[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1379-H1380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   COMMUNITY RECOGNITION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3095) to amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure 
the rules of etiquette for flying the flag of the United States do not 
preclude the flying of flags at half mast when ordered by city and 
local officials, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 3095

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Recognition Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 2. FLAG CODE AMENDMENT.

       Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the sentence beginning ``In the event of the 
     death of a present or former official of the government of 
     any State'' the following: ``In the event of the death of a 
     present or former official of any city or other locality, the 
     chief elected official of that locality may proclaim that the 
     National flag shall be flown at half staff.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  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 the bill, H.R. 3095, 
currently under consideration.
  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.R. 3095 simply clarifies title 4 of the United States 
Code to permit the chief elected officer of a city or locality to order 
the United States flag flown at half mast to honor the death of a 
present or former official of that locality. Though current law does 
not expressly prohibit a local official from executing this decision, 
it does not specifically grant this authority either. In the 
unfortunate event of a death of a local official, the law's lack of 
clarity regarding this authority has forced local officials to seek 
permission from either the President of the United States or the 
Governor of their respective State, both of whom have explicit 
authority under current law to order the flag lowered.
  As we all recognize, an individual's death often cannot be 
anticipated, and when a community is faced with such a loss, the 
President or Governor may not be able to be give immediate 
consideration to the request to lower the flag. Recognizing this 
problem, I believe that it is important that we vest our local 
officials with this authority rather than run the risk of missing an 
opportunity to honor and recognize the service of the deceased local 
official.
  I would note that similar legislation was passed by the House in the 
107th Congress by a vote of 420 to nothing, but unfortunately no action 
was ever taken by the other body.
  I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me, first of all, thank the chairman and say that we have an 
expression of recognition bill that all of us can support and is 
protected by the first amendment, and that is H.R. 3095, the Community 
Recognition Act, in which the question is not one of free speech but of 
recognition.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3095, the Community 
Recognition Act of 2003. This legislation is identical to H.R. 1022, 
which passed the House by a vote of 420 to zero. I am aware of no 
opposition to this bill. The chairman has clearly explained the bill, 
and I urge my colleagues enthusiastically to support H.R. 3095.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 3095, the 
Community Recognition Act. In January of this year, my colleagues and I 
of the Committee on the Judiciary held a markup hearing to consider 
this bill, and I supported it at that time. This legislation is 
identical to H.R. 1022, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee 
in the 107th Congress by voice vote with no debate and which passed the 
House by a vote of 420-0. However, it did not receive consideration by 
the Senate.
  H.R. 3095 would amend the ``Flag Code'' to allow local officials to 
order the flag of the United States in that jurisdiction flown at half-
staff in the event of the death of a present or former official of that 
locality. Current law specifies instances in which the flag should be 
flown at half-staff, who is authorized to order it, the manner in which 
it should be displayed, and how long it should be so flown in honor of 
different individuals. It grants this authority to the President and to 
the governors to order that the flag be flown at half-staff, but does 
not mention local officials. This bill would include local officials.
  Current law, including the Flag Code, does not prohibit anyone flying 
the flag at half-staff for any reason at any time. Moreover, the 
Constitution allows anyone to do anything they wish with a flag, 
including burn it as an act of protest. Let us not forget about the 
case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989 where during the 1984 Republican 
National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Johnson accepted a United 
States flag taken from a flagpole outside the convention center, doused 
the flag with kerosene, and set the flag on fire. Arrested by police 
officers on the scene, Johnson was prosecuted and convicted under a 
Texas law which prohibited desecration of the Texas and United States 
flags. The law defined desecration as ``physical mistreatment of such 
objects in a way which the [accused] knows will offend one or more 
persons likely to observe or discover the act.'' Several witnesses 
testified that they had been seriously offended by the flag burning.
  The use of the American flag in this instance does not present strong 
challenges to rights under the First Amendment. Instead, it would make 
clear that local officials also have the authority to order the flag 
flown at half-staff under certain circumstances.
  The flag of the United States serves as a symbol of the nation. In 
the case of West Virginia v. Barnett, 1943, the Court struck down a 
West Virginia law requiring a salute to the flag, commenting: ``Those 
who begin coercive limitation of dissent soon find themselves 
exterminating dissenters.'' The Court went on to say, ``There is no 
mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or 
origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the 
governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal 
opportunity to coerce the consent. Authority here is to be controlled 
by public opinion, not public opinion by authority. . . .''
  In Texas, the Government Code, Section 3100.072 sets forth the 
Governor's authority regarding the flag and limitations on governmental 
subdivisions or agencies. However, some states and jurisdictions do not 
have similar state legislation in place to grant this authority. 
Therefore, H.R. 3095 will add much needed uniformity to the United 
States Code.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation for the above reasons.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H1380]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3095, as amended.
  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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________