traced the background of the cadets, their training, these young cadets 
in the academies to their capture by the North Vietnamese where they 
were finally put into prison and they were tortured.
  The whole depiction in this film would bring home the point that they 
had a sense of honor, and all of them together decided they would not 
go home unless the person who was most hurt went home first, and they 
would not go home unless ultimately, all of them went home at the same 
time, and they decided that when they returned to America, they would 
return with honor, and nothing less, nothing more.
  So they were there under very difficult situations, being tortured, 
and at this point in their lives they had no hope perhaps of even 
coming home, and many of them died.

                              {time}  1730

  But the most poignant part of the whole film is when they were told 
they were going to be released. They put on their uniforms that the 
North Vietnamese gave them and they went out to the tarmac. Down came 
this large plane, a C-130, and it had a big American flag. As soon as 
they saw that American flag, the tears were in their eyes.
  Once they got on board the aircraft they were all given a uniform, 
the uniform of their rank. And they looked at the buttons and they saw 
the symbol of the United States. Again, they broke down and that forced 
all of them to cry.
  What I am saying to my colleagues today, would Members want to allow 
these prisoners of war to come home and to see our citizens desecrating 
the flag in front of these very noble individuals who spent their 
entire lives behind a door with no knob? In fact, near the end one of 
the prisoners said that to him, he feels so much gratefulness and 
thanksgiving now that he is back in the United States, and every 
morning when he gets up and he realizes the doorknob is on his side, 
that is another day of freedom.
  I urge support for this House Joint Resolution 33.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida, for yielding time to me and allowing me to 
speak on behalf of House Joint Resolution 33.
  I am a strong supporter of everyone's First Amendment rights to the 
freedom of speech and expression, and I feel a hallowed symbol like our 
flag deserves to be respected and protected as a national treasure.
  We do have limits. Court-made law restricts our freedom of speech, as 
limited by the example in lots of law school classes of not screaming 
fire in a crowded theater. That is court-made law that restricts my 
freedom of speech. What we are trying to do today with this amendment 
is by legislation to say there is something on the same level of 
yelling fire in a crowded theater unjustly. One of them is desecrating 
or burning the symbol of our country.
  Those who desecrate our flag undermine the powerful symbol that 
thousands of Americans have died trying to defend, as my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida, just talked about.
  Our flag represents the principles our Nation was founded upon. I 
feel it should be afforded the maximum protection we can under 
legislative-made law, just like court-made law has protected people 
from being unjustly stomped by leaving a crowded theater when someone 
says, but wait a minute, I have a right to yell in a crowded theater. 
That is my freedom of speech. They do not have that, just like we need 
to protect our flag using the same idea, but this is legislative-made 
protections.
  For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 33, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important resolution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) for his leadership in the subcommittee and in this debate, and 
the spirit in which he has approached this issue. This is an issue 
which stirs emotions on both sides, but I believe today we have 
conducted a debate which for the most part focuses on the substance of 
what is at stake here.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his 
leadership in the past on this issue. I believe that he conducted the 
debate with the same spirit when he was the ranking member during the 
last session of the Congress. I appreciate that as well.
  I think it is important that we acknowledge someone who is not here 
today. That is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, who has 
provided leadership in bringing forward this amendment during the last 
two Congresses. He brought a real passion to this issue which I think 
resulted in the success that we saw in the last two Congresses.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge the great leadership that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has provided. He has picked 
up the banner from the, no pun intended, from the former chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, and has provided outstanding leadership for 
this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, this proposed amendment, if enacted by Congress and 
ratified, would reduce our rights of freedom of speech and expression 
embodied in the Bill of Rights for the first time in over 200 years. 
Those freedoms have made this country the envy of the world, and those 
freedoms have protected us from the kinds of upheavals over religious 
and political expressions that plague other countries even today.
  But freedom is not a popularity contest. If that were the case, we 
would not need a Bill of Rights. Popular expression does not need 
protection. In fact, the First Amendment only comes into play when 
there is a need to protect unpopular religious or political expression.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider the consequences before they 
start chipping away at the First Amendment. Some refer to this 
amendment as the anti-flag-burning amendment, but this amendment will 
not prohibit flag-burning. The truth is that even if this amendment is 
adopted, flag-burning will still be considered the proper way to honor 
the flag at ceremonies in order to properly dispose of a worn-out flag.
  So this amendment has nothing to do with the act of burning the flag. 
It is the expression, the speech, which is the target of this 
amendment. Proponents of this amendment seek to prohibit activities and 
expressions with the flag when they disagree with those expressions. 
That is why the term ``desecration'' is used, not ``burning.'' 
``Desecration'' has religious connotations.
  In other words, this amendment would give government officials the 
power to decide that one can burn the flag if he is saying something 
reverent in a ceremony, but he is a criminal if he burns the flag while 
saying something disrespectful at a protest. This is

[[Page H4801]]

absurd, and in direct contravention with the whole purpose of the First 
Amendment.
  The government has no business deciding which political expressions 
are sufficiently reverent and which expressions are criminal because 
someone important got offended. That is why the practical effect of 
this amendment will be jailing of political protestors and no one else, 
because those who steal flags and destroy them, or those who provoke 
riots by burning a flag, can already be prosecuted under current law.
  We have already seen the dangers of going down the path of patriotic 
legislation when in World War II we had laws compelling schoolchildren 
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 our 
flag stands, and passed laws that forced schoolchildren to salute and 
say a pledge to the flag, even if such acts violated their religious 
beliefs.
  Fortunately for the American people, the Supreme Court put an end to 
that coercion with the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of 
Education versus Barnett. Obviously the majority in Barnett, Justice 
Jackson wrote, ``If there is any fixed star in our constitutional 
constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe 
what is orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters 
of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith 
therein.''
  Madam Speaker, unfortunately today we are poised and anxious to 
prescribe what is orthodox in politics and nationalism, even when there 
is no disagreement on this subject matter, and even when there is no 
evidence that flags are being burned in protest in any number 
sufficient to provoke an amendment to our Bill of Rights.
  In fact, history reflects that the only time flag-burning occurs with 
any frequency is when these constitutional amendments are being 
considered.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the proscription required under this 
amendment is undefined. The text of the resolution states that 
``Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the flag of the United States.''
  This is the same language presented in the last Congress, and even 
after several hearings on the subject in the House and Senate, we have 
no idea of what will constitute desecration or what will constitute a 
flag.
  At a hearing during the last Congress, at least one witness 
supporting the amendment agreed that the use of the flag in advertising 
could be considered desecration. How many car dealers or political 
candidates using flags in advertisements will be considered criminals, 
or will it depend on their political views?
  Even wearing a flag tie could be an offense punishable by jail under 
this amendment, because the Federal flag code now considers the flag 
worn as apparel as a violation. When is a flag a flag? Is a picture of 
a flag a flag? Is it a flag when the wrong numbers of Stars and Stripes 
are there before the flag is destroyed?
  With so many unanswered questions and unintended consequences, I 
would hope that we would take a closer look at this amendment before we 
consider passing it. Otherwise, any criminal statute enacted under this 
amendment will be inherently vague and unworkable.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would urge that this body 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.''
  Madam Speaker, let us not betray the freedom our flag represents. I 
would urge everyone to stand up for the high ideals that the flag 
represents by opposing this attack on our Bill of Rights.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the prime sponsor of 
this amendment, for the purpose of closing the general debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank not only the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for his candor, but my colleagues 
on the other side as well for the way they have conducted themselves on 
this particular issue. I feel they are wrong, and that is why I am 
offering the amendment.
  Mr. Pete Peterson was a good friend of mine. The gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked me to go to Vietnam and raise the American 
flag for the first time over Ho Chi Minh City. We used to call it 
Saigon. I refused the gentleman from Kentucky. It was too hard. Pete 
called me personally and said, Duke, I was a prisoner for 6\1/2\ years. 
I need you to help me raise this flag over Vietnam.
  Both of us cried because of what it means, not only to us but to the 
people that we buried, the people that we fought with, and to the 
people that believe from the deepest part of their heart that this 
symbol should be protected.
  This is not a matter of freedom of speech. There is free speech. 
There is nothing in this amendment that prevents someone from speaking 
or writing or doing any of the other things, but just the radical 
burning of the symbol that we hold dear. It is despicable.
  I had plane captains cry when their pilots did not come back 
overseas. My plane captain, Willy White, grabbed me by the arm one day 
and said, Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our MIG 
today, didn't we, because of his involvement in that team concept.
  And we talk quite often about what we do, whether it is Kosovo, or 
what message we give to our men and women under arms. Can Members 
imagine what message we would send to our men and women if this goes 
down, the symbol that they fight for? It is more to them than just an 
inanimate object. It is very, very important.
  The gentleman knows that there is not a political motive in my body 
on this particular issue. It is something I believe deeply, from the 
bottom of my heart, and feel emotionally about. We have over 282 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle on this. We expect to have well 
over 300 votes on this and pass it in the Senate. It is because the 
American people also feel this.
  My colleagues talk about the Supreme Court and their decisions. Look 
at history. Over 200 years of Supreme Courts have held that 48 States 
could rule that desecration of a flag is wrong, and have penalties. 
Only one Supreme Court in the history of the United States in 1989, by 
a narrow vote of one vote, changed 200 years of history.
  The American people are saying that is wrong; that we believe that 
this flag, this dimension, the support of unity for all the things that 
both sides of the aisle fight for, is very important.

                              {time}  1745

  I would ask, I would beg my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at a 
deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our 
country--the burning of the United States flag. Behind the Speaker 
hangs our flag. It is the most beautiful of all 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 proudly served it in war and peace.
  However, today I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 33, the flag 
amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend our 
Bill of Rights.
  Madam 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 in this great republic.
  The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is 
different from a citizen of any other nation in the world. And it is

[[Page H4802]]

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 our liberties as 
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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support our 
American Flag and as an original cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 33 
which will protect our most cherished national symbol.
  The American Flag is probably the most recognizable symbol in the 
world. Wherever it stands, it represents freedom. Millions of Americans 
who served our nation in war have carried that flag into battle. They 
have been killed or injured just for wearing it on their uniform 
because it represents the most feared power known to tyranny and that 
is liberty. Where there is liberty there is hope. And hope extinguishes 
the darkness of hatred, fear and oppression.
  America is not a perfect nation, but to the world our flag represents 
that which is right and to Americans it represents what Chief Justice 
Charles Evans Hughes referred to as our ``national unity, our national 
endeavor, our national aspiration.'' It is a remembrance of past 
struggles in which we have persevered to remain as one nation under 
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Those who would 
desecrate our flag and all it represents have no respect for the brave 
men and women for whom the ideals and honor of this nation were dearer 
than life.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will not make individuals who desecrate our 
flag love our nation and those who sacrificed to secure the freedoms we 
have today. But it will give Americans a unified voice in decrying 
these reprehensible acts.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of H.J. Res. 33, the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment.
  Our nation's flag is a sacred symbol of our country's liberty that so 
many men and women in uniform have fought and died to defend. As the 
symbol of that liberty, the flag deserves, better yet, demands our 
greatest respect. Additionally, the flag of the United States of 
America is a symbol of the perseverance of American values. It is 
greatly disturbing that it is sometimes burned or otherwise desecrated 
as an act of protest. It is disgraceful that some individuals would 
desecrate the flag that our nation's veterans have fought so valiantly 
to defend. It is also disheartening that we would even have to debate 
this issue on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, as we draw near to the new millennium, it is important 
that we finally enact protections for our flag. I believe that this 
Congress is committed to doing everything we can to ensure the flag 
that signifies the very liberties and responsibilities that we hold 
dear.
  Mr. RILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment. Our flag represents the best qualities America has to 
offer--freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance. 
Furthermore, it serves as a symbol of the blood, sweat, hard work and 
sacrifices many before us have made. We owe so much of what we have and 
who we are to those who have fought to protect our country.
  It disturbs me every time I hear of attacks on our Nation's symbol of 
freedom. An attack on the flag is an attack on our heritage and 
everything our ancestors fought for. Thousands of people have lost 
their lives protecting our flag and the liberties we enjoy today.
  Madam Speaker, we should not tolerate flag desecration and I urge 
your support of this very important amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to House Joint Resolution 33. I firmly believe that passing 
this bill would abandon the very values and principles upon which this 
country was founded.
  Make no mistake, I deplore the desecration of the flag. The flag is a 
symbol of our country and a reminder of our great heritage; and I find 
it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that which we 
hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag and the 
country for which it stands that, unfortunately, I have no choice but 
to oppose this well-intentioned yet misguided legislation.
  Our country was founded on certain principles. Chief among these 
principles are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were 
included in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took 
deliberate steps to avoid creating a country in which individuals' 
civil liberties could be abridged by the government. Yet that is 
exactly what this amendment would do. It begins a dangerous trend in 
which the government can decide which ideas are legal and which must be 
suppressed.
  I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of 
expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are 
unpopular, such as flag desecration. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver 
Wendell Holmes wrote in 1929, it is an imperative principle of our 
Constitution that it protects not just freedom for thought and 
expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the thoughts we hate.''
  Ultimately, we must remember that it is not the flag we honor, but 
rather, the principles it embodies. To restrict peoples' means of 
expression would do nothing but abandon those principles--and to 
destroy these principles would be a far greater travesty than to 
destroy its symbol. Indeed, it would render the symbol meaningless.
  As I said, I admire the well-intentioned thoughts of those who 
support the flag desecration amendment, however, I believe their 
efforts are misdirected. It is essential that we maintain our country's 
ideals including those which allow for differences of opinion, at 
whatever the cost; and I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
bill that violates the ideals and principles of our country.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in 
strong support for H.J. Res. 33, the Flag Desecration Constitutional 
Amendment.
  Our flag was adopted as a sign of independence and as a national 
identity by the 13 original colonies. And though our country has 
changed significantly since that time, the flag still represents the 
same ideals.
  It symbolizes freedom, equal opportunity, religious tolerance and 
goodwill for people of the world. It has represented our nation in 
peace, as well as in war; and it symbolizes our nation's presence 
around the world.
  When I walk down the halls of our congressional office buildings, it 
strikes me that the flag hangs everywhere. No matter what our 
differences--and there are many--most members of Congress have a flag 
outside their office door. The flag unifies us in the way no other 
symbol does. It expresses our love for our country and tradition. It 
represents democracy, and it expresses our respect for those who died 
defending values that we, as Americans, hold dear.
  Because of our deep reverence for the American flag, there are those 
who make extreme statements against the government and its policies by 
desecrating the flag. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled this 
disrespectful act is protected by the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.
  Now, I have the utmost love and respect for our First Amendment 
rights--our freedom of speech is the most important right we have. But 
we can't allow the U.S. flag to be desecrated as a form of political 
expression. These acts are not protected speech, they are violent and 
destructive conduct that should insult every American.
  The flag isn't just another piece of cloth. Allowing protesters to 
desecrate the flag is a slap in the face to brave men and women who 
laid down their lives in the name of U.S. flag and for all it stands.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam 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 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 of the Bill of Rights, 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. However, the sponsors of

[[Page H4803]]

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 of 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 as I have 
said before, it is hardly an act the 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 our values.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue was addressed in a very eloquent and 
impassioned letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun-Times written by 
one of my constituents, David Haas of Grayslake, IL, a teacher at 
Waukegan High School. I believe that every member of this House should 
read Mr. Haas's words before casting their vote on this measure, and I 
include it for the Record.

              [From the Chicago Sun-Times, June 23, 1999]

               Freedom Up in Flames With Flag Burning Law

                            (By David Haas)

       When I fought in the Vietnam War, I never dreamed that I 
     would have to fight to defend the Bill of Rights when I got 
     home. But that is what I must do now because Congress is just 
     a few votes shy of amending the Constitution to outlaw the 
     desecration of the American flag.
       As a proud veteran, I strongly oppose this amendment, and 
     it grieves me that I must caution our senators and 
     representatives not to tamper with a basic freedom spelled 
     out in the Bill of Rights.
       To prohibit the symbolic act of flag burning would be an 
     unnecessary abridgement of that freedom, an unwitting mockery 
     of our most essential principles. We must not amend our Bill 
     of Rights for the first time in our nation's history in an 
     attempt to force patriotism on those who disagree with us.
       I served my country for more than 21 years, both on active 
     duty and as a naval reservist. I continue to serve my country 
     as a teacher at Waukegan High School. My continual message to 
     my students is that they must never give up on freedom; that 
     their collective voices can make a difference, and will be 
     heard and listened to, if only they will speak; and that even 
     though they may be immigrants, minorities or poor, the Bill 
     of Rights applies to them as much as to me.
       My quiet patriotism comes from deep within, and always has 
     taken the form of action, not displays, and I do not believe 
     that displays of patriotism should be forced upon others. 
     Such force never can lead to heartfelt, active patriotism, 
     but only to weak and dishonest conformity. Is this what we 
     want? It is where we are headed with this proposed amendment.
       Like most Americans, I am deeply offended to see someone 
     burn or trample the Stars and Stripes. I love my country, and 
     proudly salute the flag. But I did not serve my country to 
     protect a symbol of freedom. I served to protect our 
     freedoms.
       This constitutional amendment would do us all a grave and 
     irreparable injustice by chipping away at the right of free 
     speech. Those who support the amendment intend to protect the 
     flag, but they would do so at too great a cost: the loss of 
     our right to dissent, something the Supreme Court 
     consistently has reaffirmed through the years.
       This amendment is a clear case of good intentions gone 
     awry. If the flag were to become sacred, who would monitor 
     its use? A flag commission? The flag police? And what would 
     the act of desecration entail--putting flag in paintings or 
     clothes, or flying the flag upside down?
       The flag is not a sacred object. To regard it as such would 
     be an affront to all religious people. Ultimately, we must be 
     able to realize that when a flag goes up in smoke, only cloth 
     is burned. The freedom that flag symbolizes can only glow 
     brighter from such an event. Our principles will continue to 
     thrive in the heart.

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
to protect the American flag.
  This resolution does nothing to infringe upon the First Amendment's 
protection of free speech.
  Speech is supposed to communicate something.
  When a protester burns a flag in public, he knows he's doing it to 
insult and provoke, not to communicate.
  Citizens of this great Nation enjoy more rights than any other on 
Earth.
  But no right is absolute.
  Every society has an obligation to set standards of conduct.
  I support this resolution because it allows standards to be put in 
place while protecting our rights as individual Americans.
  It merely grants Congress the ability to protect our Nation's most 
cherished symbol--the American flag.
  The gentleman from Illinois is once again bringing legislation to the 
House floor based upon conviction and heartfelt sincerity.
  Many American patriots have suffered and died to protect the flag.
  As a fellow combat veteran of World War II, I commend his efforts and 
urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Every society, especially one changing as rapidly as ours, has to 
have some common bond, some symbol of unity. There's something about 
the human heart that demands such symbols for its affections.
  For Americans, that symbol has always been ``Old Glory,'' perhaps the 
most recognizable national flag in the world. I don't think any other 
flag, or object of any kind, triggers such immediate associations as 
the Stars and Stripes. No other nation, to my knowledge honors its flag 
with a holiday as we do on Flag Day, June 14.
  No mere abstraction like ``freedom'' or ``rights'' or ``pursuit of 
happiness'' can possibly have the same effect. People need something 
they can see or touch or feel. They need something real. The U.S. flag 
has been a heartfelt reality since it received its first salute when 
Captain John Paul Jones sailed into a French harbor.
  The same emotion that inspired Francis Scott Key one war later to 
compose the national anthem has inspired generations of Americans. The 
sight of the U.S. flag has inspired tears of joy from Rome to Paris to 
Manila to Kuwait City, and every other city American troops have 
liberated.
  From that day to this, our history and public life have been filled 
with sincere love for the flag. Many Americans are still moved when 
they see the old '40's film ``Yankee Doodle Dandy,'' and James Cagney's 
performance as George M. Cohan singing ``It's a Grand Old Flag.'' But 
one of the most valid images of that decade's central event--World War 
II--is the raising of the American flag on Mt. Suribachi by U.S. 
Marines.
  Astronaut Neil Armstrong thrilled a nation when he planted the flag 
on the moon in 1969. Eleven years later in Lake Placid, New York, a 
proud goalie wrapped himself in the flag after the U.S. hockey team 
upset the once invincible Russians at the Winter Olympics.
  A few years ago, the Phoenix Art Museum exhibited ``Old Glory: the 
American Flag in Contemporary Art,'' a display veterans and most 
Americans found offensive. One of these ``works of art'' was the 
American flag used as a doormat. This was to much for 11-year-old 
Fabian Montoya, who picked the doormat up and handed it too his father.
  ``I don't want anyone stepping on it,'' he said.
  But my favorite is the story of Mike Christian, a naval aviator held 
captive in the ``Hanoi Hilton'' during the Vietnam War. It's a story 
told best by Leo K. Thorsness, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner 
whose condensed speech was published a year ago in John McCaslin's 
``Inside the Beltway'' column in the Washington Times. It's worth 
quoting in full.

       You've probably seen the bumper sticker somewhere along the 
     road. It depicts an American flag, accompanied by the words 
     ``These colors don't run.'' I'm always glad to see this 
     because it reminds me of an incident from my confinement in 
     North Vietnam at the Hoa Lo POW Camp, or the ``Hanoi 
     Hilton,'' as it became known.
       Then a major in the U.S. Air Force, I had been captured and 
     imprisoned from 1967 to 1973. Our treatment was frequently 
     brutal. After three years, however, the beatings and torture 
     became less frequent. During the last year, we were allowed 
     outside most days for a couple of minutes to bathe. We 
     showered by drawing water from a concrete tank with a 
     homemade bucket.
       One day, as we all stood by the tank, stripped of our 
     clothes, a young naval pilot named Mike Christian found the 
     remnants of a handkerchief in a gutter that ran under the 
     prison wall. Mike managed to sneak the grimy rag into our 
     cell and began fashioning it into a flag. Over time, we all 
     loaned him a little soap, and he spent days cleaning the 
     material. We helped by scrounging and stealing bits and 
     pieces of anything he could use.
       At night, under his mosquito net, Mike worked on the flag. 
     He made red and blue from ground-up roof tiles and tiny 
     amounts of ink and painted the colors onto the cloth with 
     watery rice glue. Using thread from his own blanket and a 
     homemade bamboo needle, he sewed on the stars.
       Early in the morning a few days later, when the guards were 
     not alert, he whispered loudly from the back of our cell, 
     ``Hey gang, look here!'' He proudly held up this tattered 
     piece of cloth, waving it, as if in a breeze. If you used 
     your imagination, you could tell it was supposed to be an 
     American flag. When he raised that smudgy fabric, we 
     automatically stood straight and saluted, our chests

[[Page H4804]]

     puffing out, and more than a few eyes had tears.
       About once a week the guards would strip us, run us outside 
     and go through our clothing. During one of those shakedowns, 
     they found Mike's flag. We all knew what would happen. That 
     night they came for him. Night interrogations were always the 
     worst. They opened the cell door and pulled Mike out. We 
     could hear the beginning of the torture before they even had 
     him in the torture cell. The beat him most of the night. 
     About daylight they pushed what was left of him back through 
     the cell door. He was badly broken. Even his voice was gone.
       Within two weeks, despite the danger, Mike scrounged 
     another piece of cloth and began making another flag. The 
     Stars and Stripes, our national symbol, was worth the 
     sacrifice for him. Now, whenever I see the flag, I think of 
     Mike and the morning he first waved that tattered emblem of a 
     nation. It was then, thousands of miles from home in a lonely 
     prison cell, that he showed us what it is to be truly free.

       Such contemporary stories convince me that Americans have 
     not lost their love for the flag, and never will. They 
     convince me that the overwhelming majority of patriotic 
     Americans support our Constitutional amendment to protect the 
     flag, the symbol of our national unity. They convince me that 
     the same majority recognizes flag desecration to be a 
     physical act of contempt, not a protected exercise in free 
     speech. A nation with confidence in its own institutions and 
     values will not hesitate to say, ``this you shall not do.''
       Flag Day is dedicated to heroes and patriots like Fabian 
     Montoya and Mike Christian. Like them, we should recall the 
     things the flag represents. If we continue to do that on Flag 
     Day and every other day, ``Long may she wave'' will never be 
     a mere slogan. It will be a prayer etched in the hearts of 
     every American and every lover of freedom.
       And stitched into the very fabric of the United States 
     Flag.

  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to have joined with Congressman 
Cunningham in leading the effort in the 106th Congressman to pass a 
Constitutional amendment to protect the American Flag from desecration.
  Our Flag is the symbol of our great nation--of who we are and how we 
got here. It is the symbol of hard-won freedom, democracy and 
individual rights. It is the symbol of our patriotism. It is the symbol 
that binds us together in our hearts and inspires us to strive to 
protect and preserve this land, this country and each other. It is an 
enduring symbol that unites generations. It is the embodiment of our 
struggles of the past, our strength in the present and our hopes for 
the future. It is the symbol of freedom.
  Each of us associates a memory with our flag. We solemnly pledge 
allegiance to it as children with our hands on our hearts. It took our 
breath away to watch the astronauts place it on the moon. It flies 
proudly over the doors of our homes, the rooftops of our workplaces, 
and in our parades on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. It has given 
many Veterans the will to persevere in conflicts against oppression 
around the world.
  An American pilot was recently shot down in Yugoslavia and spent time 
hiding in hostile territory to avoid capture. After he was rescued, he 
was asked what he kept his thoughts focused on during hiding. His 
answer: the American Flag.
  The debate over this amendment is a debate about the sanctity of 
America's ideals and of the sacrifices made by countless millions of 
fellow citizens for this country to become and remain free and strong 
and united under one Flag. It is not a debate about free speech. 
Burning and destruction of the flag is not speech. It is an act. 
However, it does inflict insult--insult that strikes at the very core 
of who we are as Americans and why so many of us fought--and many 
died--for this country. And many a lesser insult is not wholly 
protected under the First Amendment--we have laws against libel, 
slander, copyright infringement, and ``fighting words'' which pass 
muster under the First Amendment test.
  We should hold our Flag sacred in our Constitution. It is the symbol 
of what we are, who we are, and all we have been through and fought 
against to get where we are together as a strong, free and united 
nation. I urge my Colleagues to support this Constitutional amendment 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House, further consideration of the 
joint resolution will be postponed until the following legislative day.

                          ____________________