[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 85 (Thursday, June 23, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1324-E1325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 21, 2005

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 330 the Rule governing debate on H.J. Res. 10, an amendment to the 
Constitution to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States. I oppose the Rule to H.J. Res. 10 because the Rule allows 
inadequate debate on a resolution is an overly broad infringement on 
the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. This partisan, 
structure rule, severely limits amendment and debate on issues that 
affect every American citizen--the United States Constitution and the 
First Amendment.
  I fully support the amendment offered by the Gentleman from North 
Carolina, the distinguished Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
Mr. Watt. That amendment is so simple that it nearly restates the First 
Amendment to the Constitution--which further exemplifies the ridiculous 
nature of the underlying legislation we debate before the Committee of 
the Whole House. It is a shame that Members have to propose and offer 
amendments that require adherence to the U.S. Constitution--as 
Representatives of the United States of America, we are charged with 
the duty of upholding individual rights, not restrict them.
  In last Congress' iteration of this very legislation, I proposed an 
amendment that was not made in order. My amendment to that bill was 
designed to protect Americans' right to express their opinions and 
views about government activity. My amendment stated in pertinent part, 
``a person shall not have violated a prohibition under that section for 
desecrating the flag, if such desecration is an expression of 
disagreement or displeasure with an act taken or decision made by a 
local, State, or Federal Government of the United States.''
  Under my amendment Americans would have retained their freedom to 
speak out against actions taken by local, State, and Federal 
Governments through desecrations of the flag symbolizing their views. 
Our democratic government is a government of the people. Our citizen's 
freedom of expression is at the very heart of our democracy. An attack 
on American's freedom of expression is an attack on our entire 
democracy. My amendment would have protected our democracy and protects 
our citizens.
  This Rule, on the other hand, is potentially harmful to our democracy 
and America's citizens. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are 
fundamental components of our

[[Page E1325]]

democracy. Limiting the ability of American citizens to voice their 
opinions about their government, through flag desecrations or 
otherwise, is a violation of the principles of our democracy that are 
symbolized in the American flag, including the First Amendment right to 
freedom on expression.
  I hope that the Republican leadership sees the irony of their 
decision to draft such a restrictive rule. We are debating a resolution 
that, if passed, will severely restrict American's ability to speak 
openly, freely, and fully, on issues that are of great concern to the 
public. Under this rule, my colleagues on this side of the isle are 
restricted from speaking openly, freely, and fully, on an issue that 
will have a drastic impact on the public, the First Amendment.
  This proposed amendment to the Constitution, H.J. Res. 10, is a 
severe abridgement of the freedom of expression protected by the First 
Amendment of the United States Constitution. This rule is a severe 
abridgement of our ability to debate an issue that may have a profound 
impact on one of America's most fundamental rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Rule and I encourage my colleagues to do 
likewise.