Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4904-H4928]
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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I
call up 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, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
330, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of H.J. Res. 10 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 10

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That 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 the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in House Report 109-140, if offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee, which
shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Pursuant to section 2 of the resolution, the Chair at any time may
postpone further consideration of the joint resolution until a time
designated by the Speaker.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New

[[Page H4905]]

York (Mr. Nadler) will control the time of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers).
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 10.
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, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 10,
which would amend the Constitution to grant Congress the authority to
prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.
Mr. Speaker, the American flag represents the shared history and
common future of all Americans and our collective commitment to the
preservation of the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. The flag
flies proudly in times of peace and war, prosperity and crisis,
reminding the world of our unflinching resolve to protect the freedom
and equality it symbolizes.
In the early days of the Republic through contemporary times, the
flag has rallied and sustained the spirit of the Nation. In World War
II, it was carried onto Normandy Beach by soldiers who liberated a
continent from darkness, and raised on Iwo Jima to steel the resolve of
embattled Marines. During the Cold War, it affirmed the universal
values of human freedom and dignity for citizens of countries whose
governments ignored both.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the flag was unfurled at
the Pentagon and raised from the rubble at Ground Zero to unify the
spirit of a shaken Nation. Unique among all American symbols, the flag
captures the pride and spirit of the American people and serves as an
international symbol of freedom and opportunity.
For the first two centuries of our Constitution's existence, it was
permissible to protect America's preeminent symbol from desecration. In
1989, the Federal Government and 48 States had exercised this
authority. However, in the same year, a closely divided Supreme Court
invalidated those laws by holding that burning an American flag as part
of a political demonstration was protected by the First Amendment. The
Congress quickly responded to this decision, but the following year in
another 5 to 4 decision, the Court struck down the Federal Flag
Protection Act in United States v. Eichman. Since 1994, over 119
incidents of flag desecration have been reported, and the flag of the
United States remains vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, the framers of the Constitution recognized that there
would be circumstances necessitating changes to the Constitution.
Toward that end, they provided the people with an amendment process
embodied in Article V of the Constitution. The founders recognized that
the constitutional amendment process is absolutely vital to maintaining
the democratic legitimacy upon which republican self-government rests.
While our courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution,
under our system of government, the American people should and must
have the ultimate authority to amend it.
As a result, House Joint Resolution 10 does not upset the doctrine of
judicial review. Rather, it utilizes a remedy envisioned by the
founders to effectuate the will of the people. Moreover, House Joint
Resolution 10 will not prohibit flag desecration. Rather, should the
States ratify the amendment, it will enable Congress to enact
legislation to establish boundaries within which such conduct may be
prohibited.
The amendment process is one that should not be taken lightly.
However, because of the narrowly divided Johnson and Eichman Supreme
Court decisions, the constitutional amendment provides the only
remaining option for the American people and their elected
representatives to restore protection to our Nation's preeminent
symbol.
In December 1792, James Madison asked a question: ``Who are the best
keepers of the People's Liberty?'' While it might come as a surprise to
some, he did not answer the Supreme Court. Rather, Mr. Madison
answered, ``The People themselves. The sacred trust can be nowhere so
safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.''
All 50 State legislatures have passed resolutions calling on Congress
to pass a flag protection amendment, and polls demonstrate the
overwhelming majority of Americans have consistently supported a flag
protection amendment.
Language identical to House Joint Resolution 10 has passed the House
on four separate occasions. The Congress must act with bipartisan
dispatch to ensure that this issue is returned to the hands of those
most interested in preserving freedom, the people themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the flag of the United States is a critical part of
America's civic identity. Millions of Americans, including we as
Members of Congress, pledge daily allegiance to the flag, and our
National Anthem pays homage to it. America's soldiers salute the flag
of the United States in times of peace, and generations of America's
soldiers have fought and died for it in times of war.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure
that provides this unique and sacred American symbol with the dignity
and protection it deserves and demands. Pass the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague, who is the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and has served us so well across the
years in this regard.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the
minority member of the Committee on Rules, for conducting such a
dispositive examination of the rule and the substance of the measure
that is before us today.
Today's consideration of House Joint Resolution 10 will show whether
we have the strength to remain true to our forefathers' constitutional
ideals and defend our citizens' right to express themselves, even if we
vehemently disagree with their method of expression.
I have been thinking about this. I have never met anyone that
supports burning the American flag. Very few Americans favor burning
the flag as an expression of free speech. I personally deplore the
desecration of the flag in any form, but I still remain strongly
opposed to this resolution because this resolution goes against the
ideals that the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over
freedom itself. If adopted, this resolution would represent for the
first time in our Nation's history that the people's representatives in
this body voted to alter the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of
speech.
While some may say that this resolution is not the end of our first
amendment liberties, it is my fear that it may be the beginning. By
limiting the scope of the first amendment's free speech protections, we
are setting a most dangerous precedent. If we open the door to
criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the
flag, which this is, it will be difficult to limit further efforts to
censor such speech. Once we decide to limit freedom of speech,
limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be
far behind.
It has been said that the true test of any Nation's commitment to
freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular
expression, such as flag desecration. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
wrote as far back as 1929, the Constitution protects not only freedom
for the thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the
thought we hate.''
This resolution is in response to two Supreme Court decisions, Texas
v. Johnson in 1989 and the United States v. Eichman in 1990, two
Supreme Court decisions in one bite. It is always

[[Page H4906]]

tempting for Congress to want to show the Supreme Court who is boss by
amending the Constitution to outlaw flag-related expression.

{time} 1100

But if we do, we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a
document designed to last for the ages, but will be undermining the
very constitutional structure that Jefferson and Madison designed to
protect our rights. In effect, we will be glorifying fringe elements
who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while denigrating the
Constitution itself, the vision of Madison and Jefferson.
Concern about the tyranny of the majority led the framers to create
an independent judiciary free of political pressure to ensure that the
legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of Rights. A
constitutional amendment banning flag desecration flies in the very
face of this carefully balanced structure. The fact that the Congress
would consider the first-ever amendment to the Bill of Rights without
so much as a hearing in this Congress makes this all the more
objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, no hearings. Why not? Well, we have done this before. If
Members want to find out what the debate would be like, read it from
four other times that we have done this.
James Madison warned us against using the amendment process to
correct every perceived constitutional defect, particularly concerning
issues which inflame public passion. And, unfortunately, there is no
better illustration of Madison's concern than the proposed flag
desecration amendment.
History has proven that efforts to legislate respect for the flag
only serve to increase flag-related protest, and a constitutional
amendment will no doubt increase such protests many times over. Almost
as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own
Constitution is the harm it will inflict in our international standing
in the area of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, demonstrators who ripped apart Communist flags before
the fall of the Iron Curtain committed crimes against their country's
laws, yet freedom-loving Americans applauded their brave actions. Yet
if we pass this action, we will be aligning ourselves with those
autocratic regimes, such as in the former Soviet Union and Iran, and
diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all of its
forms.
Those who oppose this amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the
physical desecration of the flag express the sentiment of many
Americans. In May 2005, just last month, a majority of Americans
opposed such an amendment by 63 percent to 35 percent because of its
first amendment restrictions. Our veterans, citizens who have risked
their lives to defend the ideals the flag represents, oppose this
amendment as well. Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans Defending the
Bill of Rights, two organizations, do not want to see the first
amendment unraveled and a desecration of what the flag represents.
For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag,
I urge them to actually read the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas
v. Johnson. The majority wrote, and I concur, ``The way to preserve the
flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about
these matters, it is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can
imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving
one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by
saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its
desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished
emblem represents.''
I urge my colleagues to maintain the constitutional ideal of freedom
and reject this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of the legislation.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, 200 years of tradition was wiped out 16
years ago. For 200 years our forefathers fought to protect the flag.
All 50 States had resolutions to protect the flag prior to this, and
since then all 50 States have passed resolutions that they will codify
this vote.
I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, some will
oppose this amendment. Their opposition is honorable. They are my
friends and they oppose this. But I would tell the gentleman that as of
May, 81 percent of the American people oppose their arguments and their
views.
The military, go out to Walter Reed or Bethesda and ask those men and
women what they feel and they will tell you. All of the veterans
organizations, and my colleague mentioned the veterans organizations
are opposed to this. This is from the Citizen's Flag Alliance and list
all of the veterans organizations that support this amendment, and I
include that list for the Record.

AMVETS (American Veterans).
African-American Women's Clergy Association.
Air Force Association.
Air Force Sergeants Association.
American GI Forum of the U.S.
American GI Forum of the U.S. Founding Chapter.
The American Legion.
American Legion Auxiliary.
American Legion Riders, Department of Virginia.
American Merchant Marine Veterans.
American War Mothers.
American Wholesale Flags.
Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Association of the U.S. Army.
Baltic Women's Council.
Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks.
Bunker Hill Monument Association, Inc.
Catholic Family Life Insurance.
Catholic War Veterans.
The Center for Civilian Internee Rights, Inc.
The Chosin Few.
Combat Veterans Association.
Croatian American Association.
Croatian Catholic Union.
Czech Catholic Union.
Czechoslovak Christian Democracy in the U.S.A.
Daughters of the American Colonists.
Drum Corps Associates.
Dust Off Association.
Eight & Forty (des Huit Chapeaux et Quarante Femmes).
Enlisted Association National Guard U.S. (EANGUS).
Family Research Council.
Fleet Reserve Association.
Forty & Eight (La Societe des Quarante Hommes et Huit
Chevaux).
Fox Associates, Inc.
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Grand Aerie, Fraternal Order of Eagles.
Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.
Grand Lodge of Masons of Oklahoma.
Great Council of Texas, Order of Red Men.
Hungarian Association.
Hungarian Reformed Federation of America.
Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
Just Marketing, Inc.
Knights of Columbus.
Korean American Association of Greater Washington.
Ladies Auxiliary of Veterans of World War I.
MBNA America.
Marine Corps League.
Marine Corps Mustang Association, Inc.
Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association.
Medal of Honor Recipients for the Flag.
Military Officers Association of Indianapolis, MOAA
(formally The Retired Officers Association of Indianapolis,
TROA).
Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A.
The Military Order of the Foreign Wars.
Moose International.
National Alliance of Families for the Return of America's
Missing Servicemen.
National Association for Uniformed Services.
National Association of State Directors of Veterans
Affairs, Inc. (NASDVA).
National Center for Public Policy Research.
National Defense Committee.
National 4th Infantry (IVY) Division Association.
National Federation of American Hungarians, Inc.
National Federation of State High School Associations.
National FFA (Future Farmers of America).
National Grange.
National Guard Association of the U.S.
National League of Families of American Prisoners and
Missing in SE Asia.
National Officers Association (NOA).
National Organization of World War Nurses.
National Service Star Legion.
National Slovak Society of the United States.
National Sojourners. Inc.
National Society of the Daughters of the American
Revolution.
National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.
National Twenty & Four.
National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans.
Native Daughters of the Golden West.
Native Sons of the Golden West.

[[Page H4907]]

Navajo Codetalkers Association.
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA).
Navy League of the U.S.
Navy Seabee Veterans of America.
Non-Commissioned Officers Association.
PAC Pennsylvania Eastern Division.
Past National Commander's Organization (PANCO).
Patrol Craft Sailors Association.
Polish American Congress.
Polish Army Veterans Association (S.W.A.P.).
Polish Falcons of America.
Polish Falcons of America--District II.
Polish Home Army.
Polish Legion of American Veterans, U.S.A.
Polish Legion of American Veterans Ladies Auxiliary.
Polish National Alliance.
Polish National Union.
Polish Roman Catholic Union of North America.
Polish Scouting Organization.
Polish Western Association.
Polish Women's Alliance.
Robinson International.
Ruritan National.
Sampson WWII Navy Vets, Inc.
San Diego Veterans Services.
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry--Northern Masonic
Jurisdiction.
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry--Southern Jurisdiction.
Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Sons of the American Legion.
Sons of the Revolution in the State of Wisconsin.
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.
Sportsmen's Athletic Club--Pennsylvania.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Steamfitters Local Union # 449.
Team of Destiny.
Texas Society Sons of the American Revolution.
The General Society, Sons of the Revolution.
The Military Order of the World Wars.
The Orchard Lakes Schools.
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States.
The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA).
The Seniors Coalition.
The Travelers Protective Association.
TREA Senior Citizens League.
The Ukrainian Gold Cross.
The Uniformed Services Association (TUSA).
United Armed Forces Association.
United Veterans of America.
U.S. Coast Guard Enlisted Association.
U.S. Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association.
U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce.
U.S.A Letters, Inc.
U.S.S. Intrepid Association. Inc.
U.S.C.G. Chief Petty Officers Association.
Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge.
Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc.
Vietnam Veterans Institute (VVI).
Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 415.
Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 566.
VietNow.
Virginia War Memorial Foundation.
WAVES National.
Women's Army Corps Veterans Association.
Women's Overseas Service League.
Woodmen of the World.
63rd Infantry Division Association, USAR.
66th Engineering TOPO Vets.
Total Member Organizations As Of May 10, 2005: 146.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in the past debates people have brought
forth trinkets, ties, gloves, and T-shirts and tried to confuse the
issue with the American flag. What is the American flag? The flag is
what we place over the coffins of our fallen soldiers. I would ask
those individuals, if they still try this trickster debate, which of
those items would you place on the casket of one of our fallen
soldiers; it is not the American flag. I have a 6-year-old test. If you
ask a 6-year-old what is the American flag and you hold up a tie or a
T-shirt, they will say no, that is not the American flag. They know,
and so do the American people.
In my district we had a group of Hispanics that were protesting over
a bill that we passed on this floor years ago and it was on bilingual
education, English First. There was a large protest. They started to
burn the American flag in my district. A Hispanic man and woman jumped
into the flames and rescued that flag. When the press asked them why,
they said we value this flag and this country and we do not want anyone
to desecrate it. They also pointed out that more Hispanics per capita
have won the Medal of Honor and they support this flag and this country
proudly.
I have another friend who was a prisoner of war for 6\1/2\ years. It
took him 5 years to knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt
when he was held prisoner in Vietnam. He would display this flag at his
meetings until the guards broke in one day and brutally beat the
prisoner of war, ripped the flag to shreds in the middle of the floor,
drug the prisoner out of the cell, beat him unconscious. And when they
placed him back in the cell, his friends tried to comfort him as much
as they could and tend to his wounds, but he was unconscious. They went
about their meetings, and a few minutes later they heard a stirring in
the corner. That broken body prisoner of war had drug himself to the
center of the floor and started gathering those pieces of thread so he
could knit another American flag.
This is not political for us. It is a very bipartisan issue. We
should get around 300 votes today, I tell my colleagues, both
Republicans and Democrats.
I understand that some people oppose this, and for different reasons
why, but I will tell you that they are opposed by many, many people.
Members say that this violates the first amendment rights. There are a
thousand ways that an individual can protest any event, and this does
not take away first amendment rights but it just says please do not
desecrate the flag.
Remember Mr. Giuliani and the first responders at the World Trade
Center, remember how that inspired this country. It does have value.
This value is part of our tradition and was part of our tradition for
200 years, and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the 300 Members who will support this amendment
today are saying to my colleagues that are opposed to this. We disagree
with you. We do not disagree lightly, and we think it is very, very
important. But when the majority of the American people support it, we
will vote with it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are enduring the Republican rite of spring: A
proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights to restrict what it calls flag
desecration. Why spring? Because Members need to send out a press
release extolling the need to protect the flag, as if the flag somehow
needed Congress to protect it. It is easier than answering questions
about the failure of this House to provide proper health care to our
veterans, proper armor to save the lives of our troops, or proper
support for their survivors.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of speakers invoke the rescuers
and heroes and first responders at Ground Zero on September 11 and the
few weeks after.
Mr. Speaker, that is my district. I was there in the days after 9/11.
I have seen the heroism and the self-sacrifice of the first responders.
I have watched their betrayal by the Government of the United States,
by the Federal and State and local governments which are not providing
for their health care, which are not providing workers' comp when they
cannot do their jobs because of World Trade Center health syndrome,
which denies that they were present in the workers' comp proceedings
after they get medals for rescuing people. That is the betrayal we
should talk about. What they care about is being made whole, is having
their health care taken care of and their lives restored, not this.
The flag is a symbol of our great Nation and the fundamental freedoms
that have made this Nation great. If the flag needs protection at all,
it needs protection from Members of Congress who value the symbol more
than they value the freedoms the flag represents. Quite frankly, the
crass political use of the flag to question the patriotism of those who
value fundamental freedoms is a greater insult to those who died in the
service of our Nation than is the burning of the flag.
I am certain we will hear speeches invoking the sacrifice of our
troops in the field as a pretext for carving up the first amendment. We
already have. That is a shameful exploitation of the patriotism and
courage of these fine and courageous young people. It is the civic
equivalent of violating the commandment against taking the Lord's name
in vain.
If Members want to honor the sacrifice of our troops, protect the
rights they fight for. Protect our civil liberties, and protect the
rights of veterans. Playing games with the Constitution does not honor
them.
People have rights in this country that supersede public opinion,
even strongly held public opinion. That is why we have a Bill of Rights
to protect

[[Page H4908]]

minorities from the majority. If we do not preserve those rights, then
the flag will have been desecrated far beyond the capability of any
idiot with a cigarette lighter.
Let there be no doubt that this amendment is aimed directly at ideas.
Current Federal laws say that the preferred way to dispose of a
tattered flag is to burn it, but there are those who would criminalize
the same act of burning the flag if it was done to express political
dissent.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I have seen motion pictures, I
have seen movies reflecting the War of 1812 in which the British burned
our capital. I saw in those movies, actors playing British soldiers
burning the flag. Did we send in the police to arrest the actors for
this flag desecration? Of course not. We do not mind that because we
know they do not mean it. That is to say, they are not burning the flag
as an expression of disdain for our values, as an expression of their
opinions on political issues of their disagreement with the
administration or with the government in power. No, they are doing it
as part of a play, play-acting; so the physical act does not mean
anything, so we do not care.

{time} 1115

But under this amendment, if someone were to do the same thing, burn
the flag at the same time as he says, I disagree with the policy of
whatever it is, that would be a criminal act. So what is really being
made criminal? Not the act of burning the flag. What is really being
made criminal is the act of burning the flag combined with the
expression of a dissident, unpopular political opinion.
The act of burning the flag to dispose of it is a praiseworthy act.
The act of burning the flag as part of a movie or part of a play, that
is okay. I do not think anybody contemplates arresting the actors.
Really, what we are getting at here is the core expression of first
amendment protected ideas. We will arrest people who as part of
expressing their opinion about something burn the flag. But if they
burn the flag without expressing an opinion contrary to the government
as part of a play or for some other reason, that will be okay. That
should tell us what this amendment is about. That is why the Supreme
Court said that the law was unconstitutional, because it does violate
the first amendment.
The distinguished ranking member is quite correct. If we carve out
this exception for the first amendment, if we make this the first time
that we will limit rights protected by the Bill of Rights, it will be
easier to do it in the future. Then the next amendment will come along
and say that, well, if you say things that we think, that somebody at
the moment thinks endangers American troops, you say the war, whatever
war it is at the moment, is wrong, our President shouldn't have done
it, whoever the President may be at that moment, our troops shouldn't
be in wherever they are, that is endangering our troops, we will make
that illegal. That will be easier to do. That is why this amendment is
so dangerous.
How many Members of Congress, used car dealers, fast-food
restaurants, and other seemingly legitimate individuals and enterprises
have engaged in the act of using the flag or parts of the flag for
advertising, an act which our unconstitutional law defines as flag
desecration? This amendment would presumably make that law
constitutional once more. If ratified, I think there are more than a
few people who will have to redesign their campaign materials to stay
out of jail, except, of course, that probably no one will arrest them
for that violation of the law because they will not be seen to be using
it for dissident political speech, unless they are running on an
unpopular platform, then maybe they will be. Again, that is the danger
of this amendment.
As if this assault on the Bill of Rights is not enough, the Judiciary
Committee once again did not even bother holding a hearing on this very
significant constitutional amendment. The Subcommittee on the
Constitution did not bother to consider it, to debate it, or to vote on
it. Now, I know that they will say, We've held hearings in previous
Congresses. Yeah, and we have rejected this amendment in previous
Congresses. And this is a new Congress. There are new Members. There is
no excuse for doing something or attempting to do something so
significant to start tearing up the Bill of Rights without even a
hearing to hear opinions on it just because prior Congresses may have
held hearings.
This cavalier attitude toward the Bill of Rights is offensive and
revealing. Why discuss it? Why look into it? It's only the
Constitution. We're only talking about the rights of a few malcontents
for whom even opponents of this amendment have contempt.
And we do have contempt for people who would burn the flag. None of
us think that those people are doing something praiseworthy. We all
think it is absurd and wrong, but we think their right to be wrong has
to be protected. That is what America is all about. By the way, where
is this epidemic of flag burning? I do not recall seeing anybody
burning the flag in I do not know how many years. What is the danger we
are legislating against? People have died for this great Nation and the
rights which this flag so proudly represent. We are a shining beacon to
the world because we allow dissent, even when that dissent is offensive
or despicable. Let us not cease to be a shining beacon on the hill. Let
us not diminish our liberty. Let us not destroy the way of life for
which our troops have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for the arguments that have been
advanced by the gentleman from New York and other opponents of this
amendment. I disagree with them. And I think the vast majority of the
American people disagree with them as well. There has to be a line that
is drawn on what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable
behavior. Most of our criminal code, as well as certain types of civil
provisions that contain penalties, do draw the line and have a clear
demarcation of what goes over the line and thus should be punished.
I think one of the reasons why we are here today as a result of both
the Johnson and Eichman decisions was exemplified by a decision of the
Supreme Court of my home State of Wisconsin on April 9, 1998, in the
case of State of Wisconsin v. Matthew Janssen. Mr. Janssen was
prosecuted for flag desecration because he defecated on the American
flag. Then he left a note saying why he did it, which contained a
political expression. Using the precedent that was set by the Supreme
Court in the Johnson and Eichman cases, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the prosecution against Mr.
Janssen and wrote an extensive decision that basically agrees with the
arguments that were advanced by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
But the last paragraph of that decision, I think, is very important;
and I am going to read it into the Record. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
through Justice John Wilcox said: ``But in the end, to paraphrase
Justice Frankfurter, we must take solace in the fact that as members of
this court we are not justified in writing our private notions of
policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply we may cherish them
or how mischievous we may deem their disregard,'' quoting the Barnette
case with Justice Frankfurter dissenting. The Supreme Court of
Wisconsin concluded by saying: ``If it is the will of the people in
this country to amend the United States Constitution in order to
protect our Nation's symbol, it must be done through normal political
channels.''
Today, we are doing it through those normal political channels. That
is why this amendment should be approved.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 10,
the flag protection amendment, and I would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his
efforts to protect our country's most sacred symbol, the American flag.
I would also like to thank our distinguished Judiciary chairman, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership in
this area.
I would also like to very briefly just address some of the
allegations, particularly the one about not having

[[Page H4909]]

hearings. As has been stated, we have had a number of hearings on this
in the past. The interesting thing is when one holds these hearings or
had we chosen to hold hearings again this time, I might add we had
experts on both sides come and testify about this, there are
allegations thrown at us, oh, here we go again, why are we holding
these hearings once again? So you are really damned if you do or damned
if you do not.
I would also invite those who might be following this debate to
listen to where the inflammatory rhetoric, which side it comes from,
allegations thrown against us that this is a crass exploitation of the
flag when we have not done this, that, or the other thing.
I think those of us on this side tend to want to keep this debate on
a very civil level and I would encourage my colleagues to do that.
Since this country's creation, nothing has represented the United
States of America as honorably as has the American flag. From the top
of this very Capitol building to porches all across our country, the
flag is synonymous with the principles on which this country was
founded and the principles on which we still stand. Each day it serves
as a source of comfort and strength and holds the promise of a better
future for all Americans.
However, there are those who, while claiming the very protections our
country has to offer, would seek to defile it, to desecrate, to burn or
otherwise destroy the very symbol that would seemingly protect their
actions. Since 1994, and I want to emphasize this, there have been 119
incidents of such flag desecration, ones like the one that our
distinguished chairman just indicated where somebody literally
defecated on the flag. Despite the will of both the Federal and State
governments to protect the flag from such abuse, the Supreme Court has
struck down these efforts to protect our most sacred symbol and instead
has protected these un-American acts.
Congress must act and a constitutional amendment is the only answer.
If we could do this legislatively, if we could pass a statute as we
have done in the past which has been struck down by the Supreme Court,
we would do that. But the only way that we can protect the flag is to
amend the Constitution, and that is what this is all about. Many of us
believe very strongly in this. H.J. Res. 10, which has passed the House
in its current form on four separate occasions, would give Congress the
authority it needs to once again protect the flag. I would urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I think it is important to put this debate in
context because it occurs to me that every time we consider this
resolution, we end up cutting veterans health care. So let us just see
what we are doing this year on the health care budget for veterans. The
Republican budget cuts veterans health care programs by more than $13.5
billion over the next 5 years compared to what would be needed just to
keep up with inflation. The President even proposed a $15 billion cut
and copays for a significant number of our veterans.
When the sponsor challenges us to ask wounded veterans in VA
hospitals what they want us to do, I suspect that they would not be
asking us to cut veterans health care at the same time we debate this
resolution.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, just before we went on Memorial Day break
and gave speeches just a few weeks ago, colleagues voted down a measure
that would have offered TRICARE health coverage to National Guard
members and Reservists. Reserve components make up 50 percent of our
forces in Iraq and studies show that 20 percent have no health
insurance. For younger Reservists it is as high as 40 percent have no
health insurance coverage. How can we ask these young men and women to
serve on the front line and not even provide for them the basic
necessity of health care?
And so, Mr. Speaker, 25 million American veterans deserve respect and
dignity and they deserve more than the debate on this constitutional
amendment. We should be providing health care for our veterans, not
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, everyone here respects the flag. The question before us
is not whether we respect the flag, but whether or not we ought to use
the criminal code to prevent those who disagree with us to express
their views. The Supreme Court has frequently considered restrictions
on speech that are permissible by our government. For example, under
the first amendment with respect to speech, speech may be regulated by
time, place and manner, but not regulated by content.
There are, of course, exceptions. Speech may be restricted if it
creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or expresses
a patently offensive message that has no redeeming social value, but we
cannot restrict by content otherwise. The distinction: you can restrict
by time, place and manner but not content.
So you can restrict the particulars of a march or a demonstration by
what time it is held or where it is held or how loud the demonstration
can be, 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 one political party to have a demonstration,
but not the other. You cannot have a pro-war demonstration and then try
to restrict an anti-war demonstration.
Speech protected by the Constitution we have to recognize will always
be unpopular. Popular speech does not need protection. It is only that
speech that provokes the local sheriff into wanting to arrest you for
what you said that needs protection. Of course, speech protected by the
first amendment will always be unpopular.
Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag
burning amendment, and they speak about the necessity of keeping people
from burning flags. In reality, the only place you ever see a flag
burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag ceremonies
disposing of a worn-out flag. Ask any Boy Scout or American Legion
member how to dispose of a worn-out flag and they will tell you that
the procedure is to burn the flag at a respectful ceremony.

{time} 1130

In fact, the only time I have seen a flag burned is at one of these
ceremonies. So the proposed constitutional amendment is all about
expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the
first amendment principles. In fact, the amendment does not even use
the term ``burning.'' It uses the term ``flag desecration.'' And by
using the word ``desecration,'' we are giving government officials the
power to decide that one can burn the flag if they are saying something
nice and respectful, but they are a criminal if they burn this flag
while they are saying something offensive or insulting. This is an
absurd distinction and is a direct contravention of the whole purpose
of the first amendment, especially when the real impact of the
legislation will be to have political protesters arrested because they
disagree and express that disagreement of government policy.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill
of Rights, this amendment has practical problems. For example, what is
a flag? Can one desecrate a picture of a flag? Can one desecrate a flag
with the wrong number of stripes?
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. And what happens if one desecrates their own flag in private?
Are they subject to criminal prosecution if somebody finds out?
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on suggestions that stealing
and destroying somebody's personal property is protected if that
property happens to be a flag. That is wrong. It is still theft and
personal property. The other examples, there are other criminal codes
that people can be prosecuted on. What this legislation is aimed at is
criminalizing political speech, and we should not criminalize political
speech just because we disagree with it, just because we have the
votes.

[[Page H4910]]

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would defeat this resolution, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
Mr. SODREL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
favor of this amendment.
Hampton Sides, in his book Ghost Soldiers, recounts the Ranger action
to liberate the allied POWs from Cabanatuan in the Philippines. Most of
them were survivors of the Bataan Death March. They were emaciated,
sick and weak. Some of them had to be carried from the prison compound
when it was taken by U.S. Army Rangers. What I will read now is the
last paragraph of his narrative as told by its survivors.
``Along the way we saw an American flag set in a turret of a tank. It
wasn't much of a flag, writhing in a weak breeze, but for the men of
Cabanatuan, the sight was galvanizing. Ralph Hibbs said his heart
stopped for he realized it was the first Stars and Stripes he'd seen
since his surrender. All the men in all the trucks stood at attention
and saluted. Then came the tears. ` We wept openly,' said Abie Abraham,
`and we wept without shame.' ''
Some say our flag is just a piece of cloth, Mr. Speaker. Grown men,
particularly combat veterans, do not typically cry at the sight of a
piece of cloth. To all patriots, particularly the majority that served
under it, the American flag stands for liberty. To us, desecrating our
flag is not a demonstration of liberty; it is an attack on liberty. If
it were merely a piece of cloth, our enemies would not trouble
themselves to desecrate it.
All Americans are ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights.'' Among those rights enumerated in our Constitution is the
right of free speech. The Constitution does not, however, afford
absolute freedom of action. One cannot spray-paint a bald eagle in
protest. One cannot deface the Washington Monument. And one should not
desecrate our flag with impunity either.
To those who say that these actions have to be taken in context, if
one burns a flag for a movie it is different from burning a flag as a
protest, I would say that all actions have to be taken in context. If
one takes another person's life in process of defending oneself, it is
considered in a different context then if they took another person's
life to collect a life insurance policy. All actions are always taken
in context, and I trust the juries of the United States to take this
amendment in proper context when it is carried out.
I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the flag
protection amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
So, in other words, if one desecrates a flag to make a nice point,
that is a good context. If they desecrate it to make an unpopular
point, that should be jailable. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Sodrel) for making my point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, too often this debate has
been categorized about who loves the flag. And it has caused me to
think back about the great affection I feel for our flag. The fondest
memory I think I have of being a mother is standing on the school yard
of the elementary school with my children and joining with them and the
other mothers as they saluted our flag. I remember crying, looking at
our flag the first time I went to a Democratic convention and we sang
the National Anthem and our flag was there. It was overwhelming, that
the flag was there for our democracy.
And when we enter this Capitol and see the flag flying above it, it
is an overwhelming experience to see that flag. We love it so much. And
why? Because our Nation's flag stands for the freedoms that define this
country. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. Our country is
strong and free because Americans are free to express their opinions
even when we do not agree with those opinions.
If enacted, this bill would for the first time in our Nation's
history modify the Bill of Rights to limit freedom of speech. As has
been stated, it is clear that this amendment would only limit speech
that some do not agree with.
Why are the Republican leadership of the House pushing this
amendment? I think it is obvious that it would amend the first
amendment. I think the majority party cannot really tolerate dissent.
I would like to read something that General Colin Powell said about
this amendment when we had hearings several years ago. General Powell:
``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 to 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 1967 to 1973, wrote this about the proposed amendment, and I quote
this prisoner of war, this American hero: ``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 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.''
I think there is another reason why this amendment has been offered,
and that is to divert attention from the shabby treatment of our
veterans. Let us shift attention to our beloved flag; maybe the vets
will not notice that Congress has not kept our promises to them.
According to the American Legion, 30,000 veterans are waiting 6
months or longer for an appointment at a veterans hospital. The
Veterans of Foreign Wars estimates that as many as 220,000 men and
women veterans could lose their benefits under the proposed veterans
budget. Our veterans went to war to protect our Nation and to guarantee
our freedoms, including freedom of speech and to ensure that those
freedoms would be protected. Now we are about to undercut their
sacrifice by amending the first amendment for the very first time. And
to add injury to insult, we are also failing to provide the care our
veterans earned with their blood and their sweat, and we are denying
them what they deserve from a grateful Nation.
Some in the past have voted for this amendment assuming that the
Senate will stop it, that we really will not do this bad thing to our
country. I have great fear that the political landscape has changed. I
think this is a sad and shameful day for our Nation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of this Republic, the Congress
has proposed constitutional amendments and sent them to the States to
overturn Supreme Court decisions that were particularly onerous. The
one that comes to mind as coming to the top of the list was the Dred
Scott decision. That was based on constitutional grounds, and Congress
proposed and the States ratified three amendments, the 13th, 14th and
15th amendment, to make sure that the mistake that was made by the Dred
Scott decision would never be repeated again. There was a decision
early in the country's history under the Constitution that related to
the judicial power of the United States. The 11th amendment was
proposed and ratified to correct that. And the Supreme Court also
decided that levying income taxes violated the provision of the
Constitution on apportionment of taxes, and the 16th amendment was
proposed and ratified to correct that problem.

[[Page H4911]]

So when there is a court decision that has resulted in consequences
that the Congress and the States collectively deem are so bad that it
requires an amendment to the Constitution, this Congress has not
hesitated to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and the States
have ratified it.
Here we have had resolutions of all 50 State legislatures asking that
we propose this amendment and send it to the States for ratification,
and that is because the instances of flag desecration that have
occurred have been deemed by them to be over the line and that the
Supreme Court of the United States was wrong in its decision and it
needs correction.
I just go back to the quote that I made of the Wisconsin Supreme
Court when they effectively invalidated my State's flag desecration
amendment. It is up to the people through the constitutional amendment
process to make the correction, and that is why we are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the flag of the United States of
America. Throughout the history of our Nation, our flag has stood as
the ultimate symbol of our freedom. From Yorktown to Fort McHenry, from
Iwo Jima to Baghdad, our troops have fought behind our flag in the
defense of liberty. Their dedication and their sacrifice in defense of
freedom demands that we take this action today. And who can forget on
September 11, 2001, when firefighters in New York pulled our flag out
of the rubble of the World Trade Center and hoisted it in defiance of
terror? And who can forget the flag that hangs in the American History
Museum here in Washington, D.C. that was draped over the scarred
Pentagon as a show of our Nation's resolve? We should not, we must not,
and we cannot allow the desecration of our national symbol as some form
of protest. Some things in this Nation are sacred, and the flag is the
most sacred symbol of all. The flag binds our Nation together and must
be protected. Let us take this action together today. Honor the service
and sacrifice of those who have fought behind the flag in defense of
our freedom.
And, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, 50 States have already passed
resolutions indicating that they want to ratify this resolution we are
debating today. Let the majority of Americans ratify their allegiance
and pledge their allegiance to our flag.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and
classmate for yielding me this time.
I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 10, an amendment to
the Constitution authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the United States flag.
Our flag represents our country as a symbol of our Nation and our
veterans bravery throughout history. Our servicemen and women are
courageously fighting the war on terrorism and putting their lives on
the line every day to protect our Nation and the freedoms that we
enjoy.
While I am a strong supporter of the first amendment rights to
freedom of speech and expression, hallowed symbols like the flag
deserve to be respected and protected. Those who desecrate our flag
undermine that powerful symbol that really unites millions of
Americans, both alive and those who have died trying to defend our
Nation.

{time} 1145

Flag-burning shows an ultimate contempt, and I think that is really
what it is for, to show contempt and disrespect for our men and women
fighting overseas now.
We have the right to protest and object to the policies of this
administration or any other. The most effective protest is not to burn
the flag, but political action. Go vote and organize people who agree
with you to change the policies. Protest as much as we want to change
those policies, but you cannot burn the flag. That is just the bottom
line.
This amendment would restore historic protection for our national
symbol, and that is why I am proud to support this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his
good work on the Committee on the Judiciary. I would also like to thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for taking up this
legislation once again. I would also like to thank the American Legion
and the other veterans service organizations for their work behind this
legislation before the House.
The legislation before the House today would protect ``Old Glory''
from desecration. This is not about free speech or the ability of our
citizens to express displeasure at the actions of government. That
right is fully protected by the first amendment and this proposed
amendment.
The Supreme Court was right in their rulings to prohibit the shouting
of ``fire'' in a crowded theater; and, equally, the Supreme Court was
wrong to permit flag-burning. The burning of the flag is conduct that
Congress is justified in regulating, and that is what we are doing in
this legislation.
The Stars and Stripes is a powerful symbol of our Nation and the
ideals that we as a people hold dear: the freedom of American citizens,
the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our
people to protect liberty and justice for all from enemies from within
and from without. The ideals that it embodies are very powerful and are
recognized here at home, but also abroad, by friend and foe alike.
This symbol of liberty is so powerful that Congress should have the
right to prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is not a
piece of cloth that rose from the ashes of the fallen Twin Towers or
that was draped from the Pentagon in the aftermath of September 11.
After that day, the flag suddenly seemed to appear everywhere,
overnight, across this land, any size of fabric, even those made by
schoolchildren from construction paper, I suppose, flags stuck in
flowerpots, pinned on lapels, decals posted on the back windows of our
automobiles and trucks. The message was the same: I am proud to be an
American.
I have seen the flag on a distant battlefield, and those, like me who
have seen it there, see it perhaps from a different perspective. Across
the river from here is a memorial to the valiant efforts of our Marines
to raise that flag on Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of cloth that
appeared in the sky on that day so many years ago, just as it is not a
piece of cloth that Francis Scott Key saw over Baltimore Harbor
centuries ago.
The flag was the physical embodiment of all we as Americans cherish:
the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism, the freedoms we enjoy; our
rights the government has an obligation to protect; and the duty we
have to pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed.
The flag is a symbol worth defending. Long may she wave. I urge the
adoption of this constitutional amendment to protect the flag.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. The process may well be legal, but it is unwise.
The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a
problem. We just do not need to amend the Constitution for so little a
problem that we face in this regard. We are just looking for another
job for the BATF to enforce this type of legislation.
It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since
the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not
true. There are other alternatives.
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws,
such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting
riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with
these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and
pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to get rid
of the jurisdiction from the Federal courts. We did it on the marriage
issue; we can do it right here.

[[Page H4912]]

So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect.
And besides, a solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a
majority vote, pass the Senate by a majority vote, send it to the
President. The Schiavo legislation was expedited and passed quickly.
Why not do it with the flag? It is a solution, and we should pay
attention to it.
Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is
scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it,
our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up, why
is it that we have the Red Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam
Hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who
burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this. They gloss over it. Is it
not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, ``spreading
freedom'' and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what
Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where
that makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this
legislation is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home
to report to the family that their son had just been killed in Iraq,
and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to
anger. She grabs a flag and she burns it? What is the proper punishment
for this woman who is grieved, who acts out in this manner? We say,
well, these are special circumstances, we will excuse her for that; or
no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag because she was making a
political statement. That is the question that has to be answered. What
is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would say it is very
difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever.
We do not need a new amendment to the Constitution to take care of a
problem that does not exist.
Another point: The real problem that exists rountinely on the House
floor is the daily trashing of the Court by totally ignoring Act I Sec.
8. We should spend a lot more time following the Rule of Law, as
defined by our oath of office, and a lot less on unnecessary
constitutional amendments that expands the role of the Federal
Government while undermining that extension of the States.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I
rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in
the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I
salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. 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 were only three incidents
of flag desecration in 2004 and there have only been two acts of
desecration thus far in 2005, 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.

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 prosecute 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 communally 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 want to begin by commending the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for not only his extraordinary and
courageous service to our Nation in uniform, but for his ongoing
service to our country in bringing this important legislation to the
floor of the Congress. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary on which I have the privilege of
serving. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) continues to
provide leadership that reflects the values

[[Page H4913]]

of the overwhelming majority of the American people to this Congress.
By entertaining this legislation and bringing this debate again to the
floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner)
demonstrates the quality of that leadership again.
After surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of
Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple task:
to raise an American flag above the devastation below. When the flag
was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his makeshift squad, history
records that a thunderous cheer arose from our troops on land and sea,
in foxholes and on stretchers, across Iwo Jima and its surrounding
waters. Hope was returned to that battlefield when the American flag
began flapping in the wind.
Mr. Speaker, it was written long ago: ``Without a vision, the people
perish.'' That day, on Mount Suribachi, the flag was the vision that
inspired and rallied our troops; and that flag, Mr. Speaker, is still
that vision for every American who cherishes those who stood ready, and
this day stand ready, to make the sacrifices necessary to defend
freedom.
By adopting the flag protection amendment, I humbly offer that we
will raise Old Glory one more time. We will raise her above the
decisions of a judiciary that was wrong on our law and our history and
our traditions. 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 those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are
boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.
C.S. Lewis said: ``We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors
in our midst.'' Mr. Speaker, let us this day cease to laugh at honor.
Let us elevate out of dishonor our unique national symbol to its
rightful place. Let us pass this amendment to restore to Old Glory the
modest protections of the law she so richly deserves.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 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 or her own property. As
Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a letter dated May 18, 1999 to
Senator Leahy: ``If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone
else, that is a prosecutable crime. But if it is a flag they own, I
really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute someone for
foolishly desecrating their own property. We should condemn them and
pity them instead.''
Mr. Speaker, my primary objection to this amendment is not the effect
it will have on those who physically desecrate their flags, because the
numbers of people who physically desecrate the American flag are so
small. My objection is that it will give government a tool with which
to prosecute Americans with minority views, particularly at times of
great national division, even if their behavior 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 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. 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 Rector's last night following the playing of the
`Star Spangled Banner.' Frederick S. Boyd, a former reporter on the New
York Call, a Socialist newspaper, was dining with Miss Jessie Ashley
and Miss May R. 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 beaten severely when Albert Dasburg a 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 Magistrate Corrigan in night court, 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. Boyd was found
guilty of disorderly conduct and was released on suspended sentence.''
Another one from the New York Times, 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 Socialist
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 `The Marseillaise' with some interruptions,
was forced to play `The Star-Spangled Banner' while cheers were given
for the flag.''
Headline: ``Forced to Kiss the Flag. One Hundred Anarchists are Then
Driven from San Diego. Nearly 100 Industrial Workers of the World, all
of whom admitted they are anarchists, knelt on the ground at dawn today
near San Onofre, a small settlement a short distance this side of the
Orange County boundary line.

{time} 1200

``The ceremony, which was unwillingly performed, was witnessed by 45
deputy constables and a large body of armed citizens of San Diego.''
What do these stories have to do with this very important and
heartfelt debate today, Mr. Speaker? The decision we make today, it
seems to me, is a balancing, 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, although they are already quite rare.
On the other side of the 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 anecdotes from a time of great divisiveness in our
Nation's history, a time much different from today, government, which
ultimately as human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses,
may use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities
and will use it to find excuses to legally attack demonstrations which
utilize the flag in an otherwise appropriate manner, except for the
fact that the flag is carried by those speaking for an unpopular
minority.
Let me give you an example. I was at a rural county fair in Arkansas
several years ago where a group had a booth with great patriotic
display, in addition to their handouts and signs. They had laid across
the table, like a tablecloth, an American flag. I knew these people
thought this to be a patriotic part of their display.
I was standing a few booths down the way and watched as one of the
volunteers sat on the table, oblivious to the fact he was sitting on
our American flag. I believe that his action was a completely innocent
mistake, and that he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with
good flag etiquette.
I believe that had this group been a fringe group, these with views
contrary to the great majority, and should we have laws prohibiting
physical desecration of the flag, and had this been a time of great
national division, 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,

[[Page H4914]]

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 they own, but
in reality because of the views that many consider out of the
mainstream.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this proposed amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, symbols matter. Certainly the cross has
special meaning for millions of people. The menorah, the Koran, we saw
that recently where false reports on desecration of the Koran led to
riots and hundreds of people dying.
The statue sometimes has special meaning. The symbolic meaning of the
toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein was not lost on the Iraqi
people or the other people around the world.
Buildings have symbolic value. The buildings that were destroyed or
attempted to be destroyed during 9/11 were not randomly chosen. The
World Trade Center symbolized the U.S. economy. The Pentagon symbolized
our military might; and probably this building was also targeted
because it symbolized the government.
And so for millions of Americans, the flag symbolizes the very
essence of this country. It is more than fabric. It is what gives this
Nation meaning. Millions have fought under this banner. Hundreds of
thousands have died under the banner. Many have died on the battlefield
simply protecting the flag itself, keeping it from being captured or
from even hitting the ground.
And so for 200 years, this was a commonly accepted understanding of
the importance of the flag, the symbolic meaning of the flag. And then
came two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s which allowed flag
desecration under the banner of free speech, which has really offended
a great many people in this country. I think an overwhelming number of
States, more than 80 percent of U.S. citizens, disagree with those
Supreme Court decisions.
So I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Resolution 10, which states,
``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States of America.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
for his stand on this issue and for giving me this time to express my
views.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading excerpts of an article
written in the ``Retired Officer,'' a veterans magazine, by a Major
James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam for 6 years. He writes as
follows: ``In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner-of-
war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Base in the
Philippines.
``As I stepped out of the aircraft, I looked up and saw the flag. I
caught my breath then as tears filled my eyes. I saluted it. I never
loved my country more than at that moment. Although I had received a
Silver Star medal, and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared to
the gratitude that I felt then for having been allowed to serve the
cause of freedom.
``Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when I saw
it for the first time after 5\1/2\ years, it hurts me to see other
Americans willfully desecrate it. It hurts to see the flag burned, but
I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. Let me
explain myself.''
He then goes on to talk about his experience in the POW camp. He
says, ``I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of
some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. See, the officer
said, people in your country protest against your cause. That proves
you are wrong.
``No, I said, that proves 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 the 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.
``We do not need,'' he continues, ``to amend the Constitution in
order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because
they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to
hurt them than with a subversive idea of freedom? Do not be afraid of
freedom, it is the best weapon we have.''
This is, as I said, from Major James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam
for 6 years who understands freedom, and therefore opposes this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which would
amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the
desecration of a 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, that would be a badge of honor. But I think this
constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexisting problem.
Keep in mind the Constitution has only been amended 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 guaranteed 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 Secretary Powell, who when he served as
Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, wrote, ``It was a mistake to
amend the Constitution, that great shield of democracy to hamper 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, listening to it in my office earlier, it
was claimed that veterans oppose this amendment. And I was a little
startled by that statement.
And the veterans groups supposedly are called the Veterans for Common
Sense, and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans groups
were cited as being against this amendment.
Now, frankly, I have never heard of these groups. I am sure most of
you have not heard of those groups. I am not saying they are not
legitimate groups or they do not have well-meaning members. But I would
contend that the vast majority of American veterans do indeed support
the proposed amendment. And I cite the support of groups such as the
American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose membership combined
is well over 5 million veterans.
All this proposed amendment does is protect traditional American
values and jurisprudence. Before and after the ratification of the
first amendment, the States prohibited the physical desecration of the
American flag. Then, over the next 200 years, everyone understood that
any prohibition of physically desecrating the American flag was
allowable under Federal, State and common law, and understood to be
consistent with free speech.
Civil libertarian jurists, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice
Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas wrote that the States and Federal
Government have the power to protect the American flag. So it was the
Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, and U.S. v.
Eichman in 1990, that overturned two centuries of traditional and
commonly accepted legal practice.
Thanks to these, what I believe are dubious decisions, we are forced
to act

[[Page H4915]]

with this constitutional amendment. This amendment does not really
restrict freedom of expression, because no idea or viewpoints would be
suppressed. Anyone can still freely say that they hate America and
everything for which it stands, they just cannot burn a flag to prove
their point.
There are so many exceptions to free speech: Child pornography, cross
burning, libel, fighting words. We are merely looking at a very
extremely narrow exception to prevent the desecration of the symbol
that represents so many wonderful things to so many people at home and
around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would finally point out to my colleagues that it is
against Federal law to burn U.S. currency or willfully destroy U.S.
mailboxes; yet we cannot protect the American flag? Mr. Speaker, I
believe that we have a constitutional justification for this amendment.
We also have the support of all 50 States and 80 percent of the
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there have been thousands of
amendments introduced, thousands of proposed amendments introduced to
the Constitution of the United States. Only 17 have been adopted since
1791 after the Bill of Rights.
Amendments were proposed after most unpopular Supreme Court
decisions. After the one-man, one-vote decision in 1960, whatever it
was, where they said you had to reapportion based on population, there
were amendments introduced. Amendments have been introduced after every
unpopular decision of the Supreme Court.
It is deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution because the
framers of the Constitution were afraid of transient majorities. They
were afraid of emotion, and they deliberately wanted it to be difficult
to amend the Constitution so it would not be amended very often, and
only under dire necessity. What is the dire necessity here?
What is the dire necessity, that in the last 20 years, I heard
someone say 119 people have burned the flag. Well, a lot more than 119
people have burned the flag. Most, however, have burned the flag to
dispose of it, which is the approved method of disposing of it.
I have heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) say, and others
say, this has nothing to do with free speech. People can say anything
they want. But it is burning the flag. But the fact is, it is very much
free speech.
That is why the Supreme Court decided as it did, because burning the
flag for a proper purpose, that is, to say an approved purpose, to
destroy it, to destroy a tattered flag, is approved. But burning the
flag to express an unpopular viewpoint, we do not agree with the
administration in power about whatever, that would be made a crime.

{time} 1215

So what is the real essence of the crime? Burning the flag in
connection with unpopular speech. If you burn it in connection with
popular speech, we respect the flag and we dispose of this, or this
connection with popular speech because you are an actor playing the
British burning Washington in 1814, that is okay. So this gets at the
heart of free speech.
Now, it may not be all that important right now, and it is not. We do
not see any epidemic of people burning flags. We have no great
emotional issue at the moment that have people marching in the streets;
but as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) pointed out, at times
in our history we have, and at times in our history people have been
persecuted and free speech has been violated. We should not repeat
that.
We should not make it easier at times of emotion in the future on
issues we cannot now foresee for unpopular minorities to be bullied. We
should not make it easier for unpopular minorities in the future to
have their free speech trampled or to give weapons to a future
government with which to trample free speech.
We all love the flag. No one is divided on that in this Chamber. But
those of us who understand, I think, the meaning of liberty and the
meaning of what this country stands for, perhaps in a way, I would want
to say better than others, but that would be a little arrogant, but to
understand that as we do, understand that the real meaning of this
country is to permit free speech, to magnify free speech, to magnify
free speech of those we do not agree with, of those we find obnoxious.
And what this amendment does is to sacrifice that.
The cloth of the flag is not what we revere. What we revere is the
idea of the flag and the Republic for which it stands. That idea is
threatened by this amendment, not protected by it; and that is why it
should not be approved.
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 argument that has been made against this amendment
is that it infringes upon free speech guaranteed by the first
amendment. As all of the people who served as Justices of the Supreme
Court during the 20th century, I think everybody would recognize that
the strongest first amendment absolutist was Justice Hugo L. Black. Let
me read you what Justice Black said in the case of Street v. New York,
decided in 1969:
``It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars
a State from making the deliberate burning of an American flag an
offense.''
The court changed its mind twice at the end of the decade of the
1980s. I do not think that anybody's free speech rights to express
whatever they want to say about a policy, about the position of the
American Government, about a stand that a candidate makes, a vote that
a Congressman makes is going to be infringed by the passage of this
amendment.
What is going to be stopped is deliberately burning the symbol of our
country or otherwise desecrating it. That is what this amendment seeks
to prescribe. And if you want to stop it, vote ``yes.'' If you do not,
vote ``no.'' I am voting ``yes.''
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional amendment to ban the
desecration of the American flag has become a ritual here in Congress.
Since I started in the House of Representatives this issue has come to
the floor every Congress. Flag burning today is not a problem. In my
years in Congress, no one back home in Oregon has ever complained about
flag burning. The irony is that if this amendment becomes law more
flags will be burned as psychos see this as their way to get on
television.
While I do understand the outrage that most of us feel towards those
who make their points by trampling on our flag, the proposed
constitutional amendment is unnecessary and counterproductive. On a
serious note, we should not make changes to the Bill of Rights to deal
with specific circumstances every time we are offended.
No amount of rhetoric about flag burning will hide our failure to
spotlight how Congress is missing the point. The most basic and
important way to demonstrate our patriotism is to support our troops,
our veterans, and their families. We need to focus on doing our job
here.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10,
the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical
desecration of our flag. And, in this respect, I take no pleasure in
doing so: Like the vast majority of Americans, I too condemn those
malcontents who would desecrate our flag--a universal symbol for
democracy, freedom and liberty--to grab attention for themselves and
inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without doubt, those
misfits who desecrate our flag deserve our contempt.
Further, I fully appreciate and respect the motivations of those who
offer and support this amendment, particularly the patriotic men and
women who so faithfully served this Nation in our armed services and in
other capacities. Their strong feelings on this issue should neither be
questioned nor underestimated. They deserve our respect.
However, I respectfully disagree with them and will oppose this
amendment for the reasons so eloquently articulated by Senator Mitch
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.'' He added, ``Our respect and
reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our
Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.''
Those of us who oppose this amendment do so not to countenance the
actions of a few, but because we believe the question before us today
is how we the United States of America--are to deal with individuals
who dishonor our Nation in this manner.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a constitutional amendment is neither the
appropriate nor best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the
late Justice Brennan wrote for the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson:
``The way

[[Page H4916]]

to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel
differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are
wrong. . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a
flag than waving one's own.''
Furthermore, it troubles me that this amendment, if approved, would
ensconce the vile actions of a few provocateurs into the very document
that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government.
That document, of course, is our Constitution.
In more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27
times, and nearly all of those amendments guarantee or expand rights,
liberties and freedoms. Only one amendment--prohibition--constricted
freedoms and soon was repealed.
I simply do not believe that our traditions, our values, our
democratic principles--all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of
Rights--should be overridden to prohibit this particular manner of
speech, even though I completely disagree with it.
Free speech is often a double-edged sword. However, if we value the
freedoms that define us as Americans, we should refrain from amending
the Constitution to limit those same freedoms to avoid being offended.
I remind my colleagues that if we approve this amendment, we put our
great Nation in the company of the oppressive regimes in China, Iran,
and Cuba--all of whom have similar laws protecting their flags.
Needless to say, when it comes to free speech, the United States of
America is the world's leader. It does not follow China, Iran or Cuba.
Our flag is far more than a piece of cloth, a few stripes, 50 stars.
Our flag is a universal symbol for freedom, liberty, human rights and
decency that is recognized throughout the world. The inflammatory
actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish those ideals. We can only do
that ourselves. And I submit that a constitutional amendment to
restrict speech--even speech such as this--is the surest way to stoke
the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which
proposes a Constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag,
because what people do with a piece of fabric, however meaningful, is
not worthy of Congressional intervention. Flag burning has as much to
do with patriotism as weapons of mass destruction had to do with our
invasion of Iraq.
This is not the first time the Republican Majority has sought to
divert attention from otherwise pressing matters. This body could be
focusing on providing health insurance to our Nation's 45 million
uninsured, improving our public education system, addressing our
swollen deficit, or any number of equally important issues. Instead we
are mired in the issues of Terri Schiavo, steroids in professional
sports and flag burning.
If we wanted to show our patriotism and support our troops there are
tangible options available. We could focus, instead, on providing them
with enough bulletproof vests, ensuring veterans have access to the
best possible health care, and sending our troops into war only as a
last resort. Perhaps if the members of this body were so concerned with
a symbol of democracy, an effort could be made by our leaders to hold
themselves to the highest ethical standards.
Mr. Speaker, how patriotic do you think the American people feel when
a chief negotiator of the Medicare drug bill leaves Congress to become
the head of the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group? How much
pride in our democracy do Americans have when they learn that the
President was planning to invade Iraq months before he bothered to tell
them about it? How should the American people feel when they learn the
Republican Majority votes to cut health care for millions of
impoverished Americans and then boosts funding for no-bid defense
contracts to Halliburton?
The Republican Majority consistently doesn't support our troops and
has sold the government to the nation's wealthiest corporations; a
debate about flag burning will not change these facts. Mr. Speaker, I
will not vote to undermine our freedoms and make a mockery of our
Constitution.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this serious debate over the
First Amendment and our Nation's flag, two of the most sacred
institutions to this country.
America is somewhat unique in its devotion to the Nation's flag.
Perhaps because we come from so many different backgrounds, cultural
traditions, and ethnicities, we see the flag as a source of national
unity. Like the majority of Americans, I have the utmost respect and
reverence for our flag. For all of us, this reverence begins early on,
when as school children we are taught the Pledge of Allegiance and
recite it each day with our classmates. Or it begins when we attend a
Memorial Day Parade with our parents and look in awe at the veterans,
young and old, who still carry the flag with such pride. Seeing the
flag treated with this reverence is a powerful lesson for our young
people and makes them incredibly proud to be Americans.
The times I have been most proud of my country have been during my
two trips to Iraq. Seeing our young men and women in uniform carrying
out their mission under dangerous and difficult conditions is an
inspiring thing. Seeing their devotion to our flag and all that it
represents makes me so grateful to have grown up in this country and to
have some small part in helping our troops.
I was struck, during my visits to the country, with how dedicated our
servicemen and women are to helping everyday Iraqis. Our men and women
in uniform appreciate the freedoms afforded to them, and are eager to
see Iraqi citizens enjoy these same freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I believe
one of our greatest freedoms is freedom of speech. Our forefathers, in
their wisdom, made this the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.
After fighting a war against Great Britain for their freedom, they made
sure that future Americans would have the right to free speech and free
expression.
In deference to our forefathers and out of respect for the brave
patriots today who are serving overseas, I cannot in good conscience
support this amendment. Burning or desecrating the American flag is an
abhorrent action for which I have nothing but contempt. Much as I hate
the act, it is not right to deny an American the freedom to express
himself in this shameful way.
I would like to close by quoting a man who knows much of patriotism
and freedom. Former soldier and Secretary of State Colin Powell, when
asked for his views on this issue, said, ``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. This flag will still be flying proudly long after
they have slunk away.''
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution because I disagree with this attempt to muddle our First
Amendment rights.
I understand and acknowledge the passion that my friends and
colleagues demonstrate today. It is disturbing to see images of someone
burning the flag of the United States, particularly when we reflect
upon the countless men and women who have given up their lives
defending this symbol of freedom.
When I was first elected to the House, I cosponsored a flag burning
amendment. I did so for many of the same reasons that proponents of the
amendment have expressed today.
And yet looking back, I realize I was moved by my heart than by my
head.
History reminds us that the strength of America is derived from its
basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the
full expression of ideas, even the acts that we consider obnoxious.
As our Founding Fathers originally intended, the First Amendment to
the Constitution has safeguarded the freedom of expression. Tested
through times of war and peace, Americans have been able 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 that not only accommodates a wide-ranging
public debate, but encourages it.
Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine and former Senator of Virginia, Chuck
Robb, is a man who sacrificed greatly for his nation, in both the
Vietnam War and in his political career. Exemplifying a ``profile in
courage'' Senator Robb stood against public popularity when he voted
against this amendment in order to defend the very freedoms that the
American flag represents.
In his moving Senate floor statement, Senator Robb described how as a
soldier he had been prepared to give up his life in the Vietnam War in
order to protect the very freedoms that this constitutional amendment
would suppress. By showing the courage to vote against this amendment,
he jeopardized his political career and subsequently lost his bid for
me re-election.
Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did
in defense of die freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to
defend with their lives.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment should be defeated. In our hearts and our
minds we know that flag burning is not a threat to our freedom,
limiting the exercise of individual liberty is.
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 the strongest symbol of America's character and values.
It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending

[[Page H4917]]

the principles of freedom and democracy. These are stories of men and
women from all walks of life who put their lives on hold to serve our
Nation. Many of those brave Americans never returned home from distant
battlefields. The flag reminds us of the sacrifices they made at
Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy Beach, Korea, Da Nang,
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places where America's men and
women in uniform placed honor and duty above self. These Americans had
a powerful symbol uniting them--the American flag. The American flag
belongs to them as it belongs to all of us.
Critics of the amendment say it interferes with freedom of speech.
They are wrong. It does not interfere with freedom of speech. Americans
have access to public television; they can write letters to the editor
to express their beliefs; they can speak freely at public forums; they
can share their views with listeners by calling into radio stations. I
meet with constituents everyday in order to best represent their
interests in Washington. Americans can stand on the steps of their own
City Hall or on the steps of our nation's Capitol to demonstrate their
cause. Protecting the American flag from desecration does not deprive
any American of the opportunity to speak clearly, openly and freely.
Let us be aware that it is speech, not action, that 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,
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.
In 1989, in the case of Texas versus Gregory Lee Johnson, the Supreme
Court ruled that a state flag protection statute was unconstitutional.
The court was in error. It was not the thoughts or opinions expressed
by Mr. Johnson that the Texas law restricted but the manner in which he
expressed his thoughts and opinions. Mr. Johnson was free to speak his
mind without fear of censorship. That freedom is guaranteed by the
First Amendment. But desecrating the flag is not speech; it is action
and action is not protected. For example, an individual is free to
speak about the need for America to conserve its environment, but the
individual would not be free to express those thoughts by destroying
oil derricks. There is la difference between action and speech.
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. More than 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.
All fifty 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. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support H.J. Res. 10, the ``Flag Protection Amendment.'' Every day we
rise with dignity to salute and pledge allegiance to our Nation's flag.
We do so because our flag stands for liberty, democracy, and all the
sacred ideals that allow us to rise here at all.
The stars-and-stripes are recognized in almost every corner of the
globe as an emblem of liberating hope. This great symbol we respect so
much has cloaked the bodies of our fallen brave and graced the final
moments of our presidents. On American soil, she stands tall before all
other flags and is lowered in sorrow only for the greatest of patriots.
She waves from our homes and churches and crowns our Nation's greatest
houses of freedom, including the one in which we now deliberate.
Our flag is handled with the utmost care by those who have worked
hardest to sustain and protect what she stands for, by those who have
dedicated their lives to her. Let us never forget their sacrifice and
remain diligent in protecting the greatest symbol of democracy and
freedom from desecration.
We would never tolerate the desecration of this or any other public
building. We would never tolerate the desecration of our Nation's
hallowed graves or places of worship. We would never stand idly by if
Lady Liberty, the Washington Monument, or the Liberty Bell were ever
torn from their pedestals and dragged into the streets. Why then should
we leave our Nation's most cherished and recognized symbol vulnerable
and unprotected in the very land that had its birth beneath her
glorious colors?
I urge my colleagues to ensure that our beloved banner will survive,
unscathed, every ``twilight's last gleaming.'' Guarantee that within
our borders she will forever wave proudly ``o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave.'' Please join me in voting for H.J. Res. 10,
the ``Flag Protection Amendment.''
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment.
Just as everyone here today, I view the American flag with a special
reverence, and I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse
this precious national symbol.
At the start of the town hall meeting I host in my district, I always
try take a few moments to lead those in attendance in the pledge of
allegiance. I think this is an important and valuable portion of my
town hall meetings when I can express my support for and share my deep
respect of both our flag and our system of government-which our flag
represents.
What makes America a great and free society, is our system of
government and our Constitution. Our Constitution is the document that
provides the basis for our great country. It is our Nation's operating
manual. For over two centuries, the Constitution--the greatest
invention of humans--has allowed our diverse people to live together,
to balance our various interests, and to thrive. It has provided each
citizen with broad, basic rights.
The Constitution doesn't fly majestically in front of government
buildings. We do not pledge allegiance to it each day. Yet, it is the
source of our freedom. It tells us that we are free to assemble
peacefully. We are free to petition our government; we are free to
worship without interference; free from unlawful search and seizure;
and free to choose our leaders. It secures the right and means of
voting. It is these freedoms that define what it is to be an American.
As a Member of Congress, I took an oath of office in which I swore
``. . . that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States.'' In fact, new citizens to our great nation make a similar
pledge when they are sworn in as U.S. citizens. It is important to note
that I am entrusted with the obligation to defend the Constitution, not
the symbols, of our Nation. The Founders knew that it is our system of
government that is essential to who were are as a people and what we
stand for. While I deeply value the flag as a symbol of our Nation,
what we need to ensure is that we protect the values and ideals of our
country as contained within the Constitution.
In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27
times. With the exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later
repealed, these amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual
freedoms and the specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to
function.
This Resolution before us today would not perfect the operation of
our self-government. It would not expand our citizen's rights.
Proponents of this constitutional amendment argue that we need to
respect our flag. I believe that the vast majority of Americans already
respect our flag, and I am unaware of a flag burning epidemic in
America. To me this Resolution is a solution in search of a problem.
Let me be clear, it is wrong to desecrate or defile an American flag
in any way. But making it unconstitutional will not prevent these
incidents from occurring. What we should do, as a government and as
American citizens, is promote civic values and a greater understanding
of our democracy. We should encourage civic education in our schools
and communities. People who value and understand the ideals of our
country will also understand and value the symbols of our great Nation.
The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so
that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who
show disrespect for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great
and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional
amendment? The answer is no; this is not such an occasion. I oppose
this amendment because I believe that while attempting to preserve the
symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it actually would harm
the values and ideals that created of these freedoms.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this
amendment to the Constitution. When Framer Thomas Jefferson penned the
Declaration of Independence, he wrote that:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of
America, in General Congress, assembled, solemnly publish and
declare, that these colonies are . . . free and

[[Page H4918]]

independent states . . . and we mutually pledge to each other
our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor . . . our
sacred honor.

My colleagues, this is what the American flag stands for--honor. But
it also stands for something even more sacred--freedom. Freedom of
expression as contained in the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech.

This amendment, if passed, for the first time in our Nation's
history, would cut back on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom
of expression that is the bedrock of our democracy, and one of the
fundamental guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.
In his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill recognized the public
good and enlightenment which results from the free exchange of ideas.
He writes:

First, if any expression is compelled to silence, that
opinion for aught we can certainly know, be true . . .
Secondly, though this silenced opinion be in error, it may,
and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth . . .
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true but
the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be and actually is,
vigorously and earnestly contested, it will by most of those
who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice.

There is a distinct difference between real and forced patriotism.
Freedom cannot survive if exceptions to the First Amendment are made
when someone in power disagrees with an expression! If we allow that,
our right to free speech will depend on what Congress finds acceptable,
precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
This amendment may provoke rather than diminish the very acts it
purports to curtail. Our Nation's experiment with an amendment to the
Constitution concerning Prohibition shows that a cure by amendment to
the Constitution may itself incite harm of the very nature it seeks to
prevent.
The flag desecration amendment is a solution in search of a problem.
The expressive act, burning a flag, which this amendment attempts to
curtail, is exceedingly rare. Professor Robert Justin Goldstein
documented approximately 45 reported incidents of flag burning in the
over 200 years between 1777 when the flag was adopted, and 1989, when
Congress passed, and the Supreme Court rejected, the Flag Protection
Act. About half of these occurred during the Vietnam War. Some of our
great war heroes even share the spirit of my fellow Democratic
colleagues in supporting efforts to preserve freedom through individual
rights:
Dwight D. Eisenhower said that ``Only our individual faith in freedom
can keep us free.''
Thomas Jefferson again said that ``The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance.''
Finally, General Richard B. Myers USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff stated that ``In our profession and mine, (we are) working
hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution. We
risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.''
This quote says it all--our brave soldiers fighting on the
battlefields see the Constitution as one of their main causes. When we
trivialize the Constitution by haphazardly amending it based on
personal proclivities, we frustrate the sacrifices of our troops.
This amendment would be the beginning, not the end, of the question
of how to regulate a certain form of expression. It empowers Congress
to begin the task of defining what the ``flag'' and ``desecration''
mean. The use of the flag as symbol is ubiquitous, from commerce, to
art, to memorials, such that Congress would be in the position of
defining broad rules for specific applications. Congress, the courts,
and law enforcement agents would have to judge whether displaying the
flag on Polo jeans is ``desecration,'' but the Smithsonian's recent
removal of two million stitches from the 188-year old flag that
inspired Frances Scott Key, is not.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled consistently that flag
burning is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In Texas
v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to apply
to a protester a Texas law punishing people who ``desecrate'' or
otherwise ``mistreat'' the flag in a manner that the ``actor knows will
seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his
action.'' The Court found that the law made flag burning a crime only
when the suspect's thoughts and message in the act of burning were
offensive, thus violating the First Amendment's protections of freedom
of the mind and freedom of speech. The next year, in United States v.
Eichman (1990), the Court reviewed a Congressional statute that
attempted to be neutral as to the messages that might be conveyed,
prohibiting flag burning except when attempting the ``disposal of a
flag when it has become worn or soiled.'' The Court struck down this
statute as another attempt to punish offensive thoughts.
To quote the legal philosopher, Lon Fuller on amending the U.S.
Constitution, he stated that:

We should resist the temptation to clutter up the
Constitution with amendments relating to substantive matters.
We must avoid the obvious unwisdom of trying to solve
tomorrow's problems today and the insidious danger of the
weakening effect of such amendments on the moral force of the
Constitution.

I continue to share the sentiment and spirit of this quote with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they continue to
tread the unwise path of unnecessarily amending the Constitution. Mr.
Speaker, for these reasons, I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.J. Res. 10.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 10,
which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to
protect our nation's flag.
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 for
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 of the flag. The annual display of
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 a cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's
joint resolution, and recognize him for his unwavering 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. 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 think that point was well put by Bill Holen of Littleton, Colorado,
who wrote to express agreement with a recent Denver Post editorial
against this proposed constitutional amendment. As he put it, ``As a
Vietnam veteran and one who fought honorably for this nation . . . Like
Colin Powell, while I personally abhor the thought of anyone burning
the American flag, the symbol under which I fought for this nation, I
believe the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights are far more important.''
I do not think there is a real need for this amendment. On that
point, I agree with the Rocky Mountain News that ``Flag-burning is not
really a problem, as actual incidents of It are rare. It is
disproportionately denounced rather than actually done. And defining
desecration is tricky, especially given the widespread commercial and
decorative use of the flag.'' And, in particular, I share that
newspaper's view that ``More importantly, tampering with the First
Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less democratic
governments impose to shield themselves from criticism.''
Mr. Speaker, every day, at home and abroad, our brave men and women
in uniform are on guard to defend our country and our constitution from
those who have no respect for either. In my opinion, anyone who thinks
that burning the flag under which they serve would be an effective way
to influence public opinion is grotesquely mistaken. And I think to say
we need to amend the constitution in order to respond to people
suffering from that delusion is to give them more importance than they
deserve.
For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the text of the newspaper
editorial to which I referred earlier.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 17, 2004]

Flag-Burning Issue a Waste of Time

Today is the 217th anniversary of the signing of our
Constitution. To celebrate that happy event, the White House
has announced that scholar and historian Lynne Cheney, the
wife of the vice president, will speak at Gunston Hall
Plantation in northern Virginia.
Gunston Hall was the home of George Mason, whom the White
House properly described as ``Father of America's Bill of

[[Page H4919]]

Rights.'' Mason wrote the prototype of the Bill of Rights for
Virginia's constitution in 1776, and it was his intransigence
that led to the adoption of those rights as the first 10
amendments to the Constitution.
The anniversary comes as the Republican Senate leadership
is considering, with breathtaking political cynicism,
bringing back for a vote a constitutional amendment outlawing
flag-burning.
The Supreme Court has ruled simply and correctly that flag-
burning is political speech and as such has the absolute
protection of the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mason.
Flag-burning is not really a problem, as actual incidents
of it are rare. It is disproportionately denounced rather
than actually done. And defining desecration is tricky,
especially given the widespread commercial and decorative use
of the flag. More importantly, tampering with the First
Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less
democratic governments impose to shield themselves from
criticism.
Given her credentials, Lynne Cheney is the ideal person,
Gunston Hall the ideal venue and Constitution Day the ideal
occasion to denounce this latest attempt to undo George
Mason's handiwork.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10,
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag
of the United States. Since 1990, I have voted in opposition to a
Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration or flag burning. I
find flag desecration disgraceful, and I get as angry as anyone does
when I see or hear about such things. But, I do not believe we should
amend the U.S. Constitution to deal with this matter.
Not once during the 15 years I have voted on this amendment to the
Constitution has a crisis occurred with people burning flags. As a
combat veteran of the Vietnam War, I know well the sacrifices that have
been made by many generations of Americans to protect our freedom. We,
as Americans, should honor our flag. It is a symbol of our freedom. I
am immensely gratified when I see all the flags flying in the face of
terrorist attacks and in support of our troops fighting overseas. They
make me very proud.
However, I am not at all comfortable with changing the Bill of Rights
that guarantees our freedoms. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of
expression including dissent. Individual freedom and opportunity have
built our nation into the strongest on earth where liberties are
enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution
protects free speech and allows us to openly debate any issue in this
country. As vile as flag desecration may be, the Supreme Court has
ruled that it is political speech and, therefore, protected under the
First Amendment.
I remain committed to preserving freedom and opportunity. In the true
spirit of America, freedom must be maintained for those with whom we
agree and, yes, those with whom we disagree. I believe we, as
individuals, should honor the flag as a symbol of that freedom.
Applying government coercion to prevent flag desecration actually chips
away at that freedom of expression.
Old Glory can withstand a few exhibitionists looking for attention.
We don't have to jeopardize our freedoms to protect it. It is a symbol
of what protects us.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in strong and
wavering support of the Flag Protection Amendment. I'm proud to be an
original cosponsor of this important measure.
Our flag is more than just a piece of cloth. From Lexington to
Gettysburg to Falluja, more than a million brave Americans have given
their lives in defense of our flag and the American ideals it
represents. We must honor their ultimate sacrifice, and the sacrifices
made by the almost 60,000 veterans in my home state of Wyoming, by
defending our flag with the courage and resolve they proved possible.
The Flag Protection Amendment will protect from desecration the most
widely recognized symbol of freedom and democracy worldwide, one that
offers hope and comfort to the students and teachers, lawmakers, and
military men and women who pledge allegiance to the flag every day
across the nation.
With that, I strongly urge final passage of the Flag Protection
Amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the
joint resolution has expired.

Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered by Mr. Watt

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
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:

The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Watt:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

That 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.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 330, 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, this marks the sixth consecutive term of Congress in
which I have engaged in this debate. I actually, when I first came to
Congress and the first time I had the opportunity to participate in
this, I resented having to go through this. But over the years I have
come to believe that this is a healthy debate; and if we conduct it in
a dignified way, the debate actually can be good for the entire
country, and people can come away with a greater understanding and
appreciation of how delicate our Constitution framework is.
This is about how individuals in our country perceive patriotism, the
rights of free speech, the rights of protecting the views of people who
quite often they may disagree with in content, but that is what our
country has been about.
So I want to start by complimenting the chairman and the ranking
member for the dignified way the debate has proceeded up to this point.
And I hope that this amendment in the nature of a substitute does not
get us off onto a different track, because this is the second or third
time I have offered the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I
did it originally for the purpose of trying to get to a higher quality
of debate and forcing my colleagues and whoever may be listening to the
debate to think about some of these things.
What does the first amendment mean? What rights do we owe to people
in our country whose views we may disagree with? What rights do we owe
to the people in our country who may express those views in ways that
we disagree with?
And I am confident that everybody in this body would think that
desecration of the flag, burning of the flag would not be something
that we would be supporting, so that is not what this amendment is
about.
My amendment simply says if we are going to do a constitutional
amendment, it should not just say that Congress has the authority to
pass a law that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag.
Whatever we do should be subject to the first amendment to the
Constitution. And the amendment under my version would read, not
inconsistent with the first article of amendment to the Constitution:
``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States.''
My amendment, I believe, recognizes the long-standing legacy of the
Bill of Rights. In over 200 years of history, our Constitution has been
amended only 27 times and the Bill of Rights has never been amended,
not once has the Bill of Rights been amended; and this proposed
resolution would be the first time to do that.
I understand that the proposed resolution seeks to uphold the
integrity of our flag; but my amendment seeks to ensure that the
principles for which the flag stands, particularly freedom of
expression and freedom of speech, are also reserved.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution stands for the
proposition that all voices of dissent should be heard without
governmental suppression. Disrespect for the flag is offensive to every
Member of this body, but this is not a debate about patriotism. It is
not a debate about whether flag desecration is good or bad. It is a
debate about the values that underlie our Constitution. And I think
former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best when he said these
words:

[[Page H4920]]

``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, the Constitution, to humor a few miscreants,'' he
said. ``The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk
away.'' And that is the end of his quote for my purposes today.
It is the underlying values represented by the flag, not the cloth on
which the stars and bars are sewn that our Constitution protects. Those
are the values my amendment would preserve.
Mr. Speaker, following the horrific acts of terrorism against our
country, our citizens were repeatedly cautioned not to cower in the
face of terrorism. Do not curtail our freedoms, we were told, for to do
so would be to surrender our way of life, to give up and give in to the
terrorists. The terrorists would win.
I think if we pass the amendment as it has been proposed, we give in
to those miscreants, as Colin Powell has characterized them, those
people who we disagree with. We should be protecting their rights also
to free speech.
I want to put this in context. I started by saying that I used to
resent this debate and I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I came to
Congress thinking that, I guess, I thought I had a monopoly on what the
meaning of the Constitution was. And there is a history to that,
because I had graduated from Yale Law School, took my constitutional
law from Professor Robert Bork, who became so controversial when he was
nominated to the United States Supreme Court. And in that class with me
was a student by the name of Duncan Kennedy who is now a professor at
Harvard Law School and for whom a whole theory of law has been
patterned.
In that class with me, in that constitutional law class, was a guy
named Paul Gewirtz, who is now a professor of constitutional law at
Yale University Law School. So it was one of those law school classes
that people would die for. And we analyzed the first amendment back and
forth, right and left, Bork against Duncan, Bork against Gewirtz. I
mean, there were good students in the class and then there were people
like me who were sitting in the back of the room hoping that nobody
would ever realize that we were there and I could avoid getting
involved in that high level of debate.
But I was listening and understanding that the Constitution, the
first amendment had different meanings to different people. And I
thought I got a good balanced view. Actually, I thought I got a good
balanced view until I went back to North Carolina and went into a law
firm that was generally known as a civil rights law firm.
And one day my senior law partner, a gentleman by the name of Julius
Chambers, called me in and said, I want you to go to eastern North
Carolina to one of the counties in which Native Americans represent a
high portion of the population, because a number of the Native
Americans in that county have been charged with parading, using
tomahawks, parading around; and they have been charged with resisting
arrest and various other criminal offenses. And he did not tell me what
they were down there demonstrating about. He just told me to go down
there and represent them.

{time} 1230

I went and I started my interviews with the Native Americans, and
during the course of my interviews with them, it became apparent that
the reason that they had these tomahawks out there and they were
demonstrating and parading was that they had a desire not to have to go
to school with black people. They thought that the schools that they
were going to be sent to with African Americans were inferior, and they
did not want to do it.
Well, I being an African American myself, swallowed very hard and
said, What has my law partner gotten me into? I could not wait until
the end of the day to get in my car and race back to Charlotte, North
Carolina, and confront my senior law partner.
I walked in and I said, Chambers, why would you send me to this
county to represent these Indians who were demonstrating against going
to school with African Americans? His response taught me more about the
first amendment than either Robert Bork or Duncan Kennedy or Paul
Gerwitz or any of the discussions that I had participated in in law
school. He simply asked me one question. He said, Do you not believe in
the first amendment?
This is a difficult issue, and this is not about patriotism, and I
have come to understand over the years of debate that we have had this
amendment under consideration, I started out saying to people on the
opposite side, people like the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) and people who served their country, You are unpatriotic
because you do not agree with me about my interpretation of the first
amendment; the first amendment was passed to protect the right of
people to demonstrate and burn flags and you are unpatriotic because
you do not agree with me.
But then I started to listen to what the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham) was saying and what my colleagues were saying and
studied this issue more. Could it be that Justice Scalia and Justice
Rehnquist, two conservative jurists, could be on opposite sides of this
issue and it not be a difficult issue from a constitutional
perspective? That is, can you imagine the debate that was taking place
in the Supreme Court? I cannot imagine that Justice Rehnquist looked at
Justice Scalia and said, You are unpatriotic because you do not agree
with me. I cannot imagine that Justice Scalia looked at Justice
Rehnquist and said, oh, no, you are unpatriotic because you disagree
with me. They came down on opposite sides of the landmark case.
This is a difficult issue and it is all about what you think ought to
be protected under the first amendment. It is not about whether you are
patriotic or not.
Well, there is one thing I want for sure my colleagues to
acknowledge, that this amendment, when it was first offered, started
out just saying there shall be no physical desecration of the flag. For
a couple of years it said that, but then the more recent versions of
what we are considering today say that Congress shall have the power to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. That means that Congress
must pass a statute, which must then go to the Supreme Court ultimately
to be evaluated. So, at some point, the Supreme Court is going to
evaluate whether that statute complies with the first amendment or not.
In that sense, the language that I am proposing, I am going to first
and foremost acknowledge, is redundant. It just specifically says that
whatever we do as a Congress has got to be subject to the first
amendment. That is redundant. As my colleagues know, whatever we do as
a Congress is supposed to be subject to everything in the Constitution
anyway, but I want to remind us that, at the same time, we protect the
flag.
A principle of our Nation is also to protect speech, whatever that
is; is it burning the flag, is it hollering ``fire'' in a crowded
theater? Whatever it is, there needs to be some kind of balance. And
this Congress, whether it adopts my amendment or does not adopt my
amendment, is going to be subject to that anyway.
The proponents of this amendment who say that this is going to do
something earth shattering or that my amendment is going to undercut
their proposal, it is just not the case.
I just want to be sure that we acknowledge that whatever we do, we
acknowledge it, that the first amendment is just as important as the
flag. Just as important. Some people might argue that it is more
important than the piece of cloth. My colleagues might argue that it
is, that it is equal in value, but we at least need to come to grips
with that, and that is what the Constitution, that is what the Supreme
Court has been trying to do for a number of years. It is not an easy
thing to do.
We have heard a lot of discussion about activist judges. This
proposal encourages judges to be activists because it says you are
giving Congress the right to prohibit the physical desecration of the
flag. Do my colleagues think the Supreme Court is not going to exercise
its constitutional responsibilities just because we said Congress can
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag? It is going to have to.
It is going to have to decide what that

[[Page H4921]]

means. It is going to have to decide how we balance this provision,
this statute, statutory authority that Congress gives against the first
amendment. We are not going to be able to get around the Supreme Court
here.
We like to punt these things and pretend that we are doing something
earth shattering here, but the Supreme Court, I hope, is still going to
be there, and I believe the Supreme Court is going to wrestle with this
as they have in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the arguments made by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) in support of his amendment,
and he said that his amendment is redundant. It is redundant, but it
also is a gutting amendment to the base text of the constitutional
amendment that we are debating today.
This substitute amendment should be rejected because it would
constitutionally ratify the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v.
Johnson and United States v. Eichman, rather than empower Congress to
pass legislation to protect the flag from physical desecration.
In Johnson and Eichman, the Supreme Court held that flag desecration
is expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. These decisions
effectively invalidated the laws of 48 States and the Federal
Government. In addition, based on these precedents, any law that
prohibits the physical desecration of the flag will be struck down as
an unconstitutional suppression of free expression, thus defeating the
goal of our efforts to provide protection for the flag.
A constitutional amendment must be passed if the flag is to receive
legal protection. Under the Watt substitute, the flag would not receive
such protection because the Court would simply strike down as
inconsistent to the first amendment any implementing legislation
enacted into law.
Adoption of the substitute would not only render H.J. Res. 10
ineffective, but it would also constitutionally codify the Supreme
Court decisions that a vast majority of the American public were
erroneously decided, and which did not exist for the first 200 years of
the Constitution's existence.
In other words, if the Watt amendment is passed and then a
constitutional amendment is passed and ratified by the States, the
Supreme Court can, in the future, recognize that it made a mistake, and
that is why this amendment should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose
of responding to this.
I do not agree at all with my chair, as much as I respect him, that
this codifies anything. What it does is that it codifies and reaffirms
and acknowledges the state of affairs that exists right now, that in
the final analysis the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the
Constitution and laws of our country. After we pass my amendment or the
underlying amendment, the Supreme Court is still going to be the
ultimate arbiter of that, and so my amendment neither does that or does
not do it.
His amendment does not do it. If the Supreme Court changes its mind,
the composition of the Supreme Court changes, and they decide that
burning a flag is prohibited, is not protected under the first
amendment, then that is going to be the last word on it. We do not have
any way to go on that.
So I do not think I can agree with him that I am doing anything
different than preserving the state of affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), my good friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying our
flag does not need protection from an occasional protester, we call
them miscreants I think, who cannot see how ridiculous it is to try to
protest by destroying the symbol of his right to protest. If he cannot
see how ridiculous that is, obviously we do not need much protection
from him.
Contrary to what has been suggested on the floor, the underlying
amendment does not regulate conduct. Without the Watt amendment, it
clearly regulates message.
Now, as the gentleman from North Carolina, sponsor of the amendment,
points out, the underlying amendment does not repeal the first
amendment. Even if we adopt this constitutional amendment, the first
amendment will still be there, and so the amendment is, in fact,
redundant, but it makes it clear and reminds people that it is still
there.
What he seeks to clarify is whether or not it is indeed the message
that is being criminalized rather than the conduct, whether or not
those who support government policy, for example, and burn a flag
without offending anybody, apparently they will be okay. But if you are
a war protester who burns a flag, you can be arrested, and if you are a
veteran, so disgusted with veterans health care, and burn the flag in
protest, are we making him a criminal? Or if you are a member of a
fringe political organization who burns his own flag on his own
property, in private, can they be arrested if somebody finds out?
The question is whether or not we are criminalizing the message or
the conduct. So the Watt amendment makes it clear that we are still
protecting freedom of speech. The message, that will be clear, that we
if we do not support the Watt amendment we just ought to acknowledge it
is indeed the message, not conduct, which is the target of the
underlying amendment.

{time} 1245

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in strong opposition to the Watt substitute and in support of
H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to give Congress the
authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag. The
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) says that the Bill of Rights
has never been amended. It may be that the words have never been
changed, but the United States Supreme Court on many, many, many
occasions has amended the first amendment and other provisions in the
Bill of Rights by changing the meaning of those words. This is one of
those such occasions.
For 200 years, many Supreme Court Justices opined that flag
desecration laws which were in effect in 49 States were not in
violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. This is in
defiance of the will of the overwhelming majority of the American
people, the will of the overwhelming majority of the State
legislatures, and as we will see later today, the will of the
overwhelming majority of the United States Congress.
Clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to
include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and
other actions. However, not all actions constitute free speech, and I
am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration is not speech to be
protected under the first amendment. In 1989, the United States Supreme
Court in Texas v. Johnson unilaterally invalidated flag protection laws
in 48 States and the District of Columbia, overturning 100 years of
Federal and State precedent, banning the physical desecration of the
American flag. When that occurs, and when the people and the Congress
believe that is wrong, it is a constitutional amendment that corrects
the error of the Supreme Court.
Following this decision for the first time in our Nation's history,
an overwhelming 49 State legislatures petitioned Congress to send a
flag desecration amendment to the States for ratification. The physical
desecration of the American flag constitutes an assault on the most
deeply shared experiences of the American people. Our flag is more than
a piece of cloth; it a symbol of our freedom. It represents the
sacrifices of those who gave their lives to win and preserve freedom.
There have been those who have gone unarmed into battle carrying the
flag, and many have died to keep the flag from falling into the hands
of our enemies. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else
who has put his

[[Page H4922]]

or her life on the line for their country is an act not deserving
protection.
Our Nation is unique in the world because our citizens represent a
variety of heritages, religions, ethnicities, and political viewpoints.
Indeed, we debate our differences openly and vigorously; yet we can
always look to the flag and remember that we share certain core values
that bind us together as a people.
For over 200 years, our flag has flown proudly over our Nation, a
visible promise of our commitment to the preservation and expansion of
democracy. However, symbols, like values, are eroded gradually. Each
time they are desecrated, their symbolism is diminished. We must act
now to protect one of our Nation's most sacred symbols because the
Supreme Court has struck down Congress' effort to protect the flag by
statute. It is now necessary to amend the Constitution to give Congress
the authority to protect the flag.
Supreme Court Justices as varied as William Rehnquist, Warren Burger,
and Hugo Black have all recognized the appropriateness of these
desecration statutes that were struck down by the Court.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 10.
Of course, words or other forms of expression do not have to be
correct in order to be protected. And clearly, free speech goes beyond
the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression,
including the wearing of symbols and other actions. Not all actions
constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag
desecration isn't free speech to be protected under the First
Amendment.
``I believe that the states and federal government do have the power
to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace,'' wrote
former Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and
present justices of the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological
spectrum, including Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul
Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and current Chief Justice William
Rehnquist. These eminent men and women haven't taken a merely political
stance based upon ``shallow assumptions'' or ``perilously sloppy
thinking.'' Rather, they rely upon well-established principles.
``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote
Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil
and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be
murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.'' Free speech isn't
the right to do anything you want to do anytime you want to do it.
Rather, it's a precious liberty founded in law--a freedom preserved by
respect for the rights of others.
To say that society isn't entitled to establish rules of behavior
governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of
civilization or to believe that civilization can survive without regard
to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in front
of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line
for their country is a despicable act not deserving protection.
It's well-established that certain types of speech may be prevented
under some circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, libelous,
insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the
proscriptions may be even broader. That's where I have voted to put
flag desecration--back where 48 state legislatures thought it was when
they passed laws prohibiting it.
This amendment doesn't, in any way, alter the First Amendment. It
simply corrects a misguided court interpretation of that amendment. As
Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his dissent:
``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of
the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized
governments are instituted . . . The government may conscript men into
the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag,
but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner
under which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right
that wrong.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to filibuster because I am waiting for some
Members who would like to speak on this.
Let me respond to the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) that the Supreme Court has amended the Bill of Rights on a
number of occasions. It did not amend the language of the Bill of
Rights. It amended the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
On a number of those occasions I have been really unhappy about the
way the Supreme Court ruled and took away a right that I thought I had.
I suspect if there were ever anybody in this institution who would be,
should be railing against the Supreme Court, either the current Supreme
Court or Supreme Courts throughout history, it might be the members of
the Congressional Black Caucus who would have the highest standing and
right to do that because in a number of cases the Supreme Court has
ruled in ways that were absolutely counter to our interest.
I just want my colleagues to understand that this document that our
drafters crafted for us has survived so much the test of time, the
comings and goings of members of the Supreme Court differing in
interpretations, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) said.
If you want to look at it, they rewrote the Bill of Rights, but never
changed the words.
I do not think that every time you get a Supreme Court decision that
you disagree with in this country the way to resolve or to express your
disagreement is to come to the Congress of the United States and
propose that we amend the entire constitutional framework that we are
operating under. I do not think that is the way to do it. Sometimes you
win; sometimes you lose. Sometimes you have a progressive Supreme
Court; sometimes you have a conservative Supreme Court. That does not
mean that you do not go back and try to statutorily do what you think
that you need to do to amend statutes, but amending our Constitution is
an entirely different thing.
So one side of me says this is not a good idea to be amending the
Constitution in this way. The other side of me really says this
amendment has been made out to be a lot more than it really is because
by saying that Congress can pass a statute that prohibits the physical
desecration of the flag does not give us any more authority than we now
have. We can pass a statute right now that prohibits the physical
desecration of the flag.
The question is what would the United States Supreme Court say about
that statute once it worked its way through the process and up to the
United States Supreme Court. And if we pass this amendment, having
amended for the first time in 200 years our Bill of Rights, gone
through the whole process, the Supreme Court is still going to have the
same right to do that.
This is a great, great discussion vehicle. As I said, I used to
resent coming here and engaging in this debate every year or every 2
years. It always comes right before July 4. Somebody is always trying
to make a political point. Democrats used to be saying Republicans were
unpatriotic. Republicans used to be saying Democrats are unpatriotic.
Now people are going whichever way they want to go. This is not a
Republican or a Democratic amendment; this is a constitutional
amendment. Democrats and Republicans have to exist in our
constitutional framework. We have got to operate within our system.
That is what I think this is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am a little ashamed to confess
my mother is around the age of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt). My mother used to tell me stories when she was a young woman in
the segregated South that she would drive through parts of rural and
western Alabama and that she would see crosses burned. My grandmother
used to tell me stories that after Brown v. Board of Education, she
remembers riding through parts of rural Alabama and seeing crosses
burned.
The interesting thing about that is the burning of those crosses did
not keep a single black child out of a public school. The burning of
those crosses, frankly, did nothing to slow down the march of justice
in this country over the 40-or-so years I have been around. I think
that is relevant to this debate today.
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court would not let
Congress ban flag-burning. And here we stand 15 years later in a
country that is still deeply patriotic, a country that is still full of
love of Americans toward each other. Frankly, I would submit in this
last 4 or 5 years we have seen a rising tide of patriotism. We feel a
greater faith in each other and a greater faith in our fighting forces
now than we ever

[[Page H4923]]

have. I wish advocates of this amendment understood we have won this
battle. Those of us who believe in this country, those of us who
believe in its decency, and those of us who believe in its power, we
have won. Within our borders, we have won.
The people who would burn flags, just like the people who would burn
crosses, have lost. And not only have they lost; they have been
thrashed. They have been banished to the margins. They are not a
legitimate part of our political debate. They are not acceptable
viewpoints to most of us.
I wish we understood that every time we think about saying that one
kind of speech is so obnoxious or so offensive that we ought to get rid
of it, every time we even let ourselves think that, we would be so much
better off if we trust in our better angels, because the best angels in
our nature tell us that flag burners are wrong. They tell us that the
instinct behind them is wrong and we have prevailed.
There is a reason we have had this 230-year constitutional tradition.
It is because we have been strong enough and powerful enough and our
values have been deep enough to withstand even the worst of ideas.
I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for calling us
back to an understanding that even this august institution is limited
by the United States Supreme Court, and that even the best values that
we pronounce in this Chamber are limited by our Constitution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Watt amendment
and support H.J. Res. 10.
It is interesting that we are hearing about freedom of speech right
now. I was interested because yesterday in my district the ACLU, which
holds itself as the arbiter of all freedom of speech in the Nation and
in the world, actually shut down all comments from their own local
chapter because one person was speaking out on an issue that they did
not want him to speak on with their name hooked onto it. So the ACLU
yesterday in the Second Congressional District of New Mexico actually
said no freedom of speech is allowed if you are an ACLU officer.

{time} 1300

Freedom of speech, we have also seen it compromised in our schools.
We can talk about certain religions in schools, but we cannot talk
about Christian religions in school and we find that the American
public is saying, Why? Why can we not defend this sacred symbol of our
freedom? It is not a difficult issue. When I see these World War II
veterans coming to me with tears in their eyes knowing they are in the
last year or two of their lives and saying, Why can't we do this
finally, it is not a complicated issue. They do not see things in the
complex legal arguments on the floor of this House or in the Supreme
Court.
Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that symbols do mean more than what they
actually stand for. Look at the debate right now in Guantanamo Bay. It
is being said by the same people who want the freedom of speech to
desecrate the symbol of our flag that we should not have the freedom to
desecrate the Koran or even allege that it has been desecrated.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that we recognize that a symbol is more
important than the actual fabric that it is made of. It is time for us
to pass this constitutional amendment, to reject the substitute
amendment, and to bring clarity to this issue where 50 States have
passed resolutions asking us to get clarity. It is time for the
Congress to speak in the way that the majority of Americans would have
them to speak. I support the amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the major argument that we have heard against the base
amendment and in favor of the Watt substitute is that if we do not pass
the Watt substitute, we will be amending the Bill of Rights for the
first time in the history of this country. That is not true. In the
Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney claimed that the fifth
amendment's due process clause, which he interpreted to include a
substantive right to the protection of property, prohibited
restrictions on slave ownership. The three amendments that were passed
during the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, corrected
that gross constitutional misinterpretation and it slammed the door
shut so tightly that that issue never has been raised again; and our
country has been much, much better for it.
In a similar manner, House Joint Resolution 10 seeks to correct two
Supreme Court precedents that repudiated 2 centuries of jurisprudence.
The time to correct those two precedents is today. We must vote against
the Watt substitute amendment which guts the thrust of House Joint
Resolution 10 and then pass House Joint Resolution 10 by a two-thirds
majority to send it to the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 330,
the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution and on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
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 279, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 293]

YEAS--129

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NAYS--279

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)

[[Page H4924]]

Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
McCarthy
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--25

Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bonner
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carter
Conaway
DeLay
Doggett
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Herseth
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
Murtha
Ney
Oxley
Pickering
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Thomas

{time} 1328

Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, KOLBE, FLAKE, CROWLEY, LANTOS, COSTELLO,
KUCINICH, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California and Mr. JEFFERSON changed their 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.
Stated for:
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, I was unable
to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 293. The vote I missed was on
agreeing to the Watt of North Carolina substitute amendment.
Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall number 293.
Stated against:
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the
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.

{time} 1330

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. In its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Taylor of Mississippi moves to recommit H.J. Res. 10 to
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 3, line 8, insert ``Section 1.'' before ``The
Congress''.
Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation marks and the
period that follows.
Page 3, after line 9 insert the following:
``Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts
by a rollcall vote.
``Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States
held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law
for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
``Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
``Section 5. No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
``Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law.
``Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts.
``Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States Government except those derived from
borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the
United States Government except for those for repayment of
debt principal.
``Section 9. Sections 2 through 8 of this article shall
take effect beginning with fiscal year 2008 or with the
second fiscal year beginning after its ratification,
whichever is later.''.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, given the nature of this
motion, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read it again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, would
the gentleman restate the unanimous consent request.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent,
given the gravity of this motion, that the Clerk read the motion again
since, apparently, no one on this floor, other than I, know what is in
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the Reading Clerk
reading the motion to recommit again?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will proceed.
The Clerk read the motion to recommit.

Point of Order

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not germane
to the original text of the House Joint Resolution 10.
House Joint Resolution 10 proposes an amendment to prohibit the
physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The material
proposed to be inserted in the motion to recommit, sections 2 and
following, has nothing to do with the subject of prohibiting the
physical desecration of the flag and, thus, is not germane under the
rules of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about
today is a fairly simple thing. The text of the original bill is to
give the 50 States the legal authority to, on a state-by-state basis,
prevent the desecration of the flag, a symbol of our country. There is
something a heck of a lot more serious going on than the desecration of
the flag: it is the desecration of our Nation.
In the last 4 years alone, the national debt has increased by $2.1
trillion. We have taken money out of the Social Security trust fund,
$632 billion out of that trust fund, and used it to run the country,
leaving nothing there but an IOU. Money has been taken out of the
Federal Employees Retirement System, now a total of $614 billion.
Mr. Speaker, if any business in America had taken that money out of
the employees' trust fund----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi will suspend.
The gentleman needs to confine his remarks to the point of order.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is, why
would we take the time to protect the symbol of our country if we will
not take the time to protect the financial future of our country as
well? That is my point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?

[[Page H4925]]

If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Wisconsin makes a point of order that the
instructions contained in the motion to recommit offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi are not germane.
One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule, clause 7 of rule
XVI, is that one individual proposition is not germane to another
individual proposition. The Chair finds that H.J. Res. 10, by proposing
a constitutional amendment relating to flag desecration, presents a
single, individual proposition.
The Chair also finds that the instructions contained in the motion to
recommit offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, by proposing a
constitutional amendment relating to the budget of the United States,
constitutes a different individual proposition.
Therefore, the Chair concludes that the instructions contained in the
motion to recommit are not germane to H.J. Res. 10.
The point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, what is the procedure to
appeal the ruling of the Chair? I would like the ability to speak to
that, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ruling of the Chair may be appealed.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am appealing the ruling of
the Chair, and I would like to speak to that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House.

Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, is that debatable?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is nondebatable. The question was taken;
and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have
it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding under
the rule passed by the Committee on Rules that the minority is
guaranteed a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking for a recorded vote?

Recorded Vote

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 194, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 294]

AYES--222

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--17

Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boyd
Carter
Conaway
Doggett
Herseth
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
McCaul (TX)
Ney
Oxley
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Thomas

{time} 1355

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I take it from what just
occurred is that I will not be able to offer the amendment to require a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Now, is that the net effect of that vote that just occurred? Because
I do have a follow-up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit was ruled out of
order.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, having read the rule, it said
that the minority was to be given a motion to recommit. If that motion
to recommit was ruled out of order, does the minority still have the
right to offer another motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member opposed to the bill may offer a
proper motion to recommit.

[[Page H4926]]

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in
its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Point of Order

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is also not germane under
House rule XVI, clause 7, because it is one individual proposition
attempting to amend another individual proposition.
The base constitutional amendment relates to flag desecration. The
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit relates to the Old Age
Survivors and Disability Trust Fund and is a separate proposition.

{time} 1400

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Does the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is to prevent the desecration of the
flag, the trampling of our flag, the misuse of our flag. The amendment
that I have offered is to prevent the wholesale theft and desecration
of the Social Security trust fund.
In the past 4 years alone, this Congress, of which I am a part, has
taken $632 billion out of the Social Security trust fund that we
promised the citizens we would set aside just for Social Security
payments and used to run the country.
The President has gone all around the country saying we have a
crisis, that by 2017 we will be out of money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
will suspend.
The gentleman needs to confine his remarks to the point of order, and
not to debate the substance of the motion to recommit.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The point of order is to my colleagues, if
you think it is wrong to desecrate the flag, I would hope that you
would think it is wrong to misspend money taken out of people's wallets
that we promised to spend on their Social Security and to protect that
money in the Constitution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
As in the case of the previous motion, the Chair must adhere to the
principle that, to a joint resolution embodying a single individual
proposition, an amendment proposing a different proposition, even of
the same class, is not germane.
The motion is not in order.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House.

Motion To Table Offered By Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to lay the appeal on the
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 190, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 295]

AYES--222

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky

[[Page H4927]]

Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--21

Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boyd
Carter
Conaway
Cox
Doggett
Herseth
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
McCaul (TX)
Murtha
Ney
Oxley
Payne
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Thomas
Weiner

{time} 1418

So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving
things along, I ask unanimous consent to engage the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in about a 3-minute colloquy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, you have, using the power of the majority, blocked the vote
on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the
constitutional amendment to vote to protect the Social Security trust
fund.
Now, I have additional motions at the desk. The next one would be a
constitutional amendment to protect the Medicare trust fund. Would it
be your intention to object to that as well and prevent a vote on this
House floor?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the points of order that the
gentleman from Wisconsin has been raising have been pursuant to House
rules, and we should not be waiving the rules relative to the
germaneness of motions to recommit.
Should the gentleman from Mississippi offer more nongermane motions
to recommit, then I think it is incumbent upon me, as the manager of
the bill, to raise a point of order, should the rules of the House be
violated by the motion to recommit, as they have been in the past.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
remind the Members of this body that this bill came to the floor
waiving all points of order.
The Medicare prescription drug bill that is going to increase the
national debt by $1.5 billion came to the floor waiving all points of
order.
We have acquired $2.1 billion worth of new debt in just the past 4
years, waiving all points of order.
But if the gentleman is going to insist on not allowing a vote to
protect the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, not
allowing a vote to protect the Social Security trust fund, and not
allowing a vote to protect the Medicare trust fund, I see no further
reason other than to point out that I really thought the Republican
majority meant it when they passed the Contract with America, that they
said they would balance the budget.
I gave you an opportunity to do just that. I hope the Speaker will
give us an opportunity in the near future for you guys to live up to
your promises.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 286,
nays 130, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 296]

YEAS--286

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hobson
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--130

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--18

Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Carter
Conaway
Doggett
Herseth
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
McCaul (TX)

[[Page H4928]]

Ney
Oxley
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Thomas

{time} 1440

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.
Stated for:
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I was detained and unable to cast a vote on
H.J. Res. 10 on June 22, 2005. I was in Brownwood, Texas attending the
funeral of Lance Corporal Mario Castillo, a Marine from the 11th
District of Texas. Please let the Record reflect that had I been here,
I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________