[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL 
                     TO DESECRATE THE AMERICAN FLAG

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have on our schedule the debate 
and the vote on a constitutional amendment, the amendment that would 
make the desecration of the flag illegal. Many who support this 
amendment imply that those of us who oppose it for some reason might be 
unpatriotic. That, of course, is not true.
  I would like to call attention to my fellow colleagues just exactly 
what I see us doing by amending the Constitution.
  The very first thing that Communist China did after it took over Hong 
Kong was to pass legislation to make sure that it was illegal to 
desecrate the Chinese flag. Now let me say that one time again. As soon 
as Red China took over Hong Kong, that was the very first thing they 
did. One of the first pieces of legislation was to make sure that the 
people of Hong Kong knew it was illegal to do anything to desecrate the 
Chinese flag.
  Now another interesting thing about the Chinese and their flag is 
that we monitor human rights in China. As a matter of fact, the State 
Department is required to come before the House and the Senate and 
report to us about the violations of human rights in China. The purpose 
is to find out whether or not they qualify for full trade with us, and 
the argument comes up every year. Some say, well, they violate civil 
rights and human rights all the time; therefore, we should not be 
trading with Red China, which is an argument that can be presented.
  But in this report that came out in April to summarize last year, our 
government lists as a violation of human rights that we are holding 
them accountable for that we want to use against them so that we do not 
trade with them is the fact that two individuals last year were 
arrested because they desecrated the Communist Chinese flag.

                              {time}  1845

  I think that is pretty important. We should think about that. First, 
the Chinese Government makes it illegal to desecrate a flag in Hong 
Kong, and then they arrest somebody and they convict them, and they 
want to hold it against them and say we do not want to give them Most 
Favored Nation status because they are violating somebody's human 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate 
them? There are other countries around the world that have similar 
laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration 
of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never 
put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to 
think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.
  We have existed now for 212 years since the passage of our 
Constitution, and we have not had laws like this, but all of a sudden 
we feel compelled. What is the compulsion? Do we see on the nightly 
news Americans defying our flag and defying our principles of liberty? 
I cannot recall the last time I saw on television an American citizen 
burning an American flag or desecrating our flag. So all of a sudden 
now we decide it is a crisis of such magnitude that we have to amend 
the Constitution; at the same time, challenging the principles of 
freedom of expression.
  There is one State in this country that has a law which they have the 
right to, a law against desecration of the flag. And the flag police 
went to a house to find out what was going on because they were flying 
their flag upside down. What is going to happen when we try to define 
``desecrate''? Desecrate is usually something held for religious 
symbol. Have we decided to take the flag and make it a holy symbol? But 
will a towel that is in the shape and the color of a flag that somebody 
is lying on at the beach, is that going to be a reason to call the FBI 
and call the flag police in to arrest someone for this desecration? 
Because we do not define the desecration, we just say we will write the 
laws to police this type of activity.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this 
Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution 
is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because 
when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does 
not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing 
of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We 
have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and 
our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly 
over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said 
the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second 
amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the 
Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of 
expression.
  We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are 
people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. 
But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was 
never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial 
speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose 
of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is 
upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to 
ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so 
anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they 
will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending 
in the Federal flag police to do something about it.
  Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of 
expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this 
is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of 
expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express 
one's religious beliefs. What about one's property, the right to go in 
and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the 
freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can 
become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways 
going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We 
have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.
  It is expected that this will be passed overwhelmingly, and in the 
Senate possibly as well, and then throughout the country, but I do not 
see this as a positive step. We here in the Congress should think 
seriously before we pass this amendment.

                          ____________________