[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4823-H4829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 10, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
 AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF 
                           THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 330

       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. 10) 
     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. 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) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Watt of North 
     Carolina or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, 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.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 10 pursuant to 
     this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
     previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by 
     the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a structured rule, and it 
provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the 
joint resolution. It makes in order the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the 
resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in 
the report, provides that notwithstanding the ordering of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint 
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker, and it allows one 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court Texas v. 
Johnson decision nullified the laws of 48 States banning flag 
desecration. Today, all 50 States have passed resolutions requesting 
Congress to approve a Constitution amendment for ratification that 
would ban flag burning.
  The House of Representatives has passed the same, if not similar, 
legislation for five consecutive Congresses. In the 104th Congress, the 
House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment with the necessary 
two-thirds majority by a vote of 312 to 120; while the 105th House 
passed it 310 to 114, the 106th House passed it 305 to 124, the 107th 
House passed it 298 to 125, and in the last Congress, the 108th, the 
House passed it by a vote of 300 to 125.
  Our flag, with 50 stars and 13 stripes, represents the history, 
culture, and ideology of democracy for the world. Millions of Americans 
throughout our Nation's history died defending our flag and the ideals 
it represents. To burn a flag is to disrespect America and disrespect 
democracy. For our enemies, those who embrace terrorism, communism, and 
totalitarianism, burning the American flag is a sign of defiance, 
because freedom threatens the existence of tyranny. For our soldiers 
fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, our flag is motivation to keep 
fighting, to move ahead, and reason to liberate a people from fear of 
oppression, as it has been in every conflict in which our Nation has 
fought.

                              {time}  1200

  For our veterans, the desecration of the flag is a slight for 
everything they fought for. And it serves to dishonor their friends and 
fellow soldiers who gave their lives for our country. To the parts of 
Europe occupied by the allied powers during World War II, the sight of 
our flag brought tears of joy because it symbolizes an end to atrocity 
and oppression and the return of freedom.
  A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration is not the end of 
our first amendment liberties. The Constitution was drafted as a living 
document that is capable of changing when called for by the 
overwhelming desire of the American people.
  The debate to end flag desecration is an important issue that carries 
the overwhelming public support needed to pass an amendment to our 
Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, and 
modifying it should not be taken lightly. However, the American 
citizens have consistently spoken in favor of this amendment for more 
than 10 years, and it is an issue that is more than 3 decades old.
  Our laws provide an opportunity for every citizen to express their 
opinions freely. If someone does not like the policies of our Nation, 
the party in power, our military, or even a specific law, they have the 
ability to protest, to voice concerns, write letters to their 
Congressmen without the consequences of death or imprisonment.
  This freedom is not found in all nations. The desecration of the 
American flag, however, is not a form of free speech. It is a challenge 
to the institution that defends liberty. Although some may disagree, 
the United States is not the root of the world's problems; rather, we 
have provided relief from subjugation and freedom to many nations.
  For those liberated by America and those who cherish freedom, our 
flag represents more than a Nation, government, or people. It is an 
emblem of liberty and justice. Our flag deserves to be respected and 
protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric; it is the 
symbol of democracy.
  With that in mind, I request unanimous support of this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for yielding me time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H4824]]

  I would like to ask my colleague from Georgia a question, if he does 
not mind, and engage in just a brief colloquy.
  Does the gentleman know or has his staff related to him, when the 
last time occurred in America that a flag was burned, and how often 
that occurs, let us say, in the last year or 2?
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, if the gentleman will yield, since the Supreme 
Court decision, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), since 1994 it is my understanding that there 
have been at least 119 reports of incidents involving flag desecration.
  The Supreme Court ruling, that 5 to 4 decision that allowed flag 
desecration, flag burning as part of free speech, that was 1989. Since 
1994, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my understanding is 
119 incidents.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
distinguish between flag burning and other forms of desecration when he 
cites the 119? I have no memory of a flag burning in recent times. And 
I am curious to know whether or not you do.
  Flag burning is what this Congress constitutional amendment is about.
  Mr. GINGREY. In response to the gentleman, no, I do not know.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That is my point, reclaiming my time, among 
others. This is not something that happens frequently.
  We begin this debate today as patriotic Americans, you and I, Dr. 
Gingrey, and the other 433 Members, voting Members of the House of 
Representatives, and the five delegates to this House.
  We began this day with one of our celebrated ideals. It was in 1777 
that the Founding Fathers of this Nation determined that there should 
be a flag as a symbol. Symbol, that is what it is. All of us abhor 
desecration of the flag. Desecrating the flag is disrespectful and 
downright disgusting.
  But I am curious, because I asked two people in my district, knowing 
that I would be handling this rule, to observe on their way to work on 
June 14 the number of people that flew their flags. It is astounding, 
all of this talk about the flag, and how few people on June 14, that is 
just recently, on Flag Day, flew their flags.
  I am curious, I wonder how many Members did that as well. We begin 
this debate today with an unresolved war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We 
begin this debate today with Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and families crying as a result thereof.
  We begin this day with the President of the United States saying that 
we have a Social Security crisis, and one would argue not against the 
notion that Social Security needs to be reformed in an appropriate 
manner by the body.
  We began this day with a serious Medicaid crisis in this country 
which we are not addressing. We began this day with an equally serious 
Medicare crisis which we are not addressing.
  We began this day with AIDS raging throughout this country, and 
sexually transmitted diseases are ripe in our society; and we are not 
doing as much as we can about it. But yet we come to debate embedding 
the flag in our precious Constitution in as far as its desecration is 
concerned.
  We begin this debate with millions of Americans without jobs. Some 
unemployed, some underemployed, and some never to be employed again as 
a result of the laws of industry in this country from a manufacturing 
point of view.
  This debate begins with oil magnates and their companies receiving 
their highest profit ever in the history of this country, and American 
drivers paying the highest prices ever for gasoline; and yet we do not 
have an energy policy, and other than a handful of us, including 
myself, no one is introducing legislation to address the high cost of 
gasoline.
  We began this debate today with more than 40 million Americans 
without health care, 2 million Americans in jail, millions of children 
dropping out of school. And the best we can do is stir up emotions and 
divisions by holding a debate about our precious flag. Nothing in the 
way of positive understandings is coming about as far as immigration 
problems in this country.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying 
resolution. I firmly believe that passing this bill would abandon the 
very values and principles upon which this country was founded.
  Make no mistake, all of us, as I have said, abhor the desecration of 
the flag. The flag is a symbol of our country and a reminder of our 
great heritage. When I graduated from high school in 1954, my assigned 
topic at that graduation had to do with the song, ``The Old Flag Never 
Touched the Ground.''
  When Frances Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner,'' the flag was 
tattered and torn; when it was raised in Montezuma or at Arlington 
Cemetery, all of us are proud every day that that flag flies over this 
Capitol and elsewhere.
  I find it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that 
which we hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag 
and the country for which it stands that unfortunately I have no choice 
but to oppose this well-intentioned, yet misguided, legislation.
  Our country was founded on certain principles. Our Founders had the 
broadest visionary scope of their times. Chief among these principles 
are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were included in 
the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took deliberate steps 
to avoid creating a country in which individuals' civil liberties could 
be abridged by the government.
  Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do. In my opinion, it 
begins a dangerous trend in which the government can decide which ideas 
are legal and which must be suppressed.
  I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of 
expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are 
unpopular, such as flag desecration. When I was a lawyer, I represented 
a member of the Ku Klux Klan, because they would not let him put his ad 
on a Negro station at that time that was owned by members of the Jewish 
faith.
  I won that lawsuit, and I stood for his rights, because I knew if 
they took his rights away, it would be just a matter of time before 
they could be able to take mine away. As the Supreme Court Justice, the 
eminent Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote in 1929, it is an imperative 
principle of our Constitution, that it protects not just freedom for 
thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thoughts we 
hate.
  To the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), you and I and all of our 
colleagues hate it when someone burns a flag. I remember the very last 
time that I saw one burned sitting in my living room with my mom.
  And almost without hesitation, both of us referred to those people as 
fools, and we used choice words in front of the word fools. Throughout 
this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of our colleagues are 
going to try to paint some of us Democrats as unpatriotic. They will 
tell the American people that because we support the protection of our 
civil liberties and the constitutional right for an American to burn 
her flag, we are therefore not loyal citizens. They will demagogue us, 
and some may even accuse the judiciary, a separate and equal branch of 
government established under article 3 of the Constitution, of being a 
body filled with activist judges because the highest court in our land 
has already said that the act of burning an American flag is 
permissible under the first amendment of the Constitution.
  To those who intend to levy such artificial claims, I say shame on 
you. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the Bush administration 
loves draping itself in the flag when talking about troops and 
terrorism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, if they so 
choose to do that.
  Yet this is the same administration that while standing, as the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) did just a moment ago, in his 
comments talking about our troops who are dying for us to have the 
right to be here, and you and I and all of our colleagues are proud of 
the fact that we can serve in this United States Congress, and there 
are people as we speak, and certainly more than 1,700 Americans have 
died in Iraq, and some substantial number in Afghanistan, and, yet, 
when they come home to Dover, Delaware, with flag-draped coffins, this 
administration who is so proud of the flag and all of you who would 
support its being made a part of a Constitution, refuses to let

[[Page H4825]]

the public see the pictures of those persons with those flag-draped 
coffins, and I might add, punishes the media for trying to access them.
  The hypocrisy is so thick, that you can choke on it.

                              {time}  1215

  Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the 
underlying legislation and I said to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) that I found a way that I can support his 
measure to put the flag in the Constitution. It came by way of an 
incident that occurred in Durham, North Carolina on May 25 of this 
year. Three crosses were burned in Durham; one in front of a church, 
designed to intimidate people. The cross, the precious cross was 
burned. And yet we find ourselves here talking about the flag. I wonder 
about my colleagues which offends them more; or do they, as they do me, 
both offend me highly.
  In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law 
banning cross burning in Virginia. The court ruled the burning of a 
cross by a terrorist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan is not 
protected by the first amendment because of the maliciousness and 
intent to intimidate behind the action.
  Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote in the majority's opinion, ``While a 
burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, 
often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear 
for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if 
any messages are more powerful.''
  Mr. Speaker, as I began my discussion with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), I asked, When was the last time 
we saw a flag burn? I have not seen a flag burning in America. And I 
might add, when it burns abroad it offends me just as much as when it 
burns in this country, but I have not seen one of those desecrations in 
quite some time. But cross burnings continue to plague the South and 
are used by hate groups to incite, intimidate, and, in some instances, 
harm and murder. Despite this real epidemic, Congress has always been 
silent on the issue.
  Had my amendment been made in order, and it was not considered to be 
made in order in the Committee on Rules, the House would have been able 
to debate this important issue for the first time. The House will not 
be debating that issue, nor will we be debating the myriad of other 
issues of critical importance to the American people. There are so many 
other things that this body could be doing today instead of drawing up 
another way to impede our constitutionally protected rights.
  We could be expanding veterans health care benefits. We could be 
increasing military pay. We could be providing our soldiers with 
adequate body armor and protection. We could be improving our schools, 
creating incentives for affordable housing, ensuring our seniors have 
long-term health care. We could be completing a transportation 
reauthorization bill and new school construction. These are just a few 
of the things, in addition to others that I have mentioned, that we 
could be doing.
  Mr. Speaker, are we so insecure in our own patriotism that seeing 
someone else burning a flag will lead us to question our commitment to 
this great Nation? Let us ask ourselves the question, What is America? 
We know that its symbol stands tall no matter the circumstances.
  I love this country and everything our flag stands for, even the 
things with which I do not agree, and they are numerous; for better or 
for worse, that is the cost we pay for democracy. I ask you to please 
consider, when you are talking about putting something in the United 
States Constitution, that you get past political rhetoric and that you 
understand the serious dynamics that are involved when we are talking 
about asking two-thirds of the States in this country and two-thirds of 
this body and the other body to pass something that will allow us to 
become more insecure.
  I tell you, when I see somebody burn the flag, it makes me mad; it 
does not make me insecure. And that is what ought cause us to be 
reaching across to each other, because it is at that one point in time 
when somebody desecrates the flag that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) and I have the exact same view, and that is everybody that is 
here. Therefore, it is a uniting thing, not a dividing thing between 
the first amendment rights of people.
  Civil liberties are important. I do not like the fools who burn the 
flag, but I will stand up and protect their right to do so because to 
take their right means one day somebody might try to take mine.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in response to a number of the points that my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), just made so eloquently.
  He asked me a little while ago about the incidences that had 
occurred, the 119 since 1994, and how many of those were burnings in 
contrast to how many might be other forms of desecration. I did not 
have that information for him at the moment, but I do now, and I want 
to share that with him; 75 of those actually were burnings.
  I want to anecdotally mention one of those 75. In April 18, 2005, 
this occurred in Topeka, Kansas, this burning. Fire and police 
investigators looked into a case of arson in which flags were burned at 
the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library. Someone came into the 
library grounds between 12:21 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. They lowered the 
library's flags and they burned them near the building.
  Now, it was not illegal then and now to burn your own flag. It was 
illegal to burn someone else's. But that is the point that I wanted to 
make; that in fact 75 of 119 were burnings. Furthermore, I want to also 
mention that the word ``desecration'' in this constitutional amendment 
resolution was selected because of its broad nature in encompassing 
many actions against the flag.
  Such broad terms are commonly used in constitutional amendments. For 
example, free exercise in the first amendment; unreasonable searches 
and seizures, probable cause, in the fourth amendment; due process and 
equal protection in the 14th. Thus, it is essential that we continue to 
use broad terms in constitutional amendments such as the word 
``desecration'' in order to give Congress discretion when it moves to 
enact implementing legislation. Debate and discussion as to what forms 
of desecration should be outlawed, such as burning, will come at a 
later date in Congress.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was 
talking about in regard to his own amendment. The Supreme Court 
decision in 2003, Virginia v. Black, held that ``a ban on cross burning 
carried out with the intent to intimidate is proscribable under the 
first amendment,'' allowable under the first amendment. So it is really 
unnecessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit cross 
burnings, since statutes prohibiting cross burnings with the intent to 
harm are currently enforceable.
  In contrast, the Supreme Court has concluded in Texas v. Johnson in 
1989 that, 5 to 4 decision, that flag desecration is protected by the 
first amendment, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only 
remaining option to protect the flag, since statutes doing so in 50 
States, 48 States before 1989, are currently unenforceable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I for one would like to let my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), know that I am not so weak in my faith 
that burning of a cross would somehow destroy my faith. And yet I still 
believe that when somebody burns the cross, that the effect on our 
society, the chances of a riot, the chances that it will lead to 
violence are so high that society has a right to protect itself from 
the inevitable outcome of that kind of action. Furthermore, I do not 
believe we are acting as a body in order to tell the American people 
what to do.
  I believe we reflect on a bipartisan basis, an overwhelming 
bipartisan basis, which reflects the will of the people, their desire 
to see this protection. That is why 50 States have all passed 
resolutions. Some of these States are very much Democrat States, some 
very much Republican.
  This is not about patriotism or party. This is about the will of the 
people. We

[[Page H4826]]

must respond to the will of the people. I believe in the Constitution 
as a not easily changeable document, and I respect the idea that we 
should not change it lightly. But just as this Constitution began 
without Indians, African Americans, women, or even people below the age 
of 21 being able to vote, and we have revised and revised and revised 
to get a more perfect democracy, we too must respond to this 
generation's request.
  This generation's request of us is, in fact, to establish a special 
respect level, not an overly high one, but a special respect level for 
the flag. Not because America will somehow be destroyed if one or one 
million flags are burned, but because the American people have called 
on this body to offer them an opportunity to amend the Constitution, 
and we do so here today. We attempt to give the American people that 
opportunity to revise the Constitution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) before he 
leaves the floor, that every time that we have amended the Constitution 
it has been to expand liberties and rights, not to restrict them. If 
this amendment passes, this would be the first time in the history of 
this country that we would pass an amendment that would restrict rights 
and liberties.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. I might remind the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
my friend, that we limited the terms of how many times someone could 
run for President as a constitutional amendment. That is fluid 
document. It may add or subtract. It may reflect the will of the 
people. The will of the people in our lifetime was to limit the amount 
of terms that a President could serve, no differently than the question 
of whether or not you can incite a riot by burning a flag.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I cannot believe my 
colleague would even try to make such a specious argument, but the fact 
of the matter is there have only been 15 incidents in a country of 300 
million people between the years of 2000 and 2005. There are 
substantial laws on the books that will prosecute fools who desecrate 
the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman), my very good friend on the House Committee on International 
Relations.
  (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 
oppressors. It stands for freedoms, not the least of which is the 
freedom of opinion and the unimpeded expression thereof, including the 
freedom to protest. 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 of the Bill of Rights, each and every 
one of which gives people rights. They did not debate a flag. The flag 
would become a symbol of these rights.
  What is the threat to the Republic today that drives us to dilute the 
Bill of Rights? Well, someone burned the flag once this year. Whatever 
happened to fighting to the death for somebody's right to disagree?

                              {time}  1230

  We now choose instead to react by taking away a form of protest. Most 
people abhor flag burners; but even a despicable, low-life malcontent 
has a right to disagree and to disagree in an obnoxious fashion. That 
is the true test of free expression.
  Flag burners 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 Bill of Rights because someone offends us is, in itself, 
unconscionable.
  Who bans flag burning? Hitler did. Mussolini did. Saddam Hussein did. 
Dictators 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 protesters and the flag 
burners, protecting their right is the stuff of 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 worshipped as 
would pagans, rather than to be kept as a 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.
  The Constitution this week is being nibbled to death by small men 
with press secretaries. If the flag burners offend us, do not beat a 
cowardly retreat by rushing to ban them. Meet their ideas with bigger 
ideas, for an even better America to protect the flag by protecting 
democracy, not by retreating from it.
  The choice today is substance or symbolism. We cannot kill a flag. It 
is a symbol; and, yes, patriots have died, but they have died for 
liberty. They have died for democracy. They have died for the right of 
the protestors. They died for values.
  The flag is a symbol of those values. Saying that people died for the 
flag is symbolic language. What they really died for are American 
principles. 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 the 
Constitution by removing but one right and the flag shall forever stand 
for less. Do not pass this amendment. Do not diminish the Constitution. 
Do not cheapen our flag.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from New 
York in his last presentation, for over 2 centuries the first amendment 
was already understood to permit flag protection. In fact, before the 
1989 case, what he is talking about was not even germane because 48 
States had already had in place that the flag was protected. Only 
Wyoming and Alaska did not have it; and now all 50 States, contrary to 
what the gentleman is talking about, want this amendment, H.J. Res. 10, 
to pass so that we have protections for our flag.
  So he is acting like there has not been historically, little 
protection for this flag, but historically, for 2 centuries, the first 
amendment was in place and the flag was protected. H.J. Res. 10 will 
not amend the first amendment.
  Let us not forget that we are not talking about amending the first 
amendment or limiting the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. 
So let us make that perfectly clear.
  As I pointed out, for 200 years in this country, the first amendment 
was understood to permit simple flag protection. That conduct has 
always and continues to be regulated by the United States Government. 
That is our job. Both State and Federal criminal codes prohibit conduct 
that could conceivably be protected by the first amendment; yet their 
constitutionality is not questioned.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. Defacing currency, urinating in 
the public, pushing over a tombstone, public nudity are all actions 
which can be utilized to express a particular political or social 
message, but are unquestionably, unquestionably illegal. Flag 
desecration was once included in that list as a form of conduct our 
society chose not to condone. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in 
1989 in Johnson and Eichman usurped the people's will in this respect.
  So after 1989, then we had this problem. H.J. Res. 10 will simply 
return to where we were 200 years ago, overturn this erroneous 
decision. That is all we are doing here, restoring the original meaning 
to the first amendment that had persisted for over 200 years.
  As we stand here today, we have a flag behind us here in the House. 
That flag was like the flag that we saw on
9/11. Who can forget the iconic photo taken on the terrible day of 
September 11, 2001, of three New York City

[[Page H4827]]

firefighters raising our flag from the rubble of the World Trade 
Center?
  What did that do? That symbolizes America's mourning, but also it 
symbolized a determination by the American people to pursue justice. 
How sad it would be to come to the point where we would allow this flag 
that projects the symbolism of American mourning and the symbolism of a 
determination to pursue justice, that we would allow it to be burned.
  So we are here to move forward on this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my friend, does 
the gentleman know of any time that we have amended the Bill of Rights 
in the United States of America?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think I would ask my colleague why he is 
against 200 years in this country, when we protected our flag, why is 
he standing on the floor today not respecting the tradition of this 
country for 200 years and realizing that all 50 States want us to enact 
this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because I 
believe in the first amendment. That was the first thing done in the 
United States Constitution; and I believe that in 1777, when the 
Founders of this Nation established the flag as our symbol that they 
were correct then and they are correct now.
  I do not know whether my colleague was on the floor when I said to 
him, and I rather suspect he was not, that I resent flag burning, but I 
respect rights, and I will respect the rights of individuals within the 
framework of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for 
as long as I am here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman), my colleague.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) does not leave the floor for a moment.
  I appreciate very much his lecture about 9/11. I happen to live in 
New York. I am a New Yorker. I am a New York Representative. I was born 
in New York, and let me tell the gentleman how proud we are of those 
firemen. Let me tell the gentleman how proud we are of the act that 
they did in raising that flag and how proud each and every one of us is 
of that flag.
  But let me also tell the gentleman this: we are proud of that flag 
because it represents a set of values that are different from al 
Qaeda's values, from oppressors' values. That flag represents our 
Constitution, and that Constitution is what makes the difference 
between us and others.
  It is not a flag because it is a different shape or has different 
colors. It is what it represents, and for the gentleman to stand up and 
cite why we are against doing this and citing history, we have laws 
against, as the gentleman from Florida said, public urination or nudity 
in public. Those laws, could the gentleman tell me where there is a 
constitutional amendment to ban that? There is none. We take care of 
that with other laws.
  In the history which the gentleman is so fond of citing in this 
country, never has there been a case where we amended the Founding 
Fathers' Bill of Rights. We have never amended the Constitution's Bill 
of Rights. We have never once taken away rights of Americans.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York would agree 
that we are not amending the first amendment or otherwise limiting in 
any way the guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Is that not true what 
we are doing?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. No, that is not true. That is absolutely not true.
  What my colleagues are doing is amending the Constitution which, for 
the first time since Prohibition, takes away the right; and there was 
such a hue and cry in Prohibition and that was because more people 
happened to drink than burn the flag, appropriately so, I might say.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
understand the gentleman is kind to give me this time. It is the 
gentleman's time, but the point is this is a constitutional amendment. 
It is not changing the first amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time, of course it takes away a 
recognized form of protest and freedom of expression. If a person burns 
the flag, if they burn someone else's flag, that is a crime. If they 
urinate in public, as the gentleman's side is so apt to talk about, on 
the flag, which is a despicable thing to do, there are laws that 
protect against those things occurring in public.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I 
have one question for the gentleman. If I went to the New York City 
firefighters who raised our flag on the rubble of the World Trade 
Center and I said to them, do you want to protect this flag from 
desecration and burning, what does my colleague think their answer 
would be?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they were there to 
protect lives and protect Americans. They raised the flag in an act of 
patriotism, to show why this great country is different from those that 
attacked us, and that is because we have a Constitution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague from 
Georgia, if he is interested in this colloquy continuing, perhaps it is 
that he would yield some time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), who may in turn yield time to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman) and myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time. I 
plan to reserve the balance of my time, but I will be happy to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in the interest of 
continuation of this colloquy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Well, we have been through this debate, and in all 
respect to the gentleman from New York, he has come down here and he 
pulls a box out and he has the American flag on handkerchiefs and he 
has got it on his tie. I respect him for doing that because he is 
really saying that the American flag comes in many forms and people use 
it to adorn, maybe even upholstery, but that is a little different. 
That is a little different than taking the flag and burning it.
  The fact that when this country was founded and we have all the 
States up until 1989 supporting the idea of protection of the flag, I 
mean, that tradition alone, by saying to the American people we are 
going to forget all that tradition, so have we been wrong?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I--
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think I have got the time now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No, the gentleman does not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
allocate time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) or the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)?
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is saying when we think 
about it, my good colleague from Florida and New York, were the people 
in this country wrong for 200 years to protect the flag from 
desecration?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, now the gentleman, as a Congressman in this 
21st century, is saying they were all wrong, the judge in the Johnson 
and Eichman case was absolutely right? He was not respecting the 200 
years we had and now suddenly out of thin air he has decided to change 
the courts?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not 
want to create a constitutional morass,

[[Page H4828]]

but I had the time and yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), and I tried to reclaim my time. The Chair then permitted the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to yield time to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), which should come after the time that I 
have utilized.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think we need a clarification who has the 
time. I understood that my side had given me 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will suspend.
  Did the gentleman from Georgia initially allocate debate time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) or the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, he has been very generous with my time. I 
do not want to take his time away because he is on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is asking the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) who he initially allocated time to.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time our side 
has remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining after this time has expired. However, the 
question to the gentleman from Georgia is, who initially did the 
gentleman allocate time to, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)?

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake. I intended to yield 
that time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) rather than the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I apologize for that mistake.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining; and, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 3 minutes remaining.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for the 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), who controls the time, yielded 2 minutes, which is an 
allocation of time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), should 
not the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) have 3\1/2\ minutes even 
if they are New York minutes?
  Mr. Speaker, 1\1/2\ plus 2 are 3\1/2\ even in Florida.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the understanding of the Chair, upon 
asking the gentleman from Georgia to clarify his initial allocation of 
time, that he intended to yield an initial 2 minutes and a subsequent 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) has the time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. STEARNS. I do.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Is what counts in the rules of procedure of the House 
what the gentleman's intent was or what the gentleman did?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asked the gentleman from Georgia 
for a clarification. The gentleman from Georgia initially indicated he 
was yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida and the Chair did 
not hear which gentleman from Florida he intended to yield time to. 
Upon seeking clarification, the gentleman from Georgia indicated he 
intended to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) may proceed.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to wrap up here. I did not 
intend to get into this kind of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, only to make my point, as a conservative, when we look 
at the issue and say there are 200 years of tradition here of 
protecting the flag, I think we should not throw that tradition out and 
remember it is only this judge in Johnson v. Eichman in 1989 that made 
that change, and now again we have 50 States that are asking for us as 
Members of Congress to vote to support H.J. Res. 10.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the 
purpose of closing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would just comment, in the Johnson case, it was Justice Scalia that 
was the fifth vote that made the ruling that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) was speaking of just a moment ago. I would hope that he 
would know that.
  The sum fact of the matter is none of us are in favor of anybody 
burning a flag. But the simple fact of the matter is all of us ought to 
be about the business of protecting the rights and the liberties of 
United States citizens.
  What I have said I repeat, and that is I am not so insecure that when 
I see a fool burn a flag that it makes me anything more than incensed. 
It does not cause me to lose any respect for my country at all, but the 
rights of that individual are the things that we must be here to 
protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
indicated this does not implicate free speech. I would simply point out 
that we see movies all the time. In those movies we see actors dressed 
up as Nazis, as German soldiers in German World War II trampling and 
burning the flag. Do we go out and arrest those actors? Of course not, 
because we know the actors do not mean it; they are playing a role.
  But this amendment says if an American citizen to make a point, a 
point that he disagrees with the actions of his government, were to do 
the same thing, then we would arrest him. So what are we really saying? 
It is not the act of the flag burning that matters; it is the point of 
view associated with the flag burning which is why this is a free 
speech issue and why we should not pass this amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
for introducing this legislation and to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
for being steadfast and persistent in trying to bring resolution to the 
issue of flag desecration.
  On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the stars and 
stripes design as the official flag of the United States in order to 
designate and protect our ships from friendly fire at sea.
  Since 1994, 119 incidents of flag desecration, and yes, 75 of those 
were flag burnings, have been reported in the United States and its 
territories. A constitutional amendment will send a strong message of 
respect for our country and what it represents. Every Memorial Day, 
civic groups volunteer their time placing flags on the graves of our 
fallen soldiers. It was said earlier on Flag Day, June 14, that very 
few of our citizens took their liberty to display their personal flags. 
It is regrettable. It is regrettable that on Memorial Day, instead of 
honoring our fallen, our KIAs in this great country, people, many 
people, most people, in fact, just use it as a long weekend, another 
day, a holiday, not really remembering. But, of course, we do not throw 
out Memorial Day just because our citizens are not paying the proper 
respect.
  Whenever a soldier or a government leader dies, a flag is given to 
his or her family in honor of their service to our country. Our flag 
means something to these civic groups, these family members, our 
veterans, our soldiers, and all Americans.
  Every day men and women selflessly give of themselves to protect our 
country and our liberties, and they do not deserve to be dishonored, 
just as our firefighters and our policemen in the great City of New 
York gave of themselves on that fateful day of 9/11.
  During our war against terrorism, we need to send a strong message to 
the

[[Page H4829]]

enemies of America and the enemies of freedom by protecting the symbol 
and values of our Nation. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to pass this rule, to oppose the Watt substitution, and pass 
the underlying legislation.
  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.

                          ____________________