[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4811-H4843]
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. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 255 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page H4812]]
H. Res. 255
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 4)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on
the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his
designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 255 is a modified closed rule that
provides for the consideration of H.J. Resolution 4, legislation
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the
American flag.
This rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 255 waives all points
of order against consideration of the joint resolution.
It makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute, if
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his designee,
which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between
the proponent and an opponent.
Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
With respect to the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 4, I want to
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing
this legislation and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner),
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his persistent
leadership on this important legislation, of which I am proud to be a
cosponsor.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done a fine
job in bringing this legislation to the House floor in the years since
my very good friend and former chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
late Jerry Solomon, originally sponsored this proposal in the 104th
Congress and the 105th Congress.
As it should be, House Joint Resolution 4 is a simple,
straightforward measure. It proposes to add an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution that would simply give the Congress the authority to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, if
it chooses to exercise such power.
{time} 1400
The proposed amendment contains a grand total of 17 words. To the
credit of the House as an institution, we have passed proposed
constitutional amendments of this nature with more than enough
bipartisan support in the 104th Congress, the 105th Congress, the 106th
Congress, and the 107th Congress. In each of those sessions, the U.S.
House approved the proposed constitutional amendments with more than
the two-thirds majority required to approve such modifications to the
Constitution. Unfortunately, as has been the case too many times in
recent years, the other Chamber has failed to approve the legislation
and forward it to the States for consideration by their legislatures.
Indeed, if the Senate could approve this proposed constitutional
amendment, I understand from the Committee on the Judiciary that all 50
States have passed resolutions calling on the Congress to approve an
amendment of this nature.
This is an ample reason to believe that if this amendment were sent
to the States for ratification, more than three-quarters of the States
are poised to ratify this measure, thereby making it a formal part of
our Constitution.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 255 is a modified closed rule
that will give the House an opportunity to work its will on a
substitute put forward by the ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), or his designee. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule so we can move on to the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for
yielding me time.
I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 4. I firmly
believe that passing this constitutional amendment would abandon the
very values and principles upon which the country was founded. Make no
mistake, I deplore the desecration of the flag, and I am absolutely
certain that 440 Members of the House of Representatives deplore the
desecration of the flag.
Those who burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag tread on a
symbol cherished by nearly every one of our citizens in this great
country. While I am appalled at the notion of someone desecrating our
flag, I am more concerned with tampering with the Constitution. The
true test of any nation's commitment to freedom of expression lies in
its ability to protect unpopular expression.
In 1929, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that it
was the most impressive principle of our Constitution that it protects
not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but
freedom for the thought we hate.
The passage of this amendment would provide a dangerous precedent for
future attempts to amend the Constitution, putting the essential
freedoms it upholds at risk. If Congress amends the first amendment,
something that has never happened in our Nation's history, it will open
the door for other exceptions to liberty. Ultimately, we must remember
that it is not simply the flag we honor but rather the principles it
embodies. To restrict people's means of expression would do nothing but
abandon those principles; and to destroy those principles would be a
far greater travesty than to destroy its symbols.
I repeat a portion of that paragraph: to restrict people's 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.
Mr. Speaker, we are too secure as a Nation to risk our commitment to
freedom by endeavoring to legislate patriotism. The flag burning
amendment is one more example of the Republican tendency to play the
patriot card, to distract the people from the consequences of their
policy. And I wish to underscore that because there are no people in
the House of Representatives who are not patriots. And there is no one
here any more patriotic than anyone else. And for that reason alone we
should not be toying with patriotism principles.
There are more important matters that Congress should be attending
to. The way President Bush has shortchanged our veterans, we could deal
with that, who have fought in defense of all that Old Glory signifies,
the way that he has done this is an outrage to all my colleagues and
they should be prepared to fight about it. Why are we spending time
arguing about the physical desecration of the United States flag
instead of voicing anger about the disservices done to what the flag
stands for?
One would like to believe veterans this year would receive more than
a Top Gun flash visit. As a grateful Nation, we should ensure that all
veterans have adequate access to health care and timely benefits. In my
district alone, veterans are being told that they are not going to be
able to get benefits, and we have some new super eight province that we
have established that if their income is at a certain level they will
not qualify. Those are some things that I believe we must seriously
look at.
I also think we must seriously reexamine the President's budget
priorities
[[Page H4813]]
that cause this Congress to provide inadequate funding for those in
uniform so as to allow tax cuts that will mostly advantage some few
wealthy Americans. And since veterans health services have not been
appropriately funded, the Bush administration has proposed to increase
co-payments for prescription drugs and to charge high annual enrollment
fees.
I oppose this proposal, as I am sure many Members on both sides of
the aisle do, which punishes those in need by charging them money they
do not have to pay for services they do need but cannot pay.
Current Secretary of State, the retired four star Army general, Colin
Powell, that so many people tout so often and a few denigrate, voiced
opposition to a similar flag amendment in the year 2000. Here is what
Secretary Powell said at that time: ``The first amendment exists to
ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that
with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find
outrageous. I would not amend,'' Colin Powell says, ``that great shield
of democracy'' that stands right behind the Speaker of this House, ``to
hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after
they have slunk away.''
That sounded so good maybe I ought to repeat it again: ``The first
amendments exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression
applies not just to that which we agree or disagree, but also that
which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of
democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly
long after they have slunk away.''
I thank Secretary Powell.
This is a shallow amendment that addresses a nonissue. This is an
unnecessary amendment that helps no one, but is likely to hurt us all.
This is a dangerous amendment that should not be approved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 4, the desecration of the flag
resolution.
Our Nation's flag is a sacred symbol of our country's liberties that
so many men and women in uniform have fought and died to defend. As the
symbol of that liberty, the flag deserves our greatest respect. To
desecrate the flag raised by soldiers at Iwo Jima, astronauts on the
Moon, and rescue workers at the World Trade Center is an affront to the
very values it represents. Even in the past week, young Americans have
laid down their lives in Iraq to protect the freedom and liberty that
we enjoy here at home.
It is disgraceful that people would desecrate, even burn, the flag
that all of our Nation's veterans have fought so valiantly to defend.
Even as American soldiers prepared for war in Iraq, there were
reports of protesters defacing flags, even flags being displayed in a
memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001. These acts are
disgraceful. They are repugnant, and they should not happen in this
great Nation.
The flag deserves and demands our respect. The physical desecration
of the flag is not free speech nor should it be protected under the
first amendment. The amendment before us will clarify that desecration
of the flag does not fall under the first amendment and will prevent
the courts from making such an assertion.
I urge my colleagues to support the underlying resolution. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee
on the Judiciary with distinction.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very solemn
occasion. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me time; and I also thank him for his detailed
explanation of the needs of this House, the needs of the people of
America.
Mr. Speaker, I know that he rarely mentions the fact that he has had
the occasion to ably serve as a Federal judge, interpreting the
Constitution on a very regular basis. I thought since we were
discussing the privacy of this Nation, a freedom, that it would be
important to do something that many Americans do not do. And I would
encourage you to not only read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
but I would encourage you and the children of this Nation to carry the
Constitution with you.
Might I share with you the words of article I, which expresses the
beliefs of Americans from the early stages of our founding: ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press of the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and to petition the government for redress of grievances.''
I believe that the young men and women throughout the ages, whether
it was the war of 1812 or World War I or II, Korean conflict, Vietnam,
Bosnia, Kosovo or the war in Iraq, young men and women went off
inscribed not with the symbol of a flag but with the understanding of
what the Constitution says. They are not fighting for a symbol, a piece
of cloth. They are fighting for the fact that in America, we rise every
day and are able to speak our minds, go to our respective places of
worship and no one is there to restrain us, handcuff us, or detain us.
How shameful it is that we come now the fourth, fifth, sixth time
since I have been in the United States Congress to suggest to the
American people that our values are woven into the stripes and stars of
this flag. They are woven into our hearts and the words and the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights which you carry with you through
your citizenship rights and privacy.
How tragic it is that we have to stand on the floor today when we
have young Marines dying every day in Iraq, when we have not finished,
if you will, in bringing order to Iraq; when we pass a tax bill that
eliminates close to 25 percent of the American people from being able
to access relief through taxation, people who work every day making
10,000 to $25,000 a year. This Congress, this Congress voted a tax bill
that would eliminate any relief for them, no child tax credit for
families having as many as 12 million children, or representing 12
million children. This is the Congress that wants to come and denigrate
the Constitution, disrespect its interpretation.
What is the interpretation? Freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
And what I would say to you is that my understanding and value and love
for this Nation is not based upon someone's desire to express their
beliefs by any commentary or any action on the flag.
{time} 1415
I have never burned the flag. I have never desired to burn the flag.
I have expressed my opinion by way of the democracy that this flag
guarantees for the freedom of speech.
How tragic it is. Does it mean that when we pass this resolution that
if someone desires to wear a tie, a T-shirt or shorts that has a
reflection or symbol of the flag that they are then in violation of the
law of this land? Does it mean that we again go to the United States
Supreme Court? Time after time, the United States Supreme Court has
rejected any attempt to qualify the expression of speech.
Let me say this. We realize that we cannot cry fire in a crowded
theater, that we would hurt someone, but we realize that burning the
flag or desecrating it in any way does not do that.
Let me tell my colleagues why I am against this rule: Because I
offered an amendment that would simply say, let us protect political
speech, let us make sure that this amendment does not disallow one from
expressing himself politically or his different views with the United
States of America.
What does the Committee on Rules do? Rejects the many amendments that
we offered to bring light as to what the Constitution actually says.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that I am certainly
disappointed that we would use this floor to be able to frivolously
undermine the Constitution. There is a saying that says, ``the measure
of a man,'' and we can go on to talk about the great
[[Page H4814]]
things of that person, the measure of a woman, the integrity and the
honesty, the measure of this Congress should be the good works that we
have done, by the American people.
I would simply argue this is a bad rule, this is a bad resolution
because we are denying the very underpinning that the bill is built on,
that is, the Constitution of the United States.
I yield back this amendment, I yield back this resolution, and I
stand with the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 255 the rule governing
debate on H.J. Res. 4, an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit
physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I oppose the
rule to H.J. Res. 4 because the rule allows inadequate debate on
amendment to an overly broad infringement on the First Amendment Right
to Freedom of Speech. This partisan, modified closed rule,severely
limits amendment and debate on issues that affect every American
citizen--the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.
I proposed an amendment to H.J. Res. 4, that was not made in order.
My amendment to H.J. Res. 4, was designed to protect American's right
to express their opinions and views about government activity. My
amendment stated in pertinent part, ``a person shall not have violated
a prohibition under that section for desecrating the flag, if such
desecration is an expression of disagreement or displeasure with an act
taken or decision made by a local, State, or Federal Government of the
United States.''
Under my amendment Americans would have retained their freedom to
speak out against actions taken by local, State, and Federal
governments through desecrations of the flag symbolizing their views.
Our democratic government is a government of the people. Our citizen's
freedom of expression is at the very heart of our democracy. An attack
on American's freedom of expression is an attack on our entire
democracy. My amendment would have protected our democracy and protects
our citizens.
This rule, on the other hand, is potentially harmful to our democracy
and America's citizens. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are
fundamental components of our democracy. Limiting the ability of
American citizens to voice their opinions about their government,
through flag desecrations or otherwise, is a violation of the
principles of our democracy that are symbolized in the American flag,
including the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
I hope that the Republican leadership sees the irony of their
decision to draft such a restrictive rule. We are debating a resolution
that, if passed, will severely restrict American's ability to speak
openly, freely, and fully, on issue that are of great concern to the
public. Under this rule, my colleagues on this side of the isle are
restricted from speaking openly, freely, and fully, on an issue that
will have a drastic impact on the public, the First Amendment.
This proposed amendment to the Constitution, H.J. Res. 4, is a severe
abridgement of the freedom of expression protected by the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This rule is a severe abridgement
of our ability to debate an issue that may have a profound impact on
one of America's most fundamental rights.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I encourage my colleagues to do
likewise.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, when individuals abuse the time limit, is
there an arrangement by which that time can be applied against their
side's total time left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for proper debate comes out of the
time that has been yielded.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although
unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and
certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the
Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very
unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those
lines.
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment
that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is
unfair. And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida
that everybody here is patriotic and nobody's patriotism should be
challenged.
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to
the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot
possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not
feel less respectful of the military because I have a different
interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I
think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals
with more than just the flag.
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment
to the Constitution is to impose values on people, that is to teach
people patriotism with their definition of what patriotism is. But we
cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a
person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do
not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these
values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are done
voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by the law,
because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the Federal
Government and others will have to enforce these laws.
Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many
cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few
times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners,
who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that
many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a
lot more earlier in previous decades, but in recent years, it averages
out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that
horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and
desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are laws against
that.
This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism.
There are State laws that say they cannot do it and they can be
prosecuted. So this is overkill.
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I
know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in
many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those
who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted,
because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they
do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a
supreme court that would allow more solutions to occur at the State
level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect
protection of liberty by State laws. But let me tell my colleagues,
when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass
amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it
will be just like the Supreme Court--a poor national solution.
It is a ruling for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects
everybody in every State, and that is what I am afraid we are doing
here.
The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I
am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This
amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it
does, it gives the Congress the authority to write laws that will
violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing
but confusion and litigation can result.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend.
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this rule and
against the underlying motion.
As the chairman said in his eloquent opening remarks, our flag is a
grand and glorious symbol of our great Nation, of our fundamental
values of freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity; and it is those
values we must protect.
We are not going to protect these values by tampering with the Bill
of Rights and our Constitution. These have stood the test of time, and
it is impossible to legislate patriotism. We protect these values
through proper education of our children, nurturing their love and
patriotism of our country and nurturing their respect for our
[[Page H4815]]
flag and the men and women who keep our Nation strong.
Yes, through the years our values have always included respect for
our veterans, also. As a child, I heard from my veteran father of the
sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed services to keep our
Nation free during World War II; and we have just witnessed the
willingness of our current generation to put themselves in harm's way
without hesitation when called upon by their President and their Nation
to in Iraq.
So why are we having this debate now? I would appreciate the
attention of my good friend from California. Why are we having this
debate now?
This is a shell game, Mr. Speaker. They want us to look at this shell
that has the flag and they are waving it furiously. They are waving it
furiously, but they do not want us to watch this shell which are
veterans benefits, which they are taking away. They vote first, out of
here, a $25 billion cut in our Nation's veterans, and then it is down
to $15 billion.
Is this the way we honor our flag and honor our veterans? I find it
deeply disturbing that many Members of the House of Representatives
seem to be tenaciously determined, year after year, to pass this
amendment at the very time, at the very time they vote for budgets that
cut services and benefits to our Nation's veterans. This is hypocrisy,
and the veterans who are here to lobby on this bill should understand
the hypocrisy that is going on and the shell game that is happening.
This hypocrisy will not escape these veterans.
True respect for our veterans means that we do not abandon them when
they return to our shores. Do my colleagues know, and I ask the
gentleman from California, 14,000 veterans right now have waited longer
than a year and a half for their action, many more for four or five
years, for adjudication of their claims. There are veterans in San
Diego, I would tell the gentleman, who have died while waiting for
their appeal to be adjudicated.
Two hundred thousand of our veterans right now are waiting longer
than 6 months for their first health care appointment with the VA,
their first health care appointment. This is the way we honor our
veterans? Some of them will die before their first appointment.
We have educational benefits under the GI bill that do not pay for
college education. My father went to college on the GI bill. He bought
a home on the GI bill. I am in Congress because of the GI bill, and
what are we doing now? We are not even given enough for anyone to buy a
home or go to college.
This House has recommended to increase prescription drug copayments
and impose a new enrollment of $250 for many veterans whom we are
supposedly honoring today. Let me tell my colleagues about concurrent
receipt, which allows disabled veterans who are retired from the
military to receive both their disability compensation and their
military retired pay. It has been on our agenda for years. The
congressional leadership, the Republican leadership, while working
diligently on passing this amendment, cannot find the courage, cannot
muster up their skills at legislation to pass concurrent receipt. The
very people who are arguing for this bill vote ``no'' when it comes to
our veterans, vote ``no'' when it comes to our concurrent receipt.
I ask the gentlepeople from the majority party, what will be the
morale of our soldiers, soon to be veterans when they return home from
Iraq, when they know they will have to wait for the promised services
that the VA has made, when they know that they will have to pay more
for less? What will be their morale when they see we are not keeping
our promise to veterans? Are they going to wave the flag?
I challenge my colleagues to put first our values that our great flag
represents. We are patriots. We are Americans. Let us restore our
contract with our Nation's veterans. That is the way to express our
patriotism and to protect our Nation's flag.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to comment that I am surprised that, for as long as
the previous speaker served on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, he
has allowed it to go on this long.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Sometimes in these debates one issue gets mixed up with another
issue, and I think that is what is happening here. I rise in support of
this rule.
I also want to make a comment to the previous speaker that this
Congress, Republican majority, with the help of the Democratic
minority, is increasing the amount of money that is going to a myriad
of veterans programs all over the country. So when those veterans come
back from Iraq, they will not only see us waving the flag in strong
appreciation of the work they did in enhancing freedom in Iraq, but
they will receive the kind of benefits that the previous speaker
mentioned about going to college on the GI bill.
I went to college on the GI bill. I bought a house with the GI bill,
and those kinds of services are for the veterans of today. These young
people are children of democracy, and they deserve what we received
many, many years ago in our service to our country, but we are here
today to discuss the rule and the issue of flag burning amendment.
I want to ask the question, what does it mean to be patriotic? How do
we protect the flag and honor the flag? We honor the flag by being good
parents, by being good citizens, by being good neighbors, by
understanding and respecting the rule of law and understanding the
thread of tolerance that weaves its way through the quilt of democracy.
I rise today opposing the underlying bill. How many times have we
seen the flag burned in the United States? We see it burned in China,
we see it burned in Iraq, we see it burned in Syria. We see it burned
all over the country, but we do not see it burned here. If a person
burns the flag in China, they put them in jail. If they burn the flag
in Iran, they probably cut their head off. If they burn the flag in
Cuba, they go to jail. Do we want to follow that example and that
precedent? I do not think so.
Our present Constitution blends together the best of our heart and
our minds. Our present Constitution understands our responsibility to
respect the rule of law, but it shows such humanity in the tolerance
that we have for different opinions in this country.
{time} 1430
Do we want to respect and honor those who lost their lives in defense
of this Nation? The last verse of that wonderfully beautiful poem ``In
Flanders Fields'' says, ``If you break faith with us who die, we shall
not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field.'' How do you break
faith with those who defended the country? You stop having tolerance.
You start following the precedent of countries like the former Iraq or
Cuba or China.
We want to raise the flag in honor of those people who have protected
the flag. Be a good citizen, a good neighbor, a good American.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage at some who would say
that this is frivolous legislation. Mr. Speaker, to me, patriotism
demands more than standing on the House floor and stating that we are
all patriotic or we all support the troops. Check the record of those
Members that consistently vote against defense bills or intel or even
our veterans. It is just not true. To me, there are Members who are
unpatriotic in this body.
I would say that voting against this bill in itself is not
unpatriotic. People have different reasons. But patriotism is always
unfinished business. It requires action, not just verbiage. And I state
again that a vote against this bill does not mean you are unpatriotic,
but I think there is a combination of votes and support for our troops
and our country that does classify some people with those actions.
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I watched on television as they played
[[Page H4816]]
the series ``Glory.'' It was about a regiment of African American
troops that volunteered to go up to the front. They knew in attacking a
fort that it would be certain death. And as Denzel Washington, the
actor, and his crowd started to go forward to this and attack, knowing
that they would most certainly die, the question was asked, ``If I
should fall, who will carry this flag?'' And echoed down the ranks was,
``I will,'' ``I will,'' ``I will,'' and they each did so. Each time the
flag fell, African Americans picked up that flag and carried it
forward. Thousands upon thousands of African Americans died protecting
that flag.
Who rejects the arguments of the few? This bill will pass. The same
group rejects it every time. My friend, who is a libertarian, he votes
against it. Many of the far left vote against it. Some people, in my
opinion, attempt to hide behind the first amendment. But who says that
they are wrong? Two hundred years of tradition. Abraham Lincoln,
Jefferson, Washington, our forefathers, came forward and said that the
flag is worth protecting.
In the Civil War, and I am not proposing this, but in the Civil War
there was the penalty of death in desecrating the flag. That is
extreme. But who says they are wrong are 80 percent of the American
people. All 50 States have said they will ratify this if we pass this
legislation on the floor. All 50 States, 80 percent of the American
people, and 100 percent of the veterans groups. Look around and see the
veterans groups around Capitol Hill today. They support this
legislation. They do not think it is frivolous. They do not think it is
unnecessary. They do not think it violates the Constitution, because of
200 years of tradition.
One Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, changed 200 years. Mr. Speaker, we
are saying that that is wrong. Talk about extremism and affecting the
Constitution, we think it is that decision in 1989. I reject their
arguments. Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, the Supreme Court did reverse 200
years of tradition.
In my own district there was a protest. It was not about the flag; it
was about bilingual education. There was a group of Hispanics that came
around to protest a bilingual education ruling. One of the Hispanics
started tromping and burning an American flag, and a Hispanic from my
district grabbed the flag and was beaten. He said, listen, I may
disagree on bilingual education, but this flag is a symbol of why I
came to this country. It stands for freedom, it stands for liberty, and
you will not desecrate it in my presence.
Some people say, well, it does not exude violence. You burn the
American flag, and generally there is violence that follows. And again
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that patriotism is always unfinished
business.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points in this 1 minute.
Number one, the gentleman who just talked disparaged the Supreme
Court because of one decision, that we should not respect that
decision. It is the same Supreme Court that 2 years ago arrogated to
itself the right to take away from the American people the choice of
the Presidency and said do not finish counting the votes, we declare
George Bush the President of the United States. That decision has been
respected. Though on the merits and on the intellect, that decision
belongs in the garbage heap of history because it was not an honest
decision, it was not honestly intended. It was a results-oriented
decision.
Secondly, the gentleman said that there are Members of this body who
are not patriotic as seen by the votes against defense bills. The fact
of the matter is, you can vote for a defense bill, you can vote against
it based on whether you think that bill is best for your country or
not. But to ascribe unpatriotic motives to differences of opinion is to
disrespect the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. To ascribe
unpatriotic motives to people who differ with you politically is the
methodology of a Soviet commissar. It is not an argument that should be
heard on this floor. It is an argument that destroys liberty. It
destroys freedom of speech.
And whether a particular defense bill was good or too small, or bad
or good or deserved to be voted for should be addressed on the merits
intellectually and not by disparaging the motives and saying that
someone who votes against it is unpatriotic. That argument we could
hear from Mr. Stalin, not from someone on this floor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Robert Williams wrote an article recently, and he is one
of the Tuskegee Airmen, and the title of the article was ``A Tuskegee
Airman Salutes The Flag.'' He talked initially about how he became a
fighter pilot in the Second World War. And then he goes on, and I am
skipping his first three paragraphs, but I quote him: ``That is why I
cringe when I see Congress preparing to pass a constitutional amendment
that would rewrite the first amendment for the first time ever to ban a
form of protest. It is particularly hard for me,'' Mr. Williams says,
``as an American war veteran to see this action taken in the name of
patriotism. For while we as a country view our flag as the very essence
of patriotism, it is, in reality, a symbol of that spirit.
``And if the proposed flag desecration amendment wins final approval,
our flag will become a symbol without substance. Don't get me wrong,''
Mr. Williams says, ``no one endorses the idea of burning the flag or
desecrating it in any way. It is, to me, a very repugnant concept. But
I find more threatening the idea that we would change the Constitution
every time some American came up with a new repugnant way to protest.''
He talks a lot about what it took to become an airman from Ottumwa,
Iowa, and how he and his buddy applied on the same day, and he was,
with empathy, told to give up. He did not give up, and he became a part
of a proud fighter force in our Air Force, the Tuskegee Airmen. And he
closes, and I am skipping a lot of what Mr. Williams said, he said:
``Today, as I sit and recall the terrible attacks that we endured just
to get the right to fight for our country, I am more certain that the
elimination of any right to freedom of speech is dead bang wrong.
Protest, after all, takes many forms and many shapes. Some of them may
be seen as distasteful by some Americans. But if we change the
Constitution to outlaw these less than acceptable forms of protest,
then what we are doing is just as repugnant as burning the flag
itself.''
Thank you, Robert Williams.
You know what we could or should be doing right now? We should be
passing the 13 appropriation measures that is our mandate here in
Congress. We should be providing proper health benefits, rather than
turning veterans away, as they are in my district in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. We should be passing a prescription drug benefit rather than
talking about desecrating the flag. We should be building schools for
our children and grandchildren rather than leaving them deficits that
will cause them not to even have school. We should be passing aid to
public universities to stop tuition from going up the way it is in my
State and 20 other States around this Nation.
How about providing a child care tax credit for working families,
like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) came here and asked
unanimous consent to do, rather than talking about flag desecration?
We should be increasing the funding of the National Institute of
Health research funds. We should be helping the Centers for Disease
Control prepare us in the event there is a problem in this Nation. We
should be passing pay raises for Federal judges in this country who too
long have suffered at the whim of this United States Congress. We
should be providing dollars for first responders in this country. We
should be providing money for port security, better housing for
veterans, paving roads, paying teachers; and I can go on and on.
But what we come here with is a repugnant measure. All of us, every
man and woman in this House, is patriotic, whether they voted for the
defense measure or not. All of us are superpatriots in the sense that
we provide service for our country. And each in our own way
ideologically, left and right, black and white, rich and poor come here
for the purpose of upholding that great symbol of ours, the flag. And I
do not need anybody to tell me about patriotism.
[[Page H4817]]
I lost relatives and friends in wars like every man and woman here
has. And there are kids right now that would rather come home and know
that we took care of some of those things that we needed to take care
of rather than handle a handful of miscreants that might go out and
foolishly burn a flag. There are laws, as one of our colleagues said,
that takes care of that. Let those laws be sufficient for us. Let the
flag reign supreme. Do not let it rain down the kind of desecration
that not passing these measures would help us to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say that after that litany of spending measures, I believe the
gentleman from Florida has forfeited any future opportunities to
complain about deficits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 1445
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 255, I
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 4) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 255, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
The text of House Joint Resolution 4 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 4
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 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. 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour of debate on the
joint resolution.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 4 is a proposed amendment to the United States
Constitution that would simply return to Congress the authority that it
possessed for over 200 years to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States. H.J. Res. 4 does not outlaw flag
desecration; rather, this proposal merely sets the boundaries by which
Congress can enact subsequent implementing legislation, if it so
chooses, to prohibit such conduct.
The flag is the most revered and beloved symbol of our great Nation,
representing all that is American and reminding the world of our
undying love of freedom and democracy. The flag serves as a shining
bedrock of our principles and values as a country, leading our men and
women into conflicts around the globe and draping the caskets of those
same individuals when they return home after giving the ultimate
sacrifice in defense of such values. It is the flag to which we pledge
allegiance here in the halls of Congress and in schools throughout our
country. It is this object and all that it represents that we as
Americans hold so dear.
While the Federal Government and almost every single State validly
protected the flag without constitutional objection for numerous years,
this protection was circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court in
Texas v. Johnson in 1989. In the Johnson case, a majority of five
justices held that burning the flag was expressive conduct protected by
the First Amendment to the Constitution. Congress responded to this
decision in 1990 by enacting a Federal statute to outlaw such conduct
in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson. However,
the Supreme Court that same year ruled in United States v. Eichman that
the recently enacted Federal statute also violated the Constitution.
Thus, the American people are now left with no other alternative but to
amend the Constitution in order to protect their flag.
House Joint Resolution 4 will simply overturn these two erroneous
Supreme Court decisions, restoring the original interpretation to the
First Amendment that had persisted for over two centuries since the
birth of our country. When considering the powers of our respective
branches of government in effecting the will of the American people, we
should be reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln in his first
inaugural address in 1861, ``If the policy of the government upon vital
questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their
own rulers.''
Thus, because the Constitution expressly designates ``We the People''
as possessing the ultimate authority in this great Nation, and not the
Supreme Court, we as representatives of the people must respond and act
according to the will of the people in approving this proposed
constitutional amendment.
Contrary to what opponents of House Joint Resolution 4 will claim,
this proposal does not amend the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights
for the first time in history. Rather, it was the Supreme Court that
first amended our constitutional rights and liberties as Americans in
this area of the law in 1989 by denying the American people the
authority to protect their flag. H.J. Res. 4 will simply restore this
sacred right and the original understanding of the First Amendment and
the Bill of Rights that had persisted since the very beginning of our
country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of
Independence, and James Madison, the father of our Constitution, both
agreed that the government could prohibit acts of flag desecration.
Rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are not unlimited.
Rather, Americans are constrained in their speech to a certain degree,
whether pursuant to libel and slander laws, perjury laws, laws against
inciting breach of the peace or riots, or obscenity laws. Furthermore,
conduct that is arguably associated with speech has also always been
validly regulated. While someone seeking publicity or wanting to
protest may think that the best method to convey a particular message
may be to parade nude in Lafayette Square across from the White House,
that form of conduct is illegal. H.J. Res. 4 simply seeks to give
Congress the authority to prohibit another particular form of conduct,
flag desecration, without regard to the speech being broadcasted during
such conduct.
Those seeking to express themselves would be left with, as Chief
Justice Rehnquist put it, ``a full panoply of other symbols and every
conceivable form of verbal expression'' by which to make their ideas
known. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``the First Amendment does not
guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication
at all times and in all places.''
I urge my colleagues to recognize the wishes of the American people
and restore the original interpretation and understanding of the First
Amendment and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by supporting this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4818]]
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are enduring the annual Republican rite of
spring, a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights to restrict what it
calls flag desecration.
Why spring? Because the calendar tells us that June 14 is Flag Day,
and then, of course, we have July 4. Members need to send out a press
release extolling the need to protect the flag, as if the flag needed
protection by Congress. We do not see a great epidemic of flag burning.
This amendment is truly an answer in search of a problem.
The flag is a symbol of a great Nation and of the fundamental
freedoms for which this Nation stands. If the flag needs protection at
all, it is from Members of Congress who value the symbol more than the
freedoms that the flag represents, and would, in fact, limit those
freedoms to protect the symbol.
The argument that we must, for the first time in our Nation's
history, amend the Constitution to limit freedom of speech because the
flag stands for freedom would sound like a bad joke if the danger to
the First Amendment were not so real. I warn my colleagues, once we get
into the business of amending the Constitution, every time someone does
something we do not like, there will be no end to it. We have never in
the 200 years of this country so far, of this Republic, amended the
Bill of Rights, and we should not start now.
There is unpopular speech that people find offensive, unpopular
religions that people do not like. We had a Member of the House on the
floor a few years ago excoriate the Army for allowing a wicked
religious service on an Army base. The man with the protest sign in a
crowd of people favoring the President and his policies, he was
threatened with arrest if he did not leave or get rid of his sign
because it did not agree with the other signs. Maybe some of our
Republican friends think we need a constitutional amendment for
protesting against Republican Presidents. Quite frankly, the crass
political use of the flag to question the patriotism of those who value
our fundamental freedoms is a greater insult to those who died in the
service of our Nation than even the burning of the flag. It is the
civic equivalent of taking the Lord's name in vain.
People have rights in this country that supersede public opinion,
even strongly held public opinion. If we do not preserve those rights,
the flag would have been desecrated far beyond the capability of any
individual with a cigarette lighter. Let there be no doubt, this
amendment is aimed directly at unpopular political ideas.
Current Federal law says that the preferred way to dispose of a
tattered and old flag is to burn it, but there are those who would
criminalize the same act if it was done to express political dissent.
So if you burn the flag, if you physically burn the flag while standing
around saying nice things, pleasant things, platitudes about
patriotism, then that is a wonderful thing to do. But if you burn the
flag while criticizing the conduct of the current administration or
some political decision, then you will be arrested.
Is the act of burning the flag any different in those two instances?
No. What is different is the words said in association with it. In one
instance, the words are pleasant and nice and therefore protected by
the First Amendment; and in the other instance, the words are
unpleasant and disagreeable and, therefore, we are going to pass a
constitutional amendment to throw someone in jail for uttering the
wrong words while he burns the flag, because if he uttered the nice
words while he burned the flag, that would be the correct way of
disposing of the flag.
Clearly, the Supreme Court was right, it is the expression of
unpopular political opinions that this amendment is aimed at, and that
is why this amendment should not be passed because we should protect
the right to utter all opinions in this country, even those we think
are harmful because bad ideas should be driven out of the arena of
public opinion by good ideas, not by repression by the State or by the
police. That is why we have the Bill of Rights, and that is why this
amendment should not pass.
One other example, and that is if someone produced a movie or play in
which actors impersonated Nazi soldiers, and during the course of that
play, the Nazi soldiers trampled on the flag to show the contempt the
Nazis had for freedom and the United States, no one would think of
arresting the actors because they know they did not mean it. They would
know they were showing what Nazis thought of the flag and the United
States, not what the actors think. So it is clearly the ideas
associated with the act of desecrating the flag, it is the speech that
we are criminalizing here, and that is why the Supreme Court was right
to say we cannot criminalize speech.
We heard in the hearings conducted before the Committee on the
Judiciary from a Vietnam veteran who has been in a wheelchair for the
last 30 years as a result of his combat wounds in Vietnam. He made
clear he did not want his sacrifice to be used to destroy the freedoms
for which he fought and for which many of his friends made the ultimate
sacrifice. I would urge my colleagues to listen to all veterans and
understand that those who support this amendment do not speak for all
veterans.
General Colin Powell, for example, had this to say about this
amendment a few years ago, ``The First Amendment exists to ensure that
freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we
agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not
amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The
flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''
Jim Warner, a Vietnam veteran and prisoner of the North Vietnamese
from October 1967 to March 1973, wrote, ``The fact is, the principles
for which we fought, for which our comrades died, are advancing
everywhere upon the earth, while the principles against which we fought
are everywhere discredited and rejected. The flag burners have lost,
and their defeat is the most fitting and thorough rebuke of their
principles which the human mind could devise. Why do we need to do
more? An act intended merely as an insult is not worthy of our fallen
comrades. It is the sort of thing our enemies did to us, but we are not
them, and we must conform to a different standard. Now, when the
justice of our principles is everywhere vindicated, the cause of human
liberty demands that this amendment be rejected. Rejecting this
amendment would not mean that we agree with those who burn our flag, or
even that they have been forgiven. It would, instead, tell the world
that freedom of expression means freedom, even for those expressions we
find repugnant.''
I would add that rejection of this amendment would mean that we
understand that democracy in the United States and our protection of
freedom of expression in the United States is stronger than the ill
will and the venom that motivates people who might desecrate our flag,
and that we do not need a constitutional amendment to protect us
against them.
{time} 1500
These thoughts are echoed by Terry Anderson, a former U.S. Marine
staff sergeant and Vietnam veteran who was held hostage in Lebanon, who
wrote:
``This constitutional amendment is an extremely unwise restriction of
every American's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that the first amendment protects symbolic acts under
its guarantee of free speech. Burning or otherwise damaging a flag is
offensive to many, including me, but it harms no one and is so
obviously an act of political speech that I'm amazed anyone could
disagree with the Court.''
Mr. Speaker, people have died for this Nation and the rights which
this flag so proudly represents. Let us not destroy the freedoms and
the way of life for which they made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us not
demean our freedoms. Let us not demean our country. Let us not for the
first time in the history amend the Bill of Rights to say we cannot be
trusted with that freedom. Let us not pass this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Before I get into the bulk of my talk, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from New
[[Page H4819]]
York has mentioned once again a letter from Colin Powell. I have in my
hand here a letter written by another distinguished American general,
Norman Schwarzkopf, who in essence indicates, and I will just take one
sentence here, ``I regard legal protections for our flag as an absolute
necessity and a matter of critical importance to our Nation.'' He goes
on in support. I think both Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf are
great Americans but oftentimes, as on many other issues, good people
can come to differing opinions on an important issue, and they have in
this particular case. I do believe that we do need to protect the flag.
The flag of the United States of America has become the physical
manifestation of democracy and freedom in the world today. The flag has
been described as a national asset, akin to the Grand Canyon and the
Washington Monument, as it symbolizes the strength and endurance of
this great Nation and the embodiment of its ideals and its values. As
Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted, ``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.'' We pledge
our allegiance to the flag, we pay tribute to the flag through song as
illustrated by our national anthem, and we honor our fallen soldiers by
draping flags over their coffins, planting flags at Arlington National
Cemetery as we did most recently on Memorial Day not long ago, and
presenting flags to widows and widowers. To say that the American flag
is simply a colored piece of cloth mischaracterizes the nature of the
symbol and its importance to our country. As the flag goes, so goes our
country. If we allow its defacement, so too do we allow our country's
gradual decline. Therefore, in order to ensure the future of our
country, we must ensure the future of our flag.
Over the years, there have been countless acts of flag desecration.
The gentleman has said, and we have heard this in committee, that it
does not happen that often anymore; but since 1994 alone there have
been over 115 reported incidents, and those are reported incidents, of
flag desecration, occurring in 35 States, here in the District of
Columbia, and in Puerto Rico. The States and the Federal Government
have been prevented from prohibiting such conduct since 1989 when the
United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning
was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution. That was a 5 to 4 vote, I might add. Congress immediately
responded by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1990. However, shortly
thereafter, the Supreme Court in United States v. Eichman held that the
act was unconstitutional for the same reasons as in the Johnson case.
Thus, the only option remaining for the American citizenry to address
and correct this problem is through the constitutional amendment
process as set forth in article 5 of the United States Constitution.
That is why we are here today. It is the only way that we now can
protect the flag because of these two Supreme Court cases.
H.J. Res. 4 will simply restore the constitutional authority that
Congress had possessed for more than 200 years to protect the flag from
physical desecration. While opponents claim that amending the
Constitution to remedy a problem that they contend does not exist will
open the floodgates to other amendments, history has proven this
assertion false. In fact, since the adoption of the Bill of Rights,
there have been over 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments with
only 17 approved and ratified.
So we have only amended the Constitution 17 times plus the 10 times
it was amended in the Bill of Rights. Thus, the fear of an onslaught of
constitutional amendments and the eventual destabilization of the
document itself is unfounded. In addition, opponents claim that this
proposed constitutional amendment will infringe upon speech and
adversely impact those protesting against government policies. First,
H.J. Res. 4 is in no way related to the suppression of free speech and
is not at all concerned with content of any type of expression. Rather,
H.J. Res. 4 is concerned only with the vehicle through which some
individuals choose to express their ideas. Just as people cannot burn a
dollar bill or burn their draft cards to express their ideas, so too
should people be prohibited from burning or desecrating the American
flag. H.J. Res. 4 would not interfere with a speaker's freedom to
express his or her ideas by any other means.
Secondly, this amendment would not unfairly target those who protest
against government policy, as there were numerous statutes in the past
outlawing the desecration of the flag, and there is no evidence of
prosecutorial abuse in this regard. The exaggerated scenarios that
opponents of this measure paint are intended not to illustrate reality
but only to incite fear and hostility toward this measure.
Opponents also argue that the words encompassed in the proposal such
as ``flag'' and ``desecration'' are too broad and ambiguous, leaving
the public uninformed as to the type of conduct that will ultimately be
prohibited. The simple answer to this is that H.J. Res. 4 is a proposed
constitutional amendment which by definition necessitates ambiguous
terms in order to give Congress sufficient flexibility to draft and
adopt authorizing legislation. Consider the calamity that would have
resulted if the drafters of the 14th amendment would have been required
to specifically define ``due process'' or ``equal protection.'' The
nature of the Constitution requires that such terms be broad and
subject to interpretation.
Desecration of the flag necessarily diminishes and adversely affects
those values and principles for which the flag stands.
We believe very strongly that this should be passed.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this debate in context because
every time we cut veterans benefits, we pull out this resolution. Just
a few weeks ago, we voted to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. And
so far those cuts have been restored, but many in this House, a
majority, in fact, of this House, will have to explain those votes.
Challenging the patriotism of those of us who voted ``no'' on those
cuts will not cover up the fact that those votes were actually cast.
Mr. Speaker, we should acknowledge that the whole purpose of the
underlying constitutional amendment is to stifle political expression
that we find offensive. While I agree that we should respect the flag,
I do not think it is appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce
our views on those who disagree with us. The Supreme Court has
considered restrictions on the Bill of Rights that are permissible by
the government. For example, under the first amendment with respect to
speech, time, place and manner may generally be regulated while content
cannot. There are, of course, exceptions. Speech that creates an
imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or patently offensive
expression that has no redeeming social value, those may be restricted.
But generally you cannot restrict content. The distinction is that you
can restrict time, place and manner but not content. And so you can
restrict the particulars of a march or demonstration, what time it is
held, where it is held; but you cannot restrict what people are
marching or demonstrating about. You cannot ban a particular march or
demonstration just because you disagree with the message unless you
decide to ban all marches. You cannot allow marches by the Republican
Party but not by the Democratic Party.
Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag
burning amendment and they speak about the necessity of this amendment
to keep people from burning flags. But, really, the only place we ever
see flags burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag
ceremonies, disposing of a worn-out flag. If you ask any Boy Scout or
any member of the American Legion, how do you dispose of a worn-out
flag, they will tell you that you burn the flag at a respectful
ceremony. This proposed constitutional amendment is all about
expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the
spirit of the first amendment. By using the word ``desecration,'' we
are giving government officials the power to decide that one can burn a
flag if you are saying something nice or respectful,
[[Page H4820]]
but you are a criminal if you burn the flag while saying something
offensive or insulting. This is an absurd distinction and is in direct
contravention with the whole purpose of the first amendment.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill
of Rights, this legislation has practical problems. For example, what
is a flag? Can you desecrate a picture of a flag? Can a flag with the
wrong number of stripes or stars be desecrated?
Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam War, laws were passed prohibiting
draft cards from being burned and protesters with great flourish would
say that they were burning their draft cards and offend everybody, but
then nobody would know whether it was a draft card or just a piece of
paper. Mr. Speaker, what happens if you desecrate your own flag in
private? Are you subject to criminal prosecution if someone finds out?
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on the
ridiculous suggestions that stealing and destroying someone's personal
property is protected if that property happens to be a flag. That is
wrong. It is theft and destruction of personal property. What this
legislation is aimed at is criminalizing political speech. And so we
should not politicize criminal speech we disagree with just because we
have the votes.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would defeat the resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of
the resolution.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side mentioned a
gentleman from the Tuskegee Airmen, a very honored group. As a matter
of fact, there is a chapter in San Diego. I spoke to them about this
resolution in San Diego years ago. They support this resolution. They
are good friends of mine. These are the men that fought against racism
and flew P-51s in WWII. Not a single bomber was lost while the Tuskegee
Airmen escorted them.
Opponents say that this is frivolous, that we are offering a
frivolous amendment. In the Tuskegee Airmen letter, it said that this
for the first time was denying first amendment rights. It is not. For
200 years-plus, this was tradition in our country. Abraham Lincoln,
Washington, Jefferson, yes, and even Betsy Ross knew the threads that
held this country together. During the Civil War, it was a death
penalty to desecrate the flag. No one is asking us to do this. As a
matter of fact, this vote today only gives the States the right to
ratify this resolution. Even if we pass this here today, if the States
say ``no,'' it will not pass.
The gentleman from New York said, do we know democracy? Fifty State
resolutions say that they will ratify this. That to me is democracy.
Two hundred years of tradition wiped away by a 5 to 4 Supreme Court
vote. That is democracy. Eighty percent of the American people support
this bill. To me that is democracy. Two hundred Members of this House
and one vote short in the other body on these resolutions. That is
democracy.
{time} 1515
Even the dissenters of the Supreme Court, and I quote, noted that
``In times of national crisis, the flag inspires and motivates the
average citizen to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve
societal goals of importance.''
Not just during war, but maybe there is an earthquake or a fire. It
inspires people.
So what do you think on the other side it does to these same people
when you desecrate that symbol that lifts them up? And that is why this
is important, Mr. Speaker. This is 200 years of tradition.
What is patriotism? I told you in the rule vote about a young
Hispanic, that other Hispanics were desecrating the flag and he grabbed
the flag and he was beaten, and he stood up and said, ``That is why I
immigrated to this country. This flag represents the traditions, the
freedoms, the liberty that I stand for.'' And he did not let them burn
it.
I mentioned about ``Glory,'' African Americans that picked up the
flag when one of their fellow soldiers fell, knowing that they would
die. Ask those African American soldiers that charged that fort what
they would think of you today rationalizing against this vote that it
is a First Amendment vote. It is not.
You have all kinds of actions. You can swear, you can yell, you can
protest, you can hold up signs, but just do not desecrate the American
flag.
I have a story that I have, a friend that was a prisoner of war for
6\1/2\ years. It took him 6 years to gather bits of thread to knit an
American flag on the inside of his shirt. And that was fine, until the
Vietnamese guards broke in, and they saw the POW with a flag that he
hung above on the wall when they were able to get together.
They saw the flag. They ripped it to shreds. They dragged the POW out
and they beat him unconscious, so bad that the other prisoners did not
think he would survive. And they comforted him as much as they could.
He went back in the corner, and a few minutes later they looked and saw
this broken-body POW drag himself to the center of the floor and
started gathering those bits of thread to knit another American flag.
That is action. Patriotism takes action, and it is action that is
unfinished business at all times.
This is not frivolous to us. I was shot down on my 300th mission over
Vietnam. The actors that protested the war, that was their right under
the First Amendment. I may disagree with them, but it was their right.
Protest in any way you want, just do not burn the American flag. Vote
yes on this resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is about choices, and it is about differences of
opinion, so I respect greatly my good friend from California for his
desire to move on this legislation. But I think the American people
need to be able to flush out what this debate is all about.
H.J. Res. 4, were it to pass, would be the first time in United
States history that the Constitution is amended in order to curtail an
existing right. Just a few minutes ago on this floor I held up the
Constitution, and I said that Americans need to begin to read the
Constitution again, that is, to understand that it is a document to
give rights, to protect as opposed to prohibit.
We have seen the courts over the years refine our laws, and I have
admitted on this floor that crying fire in a crowded theater certainly
has been enunciated as being against the order, against law and order,
and against the protection of the people. But this amendment does
nothing to enhance the rights of Americans.
I have heard my good friend utilize Hispanics and African Americans.
I certainly welcome his right to express his viewpoints and whatever
characterization he is trying to suggest. But I would offer to say that
today we all stand as patriots and Americans, Hispanics, African
Americans, Asians; in Texas, Anglos or Caucasians, Native Americans,
new immigrants, people seeking opportunity.
The real question is that there is no prohibition for some valiant
soldier to rise to the occasion and take a flag across a battlefield.
We do not stop that. We applaud that. Nor is there any prohibition
likewise for someone who has a disagreement on the political philosophy
of this Nation to be able to rise up in disagreement.
Clearly, during the civil rights era, might I say, thank God for the
First Amendment, that there were brave souls enough to speak against
the horrificness of segregation. If you took the laws of the South,
those people should have been jailed, as they were over and over again,
you would have confirmed their being jailed for expressing their right
to associate against segregation. So this is a matter of choice and a
matter of disagreement.
Two generals who were annunciated by my friends, General Powell
indicating his position, and a different position, difference of
opinion; and this is what this amendment stands for, not accepting
differences of opinion.
[[Page H4821]]
The Supreme Court in the Gregory Johnson case right out of Texas when
this individual in 1989 burned a flag in front of the Republican
convention, sounds horrific, sounds embarrassing, but yet the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court indicated that the lower court's decision
should be reversed, holding that the Texas law had been
unconstitutionally applied to Johnson in violation of his First
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court upheld that right for him to have
political expression.
I had such an amendment before the Committee on Rules that political
content, speech, should be protected, but yet it was rejected.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is a matter of choice
and a matter of right. I beg my colleagues not to pass an amendment
that restricts the Constitution. That would be wrong and misdirected.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, an amendment to the
Constitution to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United
States. I oppose H.J. Res. 4 because this resolution is an overly broad
infringement on the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
background
This is not the first time this Chamber has considered this very
Amendment to the Constitution. In 1990, Congress considered and
rejected H.J. Res. 350--an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
specifying that ``The Congress and the States have the power to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''
This failed to get the necessary two-thirds congressional majority by a
vote of 254-177 in the House and 58-43 in the Senate. 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. In 1999, this
Constitutional Amendment, then call H.J. Res. 33, also failed to be
passed.
If H.J. Res. 4 were to pass, it would mark the first time in United
States' history that the Constitution is amended in order to curtail an
existing right. In this case, the proposed amendment would severely
narrow the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free expression
codified in the Bill of Rights. This dangerous and unnecessary assault
on our fundamental liberties would set a terrible precedent.
I renew my opposition to this Constitutional Amendment. Despite my
opposition, I agree with the proponents of this Constitutional
Amendment that the American flag is a symbol of all of the principles
and ideals that this country is built upon--freedom of assembly,
freedom of religion, equality, and justice to name a few.
flag desecration and the first amendment
One of the most important ideals that the flag symbolizes is the
First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. I believe that freedom
of speech should be protected without condition. The Supreme Court of
the United States, as it relates to desecration of the flag, appears to
agree.
In 1989 the Supreme Court addressed the issue of flag desecration as
it related to the First Amendment. In 1989, the Supreme Court finally
addressed whether a flag burning statute violates the First Amendment
in Texas v. Johnson.
In that case, Gregory Johnson was arrested for burning the U.S. flag
during a demonstration outside of the Republican National Convention in
Dallas. Mr. Johnson's actions were deemed to be in violation of Texas'
``Venerated Objects'' law. The Texas statute outlawed ``intentionally
or knowingly'' desecrating a ``national flag.'' The statute, defined
the term ``desecrate'' to mean ``to deface, damage or otherwise
physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend
one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.'' The
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas upheld Johnson's
conviction under the Venerated Objects law. The Court of Criminal
Appeals, Texas' highest criminal court, reversed the lower court
decision, holding that the Texas law had been unconstitutionally
applied to Johnson in violation of his First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling
and determined that the First Amendment protects those citizens who
burn the U.S. flag in political protest from prosecution. The Supreme
Court ruled that Johnson's conduct constituted a symbolic expression
that was both intentional and overly apparent. According to the Supreme
Court, the Texas statute was ``content-based'' and, therefore, subject
to ``the most exacting scrutiny test'' outlined in another Supreme
Court case, Boos v. Barry. The Texas statute was deemed content-based
because Johnson's guilt depended on the communicative aspect of his
expressive conduct and was restricted because of the content of the
message he conveyed. Furthermore, the Court stated that, although the
Government has an interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag,
it was prohibited from criminally punishing a person for burning a flag
as a means of political protest. The Court determined that the Texas
statute was designed to prevent citizens from conveying ``harmful''
messages, reflecting a government interest that violated the First
Amendment principle that government may not prohibit expression of an
idea simply because it finds the idea offensive or disagrees with the
idea.
In response to the Johnson ruling, Congress passed the content-
neutral ``Flag Protection Act of 1989.'' The Flag Protection Act of
1908 prohibited flag desecration under all circumstances by removing
the requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag. The
statute also narrowly defined the term ``flag'' in an effort to avoid
any vagueness problems. After the Flag Protection Act was passed, a
series of the flag burnings took place in cities across. Criminal
charges were brought against protesters who participated in flag
burning incidents in Seattle and Washington, D.C. In both cases, the
federal district courts relied on Johnson, striking down the 1989 law
as unconstitutional when applied to political protesters.
In U.S. v. Eichman, the Supreme Court protected First Amendment
freedom of speech, and in a 5-4 decision upheld the lower federal court
rulings and struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court
ruled, again, that the Government's stated interest in protecting the
status of the flag ``as a symbol of our Nation and certain national
ideals'' was a ``suppression of free expression'' that gave rise to an
infringement of First Amendment rights. The Court acknowledged that the
1989 law, unlike the Texas statute in Johnson, contained no content-
based limitations on the scope of protected conduct. However, the Court
determined, the federal statute was subject to strict scrutiny because
it could not be enforced without reference to the message of the
``speaker.''
The supporters of H.J. Res. 4 argue that flag desecration should not
be considered speech within the meaning of First Amendment. On the
contrary, it is precisely the expressive content of acts involving the
flag that the amendment would target. These expressive acts are within
the definition of speech. It is obvious that the criminal sanctions
against flag burning in the Johnson case, and the criminal sanctions
the sponsors of this amendment will likely seek to enact if H.J. Res. 4
is adopted, are directly related to the expressive content of the act
of burning the flag.
Under current law ``[t]he flag, when it is in such condition that it
is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a
dignified way, preferably by burning.'' It is clear then, that the
prohibitions against flag burning or ``physical desecration'' in H.J.
Res. 4 are fundamentally content-based. Burning a flag to demonstrate
respect or patriotism is permissible under current law. Should the
proposed amendment pass, burning the flag to convey a political
viewpoint of dissent or anger at the United States would become a
crime.
The airing of unpopular, dissenting views is an affirmative social
good. Attempt to place limits on the manner of form of expressing
unpopular views must inevitably translate into limits on the content of
the unpopular views themselves. Likewise, limitations on the use of the
flag in political demonstrations ultimately undermines First Amendment
free speech.
Adoption of H.J. Res. 4 will also create a number of dangerous
precedents in our legal system. The Resolution will encourage further
departures from the First Amendment and diminish respect for our
Constitution. Doing so would make it unlikely to be that this would be
the last time Congress acts to restrict our First Amendment liberties.
h.j. res. 4 does not honor America's veterans
It also flawed reasoning to argue that this amendment honors the
courage and sacrifice of America's veterans. It may be the opinion of
many American's that we should condemn those who would dishonor our
nation's flag. However, H.J. Res. 4 will dishonor the Constitution and
betray the very ideals for which so many veterans fought, and for which
so many members of our armed forces made the ultimate sacrifice. In a
May 18, 1999 letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, General Colin L. Powell
said:
The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech
and expression applies not just to that with which we agree
or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would
not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few
miscreants. The flag will by flying proudly long after they
have slunk away.
Another honored member of our Armed Services, Jim Warner, a Vietnam
veteran and prisoner of the North Vietnamese from October 1967 to March
1973, wrote:
The fact is, the principles for which we fought, for which
our comrades died, are advancing everywhere upon the Earth,
while the principles against which we fought are
[[Page H4822]]
everywhere discredited and rejected. The flag burners have
lost, and their defeat is the most fitting and thorough
rebuke of their principles which the human could devise. Why
do we need to do more? An act intended merely as an insult is
not worthy of our fallen comrades. It is the sort of thing
our enemies did to us, but we are not them, and we must
conform to a different standard. . . . Now, when the justice
of our principles is everywhere vindicated, the cause of
human liberty demands that this amendment be rejected.
Rejecting this amendment would not mean that we agree with
those who burned our flag, or even that they have been
forgiven. It would, instead, tell the world that freedom of
expression means freedom, even for those expressions we find
repugnant.
The flag is a symbol of our freedoms. The right to speak openly, even
if that speech is unpopular, is a freedom. As we consider this
Amendment we are faced with a difficult question: Do we protect a
symbol of freedom of speech, or do we protect free speech itself? When
given the choice, I choose to protect freedom itself over a symbol of
freedom.
Mr. Speaker, while many Americans find desecration of the flag
offensive or distasteful, the strength of our nation lies in our
ability to tolerate dissent and allow free speech especially when we
disagree. We should not let a handful of offensive individuals cause us
to surrender the very freedoms that make us a beacon of liberty for the
rest of the world. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no
on H.J. Res. 4.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the word seems to be around here that the Supreme Court
decisions are sacrosanct and we should never amend the Constitution
when the Congress and the several States believe the Supreme Court is
wrong. I believe the Supreme Court is wrong in this, and that is why
this amendment is before us.
But I point out that in three of the 17 instances since the Bill of
Rights was ratified, the Congress and the States have amended the
Constitution to reverse Supreme Court decisions. The 11th Amendment
reversed the decision relative to the judicial power of the United
States. The 14th Amendment reversed the Dred Scott decision. The 16th
Amendment reversed the decision on the income tax. So, three of the 17
amendments that have been ratified since 1791 have reversed Supreme
Court decisions that the Congress and the States have thought were
erroneous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great debate. As a
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as someone trained in
constitutional law, I find the passion that I hear on this floor today
for the First Amendment truly inspiring, and I respect it immensely.
In fact, would that we had heard that same passion for protecting the
free speech rights of Americans when last year this Congress adopted
severe limitations on campaign speech in the so-called campaign finance
reform legislation. But that is a battle for another branch of this
government and another day.
I rise today, rather, Mr. Speaker, to try and express from my heart
what I believe this amendment means to millions of patriotic Americans
who support it, and I do so with a sincere heart, to speak to those
millions of patriotic Americans who oppose it.
After surviving the bloodiest battlefield since Gettysburg, a squad
of Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple
task: to raise the American flag above the devastation below. When the
flag was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his men, history records
that a thunderous cheer rose from the troops on land and on sea, in
foxholes and on stretchers. Hope returned to that field of battle when
the American flag began flapping in the wind.
It is written, Mr. Speaker, that without a vision, the people perish.
The flag was the vision that inspired and rallied our troops on Iwo
Jima, and I would offer to you humbly today, the flag is still the
vision for Americans who cherish those who stood ready to make the
necessary sacrifices. It may well be why every single veterans group in
America is scoring the vote in favor of the flag resolution today.
I would offer that by adopting this flag protection amendment, we
will raise Old Glory again. We will raise her above the decisions of
the judiciary that was both wrong on the law and on history. We will
raise the flag above the cynicism of our times. We will say to my
generation of Americans those most unwelcome of words, there are
limits. Out of respect for those who serve beneath it and for those who
died within the sight of it, we must say there are boundaries necessary
to the survival of freedom.
Let us raise the American flag to her Old Glory again.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here today to debate a
constitutional amendment that would restrict the right of an American
to make a foolish, foolish mistake with his own property. My primary
objection to this amendment is that it will give government a tool with
which to prosecute Americans with minority views, particularly at times
of great national division, behavior that would have been perceived as
patriotic if done by the majority.
Unfortunately, our history has abundant examples of patriotism being
used to hurt those who express views in disagreement with that of the
majority. Let me share with you some news stories taken from the New
York Times in years of great strife in America.
The first one I would like to read is from April 7, 1917, 1917,
headline: ``Diners Resent Slight to the Anthem. Attack a Man and Two
Women Who Refuse to Stand When It Is Played. There was much excitement
in the main dining room at Rectors last night following the playing of
the Star Spangled Banner. Frederick Boyd, a former reporter on the New
York Call, a Socialist newspaper, was dining with Miss Jessie Ashley
and Miss May Towle, both lawyers and suffragists. The three, alone of
those in the room, remained seated. There were quiet, then loud and
vehement protests, but they kept their chairs.
``The angry diners surrounded Boyd and the two women and blows were
struck back and forth, the women fighting valiantly to defend Boyd. He
cried out he was an Englishman and did not have to get up, but the
crowd would not listen to explanation. Boyd was severely beaten when
the head waiter succeeded in reaching his side. Other waiters closed in
and the fray was stopped.
``The guests insisted upon the ejection of Boyd and his companions
and they were asked to leave. They refused to do so, and they were
escorted to the street and turned over to a policeman who took Boyd to
the West 47th Street Station, charged with disorderly conduct.
``Before the magistrate, Boyd repeated that he did not have to rise
at the playing of the National Anthem, but the court told him that
while there was no legal obligation, it was neither prudent nor
courteous not to do so in these tense times, and he was found guilty of
disorderly conduct and released on suspended sentence.''
Another one, July 2, 1917, headline: ``Boston Peace Parade Mobbed.
Soldiers and Sailors Break Up Socialist Demonstration and Rescue Flag.
Socialist Headquarters Ransacked and Contents Burned, Many Arrests for
Fighting.
``Riotous scenes attended a Socialist parade today which was
announced as a peace demonstration. The ranks of the marchers were
broken up by self-organized squads of uniformed soldiers and sailors.
Red flags and banners bearing socialistic mottos were trampled on, and
literature and furnishings in the Socialist headquarters in Park Square
were thrown into the street and burned.
``At Scollay Square there was a similar scene. The American flag at
the head of the line was seized by the attacking party and the band,
which had been playing `The Marseillaise' with some interruptions, was
forced to play `The Star Spangled Banner' while cheers were given for
the flag.''
The last one, from March 26, 1918.
{time} 1530
``Pro-Germans Mobbed in Middle West. Disturbances Start in Ohio and
are Renewed in Illinois. Woman among Victims.
[[Page H4823]]
``Five businessmen of Delphos, a German settlement in western Allen
County near here, accused of pro-Germanism, were hunted out by a
volunteer vigilance committee of 400 men and 50 women of the town,
taken into a brilliantly lit downtown street and forced to kiss the
American flag tonight under pain of being hanged from nearby telephone
poles.''
What do these old stories from the New York Times have to do with
this very important and heartfelt debate today? The decision we make
today, it seems to me, is a balancing, a weighing of what best
preserves freedom for Americans. There may well be a decrease in public
deliberate incidents of flag desecration, acts that we all deplore, if
this amendment becomes part of our Constitution.
On the other side of our ledger, if this amendment becomes part of
our Constitution, in my opinion, it will become a constitutionally
sanctioned tool for the majority to tyrannize the minority. As
evidenced by these news stories from a time of great divisiveness in
our Nation's history, government, which ultimately is human beings with
all of our strengths and weaknesses, will use this amendment to
question the patriotism of vocal minorities, will use it to find
excuses to legally attack demonstrations which utilize the flag in an
otherwise appropriate manner.
Let me give an example. I was at a rural county fair in Arkansas
several years ago, and a group had a booth with a great patriotic
display in addition to handouts and signs. They had laid across the
table like a tablecloth an American flag. I knew these people thought
this to be a very patriotic part of the display. I watched as one of
the volunteers sat on the table, oblivious to the fact he was sitting
on our American flag. His action was a completely innocent mistake, and
he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with good flag
etiquette.
I believe that had this group been a fringe group, those with views
contrary to the great majority, and should we have laws prohibiting
physical desecration of the flag, such an action as I described would
not be excused as an innocent mistake. Instead, a minority group might
be prosecuted, out of anger, out of disgust, but make no mistake, the
motivation for such a prosecution would be that they hold a minority
view.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think our Constitution will be improved nor our
freedoms protected by placing within it enhanced opportunity for
minority views to be legally attacked, ostensibly because of their
misuse of the flag, but in reality because of views that many consider
out of the mainstream.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the proposed amendment, and for the same
reasons, a ``no'' vote on the substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor as chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great aspects of the privilege of being a
Congressman is that we get to debate some pretty noble issues. We get
to engage in them. This is certainly one. I am delighted this debate is
occurring.
In my view, there is something larger at work here than simply the
flag itself. I think this amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) is an effort by mainstream Americans to
reassert community standards. This bill is a protest against the
vulgarization of our society.
In our popular culture, decent standards are under constant and
withering assault. This amendment is an assertion that the community
has some rights, too, and that with rights go responsibilities which
help provide a moral compass for our ``anything goes'' society.
This amendment partially corrects the oversight in our Constitution
whereby we have a Bill of Rights, oh, do we have a Bill of Rights, but
no bill of responsibilities. Then, of course, a right is meaningless
unless we are all responsible for respecting it, so one depends on the
other.
This amendment asserts that our flag is not simply a piece of cloth,
but like a photograph of our families on our desks, it symbolizes
certain unifying ideals that most Americans hold sacred.
Our national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' underscores the fact that we
are a thoroughly diverse Nation. If we look around this room, not at
this moment, but when we are all present, we see a wildly diverse group
of Irish and Greeks and Poles and African Americans and Hispanics, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Our whole country is a diverse exposition
of people coming together, proud of their ethnicity, of their language,
their native music, their culture.
But at the same time, there are unifying principles, things we share
together. That is what ``E Pluribus Unum'' means, ``one from many.'' We
are still one Nation. We are all blessed, no matter our background,
with the rule of law. That is a unity worth celebrating, not
denigrating.
What is it about this swatch of fabric we call a flag? What gives it
such beauty and power as it floats in the breeze? Well, men have
followed it into battle again and again in defense of freedom, draped
it over the coffins of heroes returned.
I remember standing at a gravesite in Normandy and looking at the
cross. It says, ``Here lies in honored glory, a comrade in arms known
but to God.'' And decorating that sparse, grim grave was a little flag
that somebody had put near the cross. I looked at that and I thought
that little flag was saying thank you for all America to that unknown
soldier, thank you and God grant you peace.
If we ask an old veteran attending a Memorial Day ceremony as he
struggles to his feet to salute the flag, what does he think of when we
see the flag, he will tell us freedom, sacrifice, and hope. Yes, it is
called Old Glory because it is old; it has been handed down from
generation to generation, and Glory because it stands for the most
precious ideas human beings have ever known.
Justice Frankfurter in a 1940 case said, ``We live by symbols.'' He
went on to say, ``The ultimate foundation of a free society is the
binding tie of cohesive sentiment.''
Woven into the fabric of the flag is the collective memory of America
from Bunker Hill to Baghdad. America lacks the cultural homogeneity
that China or Japan or even France has, but as Americans, we share the
unity of the Declaration.
But cohesive sentiment is what the flag symbolizes, and as tombstones
are not for toppling nor churches for vandalizing, flags are not for
burning. Burn a $10 bill and you violate the law. Walk down
Constitution Avenue at high noon without your clothes on and you will
soon learn the limits of self-expression. Free speech is not absolute,
never has been. We have slander and libel laws, copyright laws, and
many other limitations.
This amendment does not trivialize our Constitution, far from it. It
recognizes that nothing is more important in a democratic society than
emphasizing the tradition of responsibility that nourishes our liberty.
Saul Bellow, the novelist, said years ago, ``A great deal of
intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is
great.'' When I hear my learned friend, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler), managing this bill on the other side of the aisle, saying
that never in 200 years have we attempted to amend the first amendment,
I refer him to the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment, 1865-1868,
and suggest that maybe some law schools are better than others.
In any event, let me close with a paragraph from an article that I
have saved over the years written by a woman named Diane Schneider.
``You, of course, have the right to burn Old Glory. If you are
compelled to so express your disdain, if you can find no civil outlet
in speech or song, you are protected by law. But if I am there when you
put a match to the colors, know this: I will take the flaming fabric in
my hands, crush the embers and hold the star-spangled banner as high as
I can in the free wind.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me, my New York colleague. He and I both came to Congress
together.
[[Page H4824]]
I rise in support of and cosponsor this resolution which proposes an
amendment to the Constitution allowing Congress to ban the desecration
of our an American flag. You can speak your mind, but do not burn our
flag.
I am a strong supporter of our first amendment rights to the freedom
of expression. However, we do have limits. If I burn my car, protesting
the auto maker, I am fine. If I burn a U.S. dollar, it is illegal.
For instance, court-made law restricts our freedom of speech as
limited by the example given in law school classes about not screaming
fire in a theater. That is court-made law that restricts my freedom of
speech.
What we are trying to do today with this amendment is similar. We
want the authority to enact legislation to say that desecration or
burning the symbol of our country is unjust, just as yelling fire in a
crowded theater is unjust.
A hallowed symbol like our flag deserves to be respected and
protected as a national treasure. Our flag represents a principle our
Nation was founded on and many people have given their lives for. I
believe it should be afforded the maximum protection we can give it
legislatively.
For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we face this afternoon is
very simple. It is whether or not the American flag is of such
importance to the American people that their elected Representatives
should have the right to protect the desecration of that flag.
I would submit that the answer to that is deafening from voices from
every military base, local barbershop, restaurant, church, school, or
veterans group in America.
Last week I had the privilege to fly out to the USS Roosevelt as she
returned home from her great efforts in Iraq. Just before that great
aircraft carrier made its turn into the pier, all of those sailors in
white uniforms circled around the aircraft carrier and in each of their
hands was an American flag. As they turned and looked at the pier, they
all raised their flags up, and the people on the pier raised their
flags up in a great symbol of unity.
If we ask any of them if the flag is worth protecting, they will tell
us that we are absolutely doing the right thing.
But Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members that the testimony that was
most compelling to me did not come from any of these, or any of the
testimony before the subcommittee or the full committee, but it came
really in the unintentional testimony of my 17-year-old son, Justin,
that convinced me of what we were doing today and that it was the right
thing.
Justin is like a lot of teenagers, he does not like politics and his
greatest love is basketball. My wife and I were therefore surprised
when we discovered a few weeks ago that he had written an essay that
had been selected as the number one essay on patriotism in Virginia by
the State PTA.
He wrote that he was just an ordinary teenager who spent most of his
time talking about girls, playing basketball, or fixing up his 1981
Jeep. He said he had an ordinary grandfather who was neither richer,
smarter, nor better-looking than most people. Yet when his grandfather
was 19 years old, he left for the Army only 3 days after he got
married, and he ended up in a little place called Normandy.
Fortunately, he arrived several weeks after the initial invasion, but
Justin wrote that he could not get over the courage and commitment of
19-year-old boys coming off landing craft.
He wrote about September 11, when he looked at ordinary men and women
who did extraordinary things across the country, and the thing that
united them was the American flag.
Mr. Speaker, Justin concluded by saying that most of our heroes are
very ordinary people who do very extraordinary things. He said that
even though he might be ordinary, there was one time when he became
very extraordinary, and that was when he held his flag high. That
united him with his grandfather, it united him with the victims of 9/
11, and it united him with all the other great heroes of this country.
I agree with him. I think it is time we hold this flag up high. It is
time we say it really is a special piece of cloth.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we pass this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, certainly I am totally
appreciative of my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), yielding time to me.
When I first came to Congress, and each Congress since, I raised my
right hand and swore to uphold and defend our Constitution. I rise
today in the spirit of that oath.
Flag desecration offends all of us. Above all, we are a nation of
law. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that behavior to be
political expression, the very sort of unpopular speech the first
amendment was intended to protect. No matter how rude or unpleasant,
political expression of opposition to the government is constitutional.
This Congress, Mr. Speaker, is made up of people from all walks of
life, of all political, religious, and philosophical persuasions. That
does not deduce our patriotism among any of us. I was not born Julia
Carson; I was married into the family of Carsons. My husband, Sam
Carson, was a 100 percent service-connected Korean War veteran. My son,
Sam Carson, is also a veteran of the Marine Corps.
Once again this week, in the fifth Congress in a row, in anticipation
of Flag Day we are called upon to consider a bill to bring about an
amendment to the Constitution to get around the Supreme Court's
repeated holdings that tampering with, insulting, or defiling the flag
is protected conduct under the first amendment, the bedrock of our Bill
of Rights.
{time} 1545
I heard one of my distinguished colleagues indicate how good it is
for soldiers to come back into this country and be met by the waving of
the flag.
I was very troubled recently to see on the news where so many of our
reservists who were called up and who leave families behind, families
are in dire straits economically. One particular reservist left a
$25,000 job to serve his country and his family; his wife and four
children had to move in with her parents in very small and cramped
quarters. Yet we do a tax cut and cut out the families of those who are
sent to protect the freedom of Iraq and the freedom of America.
Over the years we have made constructive changes to our Constitution.
But in the 200 years we have enjoyed its protections, we have never
before changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights, not so much as a
single comma, recognizing and protecting that document as our freedom
shield. I believe that this is no time to change the first amendment's
protection of freedom and expression, so basic and so critical to the
way American democracy works. This is brought home especially by the
sacrifice of soldiers fighting and dying even today to ensure that
Iraqi people have the right to speak and live freely and the right to
protest against their own government. This is a fundamental value of
freedom's promise, no less in Iraq, no less in the United States.
When first I came to Congress, and each Congress since, I raised my
right hand and swore to uphold and defend our Constitution. Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in the spirit of that oath.
Flag desecration offends us all but, above all, we are a nation of
law. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that behavior to be
political expression, the very sort of unpopular speech the first
amendment was intended to protect--no matter how rude or unpleasant--
political expression of opposition to the government.
Once again this week, in the fifth Congress in a row, in anticipation
of Flag Day we are called upon to consider a bill to bring about an
amendment to the Constitution to get around the Supreme Court's
repeated holdings that tampering with, insulting or defiling the flag
is protected conduct under the first amendment, the bedrock of our Bill
of Rights.
The main objective of the first amendment is to stop Congress and the
courts from picking and choosing what kinds of speech are permitted. It
is clear that what would be regulated by this amendment is not physical
desecration of the flag, but the sentiments expressed by the action.
Over the years we have made constructive changes to our Constitution
but in the 210
[[Page H4825]]
years we have enjoyed its protections we have never before changed the
meaning of our Bill of Rights--not so much as a single comma--
recognizing and protecting that document as our freedom's shield.
I believe that this is no time to change the first amendment's
protection of freedom of expression, so basic and so critical to the
way American democracy works. This is brought home especially by the
sacrifice of our soldiers fighting and dying--even today--to assure the
Iraqi people the right to speak and live freely, and the right to
protest against their own government. This is a fundamental value of
freedom's promise, no less so in places where we would see freedom take
new root than here at home.
However offensive such conduct may feel, the answer is not to
restrict the freedom to speak. Rather, the answer is to remind our
fellow citizens of how important unfettered political speech is to our
democracy, how fundamental to our freedom. Supreme Court Justice Robert
Jackson put it well back in 1943--during World War II: ``Freedom to
differ is not limited to things that do not matter. That would be a
mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to
differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.''
Sometimes we make a law because we can and not because we should, a
powerful temptation we should resist. Changing the meaning of the
Constitution to address hateful conduct by a tiny minority is
unnecessary.
Together we have weathered severe crises over the past 2 years, proof
that we can withstand the ugly actions of a few misguided protesters.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said it well, ``I would not amend that
great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be
flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''
Patriotism that forces reverence for national symbols at the expense
of vital constitutional rights is not what our country is about.
I will honor and celebrate the flag by taking a stand for liberty and
to support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by voting to defeat
this proposal.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I am getting a little sick of hearing that this is an
assault on the first amendment. We are using constitutional processes
to overturn a Supreme Court decision that made no sense.
Now, last year a lot of my colleagues, not me, voted for a campaign
finance reform bill that significantly restricted people's rights to
express themselves on political issues. And that was emaciated by a
lower Federal court, and it probably will be declared unconstitutional
as well by the Supreme Court. So let us be consistent, the first
amendment is not absolute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I wish to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks just
previous and also restate the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of
the Bill of Rights. That is why we are here today.
I am a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 4, which empowers Congress
to protect the paramount symbol of liberty of the United States by
providing that ``the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States.''
To desecrate the American flag is equal to inciting a riot. Those
that burn the flag do so for the sole purpose of striking horror into
the hearts of veterans, members of armed services and patriots across
the country.
For over half a century, every single State in the Union, and later
the Federal Government, outlawed flag desecration without
constitutional objection. Such laws have now been negated by a single
opinion that the five Justices of the United States Supreme Court
rendered in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson.
Countless Americans have fought and died under our flag. Our flag
stands for our freedom as a Nation, a bulwark signifying not only our
sovereignty but our resolve as a people against tyranny and terror. We
must restore our great symbol of liberty to its rightful place under
the laws so that our ancestors and immigrants, our friends and enemies,
will have no doubt about its value, its meaning, or the very dear price
paid to preserve our freedom.
I witnessed the desecration of hundreds of flags in this city this
year. It is a sad and sickening sight. I urge you to vote for H.J. Res.
4 to protect our flag that Americans have fought and died for.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, last year this House and the other body and the
President all cooperated in passing legislation to improve campaign
financing techniques. Some people say that regulated speech. What it
did was regulate expenditures of money. Many people do not consider
money as speech. It is a different issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner).
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose what I think is a well
intentioned but misguided effort here to amend the first amendment, the
Bill of Rights.
Every nation on Earth that I know of has a flag. There is only one
that has a bill of rights and that is us. And that is the difference
here. Every repressive regime I know of throughout history has tried in
some form or another to repress the destruction of whatever they have
consider symbolic. Again, every nation on Earth has a flag. There is
only one that has a bill of rights, and that is us. We are talking
about the first amendment.
For Congress to knowingly give to the government the power to
prescribe what is permissible protest when that protest does not affect
any other freedoms, nor does it physically harm anybody else, but yet
give to the government the right to prescribe limits on that I think is
wrong. And I just say this, once we breach the Bill of Rights, they
then become relevant. Up until now they are not. We breach those, they
become relevant, believe you me it will not be long before there will
be some on this floor talking about the second amendment and why we
need to change that.
So I want all the conservative thinkers in this body and around the
country to think about what we are doing. As a symbol, we are going
over ground that has not been plowed. Every nation has a flag only. One
has a bill of rights, and that is why I think this is a misdirected
effort.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, even though I generally do not support
amending the Constitution, today I rise in strong support of this
proposed constitutional amendment.
We have come here today because five individuals in black robes have
opined that we must tolerate flag desecration as protected speech. As a
result of that opinion, 48 States and the District of Columbia have
decided not to enforce their own laws prohibiting the desecration of
the flag of the United States of America.
Clearly, I believe the Supreme Court has it wrong. The flag is a
unique symbol that merits our special recognition. The flag represents
our freedom, our history, and our values as a Nation. In battles
spanning 2 centuries in all corners of the globe, the flag has served
as an inspiration and rallying point for U.S. soldiers fighting for the
ideals it embodies.
More than a million Americans have given their lives in defense of
our flag and our unique way of life. Many of those who gave the last
full measure of devotion in serving their Nation were honored with a
flag draped over their caskets. This proposed amendment places the
debate exactly where our framers intended for it to take place, in the
town halls across America. It is the American people, not the Supreme
Court, that have the ultimate responsibility to answer constitutional
questions. And that is encouraging to me, Mr. Speaker, because as it
was suggested earlier that we act today to amend the Constitution
because of the vulgarization of society, I believe we are here actually
today because of the facilitation of the vulgarization of society by
the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States.
Forty-nine State legislatures, including my home State of Indiana,
have passed resolutions asking that Congress approve this amendment to
the Constitution. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I find the words of the Pledge
of Allegiance telling: ``I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands.''
I would underscore that this simple phrase recited every morning in
this
[[Page H4826]]
very Chamber pledges our allegiance not only to the Republic but to the
flag itself. Mr. Speaker, others will argue that the ideals of the flag
are the only things that are worth protecting. I must respectfully
disagree with their argument.
The flag itself occupies a unique place in our Republic. It is the
one symbol that merits our allegiance. Why do we continue to pledge our
devotion and support to a flag if we are not willing to protect it from
desecration? I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
When I was a little girl in elementary school and I learned the
Pledge of Allegiance, I was so very proud. Even in my French class our
French teacher taught us how to say the Pledge of Allegiance in French.
As I stand here today, I know I can still remember those words.
I am so pleased to hear so many talk about allegiance to the flag and
to the Republic, and they drape themselves in the flag and talk about
all these issues that are important to them; yet I have stood here on
the floor of the House and listened to my colleagues pass legislation
that denies liberty and justice for all in this country.
I have seen us pass legislation that denies liberty and justice for
all with regard to the child care credit. I have seen them deny liberty
and justice for all for a whole lot of reasons. But what I say to you
today is this debate is not about that piece of material up there, the
flag that we all revel. This debate is merely about whether we are
going to stand here and be divided, one side or the other, about
whether or not people have a right to free expression and a right to
free speech. And I stand with those who are entitled to free speech and
a right to speak out on their own.
I love the flag. All of us love the flag. But let us not fool anybody
about why we are debating the issue. It would be great. I even heard
someone talk about African American soldiers. My father was an African
American soldier. He is 83 years old. He was denied his rights of
liberty and justice because he had to serve in a segregated Army, and
he talks to me about that all the time.
So let us get real. Let us talk about the facts, and let us say the
only reason we are up here debating this issue is because there are
some who want to deny people the right of free expression and the right
of free speech. So I stand here opposed to this resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not believe
much good will come of it. A lot of good intentions are put into the
effort, but I see no real benefit.
It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance
laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to
worry about the first amendment when we are dealing with the flag
amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we
not be for the first amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform
and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and
advertise, at the same time we protect the first amendment here?
It seems that that consistency is absent in this debate.
It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to
hear much more about the first amendment. We have done it before, so
therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.
He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the
courts have ruled a certain way. And he says absolutely right, we can
do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a
beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect
the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of
the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some
historians as being correctly ratified.
I think one of our problems has been that we have drifted away from
the rule of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be
clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation of
the laws.
The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so
therefore we do violate the first amendment. Believe me, I have never
read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you
can lie and commit fraud under the first amendment. But the first
amendment does say ``Congress shall write no laws.'' That is precise.
So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by
the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment
that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the
desecration of the flag.
{time} 1600
So we do not know what the laws are, but when the laws are written,
that is when the conflict comes.
This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict. It
will be the laws that will be written and then we will have to decide
what desecration is and many other things.
Earlier in the debate it was said that an individual may well be
unpatriotic if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have
voted against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money in
the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really protect our
country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional
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. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case
that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the
Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or
not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of
Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment
simply restored the State's authority to ban flag burning, I would
enthusiastically support it.
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to
prohibit flag burning. 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.
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We
all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not
justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of
political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-
flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there has been only 16
documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the
majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that
is already punishable by local law enforcement!
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, ``Congress shall
make no law.'' That was the spirit of our Nation at that time:
``Congress shall make no laws.''
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original
intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private
property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember
that every time we write a law to control private behavior, 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, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways
patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official
definition of a ``patriot,'' we will send somebody to arrest you.
Fortunately, Congress has modals of flag desecration laws. For
example, Sadam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal
offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but
in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both
sides of this issue. I would like to quote 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.
[[Page H4827]]
Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time
winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also
expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:
I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer
out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long
after they have slunk away.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases
of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually
not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to
what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what I see on television
and it is the conduct that most angers me.
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming
control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time,
they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State
Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people
for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an
example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations
are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have
most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among
those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with
fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing
those who burn the Chinese flag.
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do
not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's
churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership
of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as
a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property
rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights
because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody.
But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe
everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend
money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned?
If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without
this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If
you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct
under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a
collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word
``desecration,'' which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols,
the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on
the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of
this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular
state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps
this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as
interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have
``no king but Christ'' should be troubled by this amendment.
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be
interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues
to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore
the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from
unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I love our flag and that for which it
stands. It stands for a Nation founded by people fleeing from an
oppressive regime. It stands for freedoms, not the least of which is
the freedom of opinion and the unimpeded expression thereof, including
the freedom to protest.
Bear in mind, this was a Nation founded by protesters. When our
Founding Fathers sought to guarantee these freedoms, they created not a
flag but a Constitution, debating the meaning of each and every word,
every amendment, every one of which gives people rights. They did not
debate a flag. The flag would become a symbol of these rights.
There are those who would have fewer rights. Why? What is the threat
to the Republic that drives us to erode the Bill of Rights?
Well, someone burned the flag. Whatever happened to fighting to the
death for somebody's right to disagree? We now choose instead to react
by taking away a form of the right to protest. Most people abhor flag
burners, but even a despicable, low-life malcontent has a right to
disagree and disagree in an obnoxious fashion if he wishes. That is the
true test of free expression, and we here are about to fail that test.
These are rare but vile acts of desecration that have been cited by
those who would propose changing our founding document, but these acts
do not harm 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 burns a
flag, freedom is not at risk. We are offended. To change our
Constitution because someone offends us is, in itself, unconscionable.
Hitler banned the burning of the flag. Mussolini banned the burning
of the flag. Saddam banned the burning of the flag. Dictatorships fear
flag burners. The reason our flag is different is because it stands for
burning the flag.
Though we in proper suits may decry the protests and the protestors
and the flag burners, protecting their right is the true stuff of a
democracy. 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
worshiped as pagans would, rather than to be kept as the beloved symbol
of our freedom that is to be cherished.
It is not the flag burners who threaten democracy. Rather, it is
those who would deny them. In the name of our Founding Fathers, save us
from those who would put up this defense.
The Constitution was written by intellectual giants and is here today
being nibbled by small men with press secretaries. If flag burners
offend us, do not beat a cowardly retreat by rushing to ban them.
Protesters, like grapes, cannot be eliminated by stomping on them. Meet
their ideas with bigger ideas for an ever better America to protect the
flag by protecting democracy, not by retreating from it.
We cannot kill a flag. It is a symbol, and yes, patriots have died;
but recall what they have died for. They have died for liberty. They
have died for democracy. They have died for the right to speak out in
protest. They have died for values.
The flag is a symbol of those values. What they died for are American
principles. Saying that people died for the flag is symbolic language.
The Constitution gives us our rights. The Constitution guarantees our
liberties. The Constitution embodies our freedoms. It is our substance.
The flag is the symbol for which it stands.
True patriots choose substance over symbolism. Diminish one right and
it shall forever stand for less. Do not pass this amendment. Do not
diminish the Constitution. Do not cheapen the flag.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to amend the
Constitution to give the Congress the authority to prevent the physical
desecration of the American flag, and I would note the comments of the
gentleman from New York, citing some dictators who have prohibited
destroying flags, and would point out that many others of a very
different mind-set have strongly supported this, including President
Abraham Lincoln. Many justices of the Supreme Court, as disparate in
their views as Earl Warren and William Rehnquist and Hugo Black have
found that the laws of the many States prohibiting the desecration of
the flag to be constitutional, and it is only because of a narrow five-
four majority at one moment in time in our Court's history, finding
these laws to be unconstitutional and overturning the work of 48 States
and the District of Columbia, that it is necessary for the Congress to
address this.
I would argue to the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have respect,
that we are turning away from the rule of law when we do not recognize
that with freedom comes responsibility, and we have always recognized
in the first amendment that there are a number of instances in which
free speech is limited. A person cannot shout fire in a crowded
theater. They cannot engage in slander or libel. They cannot engage in
fighting words. There are a number of such restrictions, and certainly,
the prohibition on the physical act of destroying a flag should be
included
[[Page H4828]]
amongst them because it is the equivalent of fighting words to burn a
flag in front of a group of veterans who put their lives on the line
for their country and fought for the freedom which that flag
represents.
This is a very basic, very straightforward amendment supported by the
overwhelming majority of the American people, and I urge my colleagues
to support this resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said before and will be said
again that everyone who speaks on this amendment loves this flag that
hangs behind me as a symbol of the greatest democracy on the face of
the earth, as a symbol of the country that has demonstrated throughout
history the greatest countenance in the principles for which that flag
stands.
It gives me absolutely no pleasure to oppose this proposed
constitutional amendment providing the physical desecration of our
flag. I believe people ought not to engage in that kind of activity,
but our flag is more than mere cloth. It is a universal symbol for
freedom, democracy and liberty, and it will continue to be so for so
long as the symbols for which it stands flies high in the hearts of
every American. That is where it needs to fly high, in our hearts and
in our intellect.
Those who would desecrate it only seek to grab attention for
themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without
doubt, they deserve both our contempt and our pity for their stupidity,
but while I appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer
and support this amendment, I will oppose it for the reasons so
eloquently articulated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and
Senator McConnell of Kentucky.
In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, Senator McConnell
stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution at its very
center, the first amendment.'' That was Senator McConnell. He added,
``Our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to
damage our Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.''
The question before us today is how we, the United States of America,
the greatest democracy the world has ever known, the greatest bastion
of freedom the world has ever known, a bastion of freedom that remains
free because of the efforts of the Duke Cunninghams and the Sam
Johnsons and so many others who risked their lives to maintain that
freedom, the question before us is how to deal with those individuals
who dishonor our Nation in this manner.
Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment, in my opinion, is neither
the appropriate nor the best method for dealing with these malcontents.
As the late Justice Brennan wrote in the Supreme Court of Texas v.
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.''
That is what Thomas Jefferson talked about, that the best response to
wrong speech was right speech, not prohibiting speech.
Our traditions, our values, our democratic principles, all embodied
in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should not be overridden to
prohibit this particularly offensive manner of speech, no matter how
much we may disagree with it or how much contempt we may have for those
who would express themselves in such an inappropriate and negative way.
The inflammatory actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish, it must
not extinguish, our ideals. We can only do that ourselves, and I submit
that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech, even speech as
this, is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for
even more restrictions.
``America'' is one of the great songs, and one of the lines from that
song is ``Long may thy land be bright with freedom's holy light.''
Freedom is not allowing those with whom we agree to express their
opinion; it is allowing those with whom we deeply disagree to express
theirs.
Long may this land be bright with freedom's holy light. That is our
responsibility. That is our oath.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, this proposed constitutional amendment does not restrict
anybody from saying whatever they want to say about the flag, about the
government, about their opinions of any public official, of any
candidate for office, of the policies that have been made by the
Federal Government, the State government or the local government. What
it does do is to prohibit offensive acts, such as burning the flag or,
in my own State, using the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the State
Supreme Court said that defecating on the flag was an act that was a
protected political expression under the first amendment to the United
States Constitution.
The only way to put sense back into the law is to pass H.J. Res. 4.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend not only
the flag of the United States, but also what it stands for and for
those who have defended it throughout our Nation's history.
{time} 1615
The American flag is the greatest symbol of hope and freedom in the
world. Countless Americans have fought and died for the freedom that
our flag represents, and the desecration of our great flag is an
assault on their sacrifice.
Police officers and firefighters, as well, wear the flag on their
sleeves each and every day as they do their duty to protect our
communities. And on September 11, every American witnessed those brave
firefighters raising Old Glory out of the rubble of the World Trade
Center. That was a symbol of America's resolve that our freedom will
reign even in the face of unprecedented terror.
To allow the desecration of the flag is to give hope to those whose
goal it is to destroy our freedom. I urge my colleagues to stand up for
the freedom that the flag represents, to stand up for those who have
fought and died to defend our freedom, to stand up for those who
protect our communities and our Nation, to stand up for our flag.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a law professor who
fiercely believes in the first amendment, but I am also the son and
grandson of Army generals and a veteran of ground combat in Vietnam.
I accept the argument that I, my father, my grandfather, other
relatives, many of whom were wounded, some of whom died, did not fight
for a piece of cloth, but rather for what it symbolizes. Yet our
memories and emotions are inextricably intertwined with that cloth
itself. And the cloth symbolizes a country whose Constitution is not
writ in stone, immutable for all time. Instead, our Constitution
establishes a process for its amendment.
Mr. Speaker, no harm or violence is done here to our constitutional
system by an amendment designed to respect the memories and emotions
that are inextricably interwoven with the cloth of our flag. In fact, I
believe that respecting those memories and emotions nourishes a vital
spirit in this country, the spirit of individual sacrifice in combat
for the good of the country.
Our country's great freedoms were won and enjoyed today because of
the selfless sacrifices of countless, often nameless, sometimes unknown
heroes. Amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration is a
small way to thank these individuals who cannot be thanked enough. And
this amendment is a small price to pay if it strengthens our Republic
and helps ensure its future.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham) made the statement, and it is true, that during our
Civil War flag desecration was regarded as treasonous and punishable by
death.
[[Page H4829]]
Today's resolution brings to mind when I was a POW in Vietnam. All
they told us was that there were demonstrations here in this country;
that people were burning our flag; that people were against the war.
And you know what that did for our morale? Nothing. It was bad. We need
to stop that.
I well remember when, at our homecoming, which was the day the
longest-held prisoners left Vietnam for America, and I was part of that
group, I remember cheering when we got out over the water. And looking
out the window of our C-130 as we got in to Clark Air Base, guess what
we saw? The American flag, the flag of the United States of America,
with all the people on that base out to welcome us waving those flags.
Not one of them was burning it or desecrating it. They were draped on
the hangars, they were draped on the buses. What I remember most was
how happy everyone looked, including those of us who were returning to
this country to see the American flag hanging from a hangar.
We are truly blessed to call America the land of the free and the
home of the brave, and I do not think we should disrespect all she
stands for and all those who have fought for her. We need to protect
this great flag. Vote for this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) has 20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first let me comment on what was just said by the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, by reading an article written by a
prisoner of war named James Warner. He wrote in ``The Retired Officer''
on September of 1989 of his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
He writes as follows:
``We could subvert them,'' meaning his torturers, the North
Vietnamese, ``by teaching them about freedom through our example. We
could show them the power of ideas. I did not appreciate this power
before I was a prisoner of war. I remember one interrogation, where I
was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning
a flag. There, the officer,'' that is the enemy officer, ``there, the
officer said, people in your country protest against your cause. That
proves that you are wrong. No, I said, that proves that I am right. In
my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people
disagree with us. The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face
purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto a table and screamed at me
to shut up. While he was ranting, I was astonished to see pain,
compounded by fear in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor
have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture
of the burning flag, against him.''
That is the close of the quote from this article from ``The Retired
Officer'' by James Warner, former prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is we have heard today that
desecration of the flag ought to be made unconstitutional because it is
not valid speech. True, the first amendment is not absolute. We do not
allow people to yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is evidence
that there is a real fire. The Supreme Court ruled that many years ago.
But the core protection of the first amendment is for ideas, for
outrageous ideas, for obnoxious ideas, for ideas that we find horrible
and offensive and dangerous.
Our philosophy, what makes this country different and unique, is that
this country is built on a foundation, the foundation being the belief
in freedom, in liberty, in the fact that, not always the case but we
fervently believe in the fact that good ideas will drive out of the
marketplace of bad ideas; that good speech will defeat bad speech. And
we do not legislate against bad speech; we do not legislate against
speech that we disagree with or find outrageous.
Now, we have heard, of course, that we are not talking about speech
here, we are talking about expressive acts. But the fact of the matter
is, again, we are talking about speech. We are talking about speech
that people are frightened of and outraged about because it offends
them. Because, again, the very acts we would be outlawing or permitting
Congress to outlaw with this amendment would not, by anybody's stretch
of the imagination, be outlawed unless accompanied by the wrong speech.
Again, as the gentleman from Virginia earlier today told us, and as I
mentioned in my opening remarks, the recommended manner, recommended by
the law, of disposing of a flag is to burn it. So, again, if you burn
the flag, and while you burn it you say respectful things, that is
wonderful. But if you burn the flag while saying what a terrible policy
the current administration is following or if you burn the flag while
saying what a terrible policy we are conducting and that we do not like
this country, then we would make that criminal. Why? Not because the
act of the flag burning is any different than when it was done with
respectful words, but because in the one case the words were respectful
and in the other case the words were obnoxious.
I agree the words are obnoxious. But the whole idea of freedom is to
protect obnoxious words, especially obnoxious words or words that I or
you may regard as obnoxious, though someone else may regard as fine and
intelligent. That is their privilege. That is what freedom is about.
The freedom of speech is not freedom for what we agree with, but
freedom for what we find outrageous. Not just disagreeable, but
outrageous.
When someone criticizes our country and says the war we are fighting
is wrong, or the conduct of our troops is terrible, or whatever they
may say that we may find disagreeable, outrageous and horrible, the
glory of this country is that we give them the freedom to say it. And
when someone burns a flag, and again there is no epidemic of flag
burning, this amendment is really directed not at an existent problem,
or has not existed really in the last 30 years of any size, but when
you burn a flag and say respectful things, that is okay, because the
law says that is okay; but when you burn a flag and say disrespectful
things, that is not okay, what these circumstances say and that what we
are really legislating against is the speech and not the act.
The act, accompanied by the right circumstances, would never be
outlawed. We would not prosecute people who desecrated the flag as part
of a movie or a play when they were portraying enemy soldiers, Nazi
soldiers, or Chinese soldiers in the Korean War, because we do not
think they mean it. What do they not mean? The speech. It is the ideas
and the speech that we are outlawing by such an amendment. That is at
the core of protected speech, at the core of the first amendment, at
the core of the values we are supposed to hold dear. And that is why
this amendment is so wrongheaded and ought not to be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States was ratified and
came into effect in 1789. For 200 years, nobody seriously said that
desecrating the American flag violated the first amendment to the
Constitution. In fact, the Federal Government, 48 States and the
District of Columbia passed statutes declaring flag desecration
criminal conduct and prescribing criminal penalties.
It was only after 200 years and the Vietnam War that a flag
desecration case claiming that first amendment rights were violated
reached the Supreme Court of the United States. And what were the facts
of the Johnson case? The Johnson case did not involve protesting the
Vietnam War. It was burning the flag in front of the 1984 Republican
National Convention that was held in Dallas.
Five years later, the case reached the Supreme Court. They decided,
by a 5 to 4 margin, that flag desecration was political expression that
enjoyed constitutional protection. And that was the first time in over
200 years of this Constitution being affected that the courts ruled
that that type of activity was constitutionally protected.
I agree with what Chief Justice Rehnquist said in the dissenting
opinion: ``I cannot agree that the first amendment invalidates the act
of Congress and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which made criminal the
public burning of the flag.''
[[Page H4830]]
If Members agree that the first amendment does prohibit this, then
vote ``no'' on the constitutional amendment. I do not impugn anybody's
patriotism. This is a legitimately held political position. But if my
colleagues think that the Constitution should allow a criminal statute
to prevent the public desecration of the American flag, the only way
this can be accomplished is through the strong medicine of amending the
Constitution.
The Supreme Court has twice said that if this is attempted to be done
by statute, the first amendment is violated. I think that the
government should be able to prevent the physical desecration of the
American flag no matter how it is done. That is why I support this
amendment, and I would hope that over two-thirds of the Members of this
House of Representatives will support this amendment when we vote on it
shortly.
Mr. S0UDER. Mr. Speaker, for more than two hundred years, the
American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our
nation. During the Second World War, U.S. Marines fought hand to hand
against thousands of Japanese at Iwo Jima. Upon reaching the top of
Mount Suribachi, a group of these Marines raised a piece of pipe and
from one end fluttered a flag. This ascent cost nearly 6,000 American
lives. As you know, the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington National
Cemetery memorializes that event. There would seem to be little
question about the power of Congress to prohibit the mutilation of this
monument. The flag itself can be seen as a monument, subject to similar
protection.
It is true that a person may, in a sense, ``own'' the flag. But this
ownership is subject to special burdens and responsibilities. Congress
has prescribed detailed rules for the design of the flag, the time and
occasion of the flag's display, the position and manner of its display,
respect for the flag and conduct during hoisting, and lowering and
passing the flag. With the exception of Alaska and Wyoming, all the
States have statutes prohibiting the burning of the flag.
When the desecration of the flag is used as a protest, far more than
a single flag is being violated. The devotion of every American who has
expended their blood, sweat, and tears for this great nation is being
battered. This amendment takes on even more importance given the events
of September 11th. After watching the horrific events unfold on
television, our nation came together through the patriotic display of
old glory. The flag became a rallying point and sent a message to our
enemies that we will not back down.
I commend the gentleman from California for this important piece of
legislation. As it is phrased, H.J. Res. 4 would permit Congress to
enact laws addressing physical desecration of our flag. Passage of this
legislation through both the House and Senate would allow the American
people to vote on this amendment. In doing so we will not only affirm
the right to speak one's opinions, but also to protect the symbol of
those freedoms that thousands of Americans have died giving their last
full measure of devotion to protect.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how excited I am that we
are finally going to have the chance to pass this amendment that will
restore the American flag to its rightful position of honor. I share
much of the feelings of my predecessor in this seat: the Honorable
Gerald Solomon. It has been a long time coming since that tragic day in
1989 when five Supreme Court justices decided it was OK to burn the
flag and thereby hurt so many feelings around this country. That is why
I am so proud to cosponsor this amendment on behalf of the American
people. Today, we are going to hear the same arguments against this
amendment that we have heard for years now. I respect the opinions of
those opponents. That is their first amendment right.
But, Mr. Speaker, supporters of this amendment come to the floor
today with the overwhelming support of nearly 80 percent of the
American people. They are people from all walks of life: from religious
organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Masonic Orders, from
civic organizations like the Polish and Hungarian and Ukrainian
federations, from fraternal organizations like the Benevolent Order of
Elks, Moose International, and the Federation of Police, and from other
groups like the National Grange and Future Farmers of America.
Perhaps most impressive is the resounding support from the States
around this country. All 50 States support this Flag Protection
Amendment. After all, when have all 50 States agreed on anything?
Some opponents of this amendment claim it is an infringement of their
First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, and they claim if the
American people knew it, they would be against this amendment. Well,
there is a Gallup poll taken of people outside the Beltway--that is
real people, you know, real down-to-earth people. Seventy-six percent
of the people in that poll say ``No,'' a constitutional amendment to
protect our flag would not jeopardize their right of free speech. In
other words, the American people do not view flag burning as a
protected right, and they still want this constitutional amendment
passed, no matter what.
Mr. Speaker, we should never stifle speech, and that is not what we
are seeking to do here today. People can state their disapproval for
this amendment. They can state their disapproval for this country, if
they want to. That is their protected right. However, it is also the
right of the people to redress their grievances and amend the
Constitution as they see fit. They are asking for this amendment.
Therefore, I am asking you to send this amendment to the States and let
the American people decide. That is really what America is all about.
And speaking of America, what is more important than Old Glory. It is
what makes us Americans--and not something else. Over the past two
centuries and especially in recent years, immigrants from all over this
world have flocked to America, knowing little about our culture and our
heritage. But they know a lot about our flag and respect it! Salute
it--pledge allegiance to it. Mr. Speaker, it is the flag, which has
brought this diverse group together, and made them Americans. No matter
what our ethnic differences; no matter where we come from, whether it
is up in the Adirondack Mountains of New York where I come from or Los
Angeles, California; no matter what our ideology point of view, be it
liberal or conservative, we are all bound together by those uniquely
American qualities represented by our flag.
It is that common bond which brings us to this point, where we can
elevate the Stars and Stripes above the political fray, and carry out
the will of the vast majority of the American people. It is only
appropriate, that the Constitution, our most sacred document, include
within its terms, a protection of Old Glory, our most sacred and
beloved national symbol. All that is required now, is for each of us to
draw upon our patriotic fire, and do all we can to effect this demanded
change to our Constitution. Please vote for this constitutional
amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, my father served in World War II and
when I look at the American flag I see the sacrifices he and our
nation's troops and veterans have made for us to be able to live
freely. An important part of that freedom is the ability of our
citizens to express themselves in any way that does not infringe on the
rights of others. That is what sets the United States apart from so
many other nations. Our constitutionally assured freedom of speech
serves as a check against government oppression and injustice.
The Supreme court has held in several important First Amendment cases
that a person may desecrate a flag, so long as a danger is not created.
In 1989, the Supreme Court stated in Texas V. Johnson that any speech,
particularly such intentionally expressive and overtly political speech
as the burning of the flag, is protected; it is within the realm of
liberties which our constitution guarantees us. Our government cannot
dictate how we express ourselves politically, so long as we do not
endanger or violate the rights of others.
While I personally find the desecration of this country's flag to be
reprehensible, even more important than the flag itself is the freedom
and liberty it represents. It is a sad day when, in the name of
patriotism, we limit the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment of
the constitution. The flag is a symbol of the principles and freedoms
that make our country great. When we encroach upon those freedoms, we
risk doing far more harm to our nation than any flag burner could ever
do.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family
medical emergency I could not be present today during the debate and
votes on H.J. Res. 4, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to make burning or otherwise desecrating a United States
flag a federal offense. I would, however, like to submit this statement
for the record so that my position on this resolution is clear.
The flag burning amendment is an emotional issue that in my opinion
cuts to the core of the things we hold dear and value as a nation. I do
not question anyone's patriotism or conviction no matter where they
stand on this issue. Mine is a matter of record. As a member of the
Connecticut State Senate I voted to protect the flag, I did so not to
limit peoples' freedom of expression, but to limit hateful behavior.
Burning the flag is not speech, and as an expression it seeks to
engender hate.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but have long felt that honoring
my father's memory and that of so many veterans of his generation and
mine, who have given their lives in defense of the nation should be
afforded the respect they richly deserve. I do not believe that we
endanger our freedom by protecting the flag and honoring their memory.
While I do support this proposed amendment, and have voted for it in
the past, I also
[[Page H4831]]
understand and respect the opinions of those who have expressed concern
about the possibility that this amendment could affect First Amendment
rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I would, therefore,
consistent with my votes in the 107th Congress on this issue, also
support the substitute amendment offered by my colleague Congressman
Watt that I believe represents an acceptable compromise on this issue.
I will remain steadfast in protecting peoples' freedom of speech, and
speaking out against discrimination and injustice. As someone who
adamantly supports the crime legislation, I cannot be oblivious to the
incendiary nature and emotional response evoked by burning the nation's
flag. For many Americans, burning the flag is a hateful action that is
as repugnant as burning a cross on a lawn, or painting a swastika on a
synagogue.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
4, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize
Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. This amendment not
only stands in stark contrast to what the flag represents, but this
debate today is keeping the House from addressing more urgent matters
facing our country.
The flag is a symbol of American greatness. It inspires awe and pride
and is the official emblem of our nation. And, above all, it stands for
freedom; the freedom we are guaranteed by being lucky enough to live in
America. Ironically, this amendment would punish those who exercise
that freedom. In our country, dissenting views are allowed and
tolerated, even expressions as offensive as flag desecration. To take
away this fundamental freedom of expression is to dishonor the flag and
the liberty it represents.
Furthermore, this amendment is uncalled for. At this time when there
are so many issues that this House should be addressing--when American
soldiers continue to die every day in Iraq, when millions of low-income
families are being left behind by the Republican Congress and the Bush
Administration, when seniors across America can't afford their
prescription drugs and millions more lack any health care coverage, and
when millions of schoolchildren lack such basic resources as textbooks
and safe classrooms--the House is instead debating a bill that is
unnecessary, controversial, vague, and, if passed, would undermine our
democracy.
Webster's dictionary defines ``desecrate'' as ``violating the
sanctity of'' and ``treating disrespectfully, irreverently, or
outrageously.'' This bill does not specifically define ``desecration.''
Therefore, if the amendment were to be passed, we would then be forced
to discuss whether flag desecration included printing the flag on
clothing or dropping small plastic flags on the ground after parades;
we would have to discuss if the ``protected flags'' had size
regulations or had to be made of specific material; we would have to
decide if flags on personal property were ``protected''; and on and on.
These debates are necessary. Instead of debating what freedoms we
should be infringing upon and taking away, this House of
Representatives should be doing everything it can to protect people's
freedoms, especially our freedom of speech, and be working toward
solutions to the problems that plague our constituents every day.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 4.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House
Joint Resolution 4 to ban the desecration of the United States flag.
Following the horrific events of September 11th, our nation responded
with an overwhelming show of patriotism. Across our land Americans
proudly flew their flags from their homes, cars and workplaces as a
demonstration of their love for the United States, our values, and
their support for the war against terrorism.
These actions clearly illustrate that the American people see the
flag as a symbol of hope, strength, and freedom. It is the one national
symbol that we can all unify behind. In the flag is at one time our
history, our aspirations, and our identity. Therefore, we should act
today as reaffirmation of what our country stands for.
I would be the first person to stand up in defense of freedom of
speech; however, there are some actions that are not free political
speech but behaviors gauged to anger. Defacing the United States flag
is one of these actions. Those who wish to protest against the actions
of our country can do it through our media, hold rallies, give
speeches, and march in demonstrations. Those same people can contact
elected officials, sign petitions, and express their views in many
ways.
To burn the flag not only suggests disgust for our great country, it
also shows a lack of respect for the men and women who are currently
fighting overseas, and even more so for those who have fought and died
to make the United States of America what it is today.
I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution and vote in favor of
final passage.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this resolution.
I am not in support of burning the flag. But I am even more opposed
to weakening the First Amendment, one of the most important things for
which the flag itself stands.
I agree with the Boulder Daily Camera that ``If Congress and the
states embraced this amendment, it would shield a symbol of freedom
while assailing the very freedom it signifies. That symbolic flag
desecration would be far more egregious than the theatrics of any two-
bit protester.''
As the Denver Post put it when the House considered a similar
proposal two years ago. ``The American flag represents freedom. Many
men and women fought and died for this country and its constitutional
freedoms under the flag. They didn't give their lives for the flag;
they died for this country and the freedom it guarantees under the Bill
of Rights. Those who choose to desecrate the flag can't take away its
meaning. In fact, it is our constitutional freedoms that allow them
their reprehensible activity.''
I completely agree. So, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, former
Senator John Glenn, and others who have testified against it, I will
oppose this resolution.
For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the editorials on
this subject in the Daily Camera and the Denver Post:
[From the Boulder (CO) Daily Camera, May 7, 2003]
The Real Desecration
``Flag protection amendment'' assails American values
Colin Powell loves our country, its Constitution and the
flag. A general and a statesman, he has spent decades
defending all three. Unlike many members of Congress,
however, Powell can differentiate between our sweet liberty
and a cherished symbol of that liberty.
Congress should heed Powell's advice. Let's hope it does.
In the U.S. House of Representatives today, a committee is
scheduled to consider a proposed constitutional amendment on
``flag protection.''
If ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the
amendment would allow Congress to do what the First Amendment
forbids: to criminalize the physical desecration of the U.S.
flag.
The House version of the flag-protection resolution has 135
co-sponsors, including Colorado Reps. Bob Beauprez, Joel
Hefley, Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo. Colorado Sens.
Wayne Allard and Ben Nighthorse Campbell are among the 55
Senate co-sponsors.
For years ago, Powell was asked about the flag-desecration
amendment, which members of Congress were then, like now,
pursuing. First, Powell noted, very few Americans burn the
flag. Second, he said, these desecrators are irrelevant:
``They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no
damage to our system of freedom, which tolerates such
desecration.''
Powell said he would not alter the Constitution on their
account. ``I would not amend that great shield of democracy
to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying
proudly long after they have slunk away.''
It's just that simple. If Congress and the states embraced
this amendment, it would shield a symbol of freedom while
assailing the very freedom it signifies. That symbolic flag
desecration would be far more egregious than the theatrics of
any two-bit protester. It is nothing short of stupefying that
many of our leaders continue to ignore this self-evident
truth.
____
[From the Denver (CO) Post, June 25, 2001]
Flag Amendment Should Die
Although a proposed constitutional amendment to ban
desecration of the American flag continues to lose steam, it
nonetheless is once again being considered in the U.S. House.
The amendment, one of the most contentious free speech
issues before Congress, would allow penalties to be imposed
on individuals or groups who burn or otherwise desecrate the
flag.
In past years, the amendment has succeeded in passing the
House only to be killed, righteously, on the Senate floor.
The American flag represents freedom. Many men and women
fought and died for this country and its constitutional
freedoms under the flag. They didn't give their lives for the
flag; they died for this country and the freedom it
guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Those who choose to
desecrate the flag can't take away its meaning. In fact, it
is our constitutional freedoms that allow them their
reprehensible activity.
American war heroes like Secretary of State Colin Powell
and former Sen. John Glenn strongly oppose this amendment.
Glenn has warned that ``it would be a hollow victory indeed
if we preserved the symbol of freedoms by chopping away at
those fundamental freedoms themselves.''
In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that desecration
of the flag should be protected as free speech.
Actual desecration of the flag is, in fact, a rare
occurrence and hardly a threat. There have been only a
handful of flag-burnings in the last decade. It's not a
national problem. What separates our country from
authoritarian regimes is the guarantee of free
[[Page H4832]]
speech and expression. It would lessen the meaning of those
protections to amend our Constitution in this way.
The amendment is scheduled to go before the House this
week, although if it passes it would still have to face a
much tougher audience in the Senate. The good news is that
House support of the amendment has been shrinking in recent
years. It is possible that if that trend continues, the
amendment could not only die this year but fail to return in
subsequent years. We urge House lawmakers to let this issue
go.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for any constitutional
amendment that undermines the First Amendment, which, as the U.S.
Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, protects even unpopular forms of
dissent. Our founding fathers well know the importance of free speech
and expression, and carrying on that tradition, we should do everything
possible to ensure that this fundamental cornerstone of our democracy
remains intact.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this legislative proposal to amend the Constitution, giving Congress
the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.
For more than 2 centuries, the first amendment to the Constitution
has safeguarded the right of our people to write or publish almost
anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to
protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a
sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth,
ours is a country with a constitution and a body of laws that
accommodates a wide-ranging public debate.
There is little question that those who would desecrate the flag have
a lack of respect for this great nation. But we need not give these
misinformed individuals any more attention than they deserve.
One can imagine the future protest situations that would take place
should this legislation ever receive the massive support required of a
constitutional change. It would be outrageous. And the contribution to
the average hardworking American? More taxpayer dollars and police
manpower wasted in the pursuit of little more than an offender lacking
patriotism and good taste. The American flag does not need protection
from such poor behavior. The principles embodied in it outshine such
cowardly attempts to defame its stature.
Rather than spending time today arguing the merits of the 1st
amendment, we should be focusing more attention on improving the daily
lives of millions of Americans. From the rising costs of health care to
a lack of affordable housing, many of our nation's veterans are
struggling to make ends meet and now brace for the substantial cuts in
benefits passed by this body. But instead of tackling those issues, we
stand here debating a solution in search of a problem. Those brave men
and women who risked their lives protecting our democracy need more
than politicians paying them lip service, they need money to help pay
the bills.
Heck, they can't even get a proper military burial service at
Arlington National Cemetery because cuts to Veterans Affairs funding
have eliminated the use of live buglers and replaced them with battery
powered boom boxes. What a shame.
In short, the amendment in question is unnecessary. We don't need it
and we must not become the first Congress in U.S. history to chill
public debate by amending the Constitution in such a way. This issue
truly tests the notion of freedom of speech guaranteed by our fore
fathers. Let's pass this test and do the right thing by opposing this
unmerited resolution.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4,
which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws
banning the desecration of the flag.
I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag. And if I saw someone
desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them at risk of
injury or incarceration. For me, it would be a badge of honor.
But I think this Constitutional Amendment is an overreaction to a
nonexistent problem. Keep in mind the Constitution has been amended
only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791.
This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave
blacks and women the right to vote and guarantees freedom of speech and
freedom of religion.
Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do not think we
should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a
corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, without an
amendment. I agree with Colin Powell who, when he served as Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote it was a mistake to amend the
Constitution, ``that great shield of democracy, to hammer a few
miscreants.''
When I think of the flag, I think about the courageous men and women
who have died defending it and the families they left behind. What they
were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights
it guarantees as embodied by the flag.
I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution
even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol; it is the very
principles on which our nation was founded.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this constitutional
amendment to empower Congress to enact legislation to protect Old Glory
from desecration.
This is not an issue about what people can say about the flag, the
United States, or its leaders. Those rights are fully protected. The
issue here is that the flag, as a symbol of our Nation, is so revered
that Congress has a right and an obligation, to prohibit its willful
and purposeful desecration. It is the conduct that is the focus.
After September 11, Old Glory of any size, any fabric, including ones
made by school children from construction paper; those stuck in flower
pots, pinned on lapels, or decals posted in the back window of pickup
trucks were displayed everywhere. On the news, Tom Brokaw referred to
this phenomenon ``like countless bandages of patriotism covering a
nation's wounds--a reassuring symbol'' of what it means to be an
American. It represents the physical embodiment of everything that is
great and good about our nation--the freedom of our people, the courage
of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our people to protect
our freedoms from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is not a coincidence that when others seek to criticize America,
they burn the American flag. Old Glory is the embodiment of all that is
America--the freedoms of the Constitution, the pride of her citizens,
and the honor of her soldiers, not all of whom make it home.
I have seen the Stars and Stripes on a distant battlefield. Across
the river from here is a memorial of another battlefield and to the
valiant efforts of our fighting men to raise the flag at Iwo Jima. It
was not just a piece of cloth that rose on that day over 50 years ago.
It was the physical embodiment of all we, as Americans, treasure--the
triumph of liberty over totalitarianism; the duty to pass the torch of
liberty to our children undimmed.
The flag is worth protecting, defending. I urge the adoption of the
Amendment.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.J. Res. 4. This amendment rightfully restores authority to
Congress to regulate the treatment of our most precious national
symbol--the American flag.
The flag has been a symbol of our freedoms for over 200 years.
Our flag has sailed around the world, it has traveled to the moon, it
has flown atop the North Pole and Mt. Everest, it has withstood war
both on our soil and abroad--each time representing what our nation
stands for--freedom and democracy.
Over the years our flag has not only inspired but has comforted our
nation. This was never more evident than the days, weeks and months
following September 11. It was a photo of 3 firefighters raising the
flag amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center that showed not only
our nation, but the world we would not fall. A few days later we
watched as the flag was draped over the Pentagon--we showed the world
with that one action--terrorists may have tried but they did not
succeed in destroying our nation and all we hold dear.
On September 11 the terrorists forced war upon our country. Since
that day our military has been fighting a global war against terrorism.
These brave young men and women risk their lives every day to defend
the very freedoms the flag represents.
I served in the United States Army, fortunately during peacetime, but
as a Captain in the US Army if my country called, myself and those who
I served alongside, were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to
defend the freedoms our flag represented.
It saddens me to see people in foreign countries celebrate as they
burn our flag--I cannot do anything about what they do in their
streets, but I can try to do something about what happens in our
streets. It disgusts me when I see our own citizens desecrate the flag,
the flag represents all our nation has been through and embodies all
our nation stands for--to burn the flag is to burn all it stands for.
I wonder how the soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, who fight every day
to protect our nation from ever seeing the horrors of another September
11, feel when they see or hear about American citizens burning the
American flag--the very flag they fight under.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 4, the U.S. Flag
Protection Constitutional Amendment.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House
Joint Resolution 4, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag
desecration.
Our flag is a symbol of the American character and its values. It
tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending the
principles of freedom, and democracy.
[[Page H4833]]
These are stories of real men and women who have selflessly served
this Nation in defending that freedom. And many of them lost their
lives for it. Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Korea,
Da Nang, Persian Gulf--our men and women had one common symbol--the
American flag.
The American flag belongs to them, as it belongs to all of us.
Critics of the amendment believe it interferes with freedom of
speech. I disagree. Americans enjoy more freedoms than any other people
in the world. They have access to public television. They can write
letters to the editors to express their beliefs, or call into radio
stations. I meet with constituents everyday in order to best represent
their interests in Washington. Americans can stand on the steps of the
Nation's capitol building to demonstrate their cause.
They do not need to demonstrate our noble flag to make their
statement, and I do not believe protecting the flag from desecration
deprives Americans of the opportunity to speak freely.
And let us be clear: speech, not action, is protected by the
Constitution. Our Founding Fathers protected free speech and freedom of
the press because in a democracy, words are used to debate and
persuade, and to educate. A democracy must protect free and open
debate, regardless of how disagreeable some might find the views of
others. Prohibiting flag desecration does not undermine that tradition.
The proposed amendment would protect the flag from desecration, not
from burning. As a member of the American Legion, I have supervised the
disposal of over 7,000 unserviceable flags. But this burning is done
with ceremony and respect. This is not flag desecration.
Over 70 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote
to protect their flag. Numerous organizations, including the Medal of
Honor Recipients for the Flag, the American Legion, the American War
Mothers, the American G.I. Forum, and the African-American Women's
Clergy Association all support this amendment.
Forty-nine states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional
protection for the flag. In the last Congress, the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly passed this amendment by a vote of 298
to 125, and will rightfully pass it again this year.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 4
and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important
resolution that means so much to so many.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 4 to
allow Congress to ban the physical desecration of the flag.
During the War of 1812, American soldiers valiantly fought at Fort
McHenry, Maryland to preserve the newly-formed United States. The story
of the fort's battle flag, which continued to wave despite the barrage
of bombs from British warships, was captured in the poetry of Francis
Scott Key. He marveled at the resiliency of our flag, and the unfailing
courage it brought to the men battling for freedom under its stars and
stripes. His words are now our national anthem, sung in school rooms,
at sporting events, and whenever our nation pays homage to its fallen
heroes. The image of our flag is ingrained in the hearts of all
freedom-loving Americans.
The flag represents our ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for
all. It also symbolizes the sacrifice of 41 million Americans who have
fought our wars dating back to the Revolution, and the one million
Americans who have died to defend our freedoms. We live in liberty
today because they did not shrink from duty. The least we can do to
show our eternal gratitude is to protect our flag--our treasured symbol
of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
We are debating H.J. Res. 4 today because the Supreme Court has ruled
that flag burning is ``protected expression'' under the First
Amendment. Since this misguided decision was handed down, every state
in the union has asked Congress to approve a Constitutional Amendment
to protect Old Glory from physical desecration. Our First Amendment
does not allow citizens to yell ``fire!'' in a crowded theater, nor
does it protect intentionally outrageous acts of destruction.
Desecrating our flag falls squarely into this category.
We are not debating free speech rights today. We are debating whether
our sons and daughters will appreciate the sacrifices of their
forefathers when they see the flag waving. The freedom, honor and
sacrifice symbolized by Old Glory must never be taken for granted.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res.
4.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 4 to protect
our nation's flag.
Our flag is a symbol of pride to all of the veterans who have bravely
fought for this nation. It is a symbol of hope and prosperity to the
many immigrants who have traveled to this land seeking a better way of
life. But most of all, it is a symbol of freedom to all Americans.
We must ensure that our symbol, representing all of the things
Americans hold sacred is respected. We must stand up and protect our
flag from destruction.
Just as no one has the right to take away our freedom and democracy,
no one should have the right to burn our flag.
Many soldiers have died protecting our freedom and democracy. The
rights and freedoms that we enjoy today are because of the courage of
our brave soldiers. Our flag, flies as a constant reminder of our
military's victories.
We must not forget that all of our soldiers have not yet returned
from war. Many of our men and women are still in the Middle East trying
to safeguard Iraq. Many of our soldiers are still in Afghanistan,
searching for Osama Bin Laden. The battle for peace in the Middle East
is not over.
Our soldiers are still risking their lives and dying in the name of
this nation. Now is not the time to question patriotism. We must be
united and stand behind our soldiers and our symbols of freedom.
When a soldier or a veteran dies, his family receives a flag honoring
the loss of their loved one. We proudly drape the flag over their
coffins. We must make sure the families know that their loved one did
not die in vain. The American Flag is the symbol that represents the
soldier's sacrifice and a nation's respect.
Many people come to this land seeking religious freedom, freedom from
oppressive governments, economic prosperity and a better way of life
for their children. Many people come to this land and join the military
because they know America is a land worth protecting. To them the flag
is a promise of liberty, security, and opportunity.
Our flag flies high symbolizing the hopes and dreams of immigrants
all over the world. We must keep our flag sacred to welcome those
believing in the American Dream.
Just as you would not melt the Liberty Bell, tear up the Declaration
of Independence, or destroy the Statue of Liberty, we must protect our
nation's flag. I stand in support of this legislation for the soldiers
and veterans who have fought to protect it, the immigrants who believe
in its promise, and all of the Americans who pledge their allegiance to
it. We must keep our flag flying high.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, even before we were a nation, we had our
flags. Different from today's to be sure. But serving the same
purpose--symbols of unity, and of our hopes, achievements, glory, and
high resolve.
Brave New England patriots faced down British regulars at a place
called Bunker Hill under the Continental Flag which prominently
featured a pine tree.
``Don't Tread on Me,'' said the colonists in the South, and a coiled
rattlesnake on their flag reinforced that message.
The Grand Union Flag went to sea with John Paul Jones and marched
under George Washington in the early days of our Revolution. By
combining the British Union Jack with thirteen red and white stripes it
reflected the thinking of the colonists during that time: allegiance to
the Crown, but willing to fight for their rights as Englishmen.
That thinking had changed, however, by July 4, 1776. The Declaration
of Independence--``That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought
to be Free and Independent States''--set us on a new course, from which
there was no turning back. It was a realization that a people could not
at once fight against the king and at the same time profess their
loyalty to him. And, it meant that the new United States would need a
national flag.
On June 14, 1777--the day we now celebrate as Flag Day--the
Continental Congress adopted the following brief resolution:
``Resolved, that the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen
stripes, alternate red and white: that the union be thirteen stars,
white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.''
It is now believed that Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence, designed the first national flag that
legend attributes to Betsy Ross. For his services, he submitted
Congress a bill for nine dollars. Of course, government in 1777 was not
really much different from government today. Hopkinson never got paid.
So, we had a national flag, the ``Stars and Stripes.'' In 1792, the
first version with thirteen stars in a circle appeared. In 1795, the
flag was changed to recognize the entry of Vermont and Kentucky into
the Union with the addition of two stars and two stripes. This flag of
fifteen stars and fifteen stripes figured in many stirring episodes. It
was the first flag to be flown over a fortress of the Old World when it
was raised at Tripoli in 1805. It was flown at the Battle of Lake Erie
and by Andrew Jackson at New Orleans. And it was flown at our young
nation's most inspiring moment.
In 1812, our nation had declared war on Great Britain because of
British seizure of neutral U.S. trading vessels, and the impressment of
American seamen into service on British ships. The British, preoccupied
with Napoleon, were not amused. They were even less amused when we sent
forth speedy privateers to seize their merchant ships and to frustrate
their heavily gunned men-of-war.
[[Page H4834]]
In 1814, with Napoleon exiled to the island of Elba, the British
determined to put the upstart former colonists in their place. They
dispatched a 50-ship expeditionary force--veteran soldiers and sailors
from the world's strongest military power. Up the Chesapeake Bay they
came, and on August 24 and 25, 1814, they burned Washington. Their next
target: Baltimore--third largest city in the U.S., a rich trading
center, and home to many of the fleet privateers that had humiliated
the proud Royal Navy.
As the British moved on Baltimore, one thing blocked their way--Fort
McHenry, whose guns dominated the channels leading into Baltimore
Harbor. Unless they could get past the fort, the British Navy could not
support its ground forces whose advance on the city had been stalled.
So, at dawn on September 13, a 25-hour bombardment began. At the same
time, a 35-year-old American lawyer was being held on board a British
ship pending the end of the battle. Francis Scott Key watched the
``rockets red glare'' and ``the bombs bursting in air'' through the
night. At the first light of dawn, Key was relieved to see that Fort
McHenry's giant flag--30 feet by 42 feet--``The Star Spangled
Banner''--did indeed still wave over ``the land of the free and the
home of the brave.'' Inspired by the sight, he took pen in hand and
gave us what would become our National Anthem.
The burning of Washington and the victory at Ft. McHenry united our
young nation like nothing before had done. We emerged from the War of
1812, with a new national identity, confidence, and patriotism, a
recovering economy, and a place in the world. And we continued to
grow--to the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and beyond with
new states joining the union and the number of stars in that field of
blue growing.
Less than 50 years after the end of the War of 1812, our flag would
face one of its greatest challenges. As our nation was split asunder in
a great civil war, and its ability to endure as one hung in the
balance, courage related to the flag often spelled the difference
between victory and defeat.
Missionary Ridge, Tennessee, November, 1863. A key link between the
east and west for the Confederacy. Confederate troops entrenched along
a 400-foot-high, seven-mile-long summit. Sixty Union regiments under
General George Thomas attacked positions at the foot of the ridge, and
then, unexpectedly, surged up the slope. Flag bearers led the way. When
one fell, another stepped forward to grab the colors, and the advanced
continued. A young First Lieutenant--not yet 20 years old--caught the
flag of the 24th Wisconsin as it was about to fall, and carried it to
the crest. Arthur MacArthur's bravery earned him a battlefield
promotion to major and the Medal of Honor that day. Many of you here
today may have served under his son, Douglas, in the Pacific or Korea.
In all, seven flag bearers won the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge.
At day's end, the flags of 60 Union regiments lined the summit.
The War ended and the Union was preserved. And the flag proved as
inspiring in peace as it was in war. In 1868, a former Union Army
Sergeant, Gilbert Bates, set out to carry the Stars and Stripes from
Vicksburg, Mississippi, to Washington, D.C., to prove to friends back
in Wisconsin that we were once again one nation. Crowds cheered him at
every town and village as he marched through the heart of the Old
Confederacy. Ironically, and maybe today we could say prophetically,
Sergeant Bates and his flag encountered real hostility and opposition
only in our nation's capital.
Westward we moved, behind the flag. Across the Wide Missouri, and
along the South Platte to the Rockies, and beyond to Oregon and
California. South to Santa Fe and the Rio Grande--conquering a
wilderness, settling a continent, and fulfilling our destiny. New stars
added to the flag and more people to enjoy the blessings of liberty it
embodies: people in the new lands, and immigrants from the Old World--
the ``huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''
Our flag went to foreign shores. Up San Juan Hill with Teddy
Roosevelt in the Spanish American War ending four centuries of Spanish
colonialism in the New World. At Veracruz, on the Gulf coast of Mexico,
its honor was defended by brave sailors and marines. ``Over there'' it
went with a Missourian, General John Pershing, in the ``War To End All
Wars.''
Our flag was tattered, but not lowered at Pearl Harbor. And we
rallied behind it, lifted it higher. We took it ashore at Normandy, and
across the Rhine with Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton, and Hitler's
``Thousand Year Reich,'' the worst tyranny the world has yet known,
crumbled at its advance. Across the South Pacific it went, island by
island. In 1944, the most dramatic flag raising in American history, on
a rocky Pacific island called Iwo Jima. When the sun rose the next day
on that flag atop Mount Suribachi, the sun of Japanese Imperialism
began to set.
The flag was with us: In Korea helping to preserve democracy for half
of a divided nation. In Vietnam, where brave American POWs fashioned
handmade flags to defy their captors. It went to the moon with the
astronauts of Apollo 11.
Yes, our flag has stood by us--leading us, inspiring us, sustaining
us--in all of our national endeavors, in war and in peace, for over 200
years.
Now, sadly, it seems that some people don't want to stand by our
flag. The Supreme Court has said that it is all right to desecrate our
flag, to burn it even, in the name of free speech. ``Government,'' says
the Court, ``may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because
society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.''
I agree that everyone in this country has the right to make his views
known on any issue, no matter how irrational, how wrong, or how
unpopular those views might be. But does that mean that every form of
conduct is permissible as a means of exercising rights guaranteed by
the First Amendment to the Constitution? I say no. And I say so as a
student of law and of history. The framers of the Bill of Rights used
words carefully to convey a precise meaning. The First Amendment to the
Constitution says ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedom of speech, . . .'' It says nothing about ``expression.''
Legal precedent and common sense tells us that there can be limits on
conduct which are not inconsistent with First Amendment rights.
Consider some extreme examples: Would anyone, even the Supreme Court,
contend that we must permit human sacrifice under the guise of free
exercise of religion? Would someone be allowed to blow up the Lincoln
Memorial to express a political view?
Flag burning does not merit First Amendment protection. It is conduct
that is offensive and provocative to the overwhelming majority of
Americans. Moreover, it is unnecessary. Any point of view that can be
expressed by flag burning can be better expressed in a manner that is
reasoned, rational and more effective in communicating an idea or
attempting to persuade others.
We have a great system of government, and one reason it is so great
is that if you disagree with a government action, even a decision of
the highest court in the land, you can work to change it.
Therefore, I support legislation being considered by the House of
Representatives today that will create a Constitutional Amendment that
will allow Congress and the States to ban flag burning and other
similar forms of flag desecration. The process of changing the
Constitution is not fast and easy. The framers wanted to make amending
the Constitution a difficult, deliberative process.
I am confident that a Constitutional Amendment can be passed. But if
it fails, or if it stalls, we can move in other areas. We can redraft
and enact new flag desecration statutes that attempt to meet the
Court's objections to the Texas statute. If those new statutes won't
pass muster, we'll enact new ones.
We can do still more. Our children must be taught to respect the flag
not only in our schools, but by our example. We must instruct them to
display it and use it properly and salute it appropriately. We must
encourage our children and every future generation to value the
freedoms we enjoy and to stand tall and proud when they say, ``I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America . . .'' We must
instill in them a strong sense of the heritage embodied in our flag,
and the pride of being an American. Finally, we must ensure that they
continue to recognize and honor the great sacrifices made by previous
generations of Americans, many of whom gave ``the last full measure of
devotion'' so that we could live free.
The poet Edgar A. Guest said it best when he penned:
The Boy and the Flag
I want my boy to love his home, his Mother, yes, and me:
I want him, wheresoe'er he'll roam, With us in thought to be.
I want him to love what is fine, Nor let his standards drag,
But, Oh! I want this boy of mine To love This country's flag!
Let me take a moment and put a few things in perspective. As much as
the Supreme Court decision has disappointed me, it is in the final
analysis no real threat to our nation. Our flag stands for too much to
be brought down by matches lit by those who would desecrate it. Its
glory cannot be diminished by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It cannot be
threatened by any enemy, foreign or domestic. If they step on it, write
on it, tear it to shreds, even burn it to ashes, we'll just raise it up
again, and it'll fly higher and more gloriously than ever before.
A few years ago, we had a flag day ceremony in the House of
Representatives. County-western singer Johnny Cash recited these lyrics
that he had written:
[[Page H4835]]
Ragged Old Flag
(By Johnny Cash)
I walked through a county courthouse square
On a park bench an old man was sitting there
I said, ``Your old courthouse is kinda run down.''
He said, ``Naw, it'll do for our little town.''
I said, ``Your old flag pole is leaned a little bit,''
And that's a ragged old flag you got hanging on it.''
He said, ``Have a seat.'' And I sat down.
``Is this the first time you've been to our little town?''
I said, ``I think it is.'' He said, ``I don't like to brag,
But we're kind of proud of that ragged old flag.''
``You see, we got a little hole in that flag there
When Washington took it across the Delaware
And it got powder burned the night Francis Scott Key
Sat up watching it, writing `Say Can you see'
It got a bad rip in New Orleans
With Packingham and Jackson pulling at its seams
And it almost fell at the Alamo,
Beside the Texas flag, but, she waved on though
She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville
And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill
There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard and Bragg
The South wind blew hard on that Ragged Old Flag
On Flanders field in World War One
She got a big hole from a Bertha gun
She turned blood red in world War Two,
She hung limp and low by the time it was through
She was in Korea and Viet Nam
She went where she was sent by he Uncle Sam
She waved from our ships upon the briny foam
And now they've about quit waving her back here at home
In her own good land she's been abused
She's been burned, dishonored, denied, refused
And now the government for which she stands
Is scandalized throughout the land
And she's getting threadbare and she's wearing thin
But she's in good shape for the shape she's in
Cause she's been through the fire before
And I believe she can take a whole lot more
So we raise her up every morning
Bring her down slow every night
We don't let her touch the ground
And we fold her up right.
On second thought, . . . I do like to brag,
Cause I'm mighty proud of that ragged Old Flag.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 4 and to
give Old Glory the respect it deserves.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost reverence and respect for
the flag of the United States, one of the most recognizable symbols of
freedom and liberty in the world. And I have the utmost respect for
those who want to protect it. Among other things, the flag represents
our rights as Americans, including those protected by the Bill of
Rights. The first amendment in particular 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.
The first amendment is perhaps the best known provision of the
Constitution and has been well guarded over the years by Congress and
the Courts. But today's amendment would create a tremendous spiritual
change, effectively turning the words ``no law'' in ``Congress shall
make no law'' into ``few laws.'' Which is to say it would sap the first
amendment of the principle it represents, the one that insists that
this country does not punish ideas, no matter how unpopular.
But here we are, yet again, debating an amendment that would for the
first time in our Nation's history change the first amendment to our
Constitution, without a compelling reason. Flag burning is exceedingly
rare. Yet supporters have never let themselves be restrained by the
fact that the amendment represents a non-solution to a non-problem, and
whose predictable outcome would be to make flag burning the ``in''
protest among the young and antisocial.
I am going to oppose this legislation, not because I condone or do
not feel repulsed by the senseless act of disrespect that is shown
rarely against one of the most cherished symbols of our country, the
American Flag, but because I recognize that our Constitution can be a
challenging document. It reminds us that our democracy requires all of
us to permit the expression of ideas that we may spend a lifetime
opposing--and not simply move to pass an amendment to silence their
voice. Our democracy, rather, is about advanced citizenship. It asks
all Americans to fight and even protect the right of our fellow
citizens to express views that are against what we believe and value
most in our country.
There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or
patriotism than the American Flag. But if we pass this amendment today,
where do we stop? Do we move to protect other icons of American
patriotism? Should we pass an amendment that prohibits the burning of a
copy of the Declaration of Independence or of the Constitution? Let us
not go down that path today. We have done well these past two centuries
without having to amend the Bill of Rights.
In a country of over 280 million people, I do not believe that the
actions of a few individuals should compel us to change our most
fundamental principles. I respect our flag as well as those who have
fought and died to protect the ideals which it symbolizes, but I also
respect those very ideals and principles contained in our Constitution.
The purity of the first amendment should not be adulterated now so that
Congress can protect flags that nobody's burning anyway.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the American flag is a visible symbol of
all the freedoms that make our Nation great, and this includes our
First Amendment right to express ourselves freely. Our Constitution
protects even those forms of speech that others may disagree with or
find offensive. It is this very liberty to publicly voice one's
opinions and ideas no matter how controversial they may be that
distinguishes our great Nation from others.
While the desecration of our flag triggers an almost universal
reaction of disgust by Americans, we are strong enough as a nation to
allow individuals to express themselves in this manner, and stronger
still to resist the urge to stamp out free speech that challenges us.
By outlawing the expression displayed in desecrating the flag, we would
diminish and undermine our flag's value by suppressing the very
freedoms that it represents.
We must also note that this amendment offers a solution to a problem
that simply doesn't exist. Only 45 incidents of flag desecration were
reported between 1777 and 1989. Since then, these acts have been very
rare. This was particularly noteworthy during the lead-up to the War in
Iraq. Despite vehement anti-war sentiment, no groups burned or
desecrated the flag during rallies or protests. I fail to see why it is
necessary to tinker with the Bill of Rights--the bedrock of our
Republic--for the first time in 211 years to outlaw an act that rarely
occurs.
The United States of America has a long and proud history of
protecting the right of free expression for its citizens, and I do not
believe that the voice of freedom should be muzzled.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 4, a
constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag.
In doing so, I rise in support of protecting the right to free speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, ``Congress shall make
no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .'' Yet, this bill
would overturn two Supreme Court decisions upholding flag burning as
symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment. If ratified, this
amendment would be the first time ever that the Bill of Rights has been
altered and in a manner that limits the freedoms that belong to the
American people.
Conveniently, we debate this bill just before Flag Day. Now
Republicans can run back to their districts to flaunt what they believe
is patriotism. But, we must ask ourselves: is it patriotic to trample
upon the Constitutionally protected freedoms? The freedom of speech is
vital to our democracy--it sets our nation apart from those oppressive
regimes we have fought and deposed throughout our history.
Some of my colleagues--mainly on the other side of the aisle--will
mention today that veterans across the nation support this amendment. I
respect these brave Americans and what the flag means to them. But, the
Republicans are using this issue to cover over their failure to fully
compensate our veterans for their heroic service.
Republicans have no intention to provide for the real needs of these
men and women, like improved veterans benefits, better health care for
them and their families, access to affordable housing and affordable
educational opportunities to name a few. Instead, Republicans are using
this amendment for political gain without paying respect to those
things that bring real dignity and honor to our veterans. And let us
not forget, these veterans fought for our freedoms and everything our
Constitution stands for.
Opening the door to limiting the freedoms of all Americans is a
dangerous precedent. I fear what could be next if the Republican
leadership of this House have their way. I ask my colleagues to stand
up for our Constitution and vote no on this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4,
which would add an amendment to the Constitution banning the
desecration of the American flag.
I believe that desecrating the American flag is a terrible way to
exercise one's freedom of expression. It is hurtful and offensive. Yet,
freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles of this Nation's
democracy. Some of the
[[Page H4836]]
most powerful movements in the history of America occurred because our
Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom to express themselves.
While desecrating the American flag in protest offends many people,
the flag is a symbol of our Nation's powerful democracy. Protecting our
citizens' right to express themselves is more vital to the strength of
our democracy than the physical appearance of the flag.
I believe that all Americans should respect and honor the flag.
However, I oppose placing restrictions on the First Amendment by adding
this amendment to our Constitution.
While this is an important issue and it deserves to be debated by
this body, we cannot forget another issue of vital importance to
America's veterans. The budget proposed by the Majority includes
serious cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The proposed $15 billion cut in benefits and $9.7 billion cut in
health care would leave many veterans without access to critical
resources. With the ongoing conflict in Iraq, there will undoubtedly be
more soldiers who will need care in the future. Rather than cut the
funding for the VA, we should be providing adequate funding so that the
Department will be prepared for caring for the soldiers who may need
care after the current conflict has ended.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 4,
which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to
protect our Nation's flag.
As the vast majority of our constituents all know, Old Glory is far
more than a piece of cloth. Especially in this post-September 11 era,
it is the most visible symbol of our Nation and the freedoms we have
too often taken for granted. It is a unifying sign in times of peace
and war, instilling pride in our great country and continued hope for
our future.
Americans from across the political spectrum and from every walk of
life support the passage of this amendment. Since the Supreme Court in
1989 invalidated state-passed flag protection laws, the legislatures in
each of the 50 states have passed resolutions petitioning Congress to
propose this amendment. I am proud that the House is taking this
important step toward a constitutional amendment today.
Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is well known for its
civic pride and spirited celebration on Flag Day. The annual display of
many thousands of flags on houses and businesses throughout Findlay
earned the community the designation ``Flag City USA.'' Arlington,
Ohio, which I am also privileged to represent, has been named ``Flag
Village USA'' for the patriotism inherent in its citizens. The letters,
phone calls, and e-mails I have received from Findlay, Arlington, and
throughout my congressional district in recent weeks express strong
support for the protection of Old Glory.
I am proud again this year to be cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint
resolution, and recognize him for his unwaverly leadership on this
issue. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and vote in
favor of sending this amendment to the states for ratification.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 4,
which would amend the United States Constitution to restore to Congress
the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the
United States.
Amending the United States Constitution is not something that should
be undertaken in a cavalier manner. The gravity with which such changes
in the document that provides the structure for our system of
governance should be taken is reflected by the amendment process
devised by the Founding Fathers. Article V of the Constitution provides
that amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses or through
a convention called by two-thirds of the states. Additionally, the
Article provides that these proposed amendments must be ratified by
three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-
fourths of the states.
So, the question before us today is whether we believe that we should
restore to Congress the power to protect the flag if Congress so
chooses. As I have stated previously, we are considering this question
because the United State Supreme Court has taken what the Bill of
Rights says is protected speech, and has extrapolated it to encompass
behavior that the Bill of Rights does not specifically mention, the
burning or otherwise desecration of the United States flag. When the
Supreme Court did this, it handcuffed Congress in order to provide
Constitutional protection to behavior that many Americans find
despicable. Notwithstanding those assertions that H.J. Res. 4 itself
would ban the desecration of our flag, H.J. Res. 4 would instead unlock
the handcuffs that the Supreme Court slapped on Congress.
While the question of protecting our Nation's flag from desecration
is not before us today, I do recognize that man of my constituents do
not view the flag as merely a compilation of red, white, and blue
cloth; rather, they see that cloth as the enduring emblem of freedom
and America. I also recognize that to preserve both freedom and
America, many American men and women, including some of my constituents
in the recent Middle East conflicts, have willingly sacrificed their
lives and limbs and have endured hardships that few of us can
comprehend. And, I know that the desecration of our flag is a direct
affront to these brave men and women and their sacred sacrifices. Thus,
I now take my Constitutional prerogative to ensure that Congress has
the ability to enact, or not to enact, legislation as Congress sees fit
to protect our Nation's flag from intentional desecration.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the United States flag is one of the two
most enduring symbols of our freedom and liberty. I believe that those
who desecrate the flag degrade themselves and I find it a reprehensible
act. So too, it is reprehensible for people to express hateful language
against our country and some of our citizens. One of the values our
flag represents is the freedom of expression. The United States and our
cherished freedom are strong enough to withstand assaults of the crude,
the bigoted and the hateful. The strength to withstand assaults comes
from the other enduring symbol of our liberty: the Constitution. We
should not trivialize the importance of that document, especially the
freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment, by rushing to
change the Great Document when we are offended by acts.
Because Americans honor this cherished symbol, I understand the rage
and disgust most of us feel towards those who made their points by
trampling on our flag. It is important to note that flag burning today
is not a major problem. Throughout my years in Congress, only one
constituent has voiced his concerns regarding flag burning, and none
back home in Oregon.
The proposed constitutional amendment is the wrong way to protect the
flag. Ironically, it would be the fastest way to make the very rare
occurrences of flag burning more frequent. After all the publicity
surrounding ratification by the states occurs, we will have made our
flag the target for every publicity-seeking protester in America.
Burning the flag will be the fastest way to go to court, perhaps to
jail, but certainly the evening news. Because we cherish our flag and
our Constitution, we should reject this amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our
American flag and as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 4, which would amend the
Constitution to allow Congress to protect the United States flag from
acts of physical desecration.
Our flag has become a symbol of freedom for Americans and people
around the world, whether flying outside of a home, or raised out of
the rubble of the World Trade towers after the September 11 attacks. As
an international emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American
flag should be treated with respect and care. We should not consider
the flag as mere ``personal property,'' which can be treated any way we
see fit, including physically desecrating it as a form of political
protest.
The American flag is a source of inspiration wherever it is
displayed, and a symbol of hope to all nations struggling to build
democracies. As a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, I
deeply admire those who have fought and died to preserve our freedoms
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world throughout our history.
These men and women have bravely defended our flag and the fundamental
principles for which it stands. They deserve to know that their
government treasures the flag and all it represents as much as they do.
Before being overturned by the Supreme Court in 1989, 48 states and
the District of Columbia passed laws protecting the flag. Over the last
few years, all 50 states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to
pass a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way to restore the
power of states and Congress to implement the will of the people.
For these reasons I, as well as a great number of Americans, believe
that our flag should be treated with dignity and deserves protection
under the law. With Flag Day on June 14, I can think of no better way
to honor the enduring symbol of our democracy than adopting this
resolution today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J.
Res. 4 to allow Congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for general debate
has expired.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Watt
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
[[Page H4837]]
Watt) the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)?
Mr. WATT. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Watt:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years after the date of its submission
for ratification:
``Article --
``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.''.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment
and claim the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved in the debate up to this point
on the proposed constitutional amendment, but I want to commend the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and my colleagues who have
conducted this debate up to this point on the quality of the debate.
This is always a debate which I think has the capacity to bring out the
best of the Members of our body. It does not always do that because
there are strongly held positions, and sometimes emotion overtakes the
day and we see the debate deteriorate. There have been instances when
that has happened today, but by and large, I think this has been a
high-quality debate, and I want to compliment my colleagues for
maintaining the high quality of that debate.
I was, at one point, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, occupying the position now held by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler); and during my time in service as the ranking member
of that subcommittee, I realized that the quality of the debate on this
proposed constitutional amendment was not the kind of quality that I
really wanted to be involved in.
What I saw was that Members who supported the proposed constitutional
amendment would come to the floor and they would claim that Members who
opposed the constitutional amendment were somehow unpatriotic; and
Members who opposed the proposed constitutional amendment and were on
the opposite side from the proponents of the amendment would come to
the floor, and they would accuse the other side of being somehow
unpatriotic. And I would have to admit that when I first became a party
to this debate, I was a part of that name-calling process.
I thought that anybody who really supported the first amendment to
the Constitution had to respect, even if they did not admire or like,
they had to respect the right of people who wanted to express
themselves in opposition to various kinds of injustices that were
taking place in our society by expressing themselves verbally,
expressing themselves through political action, expressing themselves
by even burning or desecrating the American flag.
I thought it was a fairly simple proposition because I was not
listening very carefully to the people who were on the other side of
that debate, and I was not honoring the strong positions and
commitments that they held to the fact that the flag was somehow
different and that burning or desecrating the flag was somehow
different than other kinds of free speech that citizens could engage
in.
And then I started to listen to what the other side was saying, and I
started to study this issue with a little more intensity, and I
concluded that it could not possibly be the case that you could have a
five-person majority on a United States Supreme Court that had nine
members, and the court was split five people on one side and four
people on the other side, and this not be a very, very difficult issue.
Can Members imagine that Justice Scalia supports the position that I
am advocating here that when one burns the flag, they are engaging in
protected speech; yet Justice Rehnquist, somebody who I think most
people think is pretty close philosophically to Justice Scalia, takes
exactly the opposite position.
I tried to imagine during the course of that debate whether Justice
Scalia ever looked at Justice Rehnquist and said, ``You are
unpatriotic''; or on the other hand, whether Justice Rehnquist looked
at Justice Scalia and said, ``You are unpatriotic.''
So I started to listen to my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson) and what he was saying, and I said, those Members believe as
vigorously in the position they are asserting as the Members on our
side believe in the position we are asserting, and we could have a
high-quality debate about this flag burning amendment if we honored
each other's positions and opinions and really came in and talked about
the merits of this proposed constitutional amendment as opposed to
calling each other unpatriotic.
So I decided I would offer an amendment which simply 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.
I thought that if we framed the issue in that context, we could
really have an honest debate not only about what the physical
desecration of the flag might consist of, but we could have an honest
debate about what is or is not protected by the first amendment.
Now, I should say straight off that my opinion is that adding to the
underlying proposed constitutional amendment, which itself says the
Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States, simply adding to that that whatever
statutory act we take as a Congress must be consistent with the first
amendment to the Constitution, I pretty much assumed was a given. And a
number of my colleagues who have supported the underlying proposed
constitutional amendment have said, we do not want to do harm to the
first amendment, we are not trying to cut off speech. So it seems to me
that at some point, even if we pass the underlying proposed
constitutional amendment that we are debating here, the one that says
that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration
of the flag of the United States, that at some point the Supreme Court
is going to be called upon to make that constitutional amendment
reconciled with the first amendment, which says that this Congress
shall make no law that tramples on the right of free speech.
So it may be that the amendment that I am offering here is kind of a
redundancy. I am just basically saying that whatever we do as a
Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag must be done
consistently with the first amendment to the Constitution, not anything
revolutionary here.
Well, what does the first amendment mean? I thought I knew what the
first amendment meant. I had a good law school education from what they
tell me is one of the best law schools in the country, Yale University.
Some of my colleagues will differ about whether it is the best or the
second best or in the top 10 or in the top 30, but most people agree
that it is at least one of the good universities, one of the good law
schools in the country; and I will tell Members, Mr. Robert Bork was my
constitutional law professor. We had some free-wheeling discussions in
that class about what the first amendment meant. I thought once I got
out of law school, I understood fully what the first amendment was all
about.
And then I went back to North Carolina, and I went into the practice
of law, and one day my senior law partner, a gentleman by the name of
Julius Chambers, came to me and said, I want you to go down to eastern
North Carolina and represent some Native Americans who have been
charged with parading and threatening with a tomahawk in a
demonstration that has taken place out there. They have been
[[Page H4838]]
charged with resisting arrest and all of the things that people get
charged with when the police do not like what they are out there
parading about, and these Native Americans had been arrested, four or
five of them had been arrested. And my senior law partner sent me to
eastern North Carolina to defend them against the criminal charges.
I did not know much more about those criminal charges until I got
down to eastern North Carolina, and I sat down with my clients, and as
I started to talk to them about what they were demonstrating about,
they looked at me and they said, well, we did not want to go to school
with black people. So we were out there demonstrating against going to
school with black people. So I kind of swallowed hard and finished that
day of activity, and I went back to my law office in Charlotte and I
confronted my senior law partner and said, Julius, why would you send
me down to eastern North Carolina as a black man to defend people who
were out there demonstrating against going to school with black people?
{time} 1645
Julius Chambers looked me straight in the eye, and he told me that
day what the first amendment was all about. He simply said to me,
``Don't you believe in the first amendment?''
Those are words that I have never forgotten. That same law firm
represented the Ku Klux Klan when they wanted the right to demonstrate
and it was unpopular.
This is a difficult issue, and there are patriots on both sides of
this issue. This is not about whether one side has a monopoly on
patriotism or the other side has a monopoly on patriotism. This is a
difficult issue because we love the flag and the one kind of common
theme that I was able to gather from all of this discussion over all
these years because we have been debating this constitutional amendment
for 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 years. Ever since I have been here, it seems
like, we have this constitutional amendment.
But the one thing that I think we all have agreed upon is that none
of us like people who burn the flag. We are all patriots. There are 435
of us in this body. Every single one of us represents over 600,000
people. Can you imagine 600,000 people sending somebody to this
Congress who was not patriotic? This, my friends, is not about whether
you are a patriot or not. It is about your idea of what the first
amendment truly means. It could not be that you could have Justice
Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, Justice Scalia and Justice
Kennedy saying that this is protected speech when you burn the flag in
certain contexts and them be not patriotic. These men are not
unpatriotic. And it could not be that Justice Rehnquist and Justice
Stevens and Justice White and Justice O'Connor are out to lunch on this
issue, either. This is a difficult issue. And I think the important
thing here is that we should not minimize the difficulty of the issue
and we should not minimize each other because some of us happen to be
on one side of this issue and some of us happen to be on the other
side.
I value the first amendment, not that the people on the other side do
not value it, too. I am sure they do. But in the process of having the
Congress draft and pass a law to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag, the last thing I want is for us to do it in such a way that
violates the first amendment to the Constitution. That amendment has
been there for years and years and years and it has served us well.
Nobody has tested this new amendment that is being offered here today
which says the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag. Who knows what the United States Supreme Court
might read into that. But what I can tell you is that our first
amendment has served this country well. And people have fought and died
for the right of people to express themselves. Maybe they do not like
them expressing themselves by burning the flag, but it is considered by
some people protected speech. And it cannot be, even in current day,
more recent times, that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, who
happens to believe that this proposed constitutional amendment is
unnecessary and ill advised, surely we would not dare to call him
unpatriotic.
Whatever we do, my colleagues, I simply implore us to do it
consistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. And if we are
able to do that, then I think we will have served our country well.
What I suspect is that Congress wants to just, let's pass this
amendment and leave the difficult part, which is crafting something
that really prohibits the physical desecration of the flag without
trampling on the first amendment, to a future time. Let us just finesse
that issue. This proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute does
not allow us to finesse it. What it says is that whatever we do when it
comes time to start drafting our statute that prohibits the physical
desecration of the flag must be done consistent with the first
amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) graduated
from one of the finest law schools in the country. His speech just
concluded and his amendment showed that he learned his constitutional
law well from Professor Robert Bork, who is one of the outstanding
constitutional scholars in the country. The only difference between the
Watt substitute amendment and the constitutional amendment introduced
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is the words ``not
inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this
Constitution.''
What his amendment does is constitutionally codify the Johnson and
Eichman decisions that said that flag desecration is protected free
speech by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. So the
gentleman from North Carolina's qualifying phrase is legislative
sleight of hand that will prevent any future Supreme Court from
deciding they made a mistake in the Johnson decision and in the Eichman
decision. For that reason and for that reason alone, this amendment
should be rejected, because it does the exact opposite to what the
gentleman from California and his cosponsors are attempting to do in
House Joint Resolution 4. It writes into the Constitution Supreme Court
decisions that a vast majority of the American public believe were
erroneously decided.
Never before has Congress tried to do this. I just thank the Lord
that they have not. Because if someone tried to constitutionally codify
the separate but equal decisions of the United States Supreme Court in
the late 1890s, Brown v. Board of Education would never have been
possible and would never have been constitutional. That is one of the
things that has given minorities in this country the opportunity for
education, to be able to graduate from high school and go to a good
college and go to the top law schools in the country. So I think that
we should hit this amendment head-on. We should vote for it or vote
against it, patriots all; but we should not attempt to put into the
Constitution the effect of the United States Supreme Court decisions,
two of them, in fact, that have brought us to this point here.
Let me repeat. The Watt substitute amendment puts into the
Constitution the Johnson and the Eichman decisions that state that
physical desecration of the American flag is conduct that is protected
by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.
Vote ``no'' on the Watt substitute amendment and pass the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). His
amendment is an attempt to clarify how the underlying legislation will
affect the first amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution. It
changes the proposed constitutional amendment to read, ``Not
inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution,
Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States.''
So under the Watt amendment, a person could not be prosecuted just
for the expression of opinion, or whether or not the sheriff is
offended by that opinion; and, in other words, you should
[[Page H4839]]
not pass a law that provides for the criminal prosecution for someone
who burns a worn-out flag while criticizing the administration at an
anti-war rally if that same legislation allows someone to burn a worn-
out flag if they say something nice about the administration while at a
flag retirement ceremony sponsored by war supporters. The fact is that
many consider peace rallies as vulgar and would like to throw the
participants in jail. The fact is in many communities, the Bill of
Rights is the only thing between those protesters and the jailhouse.
We should acknowledge that the ultimate purpose of the proposed
amendment is to stifle political expression we find offensive. And
while I agree that we should all respect the flag, I do not think it is
appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce our views on those who
disagree with us or to stifle political expression for those who happen
to offend us.
The Watt amendment would make the proposed amendment consistent with
the ideals of the Bill of Rights. It says that Congress could pass a
law prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag so long as it is
consistent with the first amendment. And so the underlying amendment is
either consistent with the rest of the Constitution or it trumps the
rest of the Constitution. Either the underlying amendment will override
the first amendment or it will not. At least we ought to be honest and
answer the question.
The Watt amendment says the underlying amendment will not override
the first amendment and that any legislation passed under it has to be
consistent with the first amendment. On the other hand, if the Watt
amendment is defeated, then that action suggests that legislation
passed under the constitutional amendment may not be consistent with
the first amendment. And if it overrides the first amendment on speech,
what else does it override? Does it override the first amendment in
terms of religion? If you were to pass a statute establishing a
national prayer for the protection of the flag, that would be
inconsistent with the establishment clause. But does this
constitutional amendment override the establishment clause? What about
the equal protection clause? Can you pass a law that says some people
can burn the flag but other people cannot, in violation of the equal
protection clause? Will this legislation trump that? Or will the rest
of the Constitution remain as it is?
My view is that this amendment is superfluous, that the rest of the
Constitution is there. The chairman suggests that it codifies present
law and, if so, if it does codify present law, this amendment as it is,
you ought to say so. You ought to say whether or not it is consistent
with the free speech provision of the first amendment, you can pass the
law, or whether or not it is consistent with the rest of the
Constitution, you can pass the law. It does not say so.
{time} 1700
So I think we are stuck with the present law. The Watt amendment
forces us to address the question.
Now, remember, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has
pointed out, the underlying amendment does not prohibit anything, it
just says that Congress may pass a law regarding the desecration of the
flag. The real question is what standard are we going to use to judge
what constitutes desecration and whether or not it has to be consistent
with the speech provisions of the first amendment and the rest of the
Constitution or not. This is what the Watt amendment is aimed at
determining.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought to repeal the Bill of Rights,
and therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Watt amendment.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment from my very able
colleague from North Carolina. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to
talk about what it is that is really the strength of our system, and I
would define it this way: The strength of our system is nothing less
than its capacity to absorb the worst impulses in our character.
Now, my very able colleague from Wisconsin mentioned Brown v. Board
of Education. The day the Supreme Court issued the ruling in Brown v.
Board of Education, there were crosses burned in this country. There
were crosses that were burned on the day that Martin Luther King was
assassinated. There are bigots who paint swastikas on synagogues in our
country. There were thugs who called our soldiers war criminals and who
waived the Vietcong flag in their face when they came back from
Vietnam.
There is no constitutional amendment to regulate the cross burners or
the bigots who paint swastikas on synagogues. There is no
constitutional amendment to regulate or prescribe the enemies of our
democracy who would call our soldiers war criminals. The reason is
because we have frankly concluded that we do not need one. We count on
our values and we count on the best angels in our nature to overwhelm
the worst of us. We do not count on amendments, we count on the best
angels in our nature.
If we pass this amendment without the Watts substitute, let us make
it clear what we are doing. We would be singling out one class of
speech, one uniquely obnoxious viewpoint, and we would be saying that
this idea is somehow so corrosive, so dangerous, that we cannot count
on our values to trump it.
Mr. Speaker, I am frankly not prepared to give the idiocy and the
stupidity of flag burning this kind of power. We do not need an
amendment to underscore our commitment to the flag and the values
behind it any more than we need an amendment to suppress the other
enemies of our political character. I trust the system that we have,
and I think it is that, frankly, for which our veterans have fought.
We have heard a lot of talk today about whether our veterans have
fought for a symbol or whether they fought for a flag. I would submit
to you, as one Member's opinion, I think they fought for a system, and
I trust that system. Whether it yields a 5-4 Supreme Court decision or
a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, I trust that system to address that
issue.
I will say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this first amendment of
ours has always been unique because it is this amendment that has
somehow stood as a barrier to our temporary impulses, it has stood as a
barrier to the temporary ways that we would react to things, and it has
served us well. If we are going to change the way we look at flag
burning, it ought to be done through our courts, our highest courts. If
we are going to tinker with the edges of the first amendment, it ought
to be done by our Court, our highest Court.
I ask my colleagues to vote for the Watts substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the Court decisions on
flag desecration and the Court decisions on burning crosses and
painting swastikas on synagogues. On the one hand, the Court has said
that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment as free
speech or free political expression. The Supreme Court has never struck
down an anticross-burning law or a hate crime law that makes it a crime
to paint a swastika on a synagogue as political expression protected by
the first amendment to the United States Constitution.
That is why we are here debating this constitutional amendment,
because there are a lot of us that believe that the Supreme Court was
wrong when they decided that desecrating the flag was political
expression protected by the first amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the
other side of this issue, if you do not have an outlet for civil
unrest, burn a French flag; but do not try to do it in France, because
you will end up in jail.
As my friend on the other side that offered this substitute said, we
all have different opinions on this particular issue. We feel very,
very strongly, as the gentleman does on that side. But I will tell my
friend the reason I think he is wrong, and that is that for 200 years
we had tradition in this country that States had penalties for those
that desecrated the flag, and in one 5-4 decision, that was changed.
Now, 80 percent, up to 86 percent sometimes when they take polls, of
the
[[Page H4840]]
American people disagree with the gentleman. All 50 States, not 40, not
30, but all 50 States have passed resolutions saying that they will
ratify this position, which says that my friend's opinion is wrong.
I will say that 100 percent of the veterans organizations, those men
and women that fought to keep this country free, support this. They are
out in this city campaigning for this amendment, and they are going to
score this vote, every single one of them, because they feel so
strongly and say that my friend is wrong in his opinion.
Yes, he does have the right to that opinion. But I would say that
when some people have said that it does no harm, listen to what it did
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) when he was a POW and the
Vietnamese told him they were burning the American flag. It was
disheartening. That does affect us.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague on the
Committee on the Judiciary for his brilliant presentation on behalf of
opposing this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor simply to say that despite the fact
that the debate has been about the first amendment, we really do have
another issue that has not been talked about a lot, and the issue is
this: There are those who would use this particular amendment to try
and send a message to the veterans that they care more about them than
some of us, that they are more patriotic than some of us.
We are all patriotic. We all say the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag. We all sing ``My Country 'tis of Thee.'' And some of us add to
that our support for veterans by putting our money where our mouths
are. We do not support the cuts that are being proposed by the opposite
side of the aisle. We have stood up on this floor relative to this
budget time and time again asking our Republican friends, please do not
cut the veterans.
I am patriotic. I support the veterans. I may be against this
amendment, but I will be there at appropriations fighting for them. The
folks on the opposite side of the aisle will not.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed constitutional
amendment and in support of the Watt substitute which is intended to
harmonize the proposed amendment with the protections of the First
Amendment.
It seems to me that the substitute that Congressman Watt is proposing
is a common sense amendment that Members can and should support,
whatever their position on the need for, or desirability of a flag
desecration amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that flag desecration is an act that deserves
condemnation. Nonetheless, I strongly oppose the proposed
constitutional amendment. The amendment is dangerous and should not be
approved.
Yet, at a minimum, if we are going to adopt the proposed flag
desecration amendment, I believe that we should reaffirm that our
intention is not to limit the protections of the First Amendment. We
should not start down the road toward narrowing the scope of the First
Amendment to our Constitution.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I fear that the Watt substitute will
not receive the support that it deserves because the process of
considering this resolution is not about the law. It's about politics.
In my view, the underlying flag desecration resolution is really
political theater of the worst kind.
While the Resolution no doubt is calculated to win favor with
veterans organizations, and may well satisfy some of them, decimating
our Constitution is the wrong way to honor our veterans. Thus, the need
for the Watt substitute.
The reality is that many of the Republicans who will speak so
fervently this afternoon about the need for this Resolution are the
same Members of Congress who voted for a House Republican Budget
Resolution that would have cut appropriations for Veterans health care
over ten years by a total of $6.2 billion below the level needed to
maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level.
Just so that the Republicans, who could not see fit to provide a
child tax credit to millions of low income workers, nonetheless could
provide more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, principally
to the wealthy, to those who need it least.
The original House Budget resolution would have cut veterans programs
by $28 billion over ten years. As all of us know, the Budget Resolution
Conference Agreement that ultimately was adopted provides for an
unspecified $128 billion cut over ten years in discretionary spending
with $7.6 billion in additional unspecified cuts to take place in FY
2004 alone. So the risk to veterans programs is real, and the
appropriations process will reflect it.
Mr. Speaker, our veterans need help, not just flag-waving. The best
way that Congress can honor veterans is to ensure that programs
designed to protect Veterans and provide them with desperately needed
assistance are properly funded.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not one of patriotism. It's one
of priorities. We have veterans who now wait six months before they can
see a doctor in the VA health system. Our veterans wait years before
they can even get a decision on their VA disability claims. Is this how
we honor our veterans? Is this how we honor their service and their
sacrifice?
Mr. Speaker, we will know that this House is serious about honoring
our veterans, when we focus our attention on Democratic proposals to
reduce the waiting times for our veterans to see a doctor, and reduce
the handling time for VA disability claims.
H.J. Res. 4 will merely serve to dishonor the Constitution and to
betray the very ideals for which so many veterans fought, and for which
so many members of our armed forces made the ultimate sacrifice.
Adopting this resolution will encourage further departures from the
First Amendment and diminish respect for our Constitution. Once we
start down the road to limiting speech on the basis of content, it is
virtually certain that further restrictions of our First Amendment
liberties would follow.
Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is at the very heart of our
democracy. It is our First Amendment and the robust exchange of views
that it promotes that distinguishes our country from countries that
fear political dissent and imprison dissenters for expressing their
views.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed cure of a Constitutional Amendment is far
worse than the disease it is intended to address. Our Constitution is a
great document that has protected us from oppression for over 200
years. We ought not to tinker with it when such tinkering clearly is
not required. I urge my colleagues to support the Watt substitute and
reject the dangerous, ill-considered underlying base bill.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the
Members of this House that just 74 short days ago in this same room we
stood in the People's House and stripped the veterans' budget by about
$30 billion. That is $30 billion. We cut 20,000 VA nurses. Where was
the patriotism when we lost 6.6 million outpatient visits? Where were
you waving your flag as you voted to drop over 160,000 veterans from
the VA health care?
Mr. Speaker, we can talk the talk; we need to walk the walk. Let us
support the veterans, not with our discussion of the flag, but with
service to our VA veterans.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) hit the
nail on the head that this is about our system. I have the utmost
confidence in our system. This is not really about those two Supreme
Court opinions, because a different composition of the Supreme Court
may well say that flag burning is not prohibited, that it is protected
speech or is not protected speech. The first amendment will continue to
say what it says.
But I respect the system under which we operate that allows the
Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of whether we have violated
the first amendment or not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate here and now is not on the appropriation for
the Department of Veterans Affairs; it is on whether or not the
Congress can pass the constitutional amendment reversing two Supreme
Court decisions and prohibiting the physical desecration of the
American flag.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a veteran, and
I am not, stated the position of every veterans organization in the
country: They are for this.
The vote at hand is going to be on the Watts substitute amendment. As
I stated in my earlier argument, what this substitute amendment does is
constitutionally codify the Johnson and the Eichman decisions, which
state
[[Page H4841]]
that flag desecration is protected free speech under the first
amendment of the United States Constitution.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding, because
the chairman has made that point several times. Does the chairman
understand that future Supreme Courts may, in fact, have a completely
different interpretation of that, and that my amendment does not say
anything about those decisions? It just respects the system under which
we are operating.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what it does do
is, in order to prevent flag desecration, it requires the Supreme Court
of the United States to admit it made a mistake and expressly overrule
both the Johnson and Eichman decisions. The Supreme Court of the United
States does not overrule previous decisions very often. It did it in
Brown v. The Board of Education. But not very often in other major
areas, particularly in the interpretation of constitutional law, does
the Supreme Court of the United States do it.
The way to hit this issue is head on. If you do not like this
amendment, vote ``no,'' but do not adopt the Watts substitute
amendment, which merely tosses the ball back to the Supreme Court,
which twice has told us that flag desecration is constitutionally
protected.
The only way to reverse what the Supreme Court has done for sure is
to defeat the Watts substitute amendment and pass the underlying bill
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the substitute, a ``yes''
vote on passage of the constitutional amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
substitute to H.J. Res. 4, a resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the
physical desecration of the American flag, offered by my colleague The
Honorable Melvin Watt. I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 4 as it
is presently written, and to support the substitute.
H.J. Res. 4, states, ``The following article is proposed as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
valid to all intents and purpose 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.'. '' (emphasis added).
The amendment to the Constitution proposed in H.J. Res. 4 is a severe
abridgement of the freedom of expression protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. If ratified, H.J. Res. 4
would, for the first time in our Nation's history, modify the Bill of
Rights to limit freedom of expression.
This Constitutional amendment is a response to a pair of Supreme
Court decisions, Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman, two
cases in which the Court held that state and federal government efforts
to prohibit physical ``desecration'' of the flag by statute were
content-based political speech restrictions and imposed
unconstitutional limitations on that speech.
In Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Johnson was arrested for burning the
U.S. flag during a protest at the Republican National Convention in
Dallas. His acts were a deemed a violation of Texas's ``Venerated
Objects'' statute that outlawed ``intentionally or knowingly''
desecrating a ``national flag.'' The Supreme Court found that Johnson's
conduct constituted symbolic expression and was, therefore, protected
by the First Amendment. The Court determined that because Mr. Johnson's
guilt depended on the content of his expressive conduct and was
restricted because of that content, the Texas law was an
unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
After the Johnson ruling Congress passed the Flag Protection Act.
Under that Act, criminal charges were brought against protesters in
Seattle and Washington, D.C. In both cases, the federal district courts
relied on Johnson, striking down the Flag Protection Act as
unconstitutional when applied to political protesters. The Supreme
Court concluded that Congress' attempt to protect the flag was related
to ``the suppression of free expression'' that gave rise to an
infringement of First Amendment rights.
The substitute proposed my Mr. Watt is designed to protect American's
right to express their opinions and views in a way that is consistent
with the First Amendment, and also consistent with Supreme Court
precedent.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental
components of our democracy. Limiting the ability of American citizens
to voice their opinions about their government, through flag
desecrations or otherwise, is a violation of the principles of our
democracy that are symbolized in the American flag. The ability of
American citizens to speak their views, especially when those views are
unpopular, against the status quo, or even considered outrageous, is an
affirmative social good. It is those dissenting views that often bring
about social changes, legal changes, and government changes that
benefit all Americans. For example, I shudder to image that America
would be today if the ``unpopular'' views of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. were silenced.
The substitute offered by my colleague Mr. Watt protects all First
Amendment Free Speech including those expressions that are critical of
our local, state, and Federal governments. I proposed an Amendment to
H.J. Res. 4, to protect Americans' right to speak our against their
governments, even if they express themselves by desecrating the flag. I
support Mr. Watt's substitute because it protects American's rights to
voice unpopular views.
I join many Americans in the belief that some desecrations of the
flag are distasteful and offensive. However, my offense at some
expressions of free speech is outweighed by my respect for the First
Amendment. I may disagree with some how some Americans express their
views by destroying the American flag. But I will not trample on the
First Amendment to silence a voice with which I do not agree. H.J. Res.
4 places limits on the manner in which some American may express their
dissent with Government activity. This is an unacceptable limit on the
content of the dissent itself.
Mr. Watt's substitute to H.J. Res. 4, ensures that every American can
voice their opinions in a way that is consistent with the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, including speech that is
critical of our local, State, and Federal governments.
Mr. Speaker, I reject H.J. Res. 4 as it is presently written. I
support Mr. Watt's substitute to H.J. Res. 4, and urge my colleagues to
support the substitute to protect the First Amendment freedoms of all
Americans.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 255, the previous question is ordered on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute and on the joint resolution.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 129,
nays 296, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 233]
YEAS--129
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
[[Page H4842]]
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NAYS--296
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Carson (OK)
Conyers
Gephardt
Herger
Larson (CT)
Ryan (WI)
Smith (WA)
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are advised that 2 minutes remain for this vote.
{time} 1737
Messrs. PASCRELL, DEUTSCH, FRANKS of Arizona, PETRI, LEWIS of
Georgia, BISHOP of New York, SMITH of Michigan, FLAKE and SHADEGG
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Otter changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on
engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This vote will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 231
on which the yeas and nays were postponed yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 300,
nays 125, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 234]
YEAS--300
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--125
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
[[Page H4843]]
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--8
Carson (OK)
Conyers
Gephardt
Herger
Larson (CT)
Ryan (WI)
Smith (WA)
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
have 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1754
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution
was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________