[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 57 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H2555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             HONORING THOSE WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is an important duty of 
all of us who serve here to pay respect, to express our gratitude, to 
join in the sorrow of those and their families who are serving this 
Nation in a time of war. I have tried very hard to do that whenever the 
occasion occurred. I have attended funerals of young men who were 
killed, and in one case a man not so young.
  I was pleased on Saturday to attend a welcoming home ceremony for one 
young man who returned. I attended a ceremony to see off a group of 
Guardsmen.
  The merits of the war are irrelevant when it comes to honoring and 
expressing our gratitude to those who have served.

                              {time}  1715

  Having said that, I want to say that I deeply regretted that 
yesterday, Tuesday rather, I felt called upon to vote against a bill 
that was presented here under the suspension of the rules which allowed 
for no serious debate and zero chance of amendment, a bill which in 
part protected veterans' funerals from the disruption that they have 
encountered. And it is true that a particularly contemptible group of 
bigots are harassing people at some funerals. And we have every right 
and under the Constitution the power to stop it.
  Sadly, a badly overdrafted bill was brought forth with no chance for 
us to amend it. And I do not think we honor our veterans by failing to 
honor our Constitution. So I had to vote against the bill. Part of the 
bill, if it had been in part, if we could have amended it down, I would 
have proudly supported, the part that would have said you cannot have a 
demonstration in which any individual is willfully making or assisting 
in the making of any noise that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace 
or good order of the funeral, memorial service or ceremony on a 
military cemetery. But the bill went before that.
  The bill says that for 60 minutes before a funeral and 60 minutes 
after, within 500 feet of the cemetery, you can't hold up a sign that 
might be offensive to people. You can't picket. It doesn't just say 
noise. It says diversion, and it defines it, any picketing, the display 
of any placard, banner, flag or similar device.
  When we had an outrageous effort to intimidate a Danish newspaper 
because they exercised the right of free press and published cartoons 
of the Prophet Mohammed, which many Muslims found offensive, some 
people, apologists for this outrageous behavior against the newspaper, 
said, well, you know it is free speech. But free speech has to be 
respectful. Free speech has to be within limits.
  No, it does not. Free speech is not respectful speech. Indeed, the 
American Constitution, the principle of free speech precisely protects 
the right of despicable people to be obnoxious. If you don't believe in 
that, you don't believe in free speech.
  In fact, the particular group of vicious people who have been 
disrupting the funerals have as their major goal getting rid of people 
like me, gay men and lesbians. They particularly hate us. But I will 
not allow their bigotry against me and the reaction against that to be 
used to reduce the protections of our Constitution.
  The parts of this bill that say that if you try to disrupt a funeral 
you are going to be prevented, they are fine. But telling people that 
60 minutes before or after a funeral, within 500 feet of a national 
cemetery, they can't picket or hold up a banner, that is not free 
speech. That is not what we fight for.
  I have defended previously the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, 
to the great horror of victims of the Holocaust, or survivors of the 
Holocaust.
  I told the Muslims who tried to coerce the Danish press that no 
matter how offensive they found that cartoon, freedom of expression 
meant that no government should stop you from being offensive.
  Disrupting a funeral, of course you should not do that. We should not 
allow ourselves, through restrictive legislative procedures, to act 
against an admitted evil, the disruption of those ceremonies, in ways 
that could undermine the Constitution.
  So I hope this will come back from the Senate in a form I can vote 
for. I would have voted for part of this bill; but I cannot, no matter 
how despicable the bigots who are defaming this Nation and disrupting 
cemeteries, I will not allow their behavior to be used as an excuse for 
undermining the right of other people in other places to hold signs. 
People holding signs within 200 feet of a cemetery, a half hour after a 
funeral that some people find offensive, that is free speech. And the 
way to counter that is to counter that. So I regret very much, in fact, 
Mr. Speaker, and I don't mean to look for sympathy here. I had an 
operation here last week. I had a stent, and I was supposed to return 
early Tuesday to have the stent removed. I delayed my return because I 
wanted to attend this funeral of the young man who was killed. 
Obviously, the discomfort of my stent was nothing to what people face 
who are in Iraq. But I simply want to testify that I will do everything 
I can to continue to honor these people, but that does not require us 
to demean the first amendment to the Constitution.

                          ____________________